Am Fri, 28 Aug 2015 11:44:29 +0200
schrieb "J. Roeleveld" :
> On Thursday, August 27, 2015 07:13:58 PM Marc Joliet wrote:
> > Am Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:42:07 +0200
> >
> > schrieb "J. Roeleveld" :
> > > I only had 1 required by set.
> > > Which basically got me to remove the llvm use-flag from mesa.
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Alec Ten Harmsel
wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 12:34:05PM +0300, gevisz wrote:
>> Yes, the full system update now proceeded without blocks, however
>> with "severe warnings" while compiling firefox. They are provided below.
>> But the issue with ncurces blocks s
On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 12:34:05PM +0300, gevisz wrote:
> Yes, the full system update now proceeded without blocks, however
> with "severe warnings" while compiling firefox. They are provided below.
> But the issue with ncurces blocks seem to be resolved.
>
> Thank you all who replied to this thre
On Thursday, August 27, 2015 07:13:58 PM Marc Joliet wrote:
> Am Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:42:07 +0200
>
> schrieb "J. Roeleveld" :
> > I only had 1 required by set.
> > Which basically got me to remove the llvm use-flag from mesa.
> >
> > That solved the block for me as it ended up removing "llvm"
>
2015-08-28 7:03 GMT+03:00 gevisz :
> 2015-08-27 20:21 GMT+03:00 Neil Bothwick :
>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:33:33 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>
>>> Fix the real error, and all that junk on the screen goes away. No reason
>>> to stop updating.
>>
>> And the "fix" is to resync, it's a fixed bug
>> htt
2015-08-27 20:21 GMT+03:00 Neil Bothwick :
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:33:33 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
>> Fix the real error, and all that junk on the screen goes away. No reason
>> to stop updating.
>
> And the "fix" is to resync, it's a fixed bug
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=558856
On Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:33:33 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Fix the real error, and all that junk on the screen goes away. No reason
> to stop updating.
And the "fix" is to resync, it's a fixed bug
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=558856
--
Neil Bothwick
"You want us to do WHAT?" - Anci
Am Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:42:07 +0200
schrieb "J. Roeleveld" :
> I only had 1 required by set.
> Which basically got me to remove the llvm use-flag from mesa.
>
> That solved the block for me as it ended up removing "llvm"
[...]
FWIW, my experience yesterday was that you should be able to set the l
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 05:42:07PM +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote:
>
> That solved the block for me as it ended up removing "llvm"
>
> What is "llvm" actually used for?
>
> --
> Joost
>
Some of the graphics code in mesa is written in LLVM's IR and compiled
on the fly using all of the x86 extensions
Am Thu, 27 Aug 2015 18:25:43 +0300
schrieb gevisz :
> >> The following keyword changes are necessary to proceed:
> >> (see "package.accept_keywords" in the portage(5) man page for more
> >> details)
> >> # required by app-emulation/wine-1.6.2::gentoo
> >> # required by @selected
> >> # required
On Thursday, August 27, 2015 05:33:33 PM Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 27/08/2015 17:25, gevisz wrote:
> > 2015-08-27 17:52 GMT+03:00 Marc Joliet :
> > P.S. I have too much "required by" lines. So, if the portage will not
> >
> >resolve this issue automatically, I will stop to update my syste
On 27/08/2015 17:25, gevisz wrote:
> 2015-08-27 17:52 GMT+03:00 Marc Joliet :
>> Am Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:34:24 +0300
>> schrieb gevisz :
>>
>>> I do not understand:
>>> 1) why portage wants to upgrade ncurses-5.9-r3 to ncurses-5.9-r101
>>> (because it is marked),
>>> 2) why it can not,
>>> 3) wh
2015-08-27 18:18 GMT+03:00 Alexander Kapshuk :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:16 PM, gevisz wrote:
>> 2015-08-27 17:43 GMT+03:00 Alexander Kapshuk :
>>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, gevisz wrote:
I do not understand:
1) why portage wants to upgrade ncurses-5.9-r3 to ncurses-5.9-r101
>>
2015-08-27 17:52 GMT+03:00 Marc Joliet :
> Am Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:34:24 +0300
> schrieb gevisz :
>
>> I do not understand:
>> 1) why portage wants to upgrade ncurses-5.9-r3 to ncurses-5.9-r101
>> (because it is marked),
>> 2) why it can not,
>> 3) what to do with this block.
>>
>> $ eix ncurses
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:16 PM, gevisz wrote:
> 2015-08-27 17:43 GMT+03:00 Alexander Kapshuk :
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, gevisz wrote:
>>> I do not understand:
>>> 1) why portage wants to upgrade ncurses-5.9-r3 to ncurses-5.9-r101
>>> (because it is marked),
>>> 2) why it can not,
2015-08-27 17:43 GMT+03:00 Alexander Kapshuk :
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, gevisz wrote:
>> I do not understand:
>> 1) why portage wants to upgrade ncurses-5.9-r3 to ncurses-5.9-r101
>> (because it is marked),
>> 2) why it can not,
>> 3) what to do with this block.
>>
>> $ eix ncurses
>
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:43 PM, Alexander Kapshuk
wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, gevisz wrote:
>> I do not understand:
>> 1) why portage wants to upgrade ncurses-5.9-r3 to ncurses-5.9-r101
>> (because it is marked),
>> 2) why it can not,
>> 3) what to do with this block.
>>
>> $ e
Am Thu, 27 Aug 2015 17:34:24 +0300
schrieb gevisz :
> I do not understand:
> 1) why portage wants to upgrade ncurses-5.9-r3 to ncurses-5.9-r101
> (because it is marked),
> 2) why it can not,
> 3) what to do with this block.
>
> $ eix ncurses
>
> [I] sys-libs/ncurses
> Available versions
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:34 PM, gevisz wrote:
> I do not understand:
> 1) why portage wants to upgrade ncurses-5.9-r3 to ncurses-5.9-r101
> (because it is marked),
> 2) why it can not,
> 3) what to do with this block.
>
> $ eix ncurses
>
> [I] sys-libs/ncurses
> Available versions:
>
I do not understand:
1) why portage wants to upgrade ncurses-5.9-r3 to ncurses-5.9-r101
(because it is marked),
2) why it can not,
3) what to do with this block.
$ eix ncurses
[I] sys-libs/ncurses
Available versions:
(0)5.9-r3 ~5.9-r4 ~6.0(0/6)
(5)~5.9-r101(5/5)
20 matches
Mail list logo
