With no parents demanding the older version, what is thr reason for the problem?
(kde-plasma/kde-cli-tools-5.6.5:5/5::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
(no parents that aren't satisfied by other packages in this slot)
(kde-plasma/kde-cli-tools-5.7.5:5/5::gentoo, installed) pulled in by
>=kde-plasma/kde-cli-tools-5.7.5:5 required by (kde-plasma/kscreen-5.7.5:5/5::gentoo, installed)
If your emerge isn't continuing, there is probably another more serious problem. The output you showed is almost certainly a false-positive
Were there any other conflicts in the same calculation? Generally, this type of behavior means that it ran out of backtracking runs before it settled on a valid solution. You can try using a larger --backtrack setting (default is 3).
This was the only problem. Apparently, kde-plasma/kde-cli-tools-5.7.5 became flagged ~amd64 after installation. If I accept ~amd64 for that package, the problem disappears.
What I want to say is, the error message is quite enigmatic.
Yeah, it's a common source of frustration for users. It's also accompanied by a message suggesting to use a larger --backtrack value, which is the correct course of action. If a larger --backtrack value does not solve it, then we should investigate that.
Sigh. If that issue's known, I might as well close this bug.
A candidate for the wishlist, maybe.
We could add some code to detect this specific case, where we have a slot conflict that appears to be solvable with 1 additional backtracking run, and allow for an extra backtracking run in this case.
Also, I suspect that there may be a bug which prevents it from reaching the solution, even when given 1 additional backtracking run. It may be due to the resolver's preference for upgrades, since we want to upgrade packages whenever possible (and comment #0 shows a conflict which is solvable only by missing an upgrade).
*** Bug 430190 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to Zac Medico from comment #6)
> We could add some code to detect this specific case, where we have a slot
> conflict that appears to be solvable with 1 additional backtracking run, and
> allow for an extra backtracking run in this case.
We could have a scoring system that is based on the number of problems with the dependency graph, and use that to decide if it's appropriate to automatically allocate some more backtracking.