On 24/01/2014 20:44, Silvio Siefke wrote:
> 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. 


No, just stop using automated tools to unmask/keyword everything based
just on depends. Do it yourself, then you know what you unamsked/keyworded.

Nobody suggested you stop using portage, I only said to stop hitting the
system with a big hammer to get things to build.



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com


Reply via email to