Am 04.02.2011 01:27, schrieb Alan McKinnon: > Apparently, though unproven, at 01:43 on Friday 04 February 2011, Nils > Holland > did opine thusly: > > I'm not in a position to give a fully definitive answer to 1) ... > >> 2) /etc/make.conf contains a note that one should not change the CHOST >> lightly (not that I'm planning to) and links to a nice document >> explaining how it can be done anyway (which, I have to admit, didn't >> make me any wiser, however). The question is, out of curiosity, why >> the CHOST should not be changed and what would happen if one did it >> anyway. I willingly believe that it would lead to problems, but would >> the actual cause of these problems actually be caused by the >> configuration of the machine being mixed up (for example, by the GNU >> build system / autoconf suddenly looking for a compiler or similiar >> tools / libraries under a path or by a name involving, for example, >> i486-pc-linux-gnu, which does not automatically exist of the >> appropriate tools have not been installed accordingly. Or would >> problems arise because code generated with the new CHOST does no >> longer "fit" to code generated with the previous / old CHOST? > > The warning is actually there to stop users doing stupid things like blindly > trying to convert 32 bit systems to 64 bit. This is how that goes down: > > 1. Change CHOST > 2. emerge -e world > 3. ??? > 4. Fail! > > Yes, if you are real smart it can be done. But "real smart" really does mean > "real smart" i.e. not for the faint of heart and certainly not worth being > officially supported. >
Is the same true for more compatible arches like i486 -> i686? I have a system where I used the wrong stage-3 and now I'm stuck with an i486 CHOST on an Atom netbook where I could use every bit of performance. Regards, Florian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
