Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
> skype, blackdown-jdk, rar, opera, openoffice-bin, they are all stripped by
> upstream, but passes through portage's prepstrip, so they get stripped
> again and the missing debug info is tried to be copied in /usr/lib/debug.
Might want to skip stripping gentoo-s
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Take a look at the options offered by a custom /etc/portage/bashrc. One
> can do almost anything there. You can have it read in configuration files
> and whatever. The documentation is kindof lacking, but most portage
> features could actually be removed in favour of a cust
Ferris McCormick wrote:
> I hesitate to raise my head again, but why not use
> FEATURES='-noman' emerge ...
>
> (FEATURES='-noman -noinfo -nodoc' USE='doc' emerge ...
> for that matter.)?
>
> I use that sort of thing for, say,
> FEATURES='-distcc ccache' MAKEOPTS='-j2'emerge ...
> on some specif
Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> Heh heh, same place as FEATURES="noinfo noman nodoc" ;)
>
> not really ... those are documented in make.conf
> -mike
I have a nasty habit of always looking at make.conf.example instead of the
man page. Plus, er, uh, I used FEATURES="noman" ;) Yeah, thats my story
and I
Mike Frysinger wrote:
>> > Then you should use INSTALL_MASK, not a USE flag.
>>
>> Please excuse my ignorance, but where is INSTALL_MASK documented?
>
> nowhere of consequence
> -mike
Heh heh, same place as FEATURES="noinfo noman nodoc" ;)
Let me ask it this way.
Please excuse my ignorance, bu
Ferris McCormick wrote:
> I misinterpreted what you wrote. I thought you meant "physically included
> in the package," not "installed from a binary package." I just completely
> read what looks like a reasonable request and turned it into nonsense
> without thinking about it, I guess.
I am not
Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 12:04:11 -0600 MIkey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> | At my job we aim to eventually rid ourselves completely of MS
> | products on several thousand (local and remote) desktops and replace
> | them with some sort of thin linux client
Ferris McCormick wrote:
>> I
>> would also like to have them excluded from binary packages.
>>
>
> That can't be right can it? You mean, like openoffice-bin, or like the
> ones you build yourself? I know that I often build on one system, install
> on several, and when I do that, I really want
Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Another point of view are servers, where there's simply no need to
> have docs installed on each and every box in a rack. There's no need
> to install what a user doesn't need, and having doc and example USE
> flags more widely supported means that Gentoo does a better job
I am contemplating the migration of all of my source code management from a
hacked up in-house system to subversion. I currently use overlays to house
ebuilds and install the actual packages on my target systems.
Instead of re-inventing the wheel, I would like to implement as much as
possible
On Saturday 28 January 2006 12:39, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> > On second thought, never mind :) I am not sure what you are trying to
> > point out here in the first place.
>
> He is trying (quite successfully) to show that you are full of shit.
In this particular case, I might have to agree wit
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Using this flags on a freshly compiled stage3 (from a stage1, just running
> emerge system without setting useflags) I get no blockers at all, when
> setting the useflags at the point that system has been recompiled.
>
> Depclean does suggest removing a number of packages
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> Using this flags on a freshly compiled stage3 (from a stage1, just running
> emerge system without setting useflags) I get no blockers at all, when
> setting the useflags at the point that system has been recompiled.
Are you suggesting that on fresh installs, after editing
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
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> The ebuilds are not done in that way, the problem is portage's inability
> to handle this. There is no way ebuilds could solve this problem except
> not having the dependency. What is needed to solve it is merge perl
> without ssl support, merge openssl, merge perl with ssl
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> First of all, the object to be as fast as possible has been dropped as
> main gentoo goal years ago. Stage 3 is indeed based on an old base. It
> however starts you with a working system in which all assumptions made by
> ebuilds about the system are true. This means one sh
Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Great, there was a bug. Yeah, there was. Please notice the word "was".
> It means that it has been fixed and it isn't there anymore. So the
> problem got fixed. It's over. Finito. Period. Why are you still talking
> about it?
Because Becker needed to be informed about it. I
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 stage1 method bootstraps gcc/glibc and performs the minimum
steps neede
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 t
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> 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
>
>
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 di
Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Have you noticed that I'm the reporter of this bug? Just FYI, bug
> *wasn't* in the guide but in the underlying eclass/gcc-config causing
> automatic switch to newly installed GCC during pkg_postinst. Just by a
> coincidence the eclass was updated shortly after gcc/3.4 stabili
Wernfried Haas wrote:
> So you complain about a problem that is already fixed as if it still
> exists? I really don't get it.
That particular bug was fixed. Using a stage1/bootstrap approach for a
fresh install is a _method_ of installing gentoo that is immune to that
particular bug because it i
Alec Warner wrote:
> Maybe you think fixing a circular dep is easy, I know I do. But when
> Joe Shmoe think it's OMG U63r 1337 to install gentoo using a stage1
> because it makes his system so awesomely fast ( hence, The Conrad
> install on the forums, heh ;) ) and he has no ing clue how any
Wernfried Haas wrote:
> If compiling gcc once more is really such a waste of time, you should
> consider switching to a binary distribution. ;-)
It is not me claiming that using an installation method that compiles gcc
three times makes sense.
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Jan Kundrát wrote:
> As the person who did the fixes for most of the bugs reported against
> the GCC Upgrading Guide, I'd say that I'd remember about that "bug
> reports on upgrading gcc"... Could you please refresh my memory by
> providing bug numbers in Gentoo Bugzilla? Were such issues reported
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
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 po
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> The "way around this" would be to change bootstrap.sh back to building a
> minimal version of the current version that is then used to compile the
> rest of the system, including the C library and gcc itself. Between this
> however the original bootstrap compiler could be r
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 fil
On Thursday 26 January 2006 08:16, Mike Frysinger spammed:
> On Wednesday 25 January 2006 22:07, Mikey wrote:
> > On Wednesday 25 January 2006 20:53, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> > > Name one of those that isn't in 'system'.
> > >
> > > [EMAIL PR
On Thursday 26 January 2006 08:12, Chris Gianelloni spammed:
> Something else that *everybody* seems to be missing is that the *first*
> method in the GCC upgrading guide, which is the one that would apply
> from a fresh-installed system, seems to be completely overlooked by all
> the naysayers.
On Thursday 26 January 2006 08:06, Chris Gianelloni spammed:
> > The difference in doing from stage1 instead of stage3 is you don't have
> > to go through a gcc migration to prevent your build from being
> > unusable. You also go through 1 gcc upgrade (gcc 3.3.5 -> gcc 3.4.4),
> > not 3 (3.3.5 ->
On Thursday 26 January 2006 08:02, Chris Gianelloni spammed:
> >
> > RTFM - http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gcc-upgrading.xml
>
> Except that is for an *already installed* system.
>
> Again, you didn't take into account the simple thing called common
> sense. If you're already going to be doing an "e
On Thursday 26 January 2006 08:06, Chris Gianelloni spammed:
> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 20:23 -0600, Mikey wrote:
> > If you actually downloaded a "pristine" stage1 or a stage3 tarball you
> > might notice that there are, in fact, packages already present in
> > wor
On Thursday 26 January 2006 00:14, Homer Parker spammed:
> On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 21:06 -0600, Mikey wrote:
> > Solutions?
>
> And how many have you tested and submitted patches for? Instead of just
> complaining, be proactive and help with the problem you perceive is
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 20:53, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
> Name one of those that isn't in 'system'.
>
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~ $ emvp -e system | grep -e gzip -e linux-headers -e
> nano -e gettext -e glibc
> [ebuild N] sys-kernel/linux-headers-2.6.11-r3 0 kB
Your point? My point was that t
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 20:40, Sven Köhler wrote:
> Mike is telling me, that the 2006.0 tarballs will contain gcc-3.4.
> Then he's telling me, that the problem, that Im trying to point out, is
> going to vanish with the release of the 2006.0 tarballs. Well, yes,
> until the next gcc-slot beco
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 19:49, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> You aren't serious, are you? Did *you* read the fucking manual *and*
> comprehend it? Methinks not...upgrading from 3.3 to 3.4 in a
I didn't write the manual, so save your hubris for whoever did. I just
followed its instructions,
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 19:13, Stephen P. Becker wrote:
> Ahh, so you were the idiot that ran those tests. Congratulations...you
> needlessly did a --emptytree world after you had already done
> --emptrytree system in order to bloat your results.
RTFM - http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gcc-upgr
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 18:27, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> You didn't follow the Handbook. Your comments about compiling GCC 3
> times are completely unbased, since you ran not only an "emerge -e
> system" (which is recommended) but then immediately, and needlessly,
> followed it up with an "e
Jan Kundrát wrote:
> "What is most interesting to me about this discussion is the fact than
> no one has bothered to offer any facts to back up these assertions." --
> author should read any of the wolf31o2's mails about this subject.
I _have_ read his "mails" about it, had several exchanges with
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> You're reading it wrong. The bootstrap USE flag is set during
> bootstrap, not the build USE flag. This means libstdc++-v3 (or gcc 3.3)
> is required at the bootstrap level. The reason that libstdc++-v3
My mistake, it is just portage that gets that build flag during
b
Jan Kundrát wrote:
> Seems like a bit ranting to me. Why do you use unsupported installation
> method if you want it simple?
I don't know about Sven, but the reasons I prefer the "unsupported"
installation method is all outlined here:
http://badpenguins.com/gentoo-build-test/
--
gentoo-dev@gen
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Which you won't have to deal with for long, 2006.0 is being worked on as
> we speak. The basic jist of this is that what you are seeing is pretty
> much expected behavior for bootstrapping using a stage with an older
> GCC.
The way I read it, the gcc-3.4.4-r1.ebuild inc
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 10:38, Marius Mauch spammed:
> that sounds rather unlikely, if gcc-3.4 was installed `emerge -e system`
> would have rebuilt it, not the 3.3 version (unless there is a dep on
> <3.4 in system).
Does this have something to do with it?
gcc-3.4.4-r1.ebuild:
PDEPEND="||
Mike Frysinger wrote:
> note: for those who think they can argue for support of these features to
> be kept in Gentoo, you're barking up the wrong tree so dont waste your
> time -mike
So, um, when can we expect all hell to break loose? Just a quick check on
my laptop:
media-video/mjpegtools-1.8
47 matches
Mail list logo
