On Monday 28 November 2005 22:37, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 21:53 +0100, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> > Hi!
> >
> > If nobody objects I will add DVB_CARDS to USE_EXAPAND on next saturday
> > (2005/12/03).
> >
> > This will be used to decide which firmware-file to download and
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:01 +, Mike Williams wrote:
On Monday 28 November 2005 14:22, Mark Loeser wrote:
This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably
going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon. If any of the
arc
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 16:34 -0800, Michael Stewart (vericgar) wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > I'd like to add the apache2 USE flag to 2006.0's profile. This would
> > not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it by default.
> > With apache being such a popular package, having
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I'd like to add the apache2 USE flag to 2006.0's profile. This would
> not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it by default.
> With apache being such a popular package, having it fail from a default
> stage3 installation reflects poorly on us all. If I
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 23:19 +, Stuart Herbert wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 09:16 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > I'd like to add the apache2 USE flag to 2006.0's profile. This would
> > not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it by default.
> > With apache being
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 23:39:17 +0100, Michael Cummings wrote:
> "Tom Martin"<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> ... and he
> participated in the Google Summer of Code in writing a generational
> garbage collector, GMC, for the Perl 6 VM (http://www.parrotcode.org).
>
> >
> Sweet! Does this mea
Hi,
On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 09:16 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> I'd like to add the apache2 USE flag to 2006.0's profile. This would
> not resolve bug #95140, but would keep users from hitting it by default.
> With apache being such a popular package, having it fail from a default
> stage3 insta
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 18:37 +0100, Andreas Proschofsky wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 16:04 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:52:11AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/gconfbe1.uno.so (requires
> > > libORBit-2.so.0 libgconf-2.so.4
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:23:54 +0100 "Diego 'Flameeyes' Pettenò"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
| little question (that could start up a flame): what's the official
| status of /usr/libexec directory?
libexec for stuff that's run is far tidier than weird subdirectories
in /usr/lib*. Those old people wit
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 16:04 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:52:11AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/gconfbe1.uno.so (requires
> > libORBit-2.so.0 libgconf-2.so.4)
>
> binary packages should never be in /usr/
>
> > Is /opt ignored
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 08:50 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote:
> Doing it from the outset will save the forums and bugs a lot of stress
> and heartache that could have been easily avoided.
Don't forget the #gentoo channel. I meant to comment on this about the
stage 1/2 thing but never did. I'm not pi
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:48:10AM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 15:27 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:18:05AM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 14:53 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:23:54PM +010
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 04:41:20PM +0100, Thomas de Grenier de Latour wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:27:10 +
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > i know they are executables, that's why we're talking about a
> > specific subdir of lib
> >
> > libexec clutters /usr while /usr/lib
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:52:11AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/gconfbe1.uno.so (requires
> libORBit-2.so.0 libgconf-2.so.4)
binary packages should never be in /usr/
> Is /opt ignored?
yes, because our policy specifically says binary packages in /opt
-m
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 10:42 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:03 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 09:50:34AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:51 +0100, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
> > > > Every user _must_ be instructed to run
>
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 08:21:51AM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> This assumes that they do an `emerge -e world'.
Well, the same problem will arise should they upgrade their gcc and
install a new external kernel module (with or without `emerge -e
world`).
Regards,
Brix
--
Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMA
On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 15:27 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:18:05AM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 14:53 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
> > > > what's the official status
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:03 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 09:50:34AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:51 +0100, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
> > > Every user _must_ be instructed to run
> > > 'revdep-rebuild --soname libstdc++.so.5',
> > > if a system co
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:01 +, Mike Williams wrote:
> On Monday 28 November 2005 14:22, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably
> > going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon. If any of the
> > archs that have already do
On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:27:10 +
Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> i know they are executables, that's why we're talking about a
> specific subdir of lib
>
> libexec clutters /usr while /usr/lib/misc hides it nicely ...
> afterall, this are internal binaries that end user should never
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:18:05AM -0500, Olivier Cr?te wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 14:53 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
> > > what's the official status of /usr/libexec directory?
> >
> > personally, i'd prefer if we m
On Tue, 2005-29-11 at 14:53 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
> > what's the official status of /usr/libexec directory?
>
> personally, i'd prefer if we moved all of /usr/libexec to /usr/lib/misc
Why move the libexec content t
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 09:50:34AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:51 +0100, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
> > Every user _must_ be instructed to run
> > 'revdep-rebuild --soname libstdc++.so.5',
> > if a system contains things linking to libstdc++.so.5 and things linking to
> >
On Monday 28 November 2005 14:22, Mark Loeser wrote:
> This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably
> going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon. If any of the
> archs that have already done the move from having 3.3 stable to 3.4 could
> give us a head
On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 03:23:54PM +0100, Diego 'Flameeyes' Petten? wrote:
> what's the official status of /usr/libexec directory?
there is none afaik ... it's something we've been leaving alone for
the time being because it hasnt been that critical of an issue
personally, i'd prefer if we moved
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:51 +0100, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 November 2005 03:40, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > > that means when people upgrade to gcc-3.4, gcc-3.3 will remain on their
> > > system until they remove it
> > >
> > > so if user fails
Henrik Brix Andersen posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
excerpted below, on Mon, 28 Nov 2005 10:48:01 +0100:
> So I fired up a web browser and there it was - first section in the GWN
> [1]. Seems the GWN authors have read my blog entry [2] and decided to
> bring their own version of it to the public.
>
Hi all,
little question (that could start up a flame): what's the official status
of /usr/libexec directory?
I was told on IRC time ago to prefer /usr/$(get_libdir)/misc to libexec
because that's already ABI-specified... but I'm not really sure.
/usr/libexec is already used by many upstream pack
As a user who has done this on a number of systems - its no sweat.
Also, check some of the older guides for upgrading from gcc-2.95 to 3,
and 3.0 to 3.1 - should still be around somewhere. Its been done
before, more than once - ask some of the older devs whove been around
since the early days(!)
Speaking as a user who upgraded from 3.3.x to 3.4.x a loong lng
time ago and also as a forum mod who sees questins about this on a daily
basis:
Users are more or less aware that they will have to rebuild the entire
world including the kernel when they upgrade gcc. If they aren't alread
Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> We will also need to instruct users to recompile their kernel with
> gcc-3.4 otherwise the external modules (which will be recompiled with
> gcc-3.4 during `emerge -e world`) will fail to load because of
> vermagic mismatch.
This assumes that they d
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 12:18, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> gcc-3.4 during `emerge -e world`) will fail to load because of
Why should one do that? It's not needed. But of course recompiling the
kernel and external modules at some point makes sense.
Paul
--
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 09:22:33AM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably
> going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon. If any of the
> archs that have already done the move from having 3.3 stable to 3.4 could
> give u
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 10:53, Graham Murray wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > It is also needed for third party apps that were linked against
> > libstdc++.so.5. As long as those applications do not depend on other
> > libraries that are linked against a newer c++ lib thi
Paul de Vrieze <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> It is also needed for third party apps that were linked against
> libstdc++.so.5. As long as those applications do not depend on other
> libraries that are linked against a newer c++ lib things are totally ok.
But unfortunately is does happen. For ex
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 09:51, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
> Every user _must_ be instructed to run
> 'revdep-rebuild --soname libstdc++.so.5',
> if a system contains things linking to libstdc++.so.5 and things
> linking to libstdc++.so.6 I consider it horribly broken.
>
A system is only horribly bro
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 03:40, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > that means when people upgrade to gcc-3.4, gcc-3.3 will remain on
> > their system until they remove it
> >
> > so if user fails to rebuild all their packages before unmerging
> > gcc-3.3 they will
On Tuesday 29 November 2005 03:40, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > that means when people upgrade to gcc-3.4, gcc-3.3 will remain on their
> > system until they remove it
> >
> > so if user fails to rebuild all their packages before unmerging gcc-3.3
> > they will
38 matches
Mail list logo
