First, a huge thanks to Robin, who pythonized my bash scripts and
reduced the time of a run from more than an hour and a half to less than
30 minutes.
Yesterday's drop: 513 to 498, a change of 15 -- adequate, but should be
better.
Progress graph:
On 1/26/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yesterday's drop: 513 to 498, a change of 15 -- adequate, but should be
better.
Your previous status mail said 783. This would rather be a change of 285 :-)
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 1/26/06, Matthijs van der Vleuten [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1/26/06, Donnie Berkholz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yesterday's drop: 513 to 498, a change of 15 -- adequate, but should be
better.
Your previous status mail said 783. This would rather be a change of 285 :-)
I think you need
hi
how do I create a server owned directory with the webapp eclass?
If it is not possible, what is a workaround? I could do it with
chown apache:apache dir
but then it only works with the apache webserver. Any ideas?
thanks in advance
rene
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On 1/26/06, Mikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Your point? My point was that they don't belong there.
Are you saying glibc should not be in system?
Do you know what system is for?
--
Marcelo Góes
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 01:17, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 00:48, Stephen Bennett wrote:
We've discussed this several times in the past, and every time the
answer has been that in the ebuild environment `sed` is gnu sed-4. It's
the only sane way to do
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 10:22, Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 09:54, Grobian wrote:
It appears that some people
don't agree with you on changing the assumptions made in the current
portage tree.
I'm not going to ask for dropping the assumption, I'm just
On Thursday 26 January 2006 03:40, Sven Köhler 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:
I have no clue, what
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 06:06:02PM +0900, Jason Stubbs wrote:
On Wednesday 25 January 2006 17:43, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
Jason Stubbs wrote:
I'm not exactly sure what you mean by broken in the first paragraph nor
how a check can help with unmaintained (=no commits, no?) packages, but
I have no clue, what bootstrap.sh is for anymore.
For me, Installing gentoo was always like this:
Ok, let me remind all. Stage 1 is a minimal system that is mainly built
statically with the sole purpose of being suitable to build a working system
from. It contains a cripled compiler as
On Wed, 2006-01-25 at 19:32 -0600, Mikey wrote:
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
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 03:40 +0100, Sven Köhler wrote:
Pretty much work for a beginnner!
...and?
You're using a source-based distribution. It is not designed for the
beginner insomuch as you have to perform maintenance tasks that would
otherwise be unnecessary in a binary-only distribution.
On Thu, 2006-01-26 at 14:54 +0100, Sven Köhler wrote:
I think that i clearly explained several times, that bootstrap.sh
installs gcc 3.4 _without_ removing the crippled gcc 3.3 that came with
stage1.
You are absolutely correct. We will need to investigate the best
solution for this. The
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
there. If it's a viable
What eactly is your point? Of course they are.
On 1/26/06, Mikey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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
On Thursday 26 January 2006 08:54, Sven Köhler wrote:
Mike Frysinger is talking about choice and ignores me if i tell him,
that the emerge -e system uses the crippled gcc 3.3 for the first 10
packages until emerge -e system finally rebuilds gcc 3.3 (only due to
some sideeffects!!! namely the
On Thursday 26 January 2006 05:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Another candidate would be the strip binary which might be called
by certain makefiles instead of being portage controlled.
packages should never strip, only portage should
-mike
--
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list
Lina Pezzella wrote:
Many of you may have noticed that I have been rather inactive lately. I
had been hoping to become active again after the completion of my
thesis, but it seems that real life has made a bid for the time slot
I used to devote to Gentoo. I have enjoyed working with all
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 emerge -e
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 - 3.3.6 -
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 10:42, Mikey wrote:
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 PROTECTED] ~ $
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 11:10:04AM +0100, Rene Zbinden wrote:
how do I create a server owned directory with the webapp eclass?
use webapp_serverowned. See
http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/webapps/webapp-eclass.xml
--
Renat Lumpau
all things web-apps
GPG key id #C6A838DA on http://pgp.mit.edu
Key
On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:51, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 26 January 2006 05:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Another candidate would be the strip binary which might be called
by certain makefiles instead of being portage controlled.
packages should never strip, only portage should
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
On Thursday 26 January 2006 16:34, Mikey wrote:
You guys have made the decision to stop supporting stage1 installs. The
official installation method is a stage3. What I documented, and tested,
is what you are telling users they have to do. Download stage3, emerge
--sync, update system.
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 09:34:51AM -0600, Mikey wrote:
The only problem is that you don't actually tell the users what to do when
there are major issues, such as gcc upgrades. There is no link in the
handbook or the gentoo documentation page mentioning the fact that they
can't just upgrade
Wernfried Haas 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.
cheers,
Wernfried
I thought that if you chose to do a stage 1 install you
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
On Thu, Jan 26, 2006 at 10:17:54AM -0600, MIkey wrote:
Another small fact has been glossed over. The stage3 method first upgrades
gcc-3.3.5 to gcc-3.3.6, then gcc-3.4.4.
While i can't imagine that, masking 3.3.6 for the time being should
help. And again, why don't you submit a bug report
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 to
MIkey wrote:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114341
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
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
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 of
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 is
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
MIkey wrote:
A bug, again, that the stage1 installation method was immune to,
How come? (I'm not familiar with toolchain.eclass at all.)
which is
the topic at hand. Not who reported what when. I found that bug when it
hit me and noticed that it had been reported. I thanked the Gods that
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
Mike Frysinger is talking about choice and ignores me if i tell him,
that the emerge -e system uses the crippled gcc 3.3 for the first 10
packages until emerge -e system finally rebuilds gcc 3.3 (only due to
some sideeffects!!! namely the dependy of gcc 3.4 on libstdc++-v3 OR gcc
3.3).
i
On Thursday 26 January 2006 13:23, Sven Köhler wrote:
Mike Frysinger is talking about choice and ignores me if i tell him,
that the emerge -e system uses the crippled gcc 3.3 for the first 10
packages until emerge -e system finally rebuilds gcc 3.3 (only due to
some sideeffects!!! namely
On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:16, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Thursday 26 January 2006 16:34, Mikey wrote:
And those instructions have nothing whatsoever to do with common sense
from a new, or even experienced users perspective. Knowing that a gcc
upgrade will break libtool is not common
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
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
the world target includes all the
On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:00, MIkey wrote:
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
On Thursday 26 January 2006 11:06, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:51, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 26 January 2006 05:43, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
Another candidate would be the strip binary which might be called
by certain makefiles instead of being portage
Mikey wrote:
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
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
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 needed to complete the subsequent emerge -e system. The
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 know
MIkey wrote:
Because the stage1 method bootstraps gcc/glibc and performs the minimum
steps needed to complete the subsequent emerge -e system. The dependencies
on having the old gcc still available are not there because the packages
have not been built yet. You can purge the old gcc
26.1.2006, 23:02:28, MIkey wrote:
You can purge the old gcc immediately after it upgrades instead of after
the entire system completes.
How the fsck does it matter? What's your obsession here??? So purge it and
stop this finally, you have a freedom to purge it and you have a freedom to
not
On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:08, Mike Frysinger wrote:
On Thursday 26 January 2006 14:00, MIkey wrote:
/var/lib/portage/world should only contain the names of packages you
explicitly emerge (without --oneshot). As far as I know an official
stage3 tarball should only contain packages
On Thursday 26 January 2006 13:23, Sven Köhler wrote:
You say, that it's the intended behaviour, that bootstrap.sh keeps the
crippled gcc 3.3 intact and as the default compiler.
ok, i looked into this some more and ran some tests ...
long and short of it is that the behavior i discussed before
On Wed, Jan 25, 2006 at 10:05:31PM -0600, Jason Pepas wrote:
Hi Guys,
I cobbled together a quick little hack to have a little bit more
interactivity
during the Updating Portage cache phase. It prints out the name of the
package it is updating, along with the percentage progress.
Err...
60 matches
Mail list logo
