[gentoo-user] kernel 3.2 conflicts with gcc-6.4

Hello, I still have some systems around that need to run a vanilla kernel 3.2. This works without any issues as long as I am using gcc-4.9.4 or gcc-5.4 to compile the kernel. Using gcc-6.4 for compilation was not possible out-of-the-box as it is defaulting to --enable-default-pie. After reading

[gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

On 2018-02-09 01:15, Wol's lists wrote: > > Care to cite an example of such a program in the Gentoo repo? I > > certainly can't think of any, and I've been running with /var/tmp on > > tmpfs for over a decade. > > I don't know of any. vim? Although that choice was recently criticized on the

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

gevisz wrote: > > You probably will be surprised, but the main reason I am trying to use > tmpfs for /var/tmp/ is not because I want to make emerging chromium > faster (I have no hope about that because read somewhere that it will > make compilation only 10 percent faster) but because I have not

Re: [gentoo-user] /var/tmp on tmpfs

gevisz wrote: > 2018-02-08 21:17 GMT+02:00 Dale : >> gevisz wrote: >>> I never used tmpfs for portage TMPDIR before and now decided to give it a >>> try. >>> >>> I have 8GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on a separate partition. >>> >>> Do I correctly understood >>>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 08/02/18 21:17, Dale wrote: >> I have 16GBs of memory here and have /var/tmp/portage/ on tmpfs, no >> ccache.  With the growing size of packages, I've had to put several on >> regular spinning rust to make sure enough space is available.  This is >> my list, so far.

Re: [gentoo-user] /var/tmp on tmpfs

Rich Freeman wrote: > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Dale wrote: >> As someone else pointed out, if you >> start using swap, that generally defeats the purpose of tmpfs. >> > I'll just add one thing to this, which I've probably already said ages ago: > > In an ideal world

Re: [gentoo-user] /var/tmp on tmpfs

On 09/02/18 00:02, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Wol's lists wrote: /var/tmp is defined as the place where programs store stuff like crash recovery files. Mounting it tmpfs is going to screw up any programs that reply on that*defined* behaviour

Re: [gentoo-user] /var/tmp on tmpfs

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 6:18 PM, Wol's lists wrote: > > /var/tmp is defined as the place where programs store stuff like crash > recovery files. Mounting it tmpfs is going to screw up any programs that > reply on that *defined* behaviour to recover after a crash. > Care

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

On 02/08/2018 03:32 PM, gevisz wrote: In this case it would be nice to hear a reason. I think the reason probably goes back a number of years. When /tmp was made volatile (ram / swap backed) there was a need for non-volatile temp space. Thus, /var/tmp was created as non-volatile

Re: [gentoo-user] /var/tmp on tmpfs

On 02/08/2018 04:18 PM, Wol's lists wrote: EMPHATICALLY YES. ;-) /tmp is defined as being volatile - stuff can disappear at any time. I don't know that I've ever had things in /tmp disappear "at any time" as in randomly and without external influence. Usually it's a reboot or nightly

Re: [gentoo-user] /var/tmp on tmpfs

On 08/02/18 20:56, Grant Taylor wrote: On 02/08/2018 10:11 AM, gevisz wrote: And I am going to set the whole /var/tmp on tpmfs instead of just /var/tmp/portage Is it ok? I don't know about the context of emerging, but I do know about the context of /var/tmp being volatile. More

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

From: freemanr...@gmail.com on behalf of Rich Freeman Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2018 5:38 PM To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:32 PM, gevisz

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 5:32 PM, gevisz wrote: > 2018-02-09 0:19 GMT+02:00 Nikos Chantziaras : >> On 08/02/18 23:31, gevisz wrote: >>> >>> I do not use ccache, and in my /var/tmp I only have /var/tmp/portage >>> and /var/tmp/genkernel (I use genkernel to

[gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

On 08/02/18 23:57, Rich Freeman wrote: On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 4:52 PM, gevisz wrote: However, it probably won't be sooner than # emerge --update --deep --with-bdeps=y --newuse --backtrack=90 --ask world --exclude chromium fails because of the "--exclude chromium" part :), as

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

2018-02-09 0:19 GMT+02:00 Nikos Chantziaras : > On 08/02/18 23:31, gevisz wrote: >> >> I do not use ccache, and in my /var/tmp I only have /var/tmp/portage >> and /var/tmp/genkernel (I use genkernel to generate initramfs image). >> >> I never use emerge and genkernel at the same

[gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

On 08/02/18 23:31, gevisz wrote: I do not use ccache, and in my /var/tmp I only have /var/tmp/portage and /var/tmp/genkernel (I use genkernel to generate initramfs image). I never use emerge and genkernel at the same time. So, why not to put the whole /var/tmp into one tmpfs? Well, someone

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

2018-02-08 23:57 GMT+02:00 Rich Freeman : > On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 4:52 PM, gevisz wrote: >> >> However, it probably won't be sooner than >> # emerge --update --deep --with-bdeps=y --newuse --backtrack=90 --ask >> world --exclude chromium >> fails because of

Re: [gentoo-user] /var/tmp on tmpfs

2018-02-08 21:17 GMT+02:00 Dale : > gevisz wrote: >> I never used tmpfs for portage TMPDIR before and now decided to give it a >> try. >> >> I have 8GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on a separate partition. >> >> Do I correctly understood >>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 4:52 PM, gevisz wrote: > > However, it probably won't be sooner than > # emerge --update --deep --with-bdeps=y --newuse --backtrack=90 --ask > world --exclude chromium > fails because of the "--exclude chromium" part :), as I have already compiled > the

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

2018-02-08 20:13 GMT+02:00 Rich Freeman : > On 08/02/18 19:11, gevisz wrote: >> >> I never used tmpfs for portage TMPDIR before and now decided to give it a >> try. >> >> I have 8GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on a separate partition. >> >> Do I correctly understood >>

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

2018-02-08 19:47 GMT+02:00 Nikos Chantziaras : > On 08/02/18 19:11, gevisz wrote: >> >> I never used tmpfs for portage TMPDIR before and now decided >> to give it a try. >> >> I have 8GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on a separate partition. >> >> Do I correctly understood >>

Re: [gentoo-user] /var/tmp on tmpfs

On 02/08/2018 10:11 AM, gevisz wrote: And I am going to set the whole /var/tmp on tpmfs instead of just /var/tmp/portage Is it ok? I don't know about the context of emerging, but I do know about the context of /var/tmp being volatile. More specifically, /var/tmp is traditionally supposed

Re: [gentoo-user] /var/tmp on tmpfs

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:17 PM, Dale wrote: > As someone else pointed out, if you > start using swap, that generally defeats the purpose of tmpfs. > I'll just add one thing to this, which I've probably already said ages ago: In an ideal world swap would STILL be better

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 2:05 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 08/02/18 20:13, Rich Freeman wrote: >>> >>> If you're not using ccache, then you don't need /var/tmp to be on tmpfs. >>> You >>> should only put /var/tmp/portage on tmpfs. >> >> >> I disagree on this. Unless you have

[gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

On 08/02/18 21:17, Dale wrote: I have 16GBs of memory here and have /var/tmp/portage/ on tmpfs, no ccache.  With the growing size of packages, I've had to put several on regular spinning rust to make sure enough space is available.  This is my list, so far. www-client/firefox

Re: [gentoo-user] /var/tmp on tmpfs

gevisz wrote: > I never used tmpfs for portage TMPDIR before and now decided to give it a try. > > I have 8GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on a separate partition. > > Do I correctly understood https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Portage_TMPDIR_on_tmpfs > that I can safely set in the fstab the size of my

[gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

On 08/02/18 20:13, Rich Freeman wrote: If you're not using ccache, then you don't need /var/tmp to be on tmpfs. You should only put /var/tmp/portage on tmpfs. I disagree on this. Unless you have something that uses gobs of space on /var/tmp there is little reason not to make the whole thing a

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:47 PM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 08/02/18 19:11, gevisz wrote: >> >> I never used tmpfs for portage TMPDIR before and now decided to give it a >> try. >> >> I have 8GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on a separate partition. >> You can try it, but for

[gentoo-user] Re: /var/tmp on tmpfs

On 08/02/18 19:11, gevisz wrote: I never used tmpfs for portage TMPDIR before and now decided to give it a try. I have 8GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on a separate partition. Do I correctly understood https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Portage_TMPDIR_on_tmpfs that I can safely set in the fstab the size

[gentoo-user] /var/tmp on tmpfs

I never used tmpfs for portage TMPDIR before and now decided to give it a try. I have 8GB of RAM and 12GB of swap on a separate partition. Do I correctly understood https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Portage_TMPDIR_on_tmpfs that I can safely set in the fstab the size of my tmpfs to 12GB so that the