Re: [gentoo-user] Gcc 5.3
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 I think they should be compiled with the same version of gcc, shouldn't they? On 12/24/2015 05:18 PM, Alan Grimes wrote: > Hey, thanks for putting out gcc 5.3... > > Unfortunately, it fails to bootstrap on my machine. I am getting > differences between the stage 2 and stage 3 compilers and it's dying... =( > > make[2]: Entering directory > '/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-5.3.0/work/build' > make[3]: Entering directory > '/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-5.3.0/work/build' > rm -f stage_current > make[3]: Leaving directory '/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-5.3.0/work/build' > Comparing stages 2 and 3 > warning: gcc/cc1plus-checksum.o differs > warning: gcc/cc1-checksum.o differs > Bootstrap comparison failure! > gcc/tree-ssa-threadedge.o differs > gcc/tsan.o differs > gcc/print-tree.o differs > gcc/df-core.o differs > gcc/omega.o differs > gcc/dwarf2cfi.o differs > gcc/lto-cgraph.o differs > gcc/sanopt.o differs > gcc/sched-vis.o differs > gcc/tree-ssa-tail-merge.o differs > gcc/godump.o differs > gcc/graph.o differs > gcc/tree-vect-loop-manip.o differs > gcc/cse.o differs > gcc/omp-low.o differs > > [many lines omitted] > > libiberty/xmalloc.o differs > libiberty/simple-object-elf.o differs > libiberty/spaces.o differs > libiberty/pex-unix.o differs > libiberty/simple-object-coff.o differs > libiberty/crc32.o differs > libiberty/physmem.o differs > libiberty/make-relative-prefix.o differs > libiberty/argv.o differs > libiberty/pex-common.o differs > libiberty/simple-object.o differs > libiberty/strerror.o differs > libiberty/simple-object-mach-o.o differs > libiberty/sha1.o differs > libiberty/cp-demint.o differs > libiberty/dyn-string.o differs > libiberty/make-temp-file.o differs > libiberty/cplus-dem.o differs > libiberty/sort.o differs > libiberty/splay-tree.o differs > libiberty/xstrndup.o differs > lto-plugin/.libs/lto-plugin.o differs > Makefile:19638: recipe for target 'compare' failed > make[2]: *** [compare] Error 1 > make[2]: Leaving directory '/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-5.3.0/work/build' > Makefile:19617: recipe for target 'stage3-bubble' failed > make[1]: *** [stage3-bubble] Error 2 > make[1]: Leaving directory '/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-5.3.0/work/build' > Makefile:19691: recipe for target 'bootstrap-lean' failed > make: *** [bootstrap-lean] Error 2 > * ERROR: sys-devel/gcc-5.3.0::gentoo failed (compile phase): > * emake failed > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWfBHDAAoJEBYxB87Vey/R/yEH/1y1ZpfKFfN8+SAwNMRlAMdf u9MYag/wI0Ilnrh/uFg3oDZyKZPj+3ze3bjFaIY+8f7xyRQuS+bzk9gTu/eG9WzF m/KT1QSwtRwatgXlBpgJKWNn6jNnLg3zKCUHi+okb9XSffkXedW641+az7E9J1pK YQeGbysRaMSHoshGgBSPr3CHoMpQnkNoIjbUJ0hCRBOSxmth67WFq4gMxSEYG4sM F6pn+dI2Ir1stGSItBJzkWXAWpsfBopxebBi3DVpPJmUvDkyAelzGCl+E8kV5f/S soWO4cFVoAAJyk8MEI4KZ/MPo+R+gzjBJKHOcyf5oORlvGG8DRWy5mAEaTPnH2c= =4Pts -END PGP SIGNATURE-
[gentoo-user] git-2.eclass or git broken?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256
It looks like the git-2.eclass on line 554 says "EGIT_UPDATE_CMD="git pull -f
-u ${EGIT_OPTIONS}" which, git refuses to accept with the error message "error:
unknown switch `u'". The git pull manual page clearly says that it should work,
but it obviously doesn't. What is going on?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2
iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWeARYAAoJEBYxB87Vey/RKgIH/3H6bf57LcqyQt/IcVS4ueHv
w18RpIlFwPHIlAWRVsjweJspAF6M1BtcNP9ynNA0L1lS8YFDc4//qzrCk6uUpAs4
nwS6BJW1RZ5Wciu5kYSvHNiW0ljfG6vbfLOMm9YYCsdowr7RUBQHNw99Nik8L1M2
BPH1eZoXY3jwCLwV5y03oVXQIYLtGEcBw3dphWaTcCHl/JiBNOyh+p/HuRjbQt+y
yojgJnP1unpZbUE8mFTefPR45mLBgR4QpOnWUZJQgLORa99+otePQY37ekMGrKb7
R2WFb3aulRmKUvyqURwFGagd+T4snmYtzbuVbniBzR+njhkXb0+ioQs9djEfysw=
=k4wZ
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-user] icedtea-3.0-openjdk verifiy failed
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 Have you tried 'ebuild icedtea-7.2.6.3-r2.ebuild manifest'? On 12/16/2015 08:01 PM, James wrote: > > Howdy, > > > So, I got the problem I have not seen before. > > equery depends icedtea(variety of strings) > > all return the same package list. > > I removed version /icedtea-bin-6.1.13.9 > and dev-java/icedtea-3.0.0_pre06 > > I have this version installed:: > dev-java/icedtea-7.2.6.1 which needs and update. > It first wants to pull back in icedtea-3.0.0_pre06 > > I removed the manifest from /usr/portage/dev-java/icedtea > and rebuilt it > 'ebuild icedtea-7.2.6.3-r2.ebuild digest' > > > But the version 3 of icedtea fails on checksum:: > > (snip) > > Fetched file: icedtea-3.0-openjdk-ff58c7164b8d.tar.xz VERIFY FAILED! > Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size > Got: 328220 > Expected: 328108 > Refetching... File renamed to > usr/portage/distfiles/icedtea-3.0-openjdk- > > ff58c7164b8d.tar.xz._checksum_failure_.aeler9j5' > > Couldn't download 'icedtea-3.0-openjdk-ff58c7164b8d.tar.xz'. Aborting. > > (end/snip) > > suggestions ? > > > James > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJWcashAAoJEBYxB87Vey/REncIAKvYvLusfBhPvbHEUF7ao23Q JxcJYJZ55MI7hZAxLxekQRLPRr9URSmRfEYN8n54QJ4bLQQevyHYf7v6Jsz5OLHN CuYj4YzRqIspnvt4nF0LBm2ZPeESkizI//3pVaW1AyE1bS17eZGGb1XIAMFoAmv1 QbJaiILRu/RH3eUSi1l+yXkrnBo9ixDi6GOB7agwxaI3EruLCxwgCucOsnWzPTAd SrjeIwa+wU8S8YB+j4CTy8Aw4a3fKOdOrvAIY1W/xMY/B7xrDAJM+TAg0kCN/QLm kbB8D8ijsY8p3zTsymaj4jBvSzoh7nYAjeKRHZ78US307joc2ZqRm+2+EQa0E8w= =kg73 -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: [gentoo-user] OpenSSH upgrade warning
On 11/10/2015 09:25 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 11/10/2015 02:23 PM, Stanislav Nikolov wrote: >> Are you sure you know how such keys work? An extremely 15 character >> password (Upper case, lower case, numbers, 8 more symbols) gives you >> ~4747561509943000 combinations. Just a simple 2048 bit >> key on the other hand (~180 of which are "secure") >> 153249554086558358347027150309183618739122183602176. Thats ALOT >> moar. You don't have to generate the key from a password! >> > I don't have to brute-force the key. The key is encrypted with a > password. How long is that password? > > > 1) The key is not encrypted. 2) You don't need a password to generate a key. 3) Don't go full retard, do your research before arguing.
Re: [gentoo-user] Better CPU for compiling with gcc
On 11/10/2015 08:55 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On 10/11/2015 20:37, Stanislav Nikolov wrote: >> >> On 11/10/2015 08:17 PM, Mick wrote: >>> On Tuesday 10 Nov 2015 17:47:08 Stanislav Nikolov wrote: >>>> Dear Gentoo users, >>>> I'm building a new PC. I have a budget of ~$550-$650. No GPU, no special >>>> case (I may use a card box), not even a hdd or ssd. So, as you can see, >>>> it's pretty much "get the best CPU and mobo/ram that are compatible with >>>> it". The problem is, which is the best one. By "best" I mean to compile >>>> shit fast. My laptop with 3rd gen i5 compiles firefox for 40 minutes on >>>> average. >>>> >>>> The most expensive Intel CPU is the skylake i7-6700k. But is it the best? >>>> Is there something from AMD that will perform even better? I can't find >>>> any benchmarks with AMD/Intel CPUs. And how much does the mobo matter? >>>> Will a cheap $30 400W PSU power that thing? >>>> >>>> Thanks >>> I don't (yet) own a i7-6700k, but my 6 year old laptop with (1st >>> generation) >>> i7 Q720 @1.60GHz takes slightly less than yours: >>> >>> Sat Oct 3 14:35:40 2015 >>> www-client/firefox-38.3.0 >>>merge time: 36 minutes and 53 seconds. >>> >>> Fri Nov 6 09:10:06 2015 >>> www-client/firefox-38.4.0 >>>merge time: 38 minutes and 8 seconds. >>> >>> >>> In contrast a year old AMD A10-7850K APU is significantly faster: >>> >>> Sat Oct 3 19:40:48 2015 >>> www-client/firefox-38.3.0 >>>merge time: 17 minutes and 42 seconds. >>> >>> Fri Nov 6 08:41:02 2015 >>> www-client/firefox-38.4.0 >>>merge time: 18 minutes and 18 seconds. >>> >>> >>> I would also be interested to see compile times of more modern i7s and FXs, >>> but bear in mind that in single core operations Intel is these days >>> significantly better than AMD. >>> >> So, I shouldn't prepare for a 8x times faster compile time... :( >> > > > I can't help but think you are approaching this from the wrong perspective. > > Why exactly are you using compile times as your sole criterion? Are you > building a compile farm for Ubuntu? Running continuous integration tests > for LibreOffice [on a $600 budget in a cardboard box :-) ]? > > Or do you want emerge world to get it over with quicker? > > If the latter, you better rethink your priorities. In computing terms, > compilation is a rare event; launching apps is a common event; and > writing to the disk happens all the time. Optimize for the common case. > > A CPU never works in isolation, it is always part of a much larger > system, like disks, RAM and all possible kinds of I/O. The best CPU on > the market plugged into a POS motherboard will perform on emerge world > like a piece of shit - it will follow the weakest link. > > If you want to build a compiling machine, buy the best collection of > stuff that works together well and still fits the budget. If you want a > machine that you can use and be happy with, ignoree the temptation to > must have the biggest baddest fastest CU (you will never get to use all > that big bad fast) and invest rather in gobs of RAM and an SSD. Remember > that apps are launched many times more than they are compiled. Or put > another way, sacrifice compilation times t get something you can use. 8GB of RAM are waaay more than I use daily (several firefox tabs, nvim = 2Gb max), I have a pretty fast SSD too. Even buying 8GB RAM and a brand new SSD, I have > $450 left. Can I buy a AMD CPU that will get the job done faster than 6700k and/or cheaper?
[gentoo-user] Better CPU for compiling with gcc
Dear Gentoo users, I'm building a new PC. I have a budget of ~$550-$650. No GPU, no special case (I may use a card box), not even a hdd or ssd. So, as you can see, it's pretty much "get the best CPU and mobo/ram that are compatible with it". The problem is, which is the best one. By "best" I mean to compile shit fast. My laptop with 3rd gen i5 compiles firefox for 40 minutes on average. The most expensive Intel CPU is the skylake i7-6700k. But is it the best? Is there something from AMD that will perform even better? I can't find any benchmarks with AMD/Intel CPUs. And how much does the mobo matter? Will a cheap $30 400W PSU power that thing? Thanks
Re: [gentoo-user] Better CPU for compiling with gcc
On 11/10/2015 08:17 PM, Mick wrote: > On Tuesday 10 Nov 2015 17:47:08 Stanislav Nikolov wrote: >> Dear Gentoo users, >> I'm building a new PC. I have a budget of ~$550-$650. No GPU, no special >> case (I may use a card box), not even a hdd or ssd. So, as you can see, >> it's pretty much "get the best CPU and mobo/ram that are compatible with >> it". The problem is, which is the best one. By "best" I mean to compile >> shit fast. My laptop with 3rd gen i5 compiles firefox for 40 minutes on >> average. >> >> The most expensive Intel CPU is the skylake i7-6700k. But is it the best? >> Is there something from AMD that will perform even better? I can't find >> any benchmarks with AMD/Intel CPUs. And how much does the mobo matter? >> Will a cheap $30 400W PSU power that thing? >> >> Thanks > I don't (yet) own a i7-6700k, but my 6 year old laptop with (1st generation) > i7 Q720 @1.60GHz takes slightly less than yours: > > Sat Oct 3 14:35:40 2015 >>> www-client/firefox-38.3.0 >merge time: 36 minutes and 53 seconds. > > Fri Nov 6 09:10:06 2015 >>> www-client/firefox-38.4.0 >merge time: 38 minutes and 8 seconds. > > > In contrast a year old AMD A10-7850K APU is significantly faster: > > Sat Oct 3 19:40:48 2015 >>> www-client/firefox-38.3.0 >merge time: 17 minutes and 42 seconds. > > Fri Nov 6 08:41:02 2015 >>> www-client/firefox-38.4.0 >merge time: 18 minutes and 18 seconds. > > > I would also be interested to see compile times of more modern i7s and FXs, > but bear in mind that in single core operations Intel is these days > significantly better than AMD. > So, I shouldn't prepare for a 8x times faster compile time... :(
Re: [gentoo-user] OpenSSH upgrade warning
On 11/10/2015 09:17 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 11/10/2015 02:00 PM, Jeff Smelser wrote: >> I guess from this your assuming that everyones passwords that have been >> hacked are god, birthdays and such? >> > Again: assume that I'm not an idiot, and that I know how to choose a > long, random password. It cannot be brute-forced. And if it could, > adding an SSH key encrypted with a password of the same length would > provide no extra security. > > Are you sure you know how such keys work? An extremely 15 character password (Upper case, lower case, numbers, 8 more symbols) gives you ~4747561509943000 combinations. Just a simple 2048 bit key on the other hand (~180 of which are "secure") 153249554086558358347027150309183618739122183602176. Thats ALOT moar. You don't have to generate the key from a password!
Re: [gentoo-user] OpenSSH upgrade warning
On 11/10/2015 09:31 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 11/10/2015 02:23 PM, Stanislav Nikolov wrote: >> >> On 11/10/2015 09:17 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: >>> On 11/10/2015 02:00 PM, Jeff Smelser wrote: >>>> I guess from this your assuming that everyones passwords that >>>> have been hacked are god, birthdays and such? >>>> >>> Again: assume that I'm not an idiot, and that I know how to choose >>> a long, random password. It cannot be brute-forced. And if it >>> could, adding an SSH key encrypted with a password of the same >>> length would provide no extra security. >>> >>> >> Are you sure you know how such keys work? An extremely 15 character >> password (Upper case, lower case, numbers, 8 more symbols) gives you >> ~4747561509943000 combinations > > And since no one seems to believe me, if you could try a million > passwords a second (over the network!), it would take you about > 75,272,093,955,210 years to try half of those combinations. > > I know that brute forcing a password is hard. I'm not stating the opposite. But brute forcing a 2048 bit key is not 2 times slower, it's 2398748237489237489 times slower. And you don't need a password for a key! I think that's the right time to end this conversation, it won't lead to anything good.
Re: [gentoo-user] Using portage to install packages in home dir
On 11/03/2015 05:06 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote: > On 11/03/2015 09:53 AM, Stanislav Nikolov wrote: >> Is there a way to make portage work only in $HOME, like setting >> root=/home/asd? I can't find any way to force portage NOT to read >> /etc/portage/make.conf or NOT to write to it's default log dir. >> >> Thanks! >> > That's what Gentoo Prefix does, and it works on other operating systems too. > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Project:Prefix > > Thanks, exactly what I was searching for! Looks like my google-fu is still not good enough.
[gentoo-user] Using portage to install packages in home dir
Is there a way to make portage work only in $HOME, like setting root=/home/asd? I can't find any way to force portage NOT to read /etc/portage/make.conf or NOT to write to it's default log dir. Thanks!
