| 1 |
On Thursday, August 27, 2015 05:33:33 PM Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 27/08/2015 17:25, gevisz wrote: |
| 3 |
> > 2015-08-27 17:52 GMT+03:00 Marc Joliet <marcec@×××.de>: |
| 4 |
|
| 5 |
> > P.S. I have too much "required by" lines. So, if the portage will not |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > resolve this issue automatically, I will stop to update my system |
| 8 |
> > at all. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I don't think that's the right attitude, portage really only needs to |
| 11 |
> tell you the first one. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> What is happening is two SLOTs of the same package want to be updated, |
| 14 |
> but the specific versions block each other (this is definitely a bug of |
| 15 |
> some kind as the whole point of SLOTs is you *can* have both) |
| 16 |
> |
| 17 |
> So portage is telling you that it can't do what it wants to do with |
| 18 |
> ncurses as there is a blocker. It needs to update ncurses because procps |
| 19 |
> wants it. And so does Vim. And gvim, zsh, ruby and more. Why so many? |
| 20 |
> Because ncurses is a very basic piece of code and lots of things use it, |
| 21 |
> and portage blindly printed all of them |
| 22 |
> |
| 23 |
> You only have one error. The 50 or more Required lines are total noise |
| 24 |
> at this point and distract you from seeing things in the proper light. |
| 25 |
> Portage is well known for often giving really sucky output, this is such |
| 26 |
> a time. |
| 27 |
> |
| 28 |
> Fix the real error, and all that junk on the screen goes away. No reason |
| 29 |
> to stop updating. |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
I only had 1 required by set. |
| 32 |
Which basically got me to remove the llvm use-flag from mesa. |
| 33 |
|
| 34 |
That solved the block for me as it ended up removing "llvm" |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
What is "llvm" actually used for? |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
-- |
| 39 |
Joost |
Archives