Re: [gentoo-dev] strange portage behaviour
Zac Medico wrote:
It's common for people get get confused like this by the confmem
behavior that's built into portage's merge process. You can use
--noconfmem to disable it.
Ah, I didn't knew we had this option, thanks for the info. However, a
user complained in [1] that net-dialup/ppp failed to update its
/etc/ppp/ip-{up,down} scripts.
I don't know exactly how it works, but I presume portage will install
the protected files if the checksum of the new file present in $D is
different than the one who was there when the old version were
installed, right?
[1] http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-699957.html
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set
Robert Bridge wrote: On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:30:20 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMHO it would be better to teach users to explicitly specify '@system' during updates, e.g. `emerge -uDN @system @world`. Why not just re-instate the implicit dependency of world on system? Paludis has everything for updating all packages. Would that be an option for portage, too? I.e. `emerge -uDN @everything` -markus P.S.: where does that '@' come from? pgpqvaed2lmAS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] system set no longer in part of world set
On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 11:21 PM, Markus Rothe [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Robert Bridge wrote: On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:30:20 +0200 Arfrever Frehtes Taifersar Arahesis [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: IMHO it would be better to teach users to explicitly specify '@system' during updates, e.g. `emerge -uDN @system @world`. Why not just re-instate the implicit dependency of world on system? Paludis has everything for updating all packages. Would that be an option for portage, too? I.e. `emerge -uDN @everything` It exists as well... -markus P.S.: where does that '@' come from? '@' denotes that the atom refers to a set and not any other kind of atom. -Alec -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: ICC Profile
Richard Freeman [EMAIL PROTECTED] posted [EMAIL PROTECTED], excerpted below, on Fri, 18 Jul 2008 15:34:53 -0400: Personally, I use -Os across the board when it doesn't break. As you said I tend to be memory/IO bound, and optimizing for size helps with both (swapping causes IO). I'd probably benefit from using -O3 on the aforementioned CPU-intensive apps. I did before gcc-4.3, but with 4.3, several of the other flags (-freorder- blocks-and-partition, for instance, which increases cache hit rates but also increases size) I was using folded into -O2 but not -Os, and I decided -O2 was a better choice as a result. Has anyone done a study of -Os vs -O2 with gcc-4.3.x, similar to the ICC/ gcc-4.x study linked upthread? On x86_64 would be an extra bonus, particularly if it were on AMD, or if both Intel and AMD were studied, as would the effect of such flags as -freorder-blocks-and-partition, as mentioned above. I'd love to see links, if so! -- Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master. Richard Stallman -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] gentoo-x86 commit in eclass: mozcoreconf-2.eclass
Ryan Hill wrote:
On Fri, 18 Jul 2008 17:55:00 +
Raul Porcel (armin76) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
armin76 08/07/18 17:55:00
Modified: mozcoreconf-2.eclass
Log:
Enable by default mozilla's optimization
+IUSE=${IUSE} custom-optimization
+
Could you use custom-cflags for this instead?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ grep cflag /usr/portage/profiles/use.local.desc
app-crypt/johntheripper:custom-cflags - Enables custom cflags (not supported)
app-emulation/hercules:custom-cflags - Use CFLAGS from /etc/make.conf rather
than the default package CFLAGS (not supported)
app-emulation/xen-tools:custom-cflags - Use CFLAGS from /etc/make.conf rather
than the default Xen CFLAGS (not supported)
app-emulation/xen:custom-cflags - Use CFLAGS from /etc/make.conf rather than
the default Xen CFLAGS (not supported)
games-emulation/zsnes:custom-cflags - Enables custom cflags (not supported)
media-libs/libsdl:custom-cflags - Allow users to use any CFLAGS they like
completely (at their own risk)
media-video/mplayer:custom-cflags - Enables custom CFLAGS (UNSUPPORTED)
sys-boot/grub:custom-cflags - Enables custom cflags (not supported)
x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers:custom-cflags - Build with CFLAGS from
/etc/make.conf (unsupported)
Well, i added this one because it only allows to use user-specified -O*
option. The user cflags are used no matter if the use-flag is set or not.
--
gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: ICC Profile
Duncan wrote: Has anyone done a study of -Os vs -O2 with gcc-4.3.x, Just a quick note while on the subject : -Os is known to break some packages. Although it has been a while since I've last had a full -Os system, there was a time when -Os was a _very_bad_idea_. That's why the Gnome Herd (and upstream Gnome) won't support anything more than -O2. Of course, if anyone wants to use -Os to actually fix bugs... :) Cheers Rémi -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] ICC Profile
Cold you please fix your reply? -- Michael Hammer|[EMAIL PROTECTED] | Graz, AT Gentoo Developer (Kerberos) | http://www.michael-hammer.at pgpDY8QTPhvzj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] ICC Profile
Well, it looks like we're not alone on this project. This email was just sent to me: Adam, I managed to track down someone who can probably help you with your ICC work, if you're nice to him. :) See the forwarded message: Have your friend contact bill dot hilliard at intel dot com. He's on the ICC team and can either answer any questions or works next to someone who can. Scott -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-dev] Proposal: Make developer profiles more difficult to select
Reading around on the net, it amazes me how many people are using developer profiles for their Gentoo because they think it's for software developers and don't see that it's for Gentoo developers and not intended for end users. They know the Developer installation profiles of other distros and think Gentoo's profiles are just the same (on those distros, selecting a dev profile just means it installs GCC + dev libs + IDEs by default.) Some kind of warning or other mechanism that does selecting this profile without knowing what you're doing would be a good idea. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: Make developer profiles more difficult to select
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Sat, 19 Jul 2008 21:39:04 +0300 Nikos Chantziaras [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Reading around on the net, it amazes me how many people are using developer profiles for their Gentoo because they think it's for software developers and don't see that it's for Gentoo developers and not intended for end users. They know the Developer installation profiles of other distros and think Gentoo's profiles are just the same (on those distros, selecting a dev profile just means it installs GCC + dev libs + IDEs by default.) Some kind of warning or other mechanism that does selecting this profile without knowing what you're doing would be a good idea. Maybe it should be called gentoo-developers or gentoo-developers-only? :) Actually, that's not really meant as a joke. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list Regards, Ferris - -- Ferris McCormick (P44646, MI) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Developer, Gentoo Linux (Sparc, Devrel, Userrel, Trustees) -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkiCOBcACgkQQa6M3+I///d+dwCeK2WkyRSPDiiLbo+qYTVXT0j/ TNQAoNHUZDcg2WzexGeUoI938AUgx+QT =9Y0b -END PGP SIGNATURE- éí¢^¾X¬¶È Ú(¢¸j)b b²
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: Make developer profiles more difficult to select
Nikos Chantziaras wrote: Reading around on the net, it amazes me how many people are using developer profiles for their Gentoo because they think it's for software developers and don't see that it's for Gentoo developers and not intended for end users. They know the Developer installation profiles of other distros and think Gentoo's profiles are just the same (on those distros, selecting a dev profile just means it installs GCC + dev libs + IDEs by default.) Some kind of warning or other mechanism that does selecting this profile without knowing what you're doing would be a good idea. *shrug* If people would _read_ the documentation, such as http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml or http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?part=1chap=6#doc_chap2, then they would know what the profiles are for. I don't think we should start making certain profiles harder to use. Maybe if profiles.desc had a more explanatory entry on the developer profile so that users know what's up with it. Or better yet, include an entry in the eselect profile module that prints a brief description of a given profile, or at least references the various documentation on profiles. Oh, and FYI, gcc (and complete toolchain) and various development libraries are already installed by default -- that's the nature of using a source-based distro; all that stuff needs to be there to do anything, so it's already included. At no point will merely selecting a new profile actually install anything. As always, you have to go through the package manager if you want something installed. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: Make developer profiles more difficult to select
Nikos Chantziaras wrote: Some kind of warning or other mechanism that does selecting this profile without knowing what you're doing would be a good idea. This isn't enough? %% grep KNOW * make.defaults:I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING=yes ;)
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: Make developer profiles more difficult to select
Jeremy Olexa wrote: Nikos Chantziaras wrote: Some kind of warning or other mechanism that does selecting this profile without knowing what you're doing would be a good idea. This isn't enough? %% grep KNOW * make.defaults:I_KNOW_WHAT_I_AM_DOING=yes ;) Nobody ever reads make.defaults... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-dev] Proposal: Make developer profiles more difficult to select
On 16:34 Sat 19 Jul , Josh Saddler wrote: Nikos Chantziaras wrote: Reading around on the net, it amazes me how many people are using developer profiles for their Gentoo because they think it's for software developers and don't see that it's for Gentoo developers and not intended for end users. They know the Developer installation profiles of other distros and think Gentoo's profiles are just the same (on those distros, selecting a dev profile just means it installs GCC + dev libs + IDEs by default.) Some kind of warning or other mechanism that does selecting this profile without knowing what you're doing would be a good idea. *shrug* If people would _read_ the documentation, such as http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml or http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?part=1chap=6#doc_chap2, then they would know what the profiles are for. I agree that this is a major problem, and I requested those additions to the documentation to alleviate it. If it remains a problem, this is something we need to figure out a better fix for. Perhaps we could abuse the 'deprecated' file in profiles with this type of message. Developers are basically our core audience, and we need to make things work well for them. -- Thanks, Donnie Donnie Berkholz Developer, Gentoo Linux Blog: http://dberkholz.wordpress.com pgpng375BJQTL.pgp Description: PGP signature
