On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/02/2012 11:16 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Fine for your home PC, doesn't cut it on servers. I have the following in
>>> one of my world files:
>>>
>>> dev-php/PEAR-Mail
>>> dev-php/PEAR-Mail_Mime
>>> dev-php/PEAR-PEAR
>>>
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 11:09:06 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> Fine for your home PC, doesn't cut it on servers. I have the following
> in one of my world files:
>
>dev-php/PEAR-Mail
>dev-php/PEAR-Mail_Mime
>dev-php/PEAR-PEAR
>dev-php/PEAR-Structures_Graph
>
> which of those do I
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 11:33:31 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> Well, travel time sucks too, but I was referring to time travel via
> e.g. a time machine, in case some wise guy tried to answer "well you
> shouldn't have done that." =)
Ah, you mean backups, not time travel :)
--
Neil Bothwick
"
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 10:35:46 -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
> > 2) I forget the -1 sometimes when I do an individual package update.
> > However I generally remember to go back and hand edit the world file
> > once a quarter or so and remove anything that isn't a real
> > application, etc.
>
> How do
On 01/02/2012 11:25 AM, Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
Look at it this way:
with emerge you tell portage to install a package and add it to
world. Period. The package will be installed, no matter whether it’s at the
newest version or not. With -u, however, you tell emerge to only do the
installatio
On 01/02/2012 11:16 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
Fine for your home PC, doesn't cut it on servers. I have the following in
one of my world files:
dev-php/PEAR-Mail
dev-php/PEAR-Mail_Mime
dev-php/PEAR-PEAR
dev-php/PEAR-Structures_Graph
which of those do I want? At least one of them was instal
On 01/02/2012 11:22 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
I'm not clear. You allow your server customers to modify your servers,
or what, they asked you to install stuff and now you don't know which
of them was needed and why? I'm just not clear.
They ask us to install stuff, and now we don't know which ones
On Mon, Jan 02, 2012 at 10:26:02AM -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/02/2012 10:05 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> >
> > So when the user tells portage to emerge (not merge) something it goes
> > in world as obviously that's what the user wanted. Presumably the user
> > knows what they are doing an
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 8:09 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/02/2012 11:01 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>>
>> I tell by knowing which files I want in @world. Everything in world
>> should be a package __I__ specifically want to use. Everything in
>> world (on my machines anyway) is something:
>>
>
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:16 AM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Michael Orlitzky
> wrote:
>> On 01/02/2012 11:01 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I tell by knowing which files I want in @world. Everything in world
>>> should be a package __I__ specifically want to use. E
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 11:09 AM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/02/2012 11:01 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>>
>> I tell by knowing which files I want in @world. Everything in world
>> should be a package __I__ specifically want to use. Everything in
>> world (on my machines anyway) is something:
>>
On 01/02/2012 11:01 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
I tell by knowing which files I want in @world. Everything in world
should be a package __I__ specifically want to use. Everything in
world (on my machines anyway) is something:
1) I'd call from the command line
2) Need to write a little software myse
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 7:35 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2012-01-01 6:22 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>> 2) I forget the -1 sometimes when I do an individual package update.
>> However I generally remember to go back and hand edit the world file
>> once a quarter or so and remove anything that isn't a
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:35 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2012-01-01 6:22 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>> 2) I forget the -1 sometimes when I do an individual package update.
>> However I generally remember to go back and hand edit the world file
>> once a quarter or so and remove anything that isn't a
On 01/02/2012 10:35 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2012-01-01 6:22 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
2) I forget the -1 sometimes when I do an individual package update.
However I generally remember to go back and hand edit the world file
once a quarter or so and remove anything that isn't a real
application, et
On Mon, Jan 2, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2012-01-01 5:13 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>
>> On 01/01/2012 05:06 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Michael Orlitzky
>>> wrote:
Using "emerge --update foo" adds "foo" to your world file. This is
On 01/02/2012 10:31 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
Uh-oh...
I've *never* used -1 unless I'm trying to fix a broken package by
recompiling it... I've always just used
emerge -vuDN world...
Been doing it this way for 7+ years, and never had a problem, so my
question is:
What 'harmful' thing has been hap
On 2012-01-01 6:22 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
2) I forget the -1 sometimes when I do an individual package update.
However I generally remember to go back and hand edit the world file
once a quarter or so and remove anything that isn't a real
application, etc.
How do you tell which is which?
On 2012-01-01 5:13 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 01/01/2012 05:06 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Michael Orlitzky
wrote:
Using "emerge --update foo" adds "foo" to your world file. This is
responsible for pretty much every package that incorrectly found its way
into one
On 01/02/2012 10:05 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
So when the user tells portage to emerge (not merge) something it goes
in world as obviously that's what the user wanted. Presumably the user
knows what they are doing and can deal with both pieces. If the user
would rather have software hold his hand
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 08:50:36 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/02/2012 08:36 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 05:06:32 -0600, Dale wrote:
> >
> >> That's why I fixed the new way to be closer to what I am used to.
> >> I added --oneshot to my make.conf. When I really need to a
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 08:50:36 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
* Nobody would use --update to install a new package
Actually, that's a good reason to use --update on a single package, as
it installs a new package, but does not reinstall an existing package,
so you can em
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 08:50:36 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>* Nobody would use --update to install a new package
Actually, that's a good reason to use --update on a single package, as
it installs a new package, but does not reinstall an existing package,
so you can emerge -u a list of packag
On 01/02/2012 08:36 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 05:06:32 -0600, Dale wrote:
That's why I fixed the new way to be closer to what I am used to. I
added --oneshot to my make.conf. When I really need to add something
to world, I just use --select y -nav. To me, that is a lot of
On 01/02/2012 05:06 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
You have a production machine delivering valuable services to multiple
users.
Therefore you must only update *anything* on it during planned
maintenance slots. If paying customers are involved then preferably
with a second redundant parallel machine
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 05:06:32 -0600, Dale wrote:
> That's why I fixed the new way to be closer to what I am used to. I
> added --oneshot to my make.conf. When I really need to add something
> to world, I just use --select y -nav. To me, that is a lot of extra
> steps to be "consistent".
You ar
Alan McKinnon wrote:
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 04:19:39 -0600
Dale wrote:
Alan McKinnon wrote:
The current behaviour is the correct and expected one - you told
portage to emerge something and it did. Why else would you emerge
something if you didn't intend it to become a permanent feature of
the sy
On Mon, 02 Jan 2012 04:19:39 -0600
Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > The current behaviour is the correct and expected one - you told
> > portage to emerge something and it did. Why else would you emerge
> > something if you didn't intend it to become a permanent feature of
> > the system
Alan McKinnon wrote:
The current behaviour is the correct and expected one - you told
portage to emerge something and it did. Why else would you emerge
something if you didn't intend it to become a permanent feature of the
system and part of world? This has always been the definition of
emerge
On Monday 02 Jan 2012 10:06:39 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 19:24:35 -0500
>
> Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > On 01/01/2012 07:09 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:07:45 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > >> Usually it's because a world update wants to do both trivi
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 19:24:35 -0500
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/01/2012 07:09 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:07:45 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> >
> >> Usually it's because a world update wants to do both trivial
> >> version bumps and replace major software at the same
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 16:12:34 -0600
Dale wrote:
> Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > Using "emerge --update foo" adds "foo" to your world file. This is
> > responsible for pretty much every package that incorrectly found
> > its way into one of my world files.
> >
> > Is there any reason to desire the c
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 19:24:35 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> > Why would you need to take it down? All you need to do is restart
> > Apache after the update.
> >
>
> I have to test, like, 200 websites to make sure they still work.
> Something /always/ breaks.
>
> Apache was just an example.
On 01/01/2012 07:09 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:07:45 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Usually it's because a world update wants to do both trivial version
bumps and replace major software at the same time. I can't take a
server down for an hour in the middle of the day to upd
On Sun, 01 Jan 2012 18:07:45 -0500, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> Usually it's because a world update wants to do both trivial version
> bumps and replace major software at the same time. I can't take a
> server down for an hour in the middle of the day to update Apache, but
> I can bump timezone-dat
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 3:07 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> On 01/01/2012 05:40 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>>
>> I'm not clear. Why does one ever bother with emerge -u package? In 10
>> years of Gentoo I've managed to get by with basically either emerge
>> package to add something or emerge -DuN @wor
On 01/01/2012 05:54 PM, Claudio Roberto França Pereira wrote:
Actually, -u doesn't mean update, means filter packages that are not
updatable (are already the most recent version).
It's a filter option, not an action. Portage doesn't work with actions.
I can see that this view is logically cons
On 01/01/2012 05:40 PM, Mark Knecht wrote:
I'm not clear. Why does one ever bother with emerge -u package? In 10
years of Gentoo I've managed to get by with basically either emerge
package to add something or emerge -DuN @world to stay updated. (or
@system in the old days but no longer...)
Usu
Claudio Roberto França Pereira wrote:
Actually, -u doesn't mean update, means filter packages that are not
updatable (are already the most recent version).
It's a filter option, not an action. Portage doesn't work with actions.
Not according to the man page:
--update (-u)
Actually, -u doesn't mean update, means filter packages that are not
updatable (are already the most recent version).
It's a filter option, not an action. Portage doesn't work with actions.
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Dale wrote:
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 01/01/2012 05:06 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Michael Orlitzky
wrote:
Using "emerge --update foo" adds "foo" to your world file. This is
responsible for pretty much every pac
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 2:31 PM, Dale wrote:
> Michael Orlitzky wrote:
>>
>> On 01/01/2012 05:06 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Michael Orlitzky
>>> wrote:
Using "emerge --update foo" adds "foo" to your world file. This is
responsible for pretty much
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On 01/01/2012 05:06 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Michael
Orlitzky wrote:
Using "emerge --update foo" adds "foo" to your world file. This is
responsible for pretty much every package that incorrectly found its
way
into one of my world files.
On 01/01/2012 05:06 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Using "emerge --update foo" adds "foo" to your world file. This is
responsible for pretty much every package that incorrectly found its way
into one of my world files.
Is there any reason to desi
Michael Orlitzky wrote:
Using "emerge --update foo" adds "foo" to your world file. This is
responsible for pretty much every package that incorrectly found its
way into one of my world files.
Is there any reason to desire the current behavior? I'd like to
suggest that it be fixed, but want to
On Sun, Jan 1, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Michael Orlitzky wrote:
> Using "emerge --update foo" adds "foo" to your world file. This is
> responsible for pretty much every package that incorrectly found its way
> into one of my world files.
>
> Is there any reason to desire the current behavior? I'd like to
Using "emerge --update foo" adds "foo" to your world file. This is
responsible for pretty much every package that incorrectly found its way
into one of my world files.
Is there any reason to desire the current behavior? I'd like to suggest
that it be fixed, but want to be sure I'm not just bei
On Fri, Dec 9, 2011 at 11:35 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> Quick update...I now have two of these things set up in a distcc cluster
> with my Phenom 9650. ~530 packages in 228m 34s. There's an even larger
> initial explosion of parallel emerge jobs, but it spreads out very
> nicely...I may have to incr
On 12/23/2011 12:33 AM, Jarry wrote:
But it was the same in the last week, and yet portage could
live with it. Why it suddenly wants to uninstall something
that is part of system profile? And at the same time it says
it might damage my system. Really nice...
I believe the base, default pager i
On 23-Dec-11 8:47, Alan McKinnon wrote:
# eselect pager show
PAGER variable in profile:
/usr/bin/less
emerge --depclean
Calculating dependencies... done!
>>> Calculating removal order...
!!! 'sys-apps/less' (virtual/pager) is part of your system profile.
!!! Unmerging it may be damaging
Because eselect's setting of pager does not correlate with emerge's
world file. You should add less to the world file e.g. by running
"emerge --noreplace less".
2011/12/23 Jarry :
> On 23-Dec-11 2:12, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>
>>
>> 'eselect pager list' and 'eselect editor list' will show what
>> alt
On Fri, 23 Dec 2011 08:43:33 +0100
Jarry wrote:
> On 23-Dec-11 2:12, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> >
> > 'eselect pager list' and 'eselect editor list' will show what
> > alternatives are available (with a write-in candidate support).
>
> # eselect pager show
> PAGER variable in profile:
>/usr/bin/l
On 23-Dec-11 2:12, Pandu Poluan wrote:
'eselect pager list' and 'eselect editor list' will show what
alternatives are available (with a write-in candidate support).
# eselect pager show
PAGER variable in profile:
/usr/bin/less
# more /etc/env.d/99pager
# Configuration file for eselect
# Thi
On Dec 23, 2011 2:42 AM, "Mick" wrote:
>
> On Thursday 22 Dec 2011 19:07:02 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:58:32 +0100
> >
> > Jarry wrote:
> > > On 22-Dec-11 19:38, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > > >> Why does portage want to unmerge sys-apps/less when it is
> > > >> a part of system?
>
On Thursday 22 Dec 2011 19:07:02 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:58:32 +0100
>
> Jarry wrote:
> > On 22-Dec-11 19:38, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > >> Why does portage want to unmerge sys-apps/less when it is
> > >> a part of system?
> > >
> > > I didn't like it either so I've been adding
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011 19:58:32 +0100
Jarry wrote:
> On 22-Dec-11 19:38, Mark Knecht wrote:
> >>
> >> Why does portage want to unmerge sys-apps/less when it is
> >> a part of system?
> >
> > I didn't like it either so I've been adding it to
> > /var/lib/portage/world just to stop it. I've seen this
On 22-Dec-11 19:38, Mark Knecht wrote:
Why does portage want to unmerge sys-apps/less when it is
a part of system?
I didn't like it either so I've been adding it to
/var/lib/portage/world just to stop it. I've seen this on one machine
or another for 6 months to a year I think.
Some time ago
On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 10:29 AM, Jarry wrote:
>
> Why does portage want to unmerge sys-apps/less when it is
> a part of system?
>
> Jarry
I didn't like it either so I've been adding it to
/var/lib/portage/world just to stop it. I've seen this on one machine
or another for 6 months to a year I t
Hi,
after updating my system I tried "emerge --depclean as
recommended by portage, and I received this warning:
--
Calculating dependencies... done!
Calculating removal order...
!!! 'sys-apps/less' (virtual/pager) is part of your system profile.
!!! Unmerging it may be damaging to your syst
On Mon, Dec 19, 2011 at 2:58 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> Am 2011-11-26 17:03, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger:
>
>> Thanks for "quoting" me, Michael ... but I also googled that command
>> somewhere ... not my idea ... ;-)
>
> Just went to that URL to cut and paste the command, the mentioned one
Am 2011-11-26 17:03, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger:
> Thanks for "quoting" me, Michael ... but I also googled that command
> somewhere ... not my idea ... ;-)
Just went to that URL to cut and paste the command, the mentioned one
doesn't work!
My make.conf shows this comment/command:
gcc -march=n
Quick update...I now have two of these things set up in a distcc cluster
with my Phenom 9650. ~530 packages in 228m 34s. There's an even larger
initial explosion of parallel emerge jobs, but it spreads out very
nicely...I may have to increase the -j parameter in MAKEOPTS. I'm also not
certain if di
On Tue, 6 Dec 2011 08:58:23 +, Mick wrote:
> On Sunday 04 Dec 2011 20:49:55 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 15:18:40 +, Mick wrote:
> > > But then if there were say 5 ebuilds running in parallel and all
> > > their output printed in the same terminal, it would be almightily
>
On Sunday 04 Dec 2011 20:49:55 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 15:18:40 +, Mick wrote:
> > But then if there were say 5 ebuilds running in parallel and all their
> > output printed in the same terminal, it would be almightily difficult
> > to untangle the spaghetti that may show up in
On Sun, 4 Dec 2011 15:18:40 +, Mick wrote:
> But then if there were say 5 ebuilds running in parallel and all their
> output printed in the same terminal, it would be almightily difficult
> to untangle the spaghetti that may show up in an error?
Which is why setting -j >1 sets wh
--
Neil Bo
On Sunday 04 Dec 2011 14:05:29 Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 08:27:33AM +, Mick wrote:
> > > > Remerged python, verified the right python via eselect, remerge
> > > > portage, etc etc etc etc I just can't seem to get proper output from
> > > > emerge anymore no matter what
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 08:27:33AM +, Mick wrote:
> > > Remerged python, verified the right python via eselect, remerge portage,
> > > etc etc etc etc I just can't seem to get proper output from emerge
> > > anymore no matter what. Other than that everything is working fine, but
> > > I do nee
On Saturday 03 Dec 2011 16:45:19 Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 09:23:48AM -0500, Indi wrote:
> > About a month or so ago I did an update which seems to have caused
> > portage to lose the ability to work verbosely.
> > Ever since it looks like this:
> >
> > idd@gh:[~]9:07:23
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 09:23:48AM -0500, Indi wrote:
> About a month or so ago I did an update which seems to have caused
> portage to lose the ability to work verbosely.
> Ever since it looks like this:
>
> idd@gh:[~]9:07:23 $ sudo emerge -vauND adobe-flash
>
> These are the packages that wo
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 05:20:01PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 10:37:51 -0500, Indi wrote:
>
> > > that is not the verbose flag, but silent-build.
> >
> > Hmm, I always thought the "-v" was the verbose switch, and that it
> > should work properly regardless of what's in ma
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 03.12.2011 17:09, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 10:37:51 -0500, Indi wrote:
>
>>> that is not the verbose flag, but silent-build.
>>
>> Hmm, I always thought the "-v" was the verbose switch, and that
>> it should work properly regardle
On Sat, 3 Dec 2011 10:37:51 -0500, Indi wrote:
> > that is not the verbose flag, but silent-build.
>
> Hmm, I always thought the "-v" was the verbose switch, and that it
> should work properly regardless of what's in make.conf. It *used* to
> work properly here, I've been using "emerge -vauND
On Sat, Dec 03, 2011 at 03:40:01PM +0100, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi,
>
> that is not the verbose flag, but silent-build.
Hmm, I always thought the "-v" was the verbose switch, and that it should
work properly regardless of what's in m
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
that is not the verbose flag, but silent-build. If you want the old
behaviour back, you can add
EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--quiet-build=n"
to your make.conf
So long
Hinnerk
On 03.12.2011 15:23, Indi wrote:
> Howdy y'all,
>
> About a month or so a
Howdy y'all,
About a month or so ago I did an update which seems to have caused
portage to lose the ability to work verbosely.
Ever since it looks like this:
idd@gh:[~]9:07:23 $ sudo emerge -vauND adobe-flash
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... d
Am 29.11.2011 16:39, schrieb Neil Bothwick:
> The trouble with --load-average in emerge is that it is only
> checked as each ebuild is about to start, so you get the "load
> explosion" mentioned previously when many ebuilds start and once
> and then get into their compile phases. I'm using --jobs,
On Tue, 29 Nov 2011 14:47:49 +0100, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> > With the cooling system I currently have, I don't like to push it
> > too much (a new watercooler should arrive tomorrow), but
> > MAKEOPTS="-j16 -l10" appears to be a definite improvement over the
> > old -j8 with no -l.
>
> I
Am 29.11.2011 12:08, schrieb Neil Bothwick:
> On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:36:08 +0100, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
>
>> Neil, you run a core-i7-2600 as well ... what is your current
>> best-practise with that CPU, concerning the values of N and -l
>> ... ?
>
> With the cooling system I currently have
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 17:36:08 +0100, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
> Neil, you run a core-i7-2600 as well ... what is your current
> best-practise with that CPU, concerning the values of N and -l ... ?
With the cooling system I currently have, I don't like to push it too
much (a new watercooler shou
On Nov 29, 2011 2:53 AM, "Michael Mol" wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> >
> > I use Intel boxes, unfortunately.
>
> Are you using a 64-bit x86-derived system? Same difference in this
> context. AMD hit the market with a good 64-bit x86-based ISA first,
> and devs
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> I'm currently timing
>
> MAKEOPTS="-j16 -l13"
> EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS="--jobs --load-average=13"
>
> with 493 packages (base plus X plus XFCE and chromium, and, of course,
> USE flags), but I'll start another timed run with
>
> MAKEOPTS="-j16 -l8
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Florian Philipp wrote:
> Am 28.11.2011 20:14, schrieb Michael Mol:
>> Upstream devs might take issue with them, but I'm still not sure they
>> should affect bug reports of build-time failures. I would *hope*
>> upstream gcc is doing tests on its own build tools com
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Nov 29, 2011 2:02 AM, "Florian Philipp" wrote:
>> Am 28.11.2011 18:56, schrieb Michael Mol:
>> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Pandu Poluan
>> > wrote:
>> >> On Nov 28, 2011 10:38 PM, "Michael Mol" wrote:
>> >>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011
Am 28.11.2011 20:14, schrieb Michael Mol:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Florian Philipp
> wrote:
>> Am 28.11.2011 18:56, schrieb Michael Mol:
>>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>> No, you've got some ugly flags in there. -fexcess-precision and
>>> -funsafe-math-optim
On Nov 29, 2011 2:02 AM, "Florian Philipp" wrote:
>
> Am 28.11.2011 18:56, schrieb Michael Mol:
> > On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Pandu Poluan
wrote:
> >> On Nov 28, 2011 10:38 PM, "Michael Mol" wrote:
> >>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu Poluan
wrote:
> Won't file a bug report
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:56 PM, Florian Philipp wrote:
> Am 28.11.2011 18:56, schrieb Michael Mol:
>> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>> No, you've got some ugly flags in there. -fexcess-precision and
>> -funsafe-math-optimizations, in particular. (I must have been talking
Am 28.11.2011 18:56, schrieb Michael Mol:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>> On Nov 28, 2011 10:38 PM, "Michael Mol" wrote:
>>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
Won't file a bug report, though. I have a feeling that my bug report re:
emerge f
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 1:51 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
[snip]
> FWIW, I strongly suspect that N should be your number of *logical*
> cores, not your number of physical cores. I believe most of the
> overhead
...and finishing my sentence.
I
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:26 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2011 11:32 AM, "Michael Mol" wrote:
[snip]
> Unfortunately, striving for 2*N will inadvertently result in short bursts of
>> 2*N, and this potentially induce a stall, which will be very costly. 1.8*N
> gives a 10% margin for bur
On Mon, 28 Nov 2011 08:54:13 -0800
Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Pandu Poluan
> wrote:
> >
> > On Nov 28, 2011 10:38 PM, "Michael Mol" wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu Poluan
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Won't file a bug report, though. I have a feelin
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:00 AM, kashani wrote:
> On 11/28/2011 9:28 AM, James Wall wrote:
>>>
>>> I wonder if someone in this thread will help me understand the term
>>> 'ricer'. The only origin I know of this term, from the car world, is
>>> really pretty racist, so I wonder if there isn't a mo
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 12:43 PM, Paul Hartman
wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
>> I wonder if someone in this thread will help me understand the term
>> 'ricer'. The only origin I know of this term, from the car world, is
>> really pretty racist, so I wonder if there
On 11/28/2011 9:28 AM, James Wall wrote:
I wonder if someone in this thread will help me understand the term
'ricer'. The only origin I know of this term, from the car world, is
really pretty racist, so I wonder if there isn't a more genteel origin
I simply cannot find using Google?
- Mark
Ric
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 11:46 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
> On Nov 28, 2011 10:38 PM, "Michael Mol" wrote:
>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>> > Won't file a bug report, though. I have a feeling that my bug report re:
>> > emerge failure will be marked WONTFIX thanks to the 'r
Am 28.11.2011 17:54, schrieb Mark Knecht:
> I wonder if someone in this thread will help me understand the term
> 'ricer'. The only origin I know of this term, from the car world, is
> really pretty racist, so I wonder if there isn't a more genteel origin
> I simply cannot find using Google?
Mayb
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> I wonder if someone in this thread will help me understand the term
> 'ricer'. The only origin I know of this term, from the car world, is
> really pretty racist, so I wonder if there isn't a more genteel origin
> I simply cannot find using Go
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 10:54 AM, Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>
>> On Nov 28, 2011 10:38 PM, "Michael Mol" wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>>
>>> > Won't file a bug report, though. I have a feeling that my bug r
On Mon, Nov 28, 2011 at 8:46 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
> On Nov 28, 2011 10:38 PM, "Michael Mol" wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>>
>> > Won't file a bug report, though. I have a feeling that my bug report re:
>> > emerge failure will be marked WONTFIX thanks to
On Nov 28, 2011 10:38 PM, "Michael Mol" wrote:
>
> On Sun, Nov 27, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote:
>
> > Won't file a bug report, though. I have a feeling that my bug report re:
> > emerge failure will be marked WONTFIX thanks to the 'ricer special'
CFLAGS
>
> The CFLAGS you showed me weren'
Am 28.11.2011 10:27, schrieb Neil Bothwick:
> From the description, it should do just that, there may still be
> dozens of ebuilds in progress, but only the first few will actually
> start compiling. Adding it now. It should also helps when there are
> multiple emerge processes running, my desktop
801 - 900 of 3114 matches
Mail list logo
