I think it would be very useful if within the following output: - sys-auth/consolekit-0.4.3 (Change USE: +policykit) (dependency required by "sys-auth/polkit-0.99" [ebuild]) (dependency required by "sys-fs/udisks-1.0.2" [ebuild]) (dependency required by "sys-apps/gnome-disk-utility-2.32.0" [ebuild]) (dependency required by "gnome-base/gvfs-1.6.6" [ebuild]) (dependency required by "xfce-base/thunar-1.1.5" [installed]) (dependency required by "xfce-extra/thunar-archive-plugin-0.2.4-r2" [installed]) (dependency required by "@selected") (dependency required by "@world" [argument]) Portage would also print the USE flags which cause the particular dependency tree to be chosen. In other words, something like: - sys-auth/consolekit-0.4.3 (Change USE: +policykit) (dependency required by "sys-auth/polkit-0.99" [ebuild]) (dependency required by "sys-fs/udisks-1.0.2" [ebuild]) (dependency required by "sys-apps/gnome-disk-utility-2.32.0" [ebuild]) (dependency required by "gnome-base/gvfs-1.6.6[gdu]" [ebuild]) (dependency required by "xfce-base/thunar-1.1.5[xfce_plugins_trash]" [installed]) (dependency required by "xfce-extra/thunar-archive-plugin-0.2.4-r2" [installed]) (dependency required by "@selected") (dependency required by "@world" [argument]) This certainly would be a way to show more than a single solution to fix a particular conflict.
--autounmask does that already and is better for such things anyways, as it doesn't stop at the first problem. It should just become the default.
(In reply to comment #1) > --autounmask does that already and is better for such things anyways, as it > doesn't stop at the first problem. It should just become the default. How is it better? As you might not have noticed, I'd like to see the whole USE-tree to know which flag to disable to get rid of the policykit requirement rather than enabling the flag.
It prints a comment for every change and this comments contains the chain you want to see.
(In reply to comment #3) > It prints a comment for every change and this comments contains the chain you > want to see. Ok, it prints it indeed. So why not simply sync the chain printing code within both solutions? The --autounmask code is really hard to read, unformatted and simply ugly.
(In reply to comment #4) > Ok, it prints it indeed. So why not simply sync the chain printing code within > both solutions? That shouldn't be too hard if someone wants to do it. > The --autounmask code is really hard to read, unformatted and > simply ugly. > You better start bringing in improvement suggestions now, as this is the future.
(In reply to comment #5) > > The --autounmask code is really hard to read, unformatted and > > simply ugly. > > You better start bringing in improvement suggestions now, as this is the > future. I'd start with adding colored formatting (similar to one used in the standard code) -- that certainly wouldn't hurt copy/paste, and certainly would improve readability. I'd also think about printing that one package per line. But then the output would get awfully long. So, I'd think whether we actually need the whole list in the relevant mask-comments? Maybe it'd be ok to just mention the first and final deps?
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 255482 ***
