Hello, On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:00:26 +0200 Alan McKinnon <alan.mckin...@gmail.com> wrote:
> llvm-3.4 is not hardmasked. It is marked ~x86 which is something very > different. Correct, i mean Clang in version 3.4 is hardmasked. I want install clang alone llvm i not need. I think mesa use llvm too but i has not set the use flag. https://packages.gentoo.org/package/sys-devel/clang > The mistake you made is using --autounmask-write > That feature writes local package.unmask entries to satisfy > dependencies. It's a very blunt tool, it blindly keywords whatever it > thinks it needs to and when it goes wrong, it goes very wrong quickly. The tool write package.accept_keywords, a package.unmask i have not on system. Yes its a shit tool, normal i make echo "package ~x86" >> package.a.. What should do? Should i compile without portage? Should i not use? When i want emerge clang is masked, ok why? FreeBSD use it and say is stable. FreeBSD maybe not the reference on earth but the BSD's make a good job. When i saw all versions of Clang is masked. > You are running x86. If you want a package that is marked ~x86 then > you need to take very careful note of everything that must be > keyworded to build that package. If you want something basic like > llvm that will cause many other packages to be upgrade with it, then > you need to be especially careful. I use much x86 packages and has never problem. For example i use calibre without x86 flag i must use calibre in version 1.2. but the version 1.20 works stable and fine and i can use with my tablet, because i read much when im on the road. https://packages.gentoo.org/package/app-text/calibre So i think for some packages is accept between risk and compromiss. I find better x86 flag better as install software in /usr without portage. Thank you for help & Nice Day Silvio
