Re: [gentoo-user] llvm compile error
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
Re: [gentoo-user] llvm compile error
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 19:44:38 +0100 Silvio Siefke siefke_lis...@web.de 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 I don't know why I'm replying, as I'm no expert. So, I could be way off, but: From a google search: Clang /ˈklæŋ/ is a compiler front end for the C, C++, Objective-C and Objective-C++ programming languages. It uses LLVM as its back end ... 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? That's what you should do. The output will tell you what files need updating. In some cases, I just let it write, like for a big perl package with lots of modules from the overlay. Otherwise it's faster to just copy and paste the output. Should i compile without portage? No. Should i not use? When i want emerge clang is masked, ok why? https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=408963 maybe? 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. Isn't FBSD more similar than, say, Linux, to what OSX is, sort of? [...] 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. Yep. Sometimes you have to unmask stuff, but portage can handle it then. Anyway, I hope any of this helps. Good luck! Cheers, -- - - - Michael Higgins - michael_higg...@iinet.com 503-473-5882
Re: [gentoo-user] llvm compile error
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. Isn't FBSD more similar than, say, Linux, to what OSX is, sort of? I could be way off. But I think of OSX as being FBSD built for people that don't know how to use a computer.
Re: [gentoo-user] llvm compile error
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
Re: [gentoo-user] llvm compile error
Hello, ok the version 3.3 run without problems, i think the 3.4. make troubles and the package Maintainer from Gentoo has hardmasked. Thank you for help Nice Day Silvio
