On Saturday 02 April 2011 23:47:42 Neil Bothwick wrote:
Yes. the script that I use to start up and enter the chroot for each
system not only does the usual mounting of /dev/ and /proc in the
chroot, it also rsyncs /etc/portage and /var/lib/portage/world* with the
real target. Make.conf has to
On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 14:55:39 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
Yes. the script that I use to start up and enter the chroot for each
system not only does the usual mounting of /dev/ and /proc in the
chroot, it also rsyncs /etc/portage and /var/lib/portage/world* with
the real target. Make.conf
On Sunday 03 April 2011 18:08:25 Neil Bothwick wrote:
You probably don't want EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--usepkg in the chroot's
make.conf.
In fact I don't have it in either of them; so far I've been issuing manual
parameters. When I've settled the process down I'll encapsulate it in scripts.
I
On Sunday 03 April 2011 18:24:51 Peter Humphrey wrote:
Logging isn't working for me yet either,
I should have said that e-mailing of logs isn't working.
--
Rgds
Peter
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 12:43:44 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
I've decided to revert to Neil's method (once I've shaken this
infection off).
Could you please confirm that the infection is in no way linked to me or
my method :-O
--
Neil Bothwick
Always proofread carefully to see if you any
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2011 12:43:44 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
I've decided to revert to Neil's method (once I've shaken this
infection off).
Could you please confirm that the infection is in no way linked to me or
my method :-O
I hope you get rid of the
On Saturday 02 April 2011 09:57:57 Neil Bothwick wrote:
Could you please confirm that the infection is in no way linked to me or
my method :-O
Gladly. Not sure what it's linked to, nor even what it is, but it doesn't half
sap the energy.
--
Rgds
Peter
On Saturday 18 December 2010 10:18:43 Neil Bothwick wrote:
I've found there's just too much overhead with distcc, plus much of the
work is still done locally. I have a couple of Atom boxes, a server and a
netbook, and I've set up a chroot for each on my workstation. In the
chroot I have
On Sat, 2 Apr 2011 16:19:45 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
I've found there's just too much overhead with distcc, plus much of
the work is still done locally. I have a couple of Atom boxes, a
server and a netbook, and I've set up a chroot for each on my
workstation. In the chroot I have
On Saturday 18 December 2010 10:18:43 Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 22:56:29 +, Peter Humphrey wrote:
I've bought (against my better judgement) an Atom N270 box to be a LAN
server, but it's a bit slow compared with the other boxes on the
network. A big bit, actually - 69
On Saturday 18 December 2010 10:18:43 Neil Bothwick wrote:
I've found there's just too much overhead with distcc, plus much of
the work is still done locally. I have a couple of Atom boxes, a
server and a netbook, and I've set up a chroot for each on my
workstation. In the chroot I have
On Thursday 23 December 2010 14:44:25 I wrote:
I get this on the workstation when trying to nfs-mount the exported
PKGDIR:
# mount /mnt/nfs
mount.nfs: an incorrect mount option was specified
The system log on vt12 says bad mount option value specified: vers=4.
Ah-hah! I thought. All I
On Tue, Dec 21, 2010 at 1:56 AM, Bill Longman bill.long...@gmail.comwrote:
On 12/18/2010 07:15 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Saturday 18 December 2010 10:18:43 Neil Bothwick wrote:
I've found there's just too much overhead with distcc, plus much of
the work is still done locally.
I
On Sat, Dec 18, 2010 at 2:44 AM, Stroller
strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
On 17/12/2010, at 10:56pm, Peter Humphrey wrote:
... an Atom N270 box ... server, but it's a bit slow compared with the other
boxes on the
network. A big bit, actually - 69 minutes to compile a kernel compared
On 12/18/2010 07:15 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Saturday 18 December 2010 10:18:43 Neil Bothwick wrote:
I've found there's just too much overhead with distcc, plus much of
the work is still done locally.
I expected that but I wanted to try it to see.
I have a couple of Atom boxes, a
On 17/12/2010, at 10:56pm, Peter Humphrey wrote:
... an Atom N270 box ... server, but it's a bit slow compared with the other
boxes on the
network. A big bit, actually - 69 minutes to compile a kernel compared
with less than 9 minutes on this workstation.
9 minutes!?!? I'm flabbergasted.
On Fri, 17 Dec 2010 22:56:29 +, Peter Humphrey wrote:
I've bought (against my better judgement) an Atom N270 box to be a LAN
server, but it's a bit slow compared with the other boxes on the
network. A big bit, actually - 69 minutes to compile a kernel compared
with less than 9 minutes
On Saturday 18 December 2010 10:18:43 Neil Bothwick wrote:
I've found there's just too much overhead with distcc, plus much of
the work is still done locally.
I expected that but I wanted to try it to see.
I have a couple of Atom boxes, a server and a netbook, and I've set up
a chroot for
On Friday 17 December 2010 23:23:10 Jacob Todd wrote:
Could you post your distcc config files?
$ extract /etc/conf.d/distccd
DISTCCD_OPTS=
DISTCCD_EXEC=/usr/bin/distccd
DISTCCD_PIDFILE=/var/run/distccd/distccd.pid
DISTCCD_OPTS=${DISTCCD_OPTS} --port 3632
DISTCCD_OPTS=${DISTCCD_OPTS} --log-level
Hello list,
I've bought (against my better judgement) an Atom N270 box to be a LAN
server, but it's a bit slow compared with the other boxes on the
network. A big bit, actually - 69 minutes to compile a kernel compared
with less than 9 minutes on this workstation.
I thought I'd give distcc a
Could you post your distcc config files?
On Friday 17 December 2010 22:56:29 Peter Humphrey wrote:
Hello list,
I've bought (against my better judgement) an Atom N270 box to be a LAN
server, but it's a bit slow compared with the other boxes on the
network. A big bit, actually - 69 minutes to compile a kernel compared
with less than
22 matches
Mail list logo
