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
