Re: [gentoo-user] Will a 64-bit-no-multilib machine cross-compile 32-bit code?

2015-03-18 Thread Fernando Rodriguez
On Thursday, March 19, 2015 12:20:26 AM Walter Dnes wrote: > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:27:05PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote > > On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 9:56:12 PM Walter Dnes wrote: > > > My situation... > > > > > > * I've dug up my ancient netbook, and got Gentoo re-installed on it > >

Re: [gentoo-user] Will a 64-bit-no-multilib machine cross-compile 32-bit code?

2015-03-18 Thread Walter Dnes
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:27:05PM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote > On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 9:56:12 PM Walter Dnes wrote: > > My situation... > > > > * I've dug up my ancient netbook, and got Gentoo re-installed on it > > * The cpu is a dual-core Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU Z520 > > * It's 32-bi

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

2015-03-18 Thread Dale
Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Wednesday 18 March 2015 13:12:47 Dale wrote: > >> I switched way back in 2003 when it was rare that a init thingy was needed >> in Gentoo. It seems someone screwed that up. > I still don't have one, nor do I foresee a need. I didn't have one until I recently rebooted an

Re: [gentoo-user] Will a 64-bit-no-multilib machine cross-compile 32-bit code?

2015-03-18 Thread Fernando Rodriguez
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 9:56:12 PM Walter Dnes wrote: > My situation... > > * I've dug up my ancient netbook, and got Gentoo re-installed on it > * The cpu is a dual-core Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU Z520 > * It's 32-bit only; YES! > * Compiling just the Seamonkey binary (ignoring its dependancies

[gentoo-user] Will a 64-bit-no-multilib machine cross-compile 32-bit code?

2015-03-18 Thread Walter Dnes
My situation... * I've dug up my ancient netbook, and got Gentoo re-installed on it * The cpu is a dual-core Intel(R) Atom(TM) CPU Z520 * It's 32-bit only; YES! * Compiling just the Seamonkey binary (ignoring its dependancies) took 14 hours I obviously want to offload compiling to another m

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is this a bug in firefox-36.0?

2015-03-18 Thread Fernando Rodriguez
On Wednesday, March 18, 2015 4:41:25 PM walt wrote: > On 03/17/2015 04:49 PM, walt wrote: > > I get a certificate verification error when visiting https://www.att.com > > using firefox-36.0, but not when using chrome-41.0.2272.76. > > Thanks to all who replied. I'm surprised by the variety of dif

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is this a bug in firefox-36.0?

2015-03-18 Thread Daniel Frey
On 03/18/2015 04:41 PM, walt wrote: > On 03/17/2015 04:49 PM, walt wrote: >> I get a certificate verification error when visiting https://www.att.com >> using firefox-36.0, but not when using chrome-41.0.2272.76. > > Thanks to all who replied. I'm surprised by the variety of different results > y

[gentoo-user] Re: Is this a bug in firefox-36.0?

2015-03-18 Thread walt
On 03/17/2015 04:49 PM, walt wrote: > I get a certificate verification error when visiting https://www.att.com > using firefox-36.0, but not when using chrome-41.0.2272.76. Thanks to all who replied. I'm surprised by the variety of different results you reported. (BTW, I'm running firefox-bin-36

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

2015-03-18 Thread Peter Humphrey
On Wednesday 18 March 2015 13:12:47 Dale wrote: > I switched way back in 2003 when it was rare that a init thingy was needed > in Gentoo. It seems someone screwed that up. I still don't have one, nor do I foresee a need. > I try to keep a few fall back plans around. Spare kernels etc. One ol

Re: [gentoo-user] [offtopic] GNU Root Gentoo on Android

2015-03-18 Thread Bill Kenworthy
Amazing and with real potential! I have partially updated the image but can't update python and some other packages because they want /dev/shm. The Android kernel uses /dev/ashmem with a different API to /dev/shm - other than a custom kernel, is there another workaround? BillK On 17 March 2015 2

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

2015-03-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Dale wrote: > > I thought there was a tool that just lists the contents. Things is, I'm > not sure what I would be looking at. An initramfs is just a root filesystem. init is /sbin/init unless the kernel is told otherwise. If you took your entire root filesyste

[gentoo-user] Re: Is this a bug in firefox-36.0?

2015-03-18 Thread »Q«
On Tue, 17 Mar 2015 17:47:04 -0700 Daniel Frey wrote: > On 03/17/2015 04:49 PM, walt wrote: > > I get a certificate verification error when visiting > > https://www.att.com using firefox-36.0, but not when using > > chrome-41.0.2272.76. > > > > Anyone else see the same with firefox-36? FWIW, I

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

2015-03-18 Thread Dale
Poncho wrote: > On 18.03.2015 17:37, Rich Freeman wrote: > >> [...] >> You can look inside an initramfs by doing the following: >> mkdir /tmp/ext >> cd /tmp/ext >> zcat /boot/initramfs-3.18.9-gentoo.img | cpio -i >> find usr >> find lib64 >> ... >> [...] > dracut comes with the /usr/bin/lsinitrd to

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

2015-03-18 Thread Poncho
On 18.03.2015 17:37, Rich Freeman wrote: > [...] > You can look inside an initramfs by doing the following: > mkdir /tmp/ext > cd /tmp/ext > zcat /boot/initramfs-3.18.9-gentoo.img | cpio -i > find usr > find lib64 > ... > [...] dracut comes with the /usr/bin/lsinitrd tool. pretty convenient. With

[gentoo-user] Re: Lisp is not Lisp is... ?

2015-03-18 Thread James
gmx.de> writes: > Then I installed dev-lisp/gcl there (which compiles fine). You might want to cross-compile the codes and dependent codes on a x86 machine and move them over, as another test I'd first try by only setting the minimum you need to get the codes to compile. Then test and se

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

2015-03-18 Thread Peter Humphrey
On Wednesday 18 March 2015 11:14:43 Dale wrote: > Well, since I set this rig up, I have had to grow /usr twice. The only > reason I have not had to grow it recently is because I moved all the > portage stuff to /var. In the past, I had to move everything to another > drive, rework the partitions

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

2015-03-18 Thread Rich Freeman
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Dale wrote: > Alan McKinnon wrote: >> You are reading it wrong. That means: >> util-linux needs to be built with USE="static-libs" >> because >> lvm2 is already built with USE="static" >> >> None of which explains why you originally built lvm2 that way. > > It was

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

2015-03-18 Thread Dale
Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Wednesday 18 March 2015 04:33:18 Dale wrote: > >> Well, /boot doesn't change to much, plus it is fairly small anyway. The >> root partition doesn't change a whole lot either. /usr tho, it tends to >> grow. If nothing else, it grows as KDE grows but it grows with the >>

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

2015-03-18 Thread Peter Humphrey
On Wednesday 18 March 2015 04:33:18 Dale wrote: > Well, /boot doesn't change to much, plus it is fairly small anyway. The > root partition doesn't change a whole lot either. /usr tho, it tends to > grow. If nothing else, it grows as KDE grows but it grows with the > number of kernels I have too

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

2015-03-18 Thread Dale
Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Tuesday 17 March 2015 16:07:29 Dale wrote: > >> I don't have / on lvm. /boot and / are on regular partitions. >> Everything else, /usr, /var and /home, are on lvm. Keep in mind, I >> was trying to avoid that init thingy. > I remember something of that discussion, but no

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

2015-03-18 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:54:40 +, Peter Humphrey wrote: > > I don't have / on lvm. /boot and / are on regular partitions. > > Everything else, /usr, /var and /home, are on lvm. Keep in mind, I > > was trying to avoid that init thingy. > > I remember something of that discussion, but not why

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

2015-03-18 Thread Peter Humphrey
On Tuesday 17 March 2015 16:07:29 Dale wrote: > I don't have / on lvm. /boot and / are on regular partitions. > Everything else, /usr, /var and /home, are on lvm. Keep in mind, I > was trying to avoid that init thingy. I remember something of that discussion, but not why you wanted to keep /usr

Re: [gentoo-user] getting blocks for system and world update not resolved

2015-03-18 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 05:11:25 +0100, Tamer Higazi wrote: > Hi people! > I have problems getting these blocks at a system update solved... > > I executed: > emerge --backtrack=30 -fuDN @system @world > ... > ... > [blocks B ] (" virtual/perl-ExtUtils-Install-1.670.0) > [blocks B ] media-