On Friday 27 January 2006 16:32, MIkey wrote:
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Would you mind sharing the useflags you mean, and which packages you want
to build? It might be bugs in the packages involved.
My standard USE flags for building a lamp server. No X, no cruft.
USE=-X -alsa -apm -arts
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Would you mind sharing the useflags you mean, and which packages you want
to build? It might be bugs in the packages involved.
My standard USE flags for building a lamp server. No X, no cruft.
USE=-X -alsa -apm -arts -avi -cups -doc -eds -emboss -gnome -gpm -gstreamer
Mike Frysinger wrote:
Why should system packages (determined by your profile) be present in the
official stage1/3 tarballs?
do you even realize what you're asking ?
-mike
Duh, let me clarify that:
Why should system packages (determined by your profile) be present in the
world file on
Wernfried Haas wrote:
You already complained about that on the forums [1] in a rather
similar thread and yet you still haven't filed a bug report about
Why I explained a couple of posts further down. I could not duplicate the
problem either, I think it went away in 3.4.4-r1. I don't like
Dale wrote:
I thought that if you chose to do a stage 1 install you were on your
own. That was my understanding. If that is true, he is getting support
for something that is not supported, right?
I'm not asking for support, I'm giving it.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 1/26/06, MIkey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Dale wrote:
I'm not asking for support, I'm giving it.
are you still freaking writing? you have proven yourself ignorant in
at least a dozen emails so far. you don't understand portage. you
don't understand system. you don't understand how to read.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
MIkey wrote:
As for the stage 1 problems you described, this is exactly what i
already told you in the same thread. Supporting stage 1 costs extra
resources, this thread is a perfect example of it.
And this is the primary point I am arguing. I
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 10:42:04AM -0600, MIkey wrote:
Why I explained a couple of posts further down. I could not duplicate the
problem either, I think it went away in 3.4.4-r1. I don't like posting bug
reports that I can't duplicate and I prefer to be able to either post a
patch or suggest
Jan Kundrát wrote:
MIkey wrote:
A bug, again, that the stage1 installation method was immune to,
How come? (I'm not familiar with toolchain.eclass at all.)
Because the first pass of the bootstrap, that prepares a working gcc/glibc,
uses the bootstrap USE flag and disables all but a few
On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:06, MIkey wrote:
Why should system packages (determined by your profile) be present in the
world file on official stage1/3 tarballs?
whether they are in the world file itself doesnt really matter
the world target includes all the packages listed in the world file
MIkey wrote:
A bug, again, that the stage1 installation method was immune to,
How come? (I'm not familiar with toolchain.eclass at all.)
Because the first pass of the bootstrap, that prepares a working gcc/glibc,
uses the bootstrap USE flag and disables all but a few other basic USE
flags.
Stephen P. Becker wrote:
Which is precisely your problem. You are blindly eating your food
without contemplating the contents.
Perhaps I am just contemplating a little deeper than you are.
pre-existing install != installing from a fresh stage. First, running
bootstrap.sh with the new
MIkey wrote:
To further educate you, there was a bug shortly after the
release of 3.4.4 into stable that did, in fact, automatically switch you
over to the new gcc. It was in the toolchain eclass.
Great, there was a bug. Yeah, there was. Please notice the word was.
It means that it has been
13 matches
Mail list logo
