On Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:02:02 -0700 Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On 10/03/2015 02:38 AM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > > On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 16:54:30 -0700 > > Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > >> On 10/02/2015 04:40 PM, Alexis Ballier wrote: > >>> On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 13:08:29 -0700 > >>> Zac Medico <zmed...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >>> > >>>> On 10/02/2015 07:49 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > >>>>> Hello, > >>>>> > >>>>> I am getting the output below when I run repoman full for > >>>>> sys-apps/systemd. > >>>>> > >>>>> It is basically telling me that systemd (which is masked in the > >>>>> selinux profiles) cannot depend on sys-apps/dbus[systemd], > >>>>> because the systemd use flag is also masked. > >>>>> > >>>>> That's perfectly fine and I suppose it is valid, but there is > >>>>> nothing I can do to resolve it and I don't need to be reminded > >>>>> of it every time I run repoman. > >>>>> > >>>>> Does anyone find dependency.badmasked useful? > >>>> > >>>> Possibly, if I wanted to see dependency issues for masked > >>>> packages. > >>> > >>> > >>> why not also ignore *use.mask along with package.mask for this > >>> check ? > >>> > >> > >> Can you give a concrete example? I'm having a hard time thinking > >> up a reason to ignore use.mask. > > > > Well, ignoring completely use.mask won't work: people use it because > > the dep doesnt work and thus has missing keywords. > > > > But, maybe something in between could work: drop > > dependency.badmasked warnings that are satisfied when ignoring > > use.mask. > > Yeah, I guess that might work as an alternative to suppressing all > dependency.badmasked messages by default. We would need another option > to enable such warnings. > > Introducing special cases for use.mask/use.force like this is not as > simple as it might seem. If we simply discard use.force and use.mask, > then it can trigger other kinds of warnings. For example, consider a > dependency like this: > > !hardened? ( sys-apps/systemd ) > > If we were to discard hardened from use.force, then repoman will show > an error for this dependency being unsatisfied on hardened profiles. > We get analogous problems when we discard flags from use.mask. What I meant is: Generate a first dependency.badmasked list like it is done currently. Then filter the result by ignoring/removing those that are satisfied without use.mask & friends. That is: DEPEND=" !hardened? ( sys-apps/systemd ) >=sys-apps/dbus-1.6.8-r1:0[systemd] " will currently generate a dependency.badmasked list on hardened profiles like: [ ">=sys-apps/dbus-1.6.8-r1:0[systemd]" ] since '>=sys-apps/dbus-1.6.8-r1:0[systemd]' is satisfied when discarding use.mask, the returned list will be empty. In the end, it is just an attempt at removing false-positives from dependency.badmasked. > > Is there anything I'm missing ? > > Maybe it's better to keep things a little simpler, and just suppress > all dependency.badmasked messages by default. I also like those warnings :)
