From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771F31381F3 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 00:07:58 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B2407E0993; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 00:07:53 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A256BE0984 for ; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 00:07:52 +0000 (UTC) Received: from [192.168.26.7] (ip98-164-195-43.oc.oc.cox.net [98.164.195.43]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: zmedico) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id B317033E567; Sat, 8 Jun 2013 00:07:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <51B275D6.7020909@gentoo.org> Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2013 17:07:50 -0700 From: Zac Medico User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130509 Thunderbird/17.0.6 Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org, vivo75@gmail.com Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] RFC how to handle disappearing USE in (portage) dependency calculation References: <51B1C35E.9090002@gmail.com> <51B1D3ED.3010600@gentoo.org> <51B1EB41.80404@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <51B1EB41.80404@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archives-Salt: b83c153e-a77f-4d0f-b3ae-3d3dcfc374b5 X-Archives-Hash: 3401198053902f409fd1e5cc0d4fec76 On 06/07/2013 07:16 AM, vivo75@gmail.com wrote: > According to the now readed fine manual, the ebuilds seem to be right, > llvm is EAPI=5, udis86-1.7-r1 is EAPI=4 and the previous one is EAPI=3, > dependency should be considered enabled if absent. > So the bug would be in portage, but the overzealous dep resolution seem > to arise only with "--with-bdeps=y" so I'm not opening it a bug. It sounds as though you've got pic in use.mask, because portage has different handling for masked flags prior to EAPI 5, as described here: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=442830#c3 -- Thanks, Zac