Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:31 -0400, Dave Nebinger wrote: If I get it right ``fix_libtool_files.sh'' corrects the settings for libtool according to the native compiler if gcc has changed. During a native install there isn't an older version of gcc. So this should be (and was) the wrong answer. Incorrect. The stage 1 install starts with a generic 386 version of gcc and, when re-emerging the system, the version of gcc targeted for your system is built. So yes, there is an older version of gcc that did change and yes, it probably would have resolved the issue that you previously posted. It didnt. The sequence: scripts/bootstrap.sh emerge --oneshot --nodeps autoconf emerge --oneshot --nodeps automake emerge --oneshot --nodeps python emerge --emptytree system did resolve it. Regards PS: The bugs were even known in b.g.o. but this site is often unaccessible for me. Dunno why it timeouts so often. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
what have you been smoking Neil? A stage 3 install just means you have a biggish tarball at the start and it installs a very basic working system ready to comile on. You still do your own kernel and you can EITHER use GRP packages OR compile them yourself. I know, but the quote you removed was about using stage 3 to save time to have a running system asap. If that's your objective, you're hardly going to follow it up by compiling KDE and X from scratch, are you? I always have... stage 3 gets me to a point where while I'm compiling X, KDE, qt, Gnome, and the rest of the world, I can use my computer. Especially since the first things I emerge are those I'm likely to use (mutt, irc client, etc.). -- // Andrew MacKenzie | http://www.edespot.com // GPG public key: http://www.edespot.com/~amackenz/public.key // Anyone who has had a bull by the tail knows five or six more things // than someone who hasn't. // -- Mark Twain pgpKrqffJzVw2.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:53:04 +0200 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: I installed successfully half a douzend gentoo boxes (1.0, 1.1, 1.1a, 1.4, 2004) and never were there any --emptytree And before sending my mails I looked into the handbook: no emptytree. It is not my fault, that there are two handbooks, one with emptytree and one without. Yeah and IF you look at the two handbooks, you will see that the handbook WITHOUT --emptytree is for installing from stage3, so that part is missed out completely. Again: the command for --emptytree is in the Progressing from Stage2 to Stage3 section of the Gentoo Handbook The Gentoo 2005.1 Handbook does a stage3 install so that section is SKIPPED. Please note the prelude to the 2005.1 handbook: Welcome to the Gentoo Linux 2005.1 Handbooks. These handbooks are released together with the Gentoo Linux releases and contain the necessary installation instructions to install Gentoo Linux 2005.1 WITHOUT AN INTERNET CONNECTION. However, IF YOU WANT to install Gentoo Linux using THE LATEST VERSIONS of all available packages, please USE the Installation Instructions in THE GENTOO LINUX HANDBOOK for your architecture. Have you got it now??? (Sorry about the added SHOUTING, but I am sick of repeating myself) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- Nick Rout [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 18:38 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Sunday 11 September 2005 08:33, Nick Rout wrote: On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 23:03 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Saturday 10 September 2005 20:09, Frank Schafer wrote: ... or which distribution to install during less than 4 days? Hi list, as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning). where did you get the idea that --emptytree is needed or even a wise decision? --emptytree is almost NEVER needed and since it is a troublesom procedure, it should not be made, until you are totally sure, that you need it. I imagine he read the install instructions, which are pretty clear about doing an emerge --emptytree system What makes you think this is wrong? http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=6#doc_ch ap2 (bottom of the page) WRONG it is there to show you, what emerge system wants to install. there is nothing about doing it! (Check again, see the -p) And in the 2005.1 handbook is no (!) --emptytree. LOL, LOL, LOL!! this is cut'n-pasted from the Gentoo Handbook 6d JUST NOW snip--- Building the System To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. Then go do something to keep your mind busy, because this step takes a long time to complete. Code Listing 22: Building the System # emerge --emptytree system -snap LOL, LOL, LOL!!! You MUST be a German! Not able to read and arrogant (talking about ability of others)! 0,02$ Frank PS: and yes, I DID build from stage1 and DID change CFLAGS. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 19:12 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Sunday 11 September 2005 18:58, Mark Shields wrote: From http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=6: // start quote Building the System To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. Then go do something to keep your mind busy, because this step takes a long time to complete. Code Listing 22: Building the System # emerge --emptytree system Again, if you haven't touched the default CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS setting, using --newuse is sufficient. // end quote So you see, it does tell you to do an emerge --emptytree system, unless you haven't changed the defalt CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS, in which case you can just use the --newuse in place of --emptytree. and this one: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/2005.1/handbook-x86.xml?full=1 does not talk about --emptytree at all, so which one is correct? (btw, when I installed my gentoo --emptytree was totally not needed.) Then ``emerge system'' didn't replace the packages installed by ``sbin/bootstrap.sh'' with new ones (which are probably built with different compiler settings). Frank -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 23:01 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:16:23 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote: No, Neil, this thread (or the original issue, at least), is occurring during the initial install process: Whoops, my mistake. This comes up so often it's easy to get the threads muddled up :( So possibly we might consider using our expertise to actually help the guy, in case anyone might happen to know why he's getting this breakage during his inital installation, rather than arguing about whether he should be using --emptytree or not, Hasn't this already been covered early in the thread? Run fix_libtool.sh to fix the error then do emerge --resume to carry on. If I get it right ``fix_libtool_files.sh'' corrects the settings for libtool according to the native compiler if gcc has changed. During a native install there isn't an older version of gcc. So this should be (and was) the wrong answer. Regards and thanks for all the tries to help me Frank PS: see the [WORKAROUNDED] post -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:49:52 +1200, Nick Rout wrote: No, but they are on the GRP package CDs that accompany each release. yes, but there's no requirement to use grp packages with a stage-3. There is if you're using stage 3 as quoted above. what have you been smoking Neil? A stage 3 install just means you have a biggish tarball at the start and it installs a very basic working system ready to comile on. You still do your own kernel and you can EITHER use GRP packages OR compile them yourself. I know, but the quote you removed was about using stage 3 to save time to have a running system asap. If that's your objective, you're hardly going to follow it up by compiling KDE and X from scratch, are you? -- Neil Bothwick A wok is what you throw at a wabbit. pgp21DyNneNbI.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:59:14 -0500, John Jolet wrote: yes, but there's no requirement to use grp packages with a stage-3. There is if you're using stage 3 as quoted above. No, there isn't. This laptop was built with a stage 3 tarball, everything else was compiled from source. I know because I watched kde build for 16 hours. Read the quote you removed IMHO, stage 3 is for those that don't want to take the lengthy build time for some of the larger packages, i.e. X and kde/gnome, in order to have a basic working gentoo system in a short timeframe. You clearly were prepared to take the lengthy build time for KDE etc. But others don't have that luxury, like when I built my laptop, so Stage 3 + GRP does the whole job in less than 10% of the time you spent on KDE alone... not that this has anything to do with the original topic :) -- Neil Bothwick Megabyte: (n.) more than you can comprehend and less than you'll need. pgpup8zTXyRxR.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 09:11:21 +0200, Frank Schafer wrote: Hasn't this already been covered early in the thread? Run fix_libtool.sh to fix the error then do emerge --resume to carry on. If I get it right ``fix_libtool_files.sh'' corrects the settings for libtool according to the native compiler if gcc has changed. During a native install there isn't an older version of gcc. So this should be (and was) the wrong answer. Fair comment, but emerge --resume is still important. your original post seemed to assume that after fixing the problem, you'd have to run emerge --emptytree again, which is not the case. It is annoying to have to stop the process to fix something, but not so nearly annoying as if you have to start over. -- Neil Bothwick Sir! Romulan warbird decloaki»®õ÷üÁ NO CARRIER pgpza3YHQTcg4.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 08:33 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: If I get it right ``fix_libtool_files.sh'' corrects the settings for libtool according to the native compiler if gcc has changed. During a native install there isn't an older version of gcc. So this should be (and was) the wrong answer. Fair comment, but emerge --resume is still important. your original post seemed to assume that after fixing the problem, you'd have to run emerge --emptytree again, which is not the case. It is annoying to have to stop the process to fix something, but not so nearly annoying as if you have to start over. That's very right and we should be glad to have this switch :) I did a lot of experiments on saturday and yesterday. So I decided to make the whole procedure (starting with making the filesystems) what took about 10 minutes and then: ``scripts/nootstrap.sh touch /var/log/portage/bootstrap emerge --oneshot --nodeps autoconf emerge --oneshot --nodeps autoconf-wrapper emerge --oneshot --nodeps python touch /var/log/portage/bugworkaround emerge --emptytree system'' After firing up this command I went to sleep. If the comp works hard meanwhile I'm having sweet dreams about my pets ... this don't hurt so much ;) In the morning the system was up and ``ls -ltr /var/log/portage'' showed me that it took something about 5 hours. Thanks for your assistence Frank -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
Am Montag, 12. September 2005 08:56 schrieb Frank Schafer: On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 18:38 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: And in the 2005.1 handbook is no (!) --emptytree. LOL, LOL, LOL!! this is cut'n-pasted from the Gentoo Handbook 6d JUST NOW The 2005.1 Handbook, which Volker referes to, has no Section 6d. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/2005.1/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=6 snip--- Building the System To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. Then go do something to keep your mind busy, because this step takes a long time to complete. Code Listing 22: Building the System # emerge --emptytree system -snap You are reading the Gentoo Linux x86 Handbook (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=6), which is a different one. LOL, LOL, LOL!!! You MUST be a German! Not able to read and arrogant (talking about ability of others)! In fact YOU did not read Volkers post carefully. Now call me arrogant, cause I am german too. Even worse, I am bavarian :) 0,02$ Frank PS: and yes, I DID build from stage1 and DID change CFLAGS. Did you change the CFLAGS after bootstrapping? If not, there is no need for --emptytree. The CFLAGS you set for bootstrap ARE your default CFLAGS. I always do stage1 installs. I even do the bootstrap ~x86. I never ever used --emptytree when emerging the system. Regards, Michael -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:12 +0200, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: Am Montag, 12. September 2005 08:56 schrieb Frank Schafer: On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 18:38 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: And in the 2005.1 handbook is no (!) --emptytree. LOL, LOL, LOL!! this is cut'n-pasted from the Gentoo Handbook 6d JUST NOW The 2005.1 Handbook, which Volker referes to, has no Section 6d. http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/2005.1/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=6 snip--- Building the System To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. Then go do something to keep your mind busy, because this step takes a long time to complete. Code Listing 22: Building the System # emerge --emptytree system -snap You are reading the Gentoo Linux x86 Handbook (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=6), which is a different one. LOL, LOL, LOL!!! You MUST be a German! Not able to read and arrogant (talking about ability of others)! In fact YOU did not read Volkers post carefully. Now call me arrogant, cause I am german too. Even worse, I am bavarian :) 0,02$ Frank PS: and yes, I DID build from stage1 and DID change CFLAGS. Did you change the CFLAGS after bootstrapping? If not, there is no need for --emptytree. The CFLAGS you set for bootstrap ARE your default CFLAGS. I always do stage1 installs. I even do the bootstrap ~x86. I never ever used --emptytree when emerging the system. Regards, Michael B. bavarian ;) BTW: I'm a hmmm, living in ... see the email As I mentioned, I've changed nearly everything experimenting to get the install and then ... see my [WORKAROUNDED] post. Regards Frank PS: Volker simply made me a bit angry calling me unable. I'm a UNIX programmer / system administrator since 15 years. Xcuse me. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:33:20 +1200, Nick Rout wrote: I imagine he read the install instructions, which are pretty clear about doing an emerge --emptytree system What makes you think this is wrong? http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=6#doc_chap2 This is about building the system, not rebuilding it. Ay this point of the installation, system has not been merged, so the only rebuilding --emptytree does is the packages installed by bootstrap.sh. As the about docs say, --emptytree is only needed then if you have changed your CFLAGS, otherwise --newuse is sufficient. Rebuilding an entire system that is working fine is a clear breach of if it ain't broke, don't fix it, so should only be done if you are aware of the potential problems and consequences, and how to deal with them. -- Neil Bothwick Bury a lawyer 12 feet under, because deep down they're nice. pgpO020dj5YAw.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
Hi, On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:09:29 +0200 Frank Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: When I returned home from work I found in the logs, that ``emerge --emptytree system'' failed at package 28 of 186 python-fcksum-1.7.1 i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc bla...bla ^ | +- ! gcc-config error: could not run/locate i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc My architecture is i686 and it seems that 27 packages before python-fchksum found the i686(that's SIX-eight-six)-pc-linux-gnu-gcc. Hm, when editing /etc/make.conf, did you change the CHOST setting? That could cause such behaviour... I think that may be amongst the reasons why /etc/make.conf.example reads like: ---snip--- # Host Setting # # # DO NOT CHANGE THIS SETTING UNLESS YOU ARE USING STAGE1! ---snip--- ...I guess you aren't using a stage1? As a side note: When building a minimal system, using USE=-* in /etc/make.conf should be considered. You can then fine tune each and every package in /etc/portage/package.use. That's quite like my setup, my global USE is set to -* nptl ssl nls pam. All the other stuff is set per package. I have one build host machine that distributes the binary packages and portage tree snapshots to my other computers. -hwh -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sunday 11 September 2005 08:33, Nick Rout wrote: On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 23:03 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Saturday 10 September 2005 20:09, Frank Schafer wrote: ... or which distribution to install during less than 4 days? Hi list, as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning). where did you get the idea that --emptytree is needed or even a wise decision? --emptytree is almost NEVER needed and since it is a troublesom procedure, it should not be made, until you are totally sure, that you need it. I imagine he read the install instructions, which are pretty clear about doing an emerge --emptytree system What makes you think this is wrong? http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=6#doc_ch ap2 (bottom of the page) WRONG it is there to show you, what emerge system wants to install. there is nothing about doing it! (Check again, see the -p) And in the 2005.1 handbook is no (!) --emptytree. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
From http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=6: // start quote Building the System To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. Then go do something to keep your mind busy, because this step takes a long time to complete. Code Listing 22: Building the System # emerge --emptytree system Again, if you haven't touched the default CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS setting, using --newuse is sufficient. // end quote So you see, it does tell you to do an emerge --emptytree system, unless you haven't changed the defalt CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS, in which case you can just use the --newuse in place of --emptytree. On 9/11/05, Volker Armin Hemmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 11 September 2005 08:33, Nick Rout wrote: On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 23:03 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Saturday 10 September 2005 20:09, Frank Schafer wrote: ... or which distribution to install during less than 4 days? Hi list, as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning). where did you get the idea that --emptytree is needed or even a wise decision? --emptytree is almost NEVER needed and since it is a troublesom procedure, it should not be made, until you are totally sure, that you need it. I imagine he read the install instructions, which are pretty clear about doing an emerge --emptytree system What makes you think this is wrong? http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=6#doc_ch ap2 (bottom of the page) WRONG it is there to show you, what emerge system wants to install. there is nothing about doing it! (Check again, see the -p) And in the 2005.1 handbook is no (!) --emptytree. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- - Mark Shields -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sunday 11 September 2005 18:58, Mark Shields wrote: From http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=6: // start quote Building the System To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. Then go do something to keep your mind busy, because this step takes a long time to complete. Code Listing 22: Building the System # emerge --emptytree system Again, if you haven't touched the default CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS setting, using --newuse is sufficient. // end quote So you see, it does tell you to do an emerge --emptytree system, unless you haven't changed the defalt CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS, in which case you can just use the --newuse in place of --emptytree. and this one: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/2005.1/handbook-x86.xml?full=1 does not talk about --emptytree at all, so which one is correct? (btw, when I installed my gentoo --emptytree was totally not needed.) -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:58:19 -0400, Mark Shields wrote: // start quote Building the System To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. // end quote So you see, it does tell you to do an emerge --emptytree system, When BUILDING THE SYSTEM. This thread was all about rebuilding the system, which is a completely different, and usually unnecessary, process. -- Neil Bothwick Ralph's Observation - It is a mistake to allow any mechanical object to realize that you are in a hurry. pgpnr778xZBUr.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Sunday 11 September 2005 18:58, Mark Shields wrote: From http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=6: [snip] So you see, it does tell you to do an emerge --emptytree system, unless you haven't changed the defalt CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS, in which case you can just use the --newuse in place of --emptytree. and this one: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/2005.1/handbook-x86.xml?full=1 does not talk about --emptytree at all, so which one is correct? (btw, when I installed my gentoo --emptytree was totally not needed.) The emerge --emptytree will ensure that all of your packages have been compiled with your latest CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS settings. It is not stricly required because packages compiled with different CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS are interoperable. Note that the 2005.1 handbook mentions only the stage3 and not stage1 or stage2. Installation from the lower stages is more error prone and best avoided. Zac -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
Note that the 2005.1 handbook mentions only the stage3 and not stage1 or stage2. Installation from the lower stages is more error prone and best avoided. Hardly. Starting from a stage 3 is like starting from any old binary distribution. Starting from stage 1 2 allows you to build a box customized from the ground up optimized for your hardware (assuming you've set the cflags correctly before beginning). IMHO, stage 3 is for those that don't want to take the lengthy build time for some of the larger packages, i.e. X and kde/gnome, in order to have a basic working gentoo system in a short timeframe. Granted it will be more error-prone to start at a lower stage, but we're all here because we want that level of build. If we were happy with stage 3 installs, we'd be running from some binary distribution instead. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
Dave Nebinger wrote: Note that the 2005.1 handbook mentions only the stage3 and not stage1 or stage2. Installation from the lower stages is more error prone and best avoided. Hardly. Starting from a stage 3 is like starting from any old binary distribution. Starting from stage 1 2 allows you to build a box customized from the ground up optimized for your hardware (assuming you've set the cflags correctly before beginning). IMHO, stage 3 is for those that don't want to take the lengthy build time for some of the larger packages, i.e. X and kde/gnome, in order to have a basic working gentoo system in a short timeframe. Granted it will be more error-prone to start at a lower stage, but we're all here because we want that level of build. If we were happy with stage 3 installs, we'd be running from some binary distribution instead. A stage3 install has most of the benefits of a stage1 or stage2. Portage gives you the ability to rebuild *every* single package if you choose. Zac -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
A stage3 install has most of the benefits of a stage1 or stage2. Portage gives you the ability to rebuild *every* single package if you choose. And like the binary distributions, it's targeted towards the generic 386, not the pentium class machines we're all using (at least it was the last time I checked, but it might have changed since then). So, like I said, it is just like using another binary distribution. And if you use a stage 3 and rebuild every package, it's not that different than starting from a stage 1 or 2, is it? -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sunday 11 September 2005 13:12, Dave Nebinger wrote: Note that the 2005.1 handbook mentions only the stage3 and not stage1 or stage2. Installation from the lower stages is more error prone and best avoided. Hardly. Starting from a stage 3 is like starting from any old binary distribution. see below Starting from stage 1 2 allows you to build a box customized from the ground up optimized for your hardware (assuming you've set the cflags correctly before beginning). IMHO, stage 3 is for those that don't want to take the lengthy build time for some of the larger packages, i.e. X and kde/gnome, in order to have a basic working gentoo system in a short timeframe. I'm not sure where you get this from, since X and kde/gnome aren't IN a stage-3 tarball. As I stated before, iterative testing with several binary distros and a stage-3 gentoo on this here laptop have shown that, even starting with stage-3, gentoo is faster and more efficient. -- John Jolet Your On-Demand IT Department 512-762-0729 www.jolet.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
Neil Bothwick schreef: On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:58:19 -0400, Mark Shields wrote: // start quote Building the System To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. // end quote So you see, it does tell you to do an emerge --emptytree system, When BUILDING THE SYSTEM. This thread was all about rebuilding the system, which is a completely different, and usually unnecessary, process. No, Neil, this thread (or the original issue, at least), is occurring during the initial install process: Hi list, as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning). ... because he's following the (old?) Handbook, which does say to use --emptytree, although we don't quite know why. But Frank also says: I'd be glad for every hint. Waiting for fixage isn't an option. So possibly we might consider using our expertise to actually help the guy, in case anyone might happen to know why he's getting this breakage during his inital installation, rather than arguing about whether he should be using --emptytree or not, especially since-- as the system is not yet installed, it doesn't matter if it's explicitly stated or not, because he's essentially doing an emptytree-- *not* doing an emerge -e is not likely to solve/mitigate the issue, which is apparently that automake is trying to install before its dependency (autoconf), for unknown reasons. Holly -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
Starting from stage 1 2 allows you to build a box customized from the ground up optimized for your hardware (assuming you've set the cflags correctly before beginning). IMHO, stage 3 is for those that don't want to take the lengthy build time for some of the larger packages, i.e. X and kde/gnome, in order to have a basic working gentoo system in a short timeframe. I'm not sure where you get this from, since X and kde/gnome aren't IN a stage-3 tarball. Oops, my bad. Shows how many stage-3 installs I've done ;-) As I stated before, iterative testing with several binary distros and a stage-3 gentoo on this here laptop have shown that, even starting with stage-3, gentoo is faster and more efficient. I wasn't questioning whether gentoo would be faster and/or more efficient than the other binary distros. My point was that, for the most part, saying start with stage 3 is like saying use a binary distrib. With stage 3 you're starting with precompiled binaries that are built targeting someone else's hardware, not your own. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
Dave Nebinger wrote: A stage3 install has most of the benefits of a stage1 or stage2. Portage gives you the ability to rebuild *every* single package if you choose. And like the binary distributions, it's targeted towards the generic 386, not the pentium class machines we're all using (at least it was the last time I checked, but it might have changed since then). Actually, the catalyst documentation states that an x86 stage1 is supposed to be targeted towards the generic 386. This makes it possible to derive more specialized stages (stage2 and stage3) from it. Normally, there is a specialized stage3 hosted on the mirrors for each major subarch (586, 686, athon, etc...). So, like I said, it is just like using another binary distribution. Portage gives you the ability to rebuild *every* single package in a more flexible way than any binary distribution that I know of. And if you use a stage 3 and rebuild every package, it's not that different than starting from a stage 1 or 2, is it? Except that a stage3 is less error prone. Zac -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:30:45 -0400, Dave Nebinger wrote: And if you use a stage 3 and rebuild every package, it's not that different than starting from a stage 1 or 2, is it? There's one major difference, the system is available for use in around an hour. Rebuilding after the system is working means you can still get on with using the computer at the same time. -- Neil Bothwick No maintenance: Impossible to fix. pgpBoWMZhiI5Y.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:15:46 -0500, John Jolet wrote: IMHO, stage 3 is for those that don't want to take the lengthy build time for some of the larger packages, i.e. X and kde/gnome, in order to have a basic working gentoo system in a short timeframe. I'm not sure where you get this from, since X and kde/gnome aren't IN a stage-3 tarball. No, but they are on the GRP package CDs that accompany each release. -- Neil Bothwick Tribble math: * + * = *** pgpDtlIfaKe8M.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:16:23 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote: No, Neil, this thread (or the original issue, at least), is occurring during the initial install process: Whoops, my mistake. This comes up so often it's easy to get the threads muddled up :( So possibly we might consider using our expertise to actually help the guy, in case anyone might happen to know why he's getting this breakage during his inital installation, rather than arguing about whether he should be using --emptytree or not, Hasn't this already been covered early in the thread? Run fix_libtool.sh to fix the error then do emerge --resume to carry on. -- Neil Bothwick If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you. pgp4AZzHfkZPV.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sunday 11 September 2005 16:57, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:15:46 -0500, John Jolet wrote: IMHO, stage 3 is for those that don't want to take the lengthy build time for some of the larger packages, i.e. X and kde/gnome, in order to have a basic working gentoo system in a short timeframe. I'm not sure where you get this from, since X and kde/gnome aren't IN a stage-3 tarball. No, but they are on the GRP package CDs that accompany each release. yes, but there's no requirement to use grp packages with a stage-3. -- John Jolet Your On-Demand IT Department 512-762-0729 www.jolet.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:12:51 +0200 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: On Sunday 11 September 2005 18:58, Mark Shields wrote: From http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1chap=6: // start quote Building the System To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. Then go do something to keep your mind busy, because this step takes a long time to complete. Code Listing 22: Building the System # emerge --emptytree system Again, if you haven't touched the default CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS setting, using --newuse is sufficient. // end quote So you see, it does tell you to do an emerge --emptytree system, unless you haven't changed the defalt CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS, in which case you can just use the --newuse in place of --emptytree. and this one: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/2005.1/handbook-x86.xml?full=1 does not talk about --emptytree at all, so which one is correct? (btw, when I installed my gentoo --emptytree was totally not needed.) Well it seems to me that doc does not deal with a stage 1 or stage 2 install, I haven't read every word, but I can't find any reference to bootstrap. So its irrelevant. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list -- Nick Rout [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:15:58 +0100 Neil Bothwick wrote: No, but they are on the GRP package CDs that accompany each release. yes, but there's no requirement to use grp packages with a stage-3. There is if you're using stage 3 as quoted above. what have you been smoking Neil? A stage 3 install just means you have a biggish tarball at the start and it installs a very basic working system ready to comile on. You still do your own kernel and you can EITHER use GRP packages OR compile them yourself. Soem people prefer to use GRP and stage 3 to get a working system and then add or change packages later. At least they then have a gui and can read their email and peruse bugzilla/forums/wiki (OK I know you can do all those things in a console too) You can also use the GRP packages if you started from stage 1. They are simply pre-compiled with a pre-defined set of USE flags, and a set of CFLAGS for their architecture. -- Nick Rout [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:45:26 +0100 Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:58:19 -0400, Mark Shields wrote: // start quote Building the System To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. // end quote So you see, it does tell you to do an emerge --emptytree system, When BUILDING THE SYSTEM. This thread was all about rebuilding the system, which is a completely different, and usually unnecessary, process. No its not, do I have to quote the original poster: quote Hi list, as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning). /quote -- Neil Bothwick Ralph's Observation - It is a mistake to allow any mechanical object to realize that you are in a hurry. -- Nick Rout [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sunday 11 September 2005 18:15, Neil Bothwick wrote: yes, but there's no requirement to use grp packages with a stage-3. There is if you're using stage 3 as quoted above. No, there isn't. This laptop was built with a stage 3 tarball, everything else was compiled from source. I know because I watched kde build for 16 hours. -- John Jolet Your On-Demand IT Department 512-762-0729 www.jolet.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
[gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
... or which distribution to install during less than 4 days? Hi list, as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning). When I returned home from work I found in the logs, that ``emerge --emptytree system'' failed at package 28 of 186 python-fcksum-1.7.1 i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc bla...bla ^ | +- ! gcc-config error: could not run/locate i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc My architecture is i686 and it seems that 27 packages before python-fchksum found the i686(that's SIX-eight-six)-pc-linux-gnu-gcc. Could be my fault. I had set up ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~x86. Today in the morning I started up from scratch. That's about an hour of editing files, making file systems and so on, 1,5 hours of bootstrap.sh. ``emerge -p --emptytree system'' showed me, that it will install python-fchksum with the ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=x86 too. So far, so good. Yesterday I got a portage snapshot 20050907, today I got a portage snapshot 20050908. Maybe the bug is fixed. So I started emerge system. At least it didn't install two versions of gcc. That saved some time. It ran 2,5 hours and ... ... kabom ... Unfortunately I can't tell you if the python-fchksum failure has gone away. I didn't reach this ebuild :( automake-1.25-r3 autoconf-2.58 or better is required That's package 24 of 186 (or so). Why the hell do we try to install x versions of autoconf and automake? So my presumption for the time demand of a Gentoo installation looks like this. A breakage will occure every 15'th package (2 breakages during the first 30 within 2 days). That makes 15 days for a package amount something below 200. (BTW that's the time it took me to build a full featured LFS system.) New bugs will occur (I'm seeing this on this list emerge -u world broke this_and_tahat_or_something_else posts, and that for I left gentoo a year ago.). If bugs are removed twice as quick as new ones arise I'll need about ONE MONTH () to get a running system. This breaks even the time demand of installation AND configuration of a 4 node IBM AIX HCMP cluster! So which distribution would you suggest me to install during less than 4 days? I'm wondering about Slackware. I've set up my USE flags to everything I'll want from the final system. There is a DVD burner so I included everything regarding to CD/DVD, all af the audio and video codecs, disabled kde and gnome (I'll never use this), enabled emacs (my favorite editor), bash-completion, xaw3d, all of the image formats and xinerama, disabled emboss (I don't have a clue why THIS is a default). There is a sound card so I enabled all audio related flags. I plan to install Oracle 9i on this machine, thus I enabled oracle. Should I start to only disable the things I won't need for the ``emerge --emptytree sysrem'' and re-edit the USE flags afterward? Hmmm... this probably doesn't solve the automake problem and disabling python to solve the python-fchksum problem IMHO isn't a good idea because emerge and thus gentoo itself is python based. I'd be glad for every hint. Waiting for fixage isn't an option. Regards Frank -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
When I returned home from work I found in the logs, that ``emerge --emptytree system'' failed at package 28 of 186 python-fcksum-1.7.1 i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc bla...bla ^ | +- ! gcc-config error: could not run/locate i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc My guess is that during the -emptytree system emergence that gcc was built to target your system. Sometimes when this happens the internal build system gets a little confused when it is time to switch over, but this is easily resolved by running the fix_libtool_files.sh script in /sbin. You would need to do this when you get errors similar to that listed above. The good news is that you'll only need to do this during the beginning when the system is being built from scratch; once you're up and running you normally won't need to do this again. automake-1.25-r3 autoconf-2.58 or better is required Why the hell do we try to install x versions of autoconf and automake? Because packages have individual automake/autoconf version requirements. Each automake/autoconf is slotted, they don't take up much disk, and they're good to have around for a successful emerge. So my presumption for the time demand of a Gentoo installation looks like this. A breakage will occure every 15'th package (2 breakages during the first 30 within 2 days). That's an analysis based upon two initial emptytree emerges. I would expect that for the 200 package estimate that you're using you will probably encounter a total of 4 breaks (I think that's what I had, it was so long ago, but there was one fix_libtool_files.sh run and a couple of changes to /etc/portage/package.keywords to enable ~x86 versions of a few packages where I needed a later version). Completing an install in 4 days will not be a problem if you have the time to check on the emerge process every now and then and resolve the minor problems that crop up. So which distribution would you suggest me to install during less than 4 days? I'm wondering about Slackware. You can still stick with gentoo ;-) If you don't have the time to watch over the stage 1 build process, you can jump straight to a stage 3 then update packages from there. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 14:37 -0400, Dave Nebinger wrote: When I returned home from work I found in the logs, that ``emerge --emptytree system'' failed at package 28 of 186 python-fcksum-1.7.1 i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc bla...bla ^ | +- ! gcc-config error: could not run/locate i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc My guess is that during the -emptytree system emergence that gcc was built to target your system. Sometimes when this happens the internal build system gets a little confused when it is time to switch over, but this is easily resolved by running the fix_libtool_files.sh script in /sbin. You would need to do this when you get errors similar to that listed above. The good news is that you'll only need to do this during the beginning when the system is being built from scratch; once you're up and running you normally won't need to do this again. I don't get You at this point. I'll have to start ''emerge --emptytree system'', wait until it crashes, run ''fix_libtool_files.sh'' and run ''emerge --emptytree system'' ones more, hoping that it won't crash this time? Or should I go to a second virtual console, chroot there too, wait until gcc was built on the first console and run ''fix_libtool_files.sh'' from there? ''emerge system'' builds glibc, gcc, gcc-config (yes there is Switching native compiler to i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.3.6 in the log) and then the packages for which the build crashes. How can I run ''fix_libtool_files.sh'' between ONE COMMAND?? automake-1.25-r3 autoconf-2.58 or better is required Why the hell do we try to install x versions of autoconf and automake? Because packages have individual automake/autoconf version requirements. Each automake/autoconf is slotted, they don't take up much disk, and they're good to have around for a successful emerge. So my presumption for the time demand of a Gentoo installation looks like this. A breakage will occure every 15'th package (2 breakages during the first 30 within 2 days). That's an analysis based upon two initial emptytree emerges. I would expect that for the 200 package estimate that you're using you will probably encounter a total of 4 breaks (I think that's what I had, it was so long ago, but there was one fix_libtool_files.sh run and a couple of changes to /etc/portage/package.keywords to enable ~x86 versions of a few packages where I needed a later version). Completing an install in 4 days will not be a problem if you have the time to check on the emerge process every now and then and resolve the minor problems that crop up. So which distribution would you suggest me to install during less than 4 days? I'm wondering about Slackware. You can still stick with gentoo ;-) If you don't have the time to watch over the stage 1 build process, you can jump straight to a stage 3 then update packages from there. Well, that's the same ads installing Fedora (within 2 hours). -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
If you don't have the time to watch over the stage 1 build process, you can jump straight to a stage 3 then update packages from there. Well, that's the same ads installing Fedora (within 2 hours). With respect, that is NOT the same as installing fedora. This laptop has had fedora, suse, mandrake(then mandriva), and now gentoo. With all but gentoo, in kde, my memory was at 95% utilized, and swap at 10%. With gentoo, in kde, memory is 46% free and swap 100% free. The system runs faster, boots faster, and shuts down faster. I used stage 3 install and built kde with emerge kde-meta (okay, so THAT took 16 hours). Even starting with a stage 3, this is a better, more responsive system. And since I built the kernel from source to start with, patching it is easier. Not saying you shouldn't expect a stage 1 install to work, but even with a stage 3, there's no comparison. -- John Jolet Your On-Demand IT Department 512-762-0729 www.jolet.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 14:26 -0500, John Jolet wrote: If you don't have the time to watch over the stage 1 build process, you can jump straight to a stage 3 then update packages from there. Well, that's the same ads installing Fedora (within 2 hours). With respect, that is NOT the same as installing fedora. This laptop has had fedora, suse, mandrake(then mandriva), and now gentoo. With all but gentoo, in kde, my memory was at 95% utilized, and swap at 10%. With gentoo, in kde, memory is 46% free and swap 100% free. The system runs faster, boots faster, and shuts down faster. I used stage 3 install and built kde with emerge kde-meta (okay, so THAT took 16 hours). Even starting with a stage 3, this is a better, more responsive system. And since I built the kernel from source to start with, patching it is easier. Not saying you shouldn't expect a stage 1 install to work, but even with a stage 3, there's no comparison. -- John Jolet Your On-Demand IT Department 512-762-0729 www.jolet.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... what don't solve the problem. I've filed a bug, which returned as RESOLVED because duplicate. Well the duplicate was python-fchksum related but described something totally different. All I want is to Install Gentoo, ... and that crashed two times within two days within one command. I CANT RUN fix_libtool_files.sh BETWEEN ONE COMMAND!!! Even Ubuntu - Linux for human beings, the system I'm writing this email from and for which I recognized that # alias HUMAN_BEING='BFU' is better than Gentoo just now, ... because it's installable. :( -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
I don't get You at this point. I'll have to start ''emerge --emptytree system'', wait until it crashes, run ''fix_libtool_files.sh'' and run ''emerge --emptytree system'' ones more, hoping that it won't crash this time? No, after the fix_libtool_files.sh run, you do the emerge --resume to have it pick up where it left off. So which distribution would you suggest me to install during less than 4 days? I'm wondering about Slackware. You can still stick with gentoo ;-) If you don't have the time to watch over the stage 1 build process, you can jump straight to a stage 3 then update packages from there. Well, that's the same ads installing Fedora (within 2 hours). We as a community do not like to see people abandoning Gentoo for the likes of fedora or slack. That said, there are folks for whom the binary distributions are more appropriate than gentoo. You will lose the fine-grained control over the packages that are installed as well as an in-depth understanding of what linux actually is, and you'll also be tied to their release cycles, etc. Gentoo just seems daunting to the uninitiated; once you get the feel for the tools and with the full backing of the community, I think you would find gentoo is just what you're looking for. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On 9/10/05, Frank Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... or which distribution to install during less than 4 days? Hi list, as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning). When I returned home from work I found in the logs, that ``emerge --emptytree system'' failed at package 28 of 186 python-fcksum-1.7.1 i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc bla...bla ^ | +- ! gcc-config error: could not run/locate i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc My architecture is i686 and it seems that 27 packages before python-fchksum found the i686(that's SIX-eight-six)-pc-linux-gnu-gcc. Could be my fault. I had set up ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~x86. That's the first problem. Unless you want to deal with explosions, don't set your entire system to be unstable. That's a recipe for problems. Leave the global setting at stable. Then, if you need an unstable version use /etc/portage/package.keywords to set ~x86 for just the package you want to install. Today in the morning I started up from scratch. That's about an hour of editing files, making file systems and so on, 1,5 hours of bootstrap.sh. ``emerge -p --emptytree system'' showed me, that it will install python-fchksum with the ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=x86 too. So far, so good. Yesterday I got a portage snapshot 20050907, today I got a portage snapshot 20050908. Maybe the bug is fixed. So I started emerge system. At least it didn't install two versions of gcc. That saved some time. It ran 2,5 hours and ... ... kabom ... Unfortunately I can't tell you if the python-fchksum failure has gone away. I didn't reach this ebuild :( I suggest starting from a stage3 build. I've installed many stage 3 builds and it nearly always works with no breakage. Once your minimal system up and running (always go for minimal on the initial emerge, then boot into your system, then emerge more) then you can easily do an emptytree emerge to re-build thingsif you *really* want to. I'm of the mind that starting with stage3 is perfectly fine. Eventually all of those packages will be updated and recompiled, so there's really no reason to do it manually right at the beginning. One more thing. What optimization setting(s) are you using? -- Justin Patrin -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 12:42 -0700, Justin Patrin wrote: On 9/10/05, Frank Schafer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ... or which distribution to install during less than 4 days? Hi list, as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning). When I returned home from work I found in the logs, that ``emerge --emptytree system'' failed at package 28 of 186 python-fcksum-1.7.1 i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc bla...bla ^ | +- ! gcc-config error: could not run/locate i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc My architecture is i686 and it seems that 27 packages before python-fchksum found the i686(that's SIX-eight-six)-pc-linux-gnu-gcc. Could be my fault. I had set up ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~x86. That's the first problem. Unless you want to deal with explosions, don't set your entire system to be unstable. That's a recipe for problems. Leave the global setting at stable. Then, if you need an unstable version use /etc/portage/package.keywords to set ~x86 for just the package you want to install. Today in the morning I started up from scratch. That's about an hour of editing files, making file systems and so on, 1,5 hours of bootstrap.sh. ``emerge -p --emptytree system'' showed me, that it will install python-fchksum with the ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=x86 too. So far, so good. Yesterday I got a portage snapshot 20050907, today I got a portage snapshot 20050908. Maybe the bug is fixed. So I started emerge system. At least it didn't install two versions of gcc. That saved some time. It ran 2,5 hours and ... ... kabom ... Unfortunately I can't tell you if the python-fchksum failure has gone away. I didn't reach this ebuild :( I suggest starting from a stage3 build. I've installed many stage 3 builds and it nearly always works with no breakage. Once your minimal system up and running (always go for minimal on the initial emerge, then boot into your system, then emerge more) then you can easily do an emptytree emerge to re-build thingsif you *really* want to. I'm of the mind that starting with stage3 is perfectly fine. Eventually all of those packages will be updated and recompiled, so there's really no reason to do it manually right at the beginning. One more thing. What optimization setting(s) are you using? -- Justin Patrin Thanks CFLAGS=-O2 -march=pentuim2 But all the way, that emerge builds a package which requires another which isn't installed - this IS a bug (the autoconf via automake problem). -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 15:39 -0400, Dave Nebinger wrote: I don't get You at this point. I'll have to start ''emerge --emptytree system'', wait until it crashes, run ''fix_libtool_files.sh'' and run ''emerge --emptytree system'' ones more, hoping that it won't crash this time? No, after the fix_libtool_files.sh run, you do the emerge --resume to have it pick up where it left off. OK, I'll try this if I need it. For now I'm at a point where THIS probably doesn't help. (Building automake requires an autoconf which isn't installed.) So which distribution would you suggest me to install during less than 4 days? I'm wondering about Slackware. You can still stick with gentoo ;-) If you don't have the time to watch over the stage 1 build process, you can jump straight to a stage 3 then update packages from there. Well, that's the same ads installing Fedora (within 2 hours). We as a community do not like to see people abandoning Gentoo for the likes of fedora or slack. That said, there are folks for whom the binary distributions are more appropriate than gentoo. You will lose the fine-grained control over the packages that are installed as well as an in-depth understanding of what linux actually is, and you'll also be tied to their release cycles, etc. Gentoo just seems daunting to the uninitiated; once you get the feel for the tools and with the full backing of the community, I think you would find gentoo is just what you're looking for. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Fri, 01 Jan 1988 00:18:00 +0100, Frank Schafer wrote: The good news is that you'll only need to do this during the beginning when the system is being built from scratch; once you're up and running you normally won't need to do this again. I don't get You at this point. I'll have to start ''emerge --emptytree system'', wait until it crashes, run ''fix_libtool_files.sh'' and run ''emerge --emptytree system'' ones more, hoping that it won't crash this emerge --resume will restart with the package that failed previously. You don't need to start over each time. -- Neil Bothwick Your lack of organisation does not represent an emergency in my world. pgpQL3joTt6Sz.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:37:22 -0400, Dave Nebinger wrote: If you don't have the time to watch over the stage 1 build process, you can jump straight to a stage 3 then update packages from there. That's exactly what I did with my laptop. It arrived at 1pm and I needed it fully functional for the next morning, so I did a Stage 3 install in a little over an hour (including compiling the kernel). I then emerged KDE and some other essentials from a package CD and it was fine. When I had time, I set ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~ppc, fiddled with my USE flags and did update -uavDN world, which recompiled just about everything, giving me the same as if I'd done stage 1 to start with, except I had a usable computer in far less time. -- Neil Bothwick If a stealth bomber crashes in a forest, will it make a sound? pgpKP8gHkEAWa.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
On Saturday 10 September 2005 20:09, Frank Schafer wrote: ... or which distribution to install during less than 4 days? Hi list, as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning). where did you get the idea that --emptytree is needed or even a wise decision? --emptytree is almost NEVER needed and since it is a troublesom procedure, it should not be made, until you are totally sure, that you need it. emerge system is all you need to do, to get the base system. After that, emerge what you like to have, but NEVER use --emptytree, except when you are able to deal with the consequences. Obviously you are not, so do not do it. NO was that clear enough? For your gcc-problem, there is the fix script, others mentioned - but a lot of times all that is needed is to run gcc-config to set the correct gcc. -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?
Frank Schafer wrote: is better than Gentoo just now, ... because it's installable. I'd recommend a stage3 install. The lower stages are intended more as a means to create a stage3 than for anything else. Zac -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
