On Tuesday 29 November 2005 03:40, Mark Loeser wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
that means when people upgrade to gcc-3.4, gcc-3.3 will remain on their
system until they remove it
so if user fails to rebuild all their packages before unmerging gcc-3.3
they will be screwed,
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 03:40, Mark Loeser wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
that means when people upgrade to gcc-3.4, gcc-3.3 will remain on
their system until they remove it
so if user fails to rebuild all their packages before unmerging
gcc-3.3 they will be screwed,
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 09:51, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
Every user _must_ be instructed to run
'revdep-rebuild --soname libstdc++.so.5',
if a system contains things linking to libstdc++.so.5 and things
linking to libstdc++.so.6 I consider it horribly broken.
A system is only horribly broken
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is also needed for third party apps that were linked against
libstdc++.so.5. As long as those applications do not depend on other
libraries that are linked against a newer c++ lib things are totally ok.
But unfortunately is does happen. For
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 10:53, Graham Murray wrote:
Paul de Vrieze [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
It is also needed for third party apps that were linked against
libstdc++.so.5. As long as those applications do not depend on other
libraries that are linked against a newer c++ lib things are
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 09:22:33AM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably
going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon. If any of the
archs that have already done the move from having 3.3 stable to 3.4 could
give us a
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 12:18, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
gcc-3.4 during `emerge -e world`) will fail to load because of
Why should one do that? It's not needed. But of course recompiling the
kernel and external modules at some point makes sense.
Paul
--
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Henrik Brix Andersen [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
We will also need to instruct users to recompile their kernel with
gcc-3.4 otherwise the external modules (which will be recompiled with
gcc-3.4 during `emerge -e world`) will fail to load because of
vermagic mismatch.
This assumes that they do an
Speaking as a user who upgraded from 3.3.x to 3.4.x a loong lng
time ago and also as a forum mod who sees questins about this on a daily
basis:
Users are more or less aware that they will have to rebuild the entire
world including the kernel when they upgrade gcc. If they aren't
As a user who has done this on a number of systems - its no sweat.
Also, check some of the older guides for upgrading from gcc-2.95 to 3,
and 3.0 to 3.1 - should still be around somewhere. Its been done
before, more than once - ask some of the older devs whove been around
since the early
Hi all,
little question (that could start up a flame): what's the official status
of /usr/libexec directory?
I was told on IRC time ago to prefer /usr/$(get_libdir)/misc to libexec
because that's already ABI-specified... but I'm not really sure.
/usr/libexec is already used by many upstream
Henrik Brix Andersen posted [EMAIL PROTECTED],
excerpted below, on Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:48:01 +0100:
So I fired up a web browser and there it was - first section in the GWN
[1]. Seems the GWN authors have read my blog entry [2] and decided to
bring their own version of it to the public.
*
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:51 +0100, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 03:40, Mark Loeser wrote:
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
that means when people upgrade to gcc-3.4, gcc-3.3 will remain on their
system until they remove it
so if user fails to rebuild all
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
what's the official status of /usr/libexec directory?
there is none afaik ... it's something we've been leaving alone for
the time being because it hasnt been that critical of an issue
personally, i'd prefer if we moved
On Monday 28 November 2005 14:22, Mark Loeser wrote:
This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably
going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon. If any of the
archs that have already done the move from having 3.3 stable to 3.4 could
give us a heads
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 09:50:34AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:51 +0100, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
Every user _must_ be instructed to run
'revdep-rebuild --soname libstdc++.so.5',
if a system contains things linking to libstdc++.so.5 and things linking to
On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 14:53 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
what's the official status of /usr/libexec directory?
personally, i'd prefer if we moved all of /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/misc
Why move the libexec content to
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:18:05AM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote:
On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 14:53 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
what's the official status of /usr/libexec directory?
personally, i'd prefer if we moved all
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:27:10 +
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i know they are executables, that's why we're talking about a
specific subdir of lib
libexec clutters /usr while /usr/lib/misc hides it nicely ...
afterall, this are internal binaries that end user should never
run
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:01 +, Mike Williams wrote:
On Monday 28 November 2005 14:22, Mark Loeser wrote:
This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably
going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon. If any of the
archs that have already done the
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:03 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 09:50:34AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:51 +0100, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
Every user _must_ be instructed to run
'revdep-rebuild --soname libstdc++.so.5',
if a system contains
On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 15:27 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:18:05AM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote:
On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 14:53 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
what's the official status of
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 08:21:51AM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
This assumes that they do an `emerge -e world'.
Well, the same problem will arise should they upgrade their gcc and
install a new external kernel module (with or without `emerge -e
world`).
Regards,
Brix
--
Henrik Brix Andersen
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 10:42 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:03 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 09:50:34AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:51 +0100, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
Every user _must_ be instructed to run
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:52:11AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/gconfbe1.uno.so (requires
libORBit-2.so.0 libgconf-2.so.4)
binary packages should never be in /usr/
Is /opt ignored?
yes, because our policy specifically says binary packages in /opt
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 04:41:20PM +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:27:10 +
Mike Frysinger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
i know they are executables, that's why we're talking about a
specific subdir of lib
libexec clutters /usr while /usr/lib/misc hides
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:48:10AM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote:
On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 15:27 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:18:05AM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote:
On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 14:53 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Diego
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 08:50 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote:
Doing it from the outset will save the forums and bugs a lot of stress
and heartache that could have been easily avoided.
Don't forget the #gentoo channel. I meant to comment on this about the
stage 1/2 thing but never did. I'm not
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 16:04 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:52:11AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/gconfbe1.uno.so (requires
libORBit-2.so.0 libgconf-2.so.4)
binary packages should never be in /usr/
Is /opt ignored?
yes,
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:23:54 +0100 Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
| little question (that could start up a flame): what's the official
| status of /usr/libexec directory?
libexec for stuff that's run is far tidier than weird subdirectories
in /usr/lib*. Those old people with
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 18:37 +0100, Andreas Proschofsky wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 16:04 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:52:11AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/gconfbe1.uno.so (requires
libORBit-2.so.0 libgconf-2.so.4)
Hi,
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 09:16 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I'd like to add the apache2 USE flag to 2006.0's profile. This would
not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it by default.
With apache being such a popular package, having it fail from a default
stage3
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 23:39:17 +0100, Michael Cummings wrote:
Tom Martin[EMAIL PROTECTED] said:
... and he
participated in the Google Summer of Code in writing a generational
garbage collector, GMC, for the Perl 6 VM (http://www.parrotcode.org).
Sweet! Does this mean he can
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 23:19 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 09:16 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I'd like to add the apache2 USE flag to 2006.0's profile. This would
not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it by default.
With apache being such a
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I'd like to add the apache2 USE flag to 2006.0's profile. This would
not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it by default.
With apache being such a popular package, having it fail from a default
stage3 installation reflects poorly on us all. If I
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 16:34 -0800, Michael Stewart (vericgar) wrote:
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
I'd like to add the apache2 USE flag to 2006.0's profile. This would
not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it by default.
With apache being such a popular package, having it
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:01 +, Mike Williams wrote:
On Monday 28 November 2005 14:22, Mark Loeser wrote:
This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably
going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon. If any of the
On Monday 28 November 2005 22:37, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 21:53 +0100, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
Hi!
If nobody objects I will add DVB_CARDS to USE_EXAPAND on next saturday
(2005/12/03).
This will be used to decide which firmware-file to download and install
38 matches
Mail list logo
