Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
JimD wrote: Jason Weisberger wrote: List, I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain, right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think would be related to GCC, but then again: app-admin/perl-cleaner x11-proto/xextproto x11-proto/xcmiscproto-1.1.2 I had this same issue with app-admin/perl-cleaner. I think there is a bad tarball on some of the mirrors. I grabbed this one: http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/gentoo/distfiles/perl-cleaner-1.03.tar.gz and saved it to /usr/portage/distfiles and then ran this (one line): ebuild /usr/portage/app-admin/perl-cleaner/perl-cleaner-1.03.ebuild digest Now it merged in fine. Jim Well, I'm using GCC-3.4.5 and I had the same problem with app-admin/perl-cleaner. It's not GCC-related, and it's not exactly the first time we've had to make our own digests ;) Kristian Poul Herkild -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
On 5/28/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: this security measure. In this case the tar file changed without changing the name after you originally installed the package (or after it was downloaded to the mirror that you are using...). This change could be a bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix... I just have to say that if upstream authors include a bug-fix without releasing a new version (and a differently named tarball), they need a good clubbing. I can see a reason to release the same version of software with a documentation update (readme, authors, known issues, faq, etc), which would cause a different tarball with the same name. But if any of the sources change, I feel that should *always* be a new version. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
Sunday 28 May 2006 21:26 skrev Richard Fish: I just have to say that if upstream authors include a bug-fix without releasing a new version (and a differently named tarball), they need a good clubbing. I agree with that. Still, apparently that is what happened here. It's stupid, but since the devs did change the manifest, I at least want the version that fits the manifest. -- Bo Andresen pgpkVJ5dzwmO7.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
On Sunday 28 May 2006 19:54, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: This change could be a bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix... more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it with a hacked package. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin: This change could be a bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix... more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it with a hacked package. While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it more likely. At least in my case this bug showed when I upgraded from perl-cleaner-1.03 to perl-cleaner-1.03-r1. Those two ebuilds are identical and use the same tar file as source. This means that when I originally (a couple of weeks ago) installed 1.03 the digest fitted the other, smaller tar file, which means that devs has approved both versions of that tar file). It did install successfully (and seemed to work) so it couldn't be too corrupted. So while it is possible that the devs approved a file that shouldn't have been approved, I prefer to think that upstream just did something stupid by upgrading the package without a revision bump.. :) -- Bo Andresen pgp13EeZEtVTX.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
On Monday 29 May 2006 00:10, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin: This change could be a bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix... more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it with a hacked package. While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it more likely. because I know at least one mirror which regularly corrupts files. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
Monday 29 May 2006 00:32 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin: While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it more likely. because I know at least one mirror which regularly corrupts files. The digest still changed so it would have to be a mirror that the devs who created the digests used.. -- Bo Andresen pgpyaZtT4dwjS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Monday 29 May 2006 00:10, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin: This change could be a bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix... more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it with a hacked package. While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it more likely. because I know at least one mirror which regularly corrupts files. Don't use that one. LOL Which is it so the rest of us can avoid it? Why ask for problems when we have enough already. ;-) Dale :-) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
On Monday 29 May 2006 00:41, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: Monday 29 May 2006 00:32 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin: While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it more likely. because I know at least one mirror which regularly corrupts files. The digest still changed so it would have to be a mirror that the devs who created the digests used.. what? I am talking about the problem, that mirrors might corrupt files and that this is why making a new digest may not be a good idea. Also, it might be possible, that someone hacked the file on the mirror. And what are you talking about? *confused* -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
On Monday 29 May 2006 00:43, Teresa and Dale wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Monday 29 May 2006 00:10, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin: This change could be a bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix... more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it with a hacked package. While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it more likely. because I know at least one mirror which regularly corrupts files. Don't use that one. LOL Which is it so the rest of us can avoid it? Why ask for problems when we have enough already. ;-) I am using it becaue I am only allowed to download a certain volume per month and downloading from that mirror is 'free' for me - the traffic to and from that one does not add up onto my free traffic. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Monday 29 May 2006 00:43, Teresa and Dale wrote: Don't use that one. LOL Which is it so the rest of us can avoid it? Why ask for problems when we have enough already. ;-) I am using it becaue I am only allowed to download a certain volume per month and downloading from that mirror is 'free' for me - the traffic to and from that one does not add up onto my free traffic. Well, if they corrupt things, I can see why they are free. That really sucks but I guess you are stuck with crossing your fingers and hoping it will be a good file. Dale :-) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
Monday 29 May 2006 00:51 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin: The digest still changed so it would have to be a mirror that the devs who created the digests used.. what? I am talking about the problem, that mirrors might corrupt files and that this is why making a new digest may not be a good idea. Also, it might be possible, that someone hacked the file on the mirror. And what are you talking about? *confused* Like I stated in my previous mail I installed this a couple of weeks ago with the older, smaller version of the tar file. At that time there was no digest verification error which means that the digest fitted that tar file. When I reinstalled yesterday (after the ebuild had been bumped to -r1) but with the name of the tar file unchanged I ran into a digest verification error because the digest had changed to fit the newer, bigger tar file with the same name. Since the name was unchanged I had to delete the file to have the newer version downloaded which fitted the new digest... Note that the ebuilds of 1.03 and 1.03-r1 are identical. You get exactly the same software no matter which one of them you install. But since the tar file has changed you do not get the same as 2 weeks ago when I originally installed 1.03. I have exactly run a diff on those tar files so I can't tell if the difference is important... Please read the previous mail I sent 75 minutes ago. I hope I am more clear now.. -- Bo Andresen pgpyP9uqGeNV8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
Monday 29 May 2006 01:11 skrev Teresa and Dale: Well, if they corrupt things, I can see why they are free. That really sucks but I guess you are stuck with crossing your fingers and hoping it will be a good file. Well, that's what the digest verification is for, right. It ensures that he will know if a file is (or may be) corrupted... :) -- Bo Andresen pgpA2fMN296Kp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: Monday 29 May 2006 01:11 skrev Teresa and Dale: Well, if they corrupt things, I can see why they are free. That really sucks but I guess you are stuck with crossing your fingers and hoping it will be a good file. Well, that's what the digest verification is for, right. It ensures that he will know if a file is (or may be) corrupted... :) It's just a shame that he has to use that one or pay extra to get a good mirror so he doesn't have to worry about it to begin with. At least this makes it harder for the hackers to get us though. Dale :-) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
On Monday 29 May 2006 01:25, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote: Monday 29 May 2006 00:51 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin: The digest still changed so it would have to be a mirror that the devs who created the digests used.. what? I am talking about the problem, that mirrors might corrupt files and that this is why making a new digest may not be a good idea. Also, it might be possible, that someone hacked the file on the mirror. And what are you talking about? *confused* Like I stated in my previous mail I installed this a couple of weeks ago with the older, smaller version of the tar file. At that time there was no digest verification error which means that the digest fitted that tar file. When I reinstalled yesterday (after the ebuild had been bumped to -r1) but with the name of the tar file unchanged I ran into a digest verification error because the digest had changed to fit the newer, bigger tar file with the same name. Since the name was unchanged I had to delete the file to have the newer version downloaded which fitted the new digest... Note that the ebuilds of 1.03 and 1.03-r1 are identical. You get exactly the same software no matter which one of them you install. But since the tar file has changed you do not get the same as 2 weeks ago when I originally installed 1.03. I have exactly run a diff on those tar files so I can't tell if the difference is important... Please read the previous mail I sent 75 minutes ago. I hope I am more clear now.. yes you are -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
On Monday 29 May 2006 01:11, Teresa and Dale wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Monday 29 May 2006 00:43, Teresa and Dale wrote: Don't use that one. LOL Which is it so the rest of us can avoid it? Why ask for problems when we have enough already. ;-) I am using it becaue I am only allowed to download a certain volume per month and downloading from that mirror is 'free' for me - the traffic to and from that one does not add up onto my free traffic. Well, if they corrupt things, I can see why they are free. That really sucks but I guess you are stuck with crossing your fingers and hoping it will be a good file. it happens one time a month or so. And they aren't 'Free' because the ftp server runs out of disk space once in a while (which is the reason for the corruption most of the times, or there was a cutted line again, or one of the routing facilities (Göttingen) we depend upon, has problems again), but because the ftp-server is part of our university network. And everything transfered in the internal network is free. And that is why digests are a good thing. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Monday 29 May 2006 01:11, Teresa and Dale wrote: Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote: On Monday 29 May 2006 00:43, Teresa and Dale wrote: Don't use that one. LOL Which is it so the rest of us can avoid it? Why ask for problems when we have enough already. ;-) I am using it becaue I am only allowed to download a certain volume per month and downloading from that mirror is 'free' for me - the traffic to and from that one does not add up onto my free traffic. Well, if they corrupt things, I can see why they are free. That really sucks but I guess you are stuck with crossing your fingers and hoping it will be a good file. it happens one time a month or so. And they aren't 'Free' because the ftp server runs out of disk space once in a while (which is the reason for the corruption most of the times, or there was a cutted line again, or one of the routing facilities (Göttingen) we depend upon, has problems again), but because the ftp-server is part of our university network. And everything transfered in the internal network is free. And that is why digests are a good thing. Now I see. At least you knew something was wrong and got it corrected. Dale :-) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
quit fucking email bombing me you ass holes. From:Bo Ørsted Andresen [EMAIL PROTECTED]Reply-To:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.orgTo:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.orgSubject:Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 ProblemsDate:Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:25 +0200MIME-Version:1.0Received:from robin.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102]) by bay0-mc2-f10.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 28 May 2006 15:14:51 -0700Received:from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4SMD7KS003610;Sun, 28 May 2006 22:13:07 GMTReceived:from cicero2.cybercity.dk (cicero2.cybercity.dk [212.242.40.53])by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4SMALei017832for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 28 May 2006 22:10:21 GMTReceived:from user2.cybercity.dk (user2.cybercity.dk [212.242.41.35])by cicero2.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1DA9244F08for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:20 +0200 (CEST)Received:from BA.zlin.dk (port78.ds1-abs.adsl.cybercity.dk [212.242.227.17])by user2.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB172869D7for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:20 +0200 (CEST)Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin: This change could be a bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix... more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it with a hacked package.While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it more likely.At least in my case this bug showed when I upgraded from perl-cleaner-1.03 toperl-cleaner-1.03-r1. Those two ebuilds are identical and use the same tarfile as source. This means that when I originally (a couple of weeks ago)installed 1.03 the digest fitted the other, smaller tar file, which meansthat devs has approved both versions of that tar file). It did installsuccessfully (and seemed to work) so it couldn't be too corrupted.So while it is possible that the devs approved a file that shouldn't have beenapproved, I prefer to think that upstream just did something stupid byupgrading the package without a revision bump.. :)--Bo Andresen attach3 Join the new Messenger beta now -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
On Monday 29 May 2006 03:03, John Laremore wrote: quit fucking email bombing me you ass holes. stop insulting people stop sending html mail Nobody is bombing you - why did you suscribe to this mailing list, if you don't want emails from it? -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
First time I ever did this on a mailing list... John Laremore... you are PLONKED... My email filter now drops your emails into the bit bucket where they belong On Sunday 28 May 2006 21:03, John Laremore wrote: quit fucking email bombing me you ass holes. From: Bo ظrsted Andresen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from robin.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102]) by bay0-mc2-f10.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 28 May 2006 15:14:51 -0700 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4SMD7KS003610;Sun, 28 May 2006 22:13:07 GMT Received: from cicero2.cybercity.dk (cicero2.cybercity.dk [212.242.40.53])by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4SMALei017832for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 28 May 2006 22:10:21 GMT Received: from user2.cybercity.dk (user2.cybercity.dk [212.242.41.35])by cicero2.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1DA9244F08for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from BA.zlin.dk (port78.ds1-abs.adsl.cybercity.dk [212.242.227.17])by user2.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB172869D7for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:20 +0200 (CEST) Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin: This change could be a bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix... more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it with a hacked package. While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it more likely. At least in my case this bug showed when I upgraded from perl-cleaner-1.03 to perl-cleaner-1.03-r1. Those two ebuilds are identical and use the same tar file as source. This means that when I originally (a couple of weeks ago) installed 1.03 the digest fitted the other, smaller tar file, which means that devs has approved both versions of that tar file). It did install successfully (and seemed to work) so it couldn't be too corrupted. So while it is possible that the devs approved a file that shouldn't have been approved, I prefer to think that upstream just did something stupid by upgrading the package without a revision bump.. :) -- Bo Andresen attach3 Join the new Messenger beta now -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
No problem, send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and you'll recieve them no longer. You are aware that you had to sign up in the first place though... right? On Mon, 29 May 2006, John Laremore wrote: quit f'in email bombing me you arse holes. From: Bo ?rsted Andresen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: from robin.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102]) by bay0-mc2-f10.bay0.hotmail.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Sun, 28 May 2006 15:14:51 -0700 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with SMTP id k4SMD7KS003610;Sun, 28 May 2006 22:13:07 GMT Received: from cicero2.cybercity.dk (cicero2.cybercity.dk [212.242.40.53])by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k4SMALei017832for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 28 May 2006 22:10:21 GMT Received: from user2.cybercity.dk (user2.cybercity.dk [212.242.41.35])by cicero2.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id C1DA9244F08for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from BA.zlin.dk (port78.ds1-abs.adsl.cybercity.dk [212.242.227.17])by user2.cybercity.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6BB172869D7for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:20 +0200 (CEST) Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin: This change could be a bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix... more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it with a hacked package. While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it more likely. At least in my case this bug showed when I upgraded from perl-cleaner-1.03 to perl-cleaner-1.03-r1. Those two ebuilds are identical and use the same tar file as source. This means that when I originally (a couple of weeks ago) installed 1.03 the digest fitted the other, smaller tar file, which means that devs has approved both versions of that tar file). It did install successfully (and seemed to work) so it couldn't be too corrupted. So while it is possible that the devs approved a file that shouldn't have been approved, I prefer to think that upstream just did something stupid by upgrading the package without a revision bump.. :) -- Bo Andresen attach3 Join the new Messenger beta now -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
On 5/28/06, John Laremore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quit f John, donate your computer to charity. This whole internet thing is just not for you... -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
Jason Weisberger wrote: I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain, right? WRONG. Yes, very much so. See my Upgrading to gcc 4.1: emerge -e world required? thread. These packages quit on me after telling me that the reported filesize by the ebuild wasn't equal to the downloaded filesize. Were the errors correct? I mean, did the filesizes differ? I also had several packages quit on me How? If these are the type of problems we're going to see with 4.1.1, I would have to vote that it stay masked. Yep. Testing isn't even the word for this so far. I had to revert back to my 3.4.5 gcc and re-emerge system after having too many errors to warrant continuing. Hm. But there are people, who ran emerge -e world with gcc 4.1.1 and don't have problems. I suppose you'll only have problems, when you mix 3.x and 4.x. Alexander Skwar -- Fascinating, a totally parochial attitude. -- Spock, Metamorphosis, stardate 3219.8 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
Alexander Skwar [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: Jason Weisberger wrote: I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain, right? WRONG. Yes, very much so. See my Upgrading to gcc 4.1: emerge -e world required? thread. Yea, since the soname was the same, I was under the impression that mixing would be fine, and I never ran into a problem. Now that I have unmasked it and more people are testing, I see that people are actually running into issues. So, my mistake. Sorry. If you are doing any upgrade of GCC that is something like 3.3-3.4, or 3.4-4.1, recompiling everything is probably a good first step to ensuring your system will be sane. We try to cut down on work that people will have to do and see if mixed installs will work, but in this case, I was wrong that you would be able to do that. If these are the type of problems we're going to see with 4.1.1, I would have to vote that it stay masked. Yep. I've yet to see cause for saying this. Moving to a completely new version of gcc, as in 3.x - 4.x, is a huge move. I think the small amount of problems that we are seeing now is great, and if you are using ~arch, you should expect little bumps in the road. We can only do so much testing in p.mask, and all of the people using it there were telling me that it was working fine for them. Testing isn't even the word for this so far. I had to revert back to my 3.4.5 gcc and re-emerge system after having too many errors to warrant continuing. Hm. But there are people, who ran emerge -e world with gcc 4.1.1 and don't have problems. I suppose you'll only have problems, when you mix 3.x and 4.x. Just following the GCC Upgrading Guide [1], and you should be fine. There will always be a few people that run into problems, and there isn't much we can do about that. If you think you found a real bug, please report it, or we can't ever fix it. [1]: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gcc-upgrading.xml -- Mark Loeser - Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting qa toolchain x86) email - halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org mark AT halcy0n DOT com web - http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/ http://www.halcy0n.com pgpmcrrS3Z3f2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
On Sat, 27 May 2006 19:40:06 +0400, Jason Weisberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: app-admin/perl-cleaner These packages quit on me after telling me that the reported filesize by the ebuild wasn't equal to the downloaded filesize. This only happened with gcc-config 6 (4.1.1). When I switched back to 3.4.5, emerge -e world was flawless. Very odd. I have just switched to gcc 4.1.1 and experienced the same. All worked out after `emerge --sync'. -- Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
On Saturday 27 May 2006 17:40, Jason Weisberger wrote: List, I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain, right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think would be related to GCC, but then again: app-admin/perl-cleaner x11-proto/xextproto x11-proto/xcmiscproto-1.1.2 These packages quit on me after telling me that the reported filesize by the ebuild wasn't equal to the downloaded filesize. This only happened with gcc-config 6 (4.1.1). When I switched back to 3.4.5, emerge -e world was flawless. Very odd. so run ebuild blabla.ebuild digest wow, that is hard... if you are trying software from the ~ tree, you are expected to deal with some hiccups. btw, I did the gcc 3.4.x--4.1 step some weeks ago. And just to be safe, I did an -e system followed by an -e world. Was a good decision - I did not run in any major problems. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
On 5/27/06, Jason Weisberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: List, I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain, right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think would be related to GCC, but then again: app-admin/perl-cleaner I think this has nothing to do with the gcc upgrade. More likely it is simply because you were doing an emerge -e world. I see the same thing on my system: checking perl-cleaner-1.03.tar.gz !!! Digest verification failed: !!! /usr/portage/packages/sources/perl-cleaner-1.03.tar.gz !!! Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size !!! Got: 4954 !!! Expected: 4611 ~ grep perl-cleaner-1.03.tar.gz /usr/portage/app-admin/perl-cleaner/Manifest DIST perl-cleaner-1.03.tar.gz 4611 RMD160 2008ea90c056c4db5f1e897dcf9b4fc56c4bc2ea SHA1 22b83c8266518ee0e42a5648ac3715bdfb7f8a68 SHA256 fe41245499829c473dc27afe76c328341ffa04933873a905d29b5d48e56218b3 ~ ls -l /usr/portage/distfiles/perl-cleaner-1.03.tar.gz -rw-rw-r-- 1 root portage 4954 Feb 20 07:02 /usr/portage/distfiles/perl-cleaner-1.03.tar.gz So the Manifest really does list 4611 bytes as the expected size, but my distfile is 4954 bytes. Most likely the Manifest was updated (via an emerge --sync) after I merged 1.03. But there was no bump in the ebuild version, so I never saw this on any of my normal upgrades...not until I tried to merge it again. These packages quit on me after telling me that the reported filesize by the ebuild wasn't equal to the downloaded filesize. This only happened with gcc-config 6 (4.1.1). When I switched back to 3.4.5, emerge -e world was flawless. Very odd. Can you elaborate on this? I cannot duplicate it: carcharias ~ # gcc-config 1 * Switching native-compiler to i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.6 ... Regenerating /etc/ld.so.cache... [ ok ] * If you intend to use the gcc from the new profile in an already * running shell, please remember to do: * # source /etc/profile carcharias ~ # source /etc/profile carcharias ~ # emerge --oneshot perl-cleaner Calculating dependencies... done! Emerging (1 of 1) app-admin/perl-cleaner-1.03 to / checking ebuild checksums ;-) checking auxfile checksums ;-) checking miscfile checksums ;-) checking perl-cleaner-1.03.tar.gz !!! Digest verification failed: !!! /usr/portage/packages/sources/perl-cleaner-1.03.tar.gz !!! Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size !!! Got: 4954 !!! Expected: 4611 In any case this should be solved by deleting the offending distfiles and letting them be downloaded again. I also had several packages quit on me related to gnome and GTK. Complaints were usually related to GTK being compiled and installed, however would not run. Without more data (the specific error messages), it is hard to say whether this is related to the 4.1.1 upgrade or not. -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
On 5/27/06, Hemmann, Volker Armin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: so run ebuild blabla.ebuild digest wow, that is hard... Probably better to just delete the distfiles and let them be downloaded again though... -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
List, I suppose that I just found it odd that it popped up after I switched to GCC 4.1.1. Maybe coincidence. I'll delete all my digest files and let them download again, because this is popping up on quite a few packages. Maybe a bad mirror. I will be going on vacation for about a week, and when I get back I'll try to do all this again, hell, maybe even from a fresh install. I hear the benefits are worth it. I've read a few things about 4.1.1 not playing well with GTK packages on the forums, however, and that still appears to be the case. I'll get exact error messages when I return and bring this thread up again. Thanks to everyone who responded! -- Jason Weisberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
On 5/27/06, Jason Weisberger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I've read a few things about 4.1.1 not playing well with GTK packages on the forums, however, and that still appears to be the case. I'll get exact error messages when I return and bring this thread up again. Cool. Hopefully any problems will have ready-made solutions by then. Have a nice vacation... -Richard -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
Saturday 27 May 2006 23:22 skrev Jason Weisberger: I will be going on vacation for about a week, and when I get back I'll try to do all this again, hell, maybe even from a fresh install. I hear the benefits are worth it. What benefits? -- Bo Andresen pgpt3NNfGxdh5.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
Jason Weisberger wrote: List, I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain, right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think would be related to GCC, but then again: app-admin/perl-cleaner x11-proto/xextproto x11-proto/xcmiscproto-1.1.2 I had this same issue with app-admin/perl-cleaner. I think there is a bad tarball on some of the mirrors. I grabbed this one: http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/gentoo/distfiles/perl-cleaner-1.03.tar.gz and saved it to /usr/portage/distfiles and then ran this (one line): ebuild /usr/portage/app-admin/perl-cleaner/perl-cleaner-1.03.ebuild digest Now it merged in fine. Jim -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= There's no place like 127.0.0.1 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= JimD Central FL, USA, Earth, Sol -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
