On Sat, Mar 04, 2017 at 09:55:30AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 03/04/2017 09:37 AM, Dutch Ingraham wrote:
> > 
> > Michael, thanks for your response.  No, I did not do a one-shot; llvm
> > was brought in by way of mesa -> gallium; this is llvm's only use on
> > this system as far as I know.
> > 
> > Also, 'emerge -ac' shows no packages to remove.
> > 
> 
> Well, there goes my one good idea =)
> 
> You can try doing "emerge -pe --tree @world" to see if llvm would get
> pulled in by anything in your system. If it is, then a --deep update
> --with-bdeps should be updating it.
> 
> One more desperate attempt: the --complete-graph option is weaker than
> --deep, I think. What happens if you remove it? (I'm wondering if
> --complete-graph overrides --deep).
> 
> If neither of those experiments are illuminating, you should file a bug.
> The portage team has a better understanding of why some things are skipped.

Removing --complete-graph doesn't change anything.  I don't usually use
that, but only added it to see if it would shake something out, but of course
it didn't.

The emerge -pe --tree @world returns, in relevant part:

[nomerge       ] mail-client/thunderbird-45.7.0 
[nomerge       ]  x11-libs/gtk+-2.24.31-r1 
[ebuild   R    ]   gnome-base/librsvg-2.40.16 
[ebuild   R    ]    x11-libs/pango-1.40.3 
[ebuild   R    ]     media-libs/harfbuzz-1.4.3 
[ebuild   R    ]      x11-libs/cairo-1.14.8 
[ebuild   R    ]       media-libs/mesa-17.0.0 
[ebuild     U  ]        sys-devel/llvm-3.9.1-r1 [3.7.1-r3] USE=[clip]

So, that will bring in the update, just like emerge -1a sys-devel/llvm
will.

But, why isn't --deep @world doing so?  Is it bug-reporting time?

(There is one other slight possible anomoly I could find:
'equery depends sys-devel/llvm' returns llvm as a dependency of itself:

gentoo3 ~ # equery depends sys-devel/llvm
 * These packages depend on sys-devel/llvm:
media-libs/mesa-17.0.0 [cut massive amnount of non-llvm-related options]

sys-devel/llvm-3.7.1-r3 (>=sys-devel/llvm-3.5)
gentoo3 ~ #

Is this relevant or expected?)

Thanks again.

Reply via email to