On Thursday 10 April 2008, Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Thursday 10 April 2008 08:30:21 Iain Buchanan wrote: > > On Thu, 2008-04-10 at 09:11 +0200, Uwe Thiem wrote: > > > Emerge clearly said that gtk-doc-am blocked gtk-doc, not the > > > other way round. > > > > gtk-doc-am _does_ block gtk-doc. Since you already have gtk-doc > > installed, gtk-doc-am couldn't go ahead. > > This is not sensible. If Uwe says "A blocks B", it means that A is > getting in the way of B, not the other way around.
No, that's incorrect. I think you are attaching an incorrect meaning to the output wording. In this case, A's ebuild DEPENDs on !B The error output has to come from A's ebuild as that is where the block comes from, and the standard wording is "A blocks B" as in: A's ebuild says it cannot be merged if B is already there. B does not block A as B's ebuild did not know about A when it was written. B does nto have a problem with A, instead A knows it has a problem with B. You should read "block" in emerge output as a synonym for "incompatible with" rather than "gets in the way of" as you appear to be doing. -- Alan McKinnon alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
