Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is perl broken?

2015-04-11 Thread Mick
On Saturday 11 Apr 2015 00:08:23 Peter Humphrey wrote: Back to the original theme, I'd been experimenting with -j and -l make options, and I suspect that was my real problem. I finished up with -j -l20 on this i5 box, with startling results - 56 emerges in parallel for instance. I suspect

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is perl broken?

2015-04-10 Thread Peter Humphrey
This is a re-send of a message I sent earlier today but which seems not to have appeared on the list - well, I have changed it a bit: On Tuesday 07 April 2015 23:19:18 I wrote: On Tuesday 07 April 2015 15:02:36 walt wrote: On 04/07/2015 02:48 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Tuesday 07 April

[gentoo-user] Re: Is perl broken?

2015-04-07 Thread walt
On 04/07/2015 02:48 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Tuesday 07 April 2015 22:24:38 Peter Humphrey wrote: $ cat make.conf # I made a local copy and removed a lot of comments #CFLAGS=-O2 -march=core2 -pipe [1] ---8 [1] This bothers me. Various docs tell me to specify march=corei7, but

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is perl broken?

2015-04-07 Thread Peter Humphrey
On Tuesday 07 April 2015 15:02:36 walt wrote: On 04/07/2015 02:48 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: On Tuesday 07 April 2015 22:24:38 Peter Humphrey wrote: $ cat make.conf# I made a local copy and removed a lot of comments #CFLAGS=-O2 -march=core2 -pipe [1] ---8 [1] This bothers me.

[gentoo-user] Re: Is perl broken?

2015-04-06 Thread Martin Vaeth
Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: Moreover, I didn't check before the rebuild, but after the rebuild there is no 5.20.1 in @INC. Sure about this? I checked this, of course. But now I realize that the path is *added* to @INC (even to the perl -V output!) when I re-create it...

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is perl broken?

2015-04-06 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Montag, 6. April 2015, 13:29:25 schrieb Martin Vaeth: Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: Moreover, I didn't check before the rebuild, but after the rebuild there is no 5.20.1 in @INC. Sure about this? I checked this, of

[gentoo-user] Re: Is perl broken?

2015-04-05 Thread Martin Vaeth
Andreas K. Huettel dilfri...@gentoo.org wrote: Minor updates (5.x.y - 5.x.y+1) do not need any rebuilds or reinstallations of modules. This is at most partially correct: At least, after the update, the install directories change; here from /usr/lib/perl5/{vendor_perl,}/5.20.1 to

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Is perl broken?

2015-04-05 Thread Andreas K. Huettel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Am Sonntag, 5. April 2015, 21:53:35 schrieb Martin Vaeth: Moreover, I didn't check before the rebuild, but after the rebuild there is no 5.20.1 in @INC. (So it might be even the case that the rebuild is *necessary*). Sure about this?