Re: [gentoo-user] Plasmashell consuming huge amounts of memory.

P Levine wrote: > On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Dale >wrote: > > Hi, > > It's trying to install dev-qt/qtdeclarative-5.9.2.  I went back > and sort of started from the start.  Figured out where I made a > boo boo.  Now it tries to apply the patch bu

Re: [gentoo-user] Slightly OT: FreeBSD migration, what to do with /usr/local

On 12/10/2017 08:29, Ian Zimmerman wrote: > I think I have written here previously that I want to move my _server_ > to FreeBSD. I am still thinking about that. But now I hit an > obstacle. For a long time, I have put my local kiddie scripts in > /usr/local. For better or worse, they are writte

[gentoo-user] Slightly OT: FreeBSD migration, what to do with /usr/local

I think I have written here previously that I want to move my _server_ to FreeBSD. I am still thinking about that. But now I hit an obstacle. For a long time, I have put my local kiddie scripts in /usr/local. For better or worse, they are written in my dense style where any code duplication is

Re: [gentoo-user] Plasmashell consuming huge amounts of memory.

On Thu, Oct 12, 2017 at 12:40 AM, Dale wrote: > Hi, > > It's trying to install dev-qt/qtdeclarative-5.9.2. I went back and sort > of started from the start. Figured out where I made a boo boo. Now it > tries to apply the patch but fails to apply properly. > ​If you don't already​ ​have ​dev-

Re: [gentoo-user] Plasmashell consuming huge amounts of memory.

Hi, It's trying to install dev-qt/qtdeclarative-5.9.2.  I went back and sort of started from the start.  Figured out where I made a boo boo.  Now it tries to apply the patch but fails to apply properly.  This is the error I get.  >>> Emerging (1 of 1) dev-qt/qtdeclarative-5.9.2::gentoo  * qtdec

Re: [gentoo-user] why zfs and friends want to update to 9999?

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 10:26:20 PM CEST Walter Dnes wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 05:34:48AM -0400, John Covici wrote > > > Yep, I think you are correct, I had the in package.keywords and > > I think this is what made portage do that. When I commented them out, > > things are back

Re: [gentoo-user] Plasmashell consuming huge amounts of memory.

What version of dev-qt/qtdeclarative is being installed? On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:09 PM, Dale wrote: > P Levine wrote: > > ​ > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Dale wrote: > >> Howdy, >> >> I did a upgrade recently and after that, plasmashell is consuming a huge >> amount of memory. > > > ​P

Re: [gentoo-user] Plasmashell consuming huge amounts of memory.

P Levine wrote: > ​ > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Dale >wrote: > > Howdy, > > I did a upgrade recently and after that, plasmashell is consuming > a huge > amount of memory.  > > > ​Probably related to > https://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f=309&t=1

Re: [gentoo-user] why zfs and friends want to update to 9999?

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 16:26:20 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 05:34:48AM -0400, John Covici wrote > > > Yep, I think you are correct, I had the in package.keywords and > > I think this is what made portage do that. When I commented them out, > > things are back to norma

Re: [gentoo-user] python build fail; undefined reference to pthread_* and sem_*

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:56:21AM -0400, Mike Gilbert wrote > I can reproduce the issue by adding -fopenmp to my CFLAGS. You can > work around it by adding -fopenmp to LDFLAGS as well. Thanks. The following workaround makes python build properly. LDFLAGS="-fopenmp" emerge =dev-lang/python-2.

Re: [gentoo-user] Plasmashell consuming huge amounts of memory.

​ On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 7:28 PM, Dale wrote: > Howdy, > > I did a upgrade recently and after that, plasmashell is consuming a huge > amount of memory. ​Probably related to https://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f=309&t=141169 and https://bugreports.qt.io/browse/QTBUG-62117​. Try seeing if this

[gentoo-user] Plasmashell consuming huge amounts of memory.

Howdy, I did a upgrade recently and after that, plasmashell is consuming a huge amount of memory.  I noticed it at one point and it was taking about 8GBs.  I killed it and restarted but it seems to keep happening after a few hours.  After I took a nap, I nudged the monitor back to the on state onl

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

it's worth noting that a failing power supply can produce what seem to be ram problems.  it happened to me, swapping ram, a motherboard and then a power supply made it clear. -- Note the right side (his right) of Mr. Trumps face, He's clearly had a major stroke or similar neurological insult.  

Re: [gentoo-user] why zfs and friends want to update to 9999?

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 05:34:48AM -0400, John Covici wrote > Yep, I think you are correct, I had the in package.keywords and > I think this is what made portage do that. When I commented them out, > things are back to normal. Maybe portage inserted that entry itself. If you want to prev

Re: [gentoo-user] python build fail; undefined reference to pthread_* and sem_*

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 11:50 AM, Mike Gilbert wrote: > On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: >> This is happening with both python 2.7.12 and 3.4.5 on a 32-bit x86 >> system. Build logs are attached, along with "emerge --info" output. I >> can't find anything relevant in bugzi

Re: [gentoo-user] python build fail; undefined reference to pthread_* and sem_*

On Wed, Oct 11, 2017 at 12:16 AM, Walter Dnes wrote: > This is happening with both python 2.7.12 and 3.4.5 on a 32-bit x86 > system. Build logs are attached, along with "emerge --info" output. I > can't find anything relevant in bugzilla. >From the build log for 3.4.5: checking whether pthre

Re: [gentoo-user] why zfs and friends want to update to 9999?

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 11:34:48 AM CEST John Covici wrote: > On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 04:50:20 -0400, > > J. Roeleveld wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 9:54:05 AM CEST John Covici wrote: > > > Hi. In my latest world update, I have sys-fs/zfs and friends at > > > 0.7.1 and they all wan

[gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

On 2017-10-11, R0b0t1 wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: >> What's called Management in ISO9000. > > ISO9000 still lets you shoot yourself in the foot. You just wrote > down that you were going to shoot yourself in the foot well in > advance. Yep. As somebody involv

Re: [gentoo-user] why zfs and friends want to update to 9999?

On Wed, 11 Oct 2017 04:50:20 -0400, J. Roeleveld wrote: > > On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 9:54:05 AM CEST John Covici wrote: > > Hi. In my latest world update, I have sys-fs/zfs and friends at > > 0.7.1 and they all want to update to . Does anyone know why this > > should be -- normally 999

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: emerge firefox-52.4.0 compile failure

On Wednesday, 11 October 2017 04:02:36 BST R0b0t1 wrote: > On Tue, Oct 10, 2017 at 6:30 PM, Peter Humphrey > wrote: > > What's called Management in ISO9000. > > ISO9000 still lets you shoot yourself in the foot. You just wrote down > that you were going to shoot yourself in the foot well in adva

Re: [gentoo-user] why zfs and friends want to update to 9999?

On Wednesday, October 11, 2017 9:54:05 AM CEST John Covici wrote: > Hi. In my latest world update, I have sys-fs/zfs and friends at > 0.7.1 and they all want to update to . Does anyone know why this > should be -- normally is not in the normal update sequence. > > I am using the unstabl

[gentoo-user] why zfs and friends want to update to 9999?

Hi. In my latest world update, I have sys-fs/zfs and friends at 0.7.1 and they all want to update to . Does anyone know why this should be -- normally is not in the normal update sequence. I am using the unstable gentoo, updated about 3 weeks ago. No harm has come yet, but I have not d