On 06/16/2014 09:56 AM, Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
Does someone know what causes the error? I got this when upgrading from
GCC 4.8.2 to 4.8.3:
Installing (1 of 1) sys-devel/gcc-4.8.3
* gcc-config: Could not locate 'x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-4.8.2' in
'/etc/env.d/gcc/' !
* Running
On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 12:29:27PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Just asking ahead of time...
Any major gotchas with respect to this GCC upgrade?
Does this one introduce any ABI changes that require rebuilding the
entire toolchain... or even world?
It's an easy upgrade. Just remember to
If you want gcc's minor versions in their own slots, then you want the
mutislot use flag:
:; euses multislot
sys-devel/gcc:multislot - Allow for SLOTs to include minor version (3.3.4
instead of just 3.3)
-JimC
--
James Cloos cl...@jhcloos.com OpenPGP: 1024D/ED7DAEA6
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 07:24:44 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Since when did a simple GCC upgrade *automatically* REMOVE my prior GCC
install???
Since always if both versions are in the same slot, which is what I would
expect for a simple upgrade. A major version step would be in a
different slot
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
This has never happened to me before...
Since when did a simple GCC upgrade *automatically* REMOVE my prior GCC
install???
I have *always* kept my prior GCC around for a while, if not until the next
upgrade, just as
On 2012-09-07 7:44 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Tanstaafltansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
This has never happened to me before...
Since when did a simple GCC upgrade *automatically* REMOVE my prior GCC
install???
I have *always* kept my
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2012-09-07 7:44 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Tanstaafltansta...@libertytrek.org
wrote:
This has never happened to me before...
Since when did a simple GCC
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2012-09-07 7:44 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Tanstaafltansta...@libertytrek.org
wrote:
This has never happened to me before...
Since when did a simple GCC
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2012-09-07 7:44 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Tanstaafltansta...@libertytrek.org
wrote:
This has never happened to me before...
Since when did a simple GCC
On 2012-09-07 9:12 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Tanstaafltansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
Well, I've been managing this gentoo server since I installed it over 8
years ago, and I don't *ever* recall a GCC upgrade removing my prior
version.
On 2012-09-07 9:22 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Tanstaafltansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
Don't be stupid. I see that all the time... if you don't like it just ignore
it.
And calling someone who is trying to help you stupid is not very
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2012-09-07 9:22 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Tanstaafltansta...@libertytrek.org
wrote:
Don't be stupid. I see that all the time... if you don't like it just
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
I guess the only explanation if what you guys are saying is correct is that
I've never done a minor upgrade for the version in the current slot...
Basically any slotted package works this way. Upgrades within the same
Am 07.09.2012 14:53, schrieb Tanstaafl:
On 2012-09-07 7:44 AM, Markos Chandras hwoar...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Tanstaafltansta...@libertytrek.org
wrote:
This has never happened to me before...
Since when did a simple GCC upgrade *automatically* REMOVE my prior
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:26:40 +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote:
Well, then this simple little command should help you refresh your
memory. It shows every install and uninstall of gcc on your system.
With 8 years of emerge.log you are good to go
genlop -ul | grep 'sys-devel/gcc-[0-9]'
And
Am 07.09.2012 21:52, schrieb Neil Bothwick:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 19:26:40 +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote:
Well, then this simple little command should help you refresh your
memory. It shows every install and uninstall of gcc on your system.
With 8 years of emerge.log you are good to go
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 23:14:05 +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote:
genlop -ul | grep 'sys-devel/gcc-[0-9]'
And this week's prize for unnecessary use of pipes and grep goes to...
genlop -u sys-devel/gcc
Nope, we not only need the time when gcc was unmerged (-u), but also
when it was
2012/9/8 Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 23:14:05 +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote:
genlop -ul | grep 'sys-devel/gcc-[0-9]'
And this week's prize for unnecessary use of pipes and grep goes to...
genlop -u sys-devel/gcc
Nope, we not only need the time when gcc
I just upgraded from gcc-4.4.3-r2 to gcc-4.4.4-r2 and I'm wondering if
I really need to rebuild everything as it says in the guide:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gcc-upgrading.xml
No, you do not need to do this. The document is over-reaching (see below)
I ran a mixture of 4.4.3 and 4.4.4
On 19. 10. 2010 22:07, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:57:18 +0200, Jarry wrote:
Especially when I have to repeat it with my 12 gentoo servers.
Sequentially, unfortunatally, as they share the same hardware...
Why not use --buildpkg the first time and --usepkg the other 11 times?
Jarry wrote:
On 19. 10. 2010 22:07, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:57:18 +0200, Jarry wrote:
Especially when I have to repeat it with my 12 gentoo servers.
Sequentially, unfortunatally, as they share the same hardware...
Why not use --buildpkg the first time and --usepkg the
Grant wrote:
I just upgraded from gcc-4.4.3-r2 to gcc-4.4.4-r2 and I'm wondering if
I really need to rebuild everything as it says in the guide:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gcc-upgrading.xml
If not, when is it necessary?
- Grant
I haven't seen any gurus recommend doing a emerge -e
Grant writes:
I just upgraded from gcc-4.4.3-r2 to gcc-4.4.4-r2 and I'm wondering if
I really need to rebuild everything as it says in the guide:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gcc-upgrading.xml
The guide seems to be wrong here. Rebuilding does not harm, and it makes
use of tall the cool new
On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 2:58 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote:
I just upgraded from gcc-4.4.3-r2 to gcc-4.4.4-r2 and I'm wondering if
I really need to rebuild everything as it says in the guide:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gcc-upgrading.xml
If not, when is it necessary?
As that guide
Apparently, though unproven, at 21:58 on Thursday 21 October 2010, Grant did
opine thusly:
I just upgraded from gcc-4.4.3-r2 to gcc-4.4.4-r2 and I'm wondering if
I really need to rebuild everything as it says in the guide:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gcc-upgrading.xml
No, you do not need
+1
2010/10/20 Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:57:18 +0200, Jarry wrote:
I just think it is somehow time-consuming, emerging gcc two times.
Especially when I have to repeat it with my 12 gentoo servers.
Sequentially, unfortunatally, as they share the same
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 07:45:58PM +0200, Jarry wrote:
Hi,
I just tried to upgrade gcc (stable amd64, from 4.4.3-r2
to 4.4.4-r2) following the procedure recommended in Gentoo
GCC Upgrade Guide:
emerge -uav gcc
At the end of compilation, I got these strange messages:
On 2010-10-19 1:45 PM, Jarry wrote:
Hi,
I just tried to upgrade gcc (stable amd64, from 4.4.3-r2
to 4.4.4-r2) following the procedure recommended in Gentoo
GCC Upgrade Guide:
? Current stable gcc is 4.4.3-r2 on amd64?
On 19. 10. 2010 20:02, Zeerak Mustafa Waseem wrote:
On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 07:45:58PM +0200, Jarry wrote:
I just tried to upgrade gcc (stable amd64, from 4.4.3-r2
to 4.4.4-r2) following the procedure recommended in Gentoo
GCC Upgrade Guide:
emerge -uav gcc
At the end of compilation, I got
On 19/10/2010 19:45, Jarry wrote:
Hi,
I just tried to upgrade gcc (stable amd64, from 4.4.3-r2
to 4.4.4-r2) following the procedure recommended in Gentoo
GCC Upgrade Guide:
emerge -uav gcc
At the end of compilation, I got these strange messages:
On Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:57:18 +0200, Jarry wrote:
I just think it is somehow time-consuming, emerging gcc two times.
Especially when I have to repeat it with my 12 gentoo servers.
Sequentially, unfortunatally, as they share the same hardware...
Why not use --buildpkg the first time and
On 9/7/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm upgrading my gcc from 3.x to 4.x. I've done the gcc switching, and now I'm
updating my system.
The recommended steps are:
# emerge -eav system
# emerge -eav world
While emerging my system I received a message suggesting I run
On Thursday 07 September 2006 23:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I'm upgrading my gcc from 3.x to 4.x. I've done the gcc
switching, and now I'm updating my system.
The recommended steps are:
# emerge -eav system
# emerge -eav world
While emerging my system I received a message
On 9/8/06, Alan McKinnon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Richard for the inside dope - he's the resident gcc expert
around here :-)
:-P
-Richard
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Richard Fish wrote:
echo dev-libs/dietlibc ~amd64 /etc/portage/package.keywords
I did...
emerge --resume
It still wanted to emerge dietlibc-0.28
If for some reason this tries to merge dietlibc-0.28 again, then do
emerge --oneshot dietlibc
This worked, dietlibc-0.30 has been emerged
On Thursday 07 September 2006 17:30, Jarry wrote:
OMG, again portage wants to re-emerge dietlibc-0.28! Why?
Can I somehow start emerge --resume but without the first
package which previously caused error
(in this case dietlibc-0.28)? I do not want to go over
the whole thing again again, it
Richard Fish wrote:
!!! You must have a complete (USE='-minimal') Perl install
to use the perl backend!
Does your make.conf have minimal in USE? If so, that is probably a
bad idea. If there are specific packages you want to build with
minimal (like x.org), you should use
On 9/6/06, Jarry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, gcc upgrade is not so painless as one might think.
Any ideas how to fix this?
Looks like you need to use dietlibc-0.30 with gcc-4.1:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140905
-Richard
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Richard Fish wrote:
On 9/6/06, Jarry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, gcc upgrade is not so painless as one might think.
Any ideas how to fix this?
Looks like you need to use dietlibc-0.30 with gcc-4.1:
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140905
Hm, but 0.28 is stable, 0.30 is ~ (amd64)
On 9/6/06, Jarry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hm, but 0.28 is stable, 0.30 is ~ (amd64)
Yeah, unfortunately not all of the gcc-4.1 fixes made it to stable
_before_ gcc-4.1. It's too late for the 4.1 upgrade, but as a
userrep, I do plan to raise this as an issue when the next gcc upgrade
cycle
On 9/4/06, Jarry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would like to send it, but this is *everything* that
was in log-file. Nothing more. So where can I find those
lines above?
Probably in the output of the build. So you'll have to try building it again.
-Richard
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Richard Fish wrote:
Probably in the output of the build.
So you'll have to try building it again.
This is everything I was able to find in $PORT_LOGDIR or screen:
-
- tail /var/log/emerge.log
1157483054: emerge (149 of 206)
On 9/4/06, Jarry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
!!! If you need support, post the topmost build error,
and the call stack if relevant.
Do this.
The actual error is some lines above in the actual configuration
output. *NOT* the line that starts with !!! ERRROR. We need to see
the actual error
Richard Fish wrote:
On 9/4/06, Jarry [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
!!! If you need support, post the topmost build error,
and the call stack if relevant.
Do this.
The actual error is some lines above in the actual configuration
output. *NOT* the line that starts with !!! ERRROR. We need to
On 8/12/06, b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a couple of questions:
- Is it safe to upgrade with a full desktop
(Xorg+Xfce+Thunderbird+Firefox...) system running, or will I get
everything crashing on me?
If you start things up beforehand and leave them running, this should
be safe. Just
On 8/12/06, Daniel D Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
emerge -uav gcc
If I use the -u switch, portage tells me there's nothing to merge. If I
simply do an emerge -p, portage says that it's going to install gcc-3.4. How
do I identify what's telling portage not to update gcc?
This probably just
Richard Fish wrote:
On 8/12/06, b.n. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I have a couple of questions:
- Is it safe to upgrade with a full desktop
(Xorg+Xfce+Thunderbird+Firefox...) system running, or will I get
everything crashing on me?
If you start things up beforehand and leave them running, this
Well I've wasted everybodt's timeon this ... sorry. It was a kernel problem.
I had created a new one when configuring for cpufreqd and used the wrong
processor type. Richard
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Starting retry 3 of 3 with rsync://140.211.166.165/gentoo-portage
Checking server timestamp ...
rsync: failed to connect to 140.211.166.165: Connection refused (111)
rsync error: error in socket IO (code 10) at clientserver.c(107)
[receiver=2.6.8]
The server is refusing the
On 6/14/06, Jesse Hannah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
1. Has anyone noticed if programs compiled with the latest gcc (4.1.1, I
believe) are any faster than those compiled with 3.4.6-r1? Also, is there any
difference in the required time to compile? Any other issues I should know
about with upgrading
On 6/14/06, Daniel da Veiga [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 6/14/06, Jesse Hannah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
2. If I want to upgrade and rebuild my entire system (using a new gcc), is:
emerge -u gcc
emerge -e world
the right thing to do? Am I missing anything there?
One solution to this issue is to use the faster server as a binary
host for the slower one. I was able to do something similar with a
slow laptop and a fast desktop machine. I'm not in front of my gentoo
machine right now, so I can't provide the exact details, but it goes
something like this:
On
On 5/4/06, Matthew Cline [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One solution to this issue is to use the faster server as a binary
host for the slower one. I was able to do something similar with a
slow laptop and a fast desktop machine. I'm not in front of my gentoo
machine right now, so I can't provide the
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:41:14 -0800, Ryan Tandy wrote:
Assuming it's the gcc-3.4.5-r1 update you're considering postponing,
you could just:
# echo 'sys-devel/gcc-3.4.5' /etc/portage/package.mask
and just remove that line when you're ready to upgrade. It's a *far*
better idea than
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:41:14 -0800, Ryan Tandy wrote:
Assuming it's the gcc-3.4.5-r1 update you're considering postponing,
you could just:
# echo 'sys-devel/gcc-3.4.5' /etc/portage/package.mask
and just remove that line when you're ready to upgrade. It's a *far*
Le mardi 28 mars 2006 à 20:41 -0800, Ryan Tandy a écrit :
Teresa and Dale wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:50:28 -0600, Teresa and Dale wrote:
Thanks to both. I looked in my world file and I think I upgraded as a
oneshot so why is it upgradeing? I
On Wednesday 29 March 2006 07:10, Teresa and Dale wrote:
I was just going to mask it or upgrade by hand till I had time to mess
with it. I got me a new girlfriend and she has two kids. I go from
nobody to worry about but me to me and three other people to worry
about. Just don't have as
Nagatoro wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 20:41:14 -0800, Ryan Tandy wrote:
Assuming it's the gcc-3.4.5-r1 update you're considering postponing,
you could just:
# echo 'sys-devel/gcc-3.4.5' /etc/portage/package.mask
and just remove that line when you're ready to
Teresa and Dale schreef Nagatoro wrote:
Why don't upgrade? As far as I know upgrading gcc isn't a big deal.
It was just the 3.3.x - 3.4.x that was due to that the api for
c++ had changed.
Oh, I thought it was a big deal. That's why I was wanting to wait.
Funny thing is, it don't want
Holly Bostick wrote:
(other) Funny thing is, last I heard, you were planning to mask the
upgrade versions of GCC. If you did that, of /course/ you are no
longer offered upgrades, since that's the point of masking (to mark a
package as unavailable to be installed on this computer).
gcc-3.4.5-r1
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 00:06:54 -0600, Teresa and Dale wrote:
I upgraded gcc a while back. I thought I read somewhere that it is best
to just upgrade on occasion with the major upgrades. Should this be
upgraded or should I mask it? This is what I get:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / # emerge -up world
On Tuesday 28 March 2006 08:06, Teresa and Dale wrote:
Hi,
I upgraded gcc a while back. I thought I read somewhere that it is best
to just upgrade on occasion with the major upgrades. Should this be
upgraded or should I mask it? This is what I get:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] / # emerge -up world
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
On Tuesday 28 March 2006 08:06, Teresa and Dale wrote:
Hi,
I upgraded gcc a while back. I thought I read somewhere that it is best
to just upgrade on occasion with the major upgrades. Should this be
upgraded or should I mask it? This is what I get:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:50:28 -0600, Teresa and Dale wrote:
Thanks to both. I looked in my world file and I think I upgraded as a
oneshot so why is it upgradeing? I did the -t option and nothing else
is coming up as pulling it in. Strange.
gcc is part of system.
--
Neil Bothwick
Justify
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:50:28 -0600, Teresa and Dale wrote:
Thanks to both. I looked in my world file and I think I upgraded as a
oneshot so why is it upgradeing? I did the -t option and nothing else
is coming up as pulling it in. Strange.
gcc is part of system.
Teresa and Dale wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Tue, 28 Mar 2006 09:50:28 -0600, Teresa and Dale wrote:
Thanks to both. I looked in my world file and I think I upgraded as a
oneshot so why is it upgradeing? I did the -t option and nothing else
is coming up as pulling it in.
Ryan Tandy wrote:
Teresa and Dale wrote:
Neil Bothwick wrote:
gcc is part of system.
LOL That would be a good reason huh? Where is that file? I'm not real
sure about upgrading this thing right now. Oh, what the heck. I'll
upgrade it anyway.
Thanks
Dale
:-)
On 08:06 Sun 04 Dec , C. Beamer wrote:
Hi all,
I was upgrading gcc using the directions in the GCC Upgrade Guide. All
was going well. I was user what the Guide refers to as the safer
method. I got to the 321 of 642 mark and the upgrade bombed.
The specific upgrade being done was
Hello,
Can anybody tell me why portage constantly upgrade and then downgrade
GCC (versions 3.3.5 3.3.6) each time I emerge -pvuD world ???
A little trick I do when this kind of stuff happens. In portage, there's a
file called /etc/portage/package.mask. You can use it to mask packages
On Monday 19 September 2005 07:57, Yann Garnier wrote:
Greetings everyone,
Can anybody tell me why portage constantly upgrade and then downgrade
GCC (versions 3.3.5 3.3.6) each time I emerge -pvuD world ???
A little trick I do when this kind of stuff happens. In portage, there's a
file
C R. Little wrote:
when upgrading to a new version of gcc is all you have to do is emerge the
newer version and it works? the package has a S beside it so how does the
system know which version to use?
Hi,
By using gcc-config which is a dependency for gcc.
Run gcc-config --help to check
On 5/26/05, C R. Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
when upgrading to a new version of gcc is all you have to do is emerge the
newer version and it works? the package has a S beside it so how does the
system know which version to use?
# emerge -u gcc
# gcc-config -l
# gcc-config new profile
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] gcc upgrade
On 5/26/05, C R. Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
when upgrading to a new version of gcc is all you have to do is emerge the
newer version and it works? the package has a S beside it so how does the
system know which version to use?
# emerge -u gcc
# gcc
On 5/26/05, C R. Little [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
if you have a pentium-m processor is it better to upgrade to the newer
version of gcc or stick with the stable release using the pentium-3 cflag?
What do you mean by newer?
If it's gcc 3.4, it's not new, and it the best you can use.
If it's gcc
74 matches
Mail list logo
