Andrew Muraco wrote:
> Mark Loeser wrote:
>> Andrew Muraco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>>> is a minimum. A full out doc with all the FAQ and important notes
>>> about what needs to be recompiled (in my opinion) would be a much
>>> more through upgrade path, ofcourse still include the einfo quick
>>>
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 16:19 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Georgi Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > So make gcc-config produce warnings when changing the compiler.
> >
> > "Switching to gcc-MAJOR.MINOR may break your system. Upgrade
> > instructions can be found at http://thedoc";
> >
> > Trigg
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 02:29 +0100, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> Hello,
> I've been looking some at Michael Meeks -Bdirect patches, and the
> possible performance boost they could give.
>
> The good parts here is that it seems to be far less intrusive for the
> running system than prelink is, on
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 22, 2005, at 4:13 AM, Grobian wrote:
On 21-11-2005 19:15:58 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
| virtual/x11 isn't xorg for all profiles.
Perhaps the relevant people (macos?) could get in touch with me,
and we
can figure out what needs to ha
051130 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 17:34 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
>> As one of the "masses", I am certainly disturbed at that implication.
>> I don't remember any such need when I upgraded 2.9.5 -> 3.x (now 3.3.6).
>> This is the kind of issue on which I trust the devs to do se
On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 01:53:25 +0100
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> 1.12.2005, 1:30:41, Marien Zwart wrote:
>
> > Not sure if everyone is aware of this, but most installed pythons link to
> > libstdc++.so. This is not a problem if you run the above revdep-rebuild (it
> > should catch it j
1.12.2005, 1:30:41, Marien Zwart wrote:
> Not sure if everyone is aware of this, but most installed pythons link to
> libstdc++.so. This is not a problem if you run the above revdep-rebuild (it
> should catch it just fine). It is a problem if you get rid of gcc 3.3 before
> installing libstdc++-v
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:50:02 -0500
Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > 1.12.2005, 0:29:48, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > revdep-rebuild --library=libstdc++.so.5 is all that's needed here to avoid
> > things like Bug 64615.
>
> Yea, I updated my statement
Jakub Moc <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 1.12.2005, 0:29:48, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Technically, you don't need to rebuild world. You only need to rebuild
> > stuff that uses C++ and links to libstdc++.
>
> revdep-rebuild --library=libstdc++.so.5 is all that's needed here to avoid
> things like
1.12.2005, 0:29:48, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 17:34 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
>> Ordinarily, I upgrade packages individually when it seems appropriate
>> & never do 'emerge world' with or without '-e' or other flags;
>> I do 'esync' every weekend & look at what is marked as
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 17:34 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
> As one of the "masses", I am certainly disturbed at that implication.
> I don't remember any such need when I upgraded 2.9.5 -> 3.x (now 3.3.6).
> This is the kind of issue on which I trust the devs to do sensible things,
> but do we really ne
Philip Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> I would very much appreciate a doc somewhere
> which explains the advantages of moving to 3.4
> & why a wholesale ground-up rebuild is necessary, if indeed it is.
> As always, my thanks to those who do the volunteer work.
C++ compat was broken between 3.3 an
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 10:27:47PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
>
> 30.11.2005, 22:19:27, Peter Ruskin wrote:
> > But we should not yet be encouraged to switch to 3.4. I upgraded to
> > i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.4 a long time ago but my gcc profile is still
> > firmly fixed at 3.3.5-20050130 because of
Philip Webb wrote: [Wed Nov 30 2005, 04:34:56PM CST]
> As one of the "masses", I am certainly disturbed at that implication.
> I don't remember any such need when I upgraded 2.9.5 -> 3.x (now 3.3.6).
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/new-upgrade-to-gentoo-1.4.xml
-g2boojum-
--
Grant Goodyear
Gentoo
On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:34:56 -0500 Philip Webb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
| As one of the "masses", I am certainly disturbed at that implication.
| I don't remember any such need when I upgraded 2.9.5 -> 3.x (now
| 3.3.6).
The 2.x -> 3.x upgrade was far worse. Maybe you're just repressing the
memo
051130 Andrew Muraco wrote:
> I think the masses of users will not be happy when they realize
> that 'emerge -e world && emerge -e world' ...
Should that be 'emerge -e system && emerge -e world' ?
> ... means that they will be compiling for the next day or 2 or 3 ,
As one of the "masses", I am
George Prowse wrote:
> On 24/11/05, lnxg33k <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 23 Nov 2005 19:49:18 +0100 Filip Bartmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>>wrote:
>>>| I want have Gentoo in e-shop with Linux distributions. I find, that
>>>| Gentoo is under GNU/GPL. Must I dist
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 13:56 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> > Only thing I see
> > as lacking is we might want to get a doc together on how to properly upgrade
> > your toolchain so we don't get an influx of bugs from users that have a
> > system half compiled wi
Peter Ruskin skrev:
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 20:12, Mark Loeser wrote:
gcc-3.4.* will not be selected as your system compiler after
merging it. The old gcc profile is still valid, therefore it is
kept. Users have to consciously go and change their profile to
change their gcc, so nothi
30.11.2005, 22:19:27, Peter Ruskin wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 November 2005 20:12, Mark Loeser wrote:
>> gcc-3.4.* will not be selected as your system compiler after
>> merging it. The old gcc profile is still valid, therefore it is
>> kept. Users have to consciously go and change their profile t
Georgi Georgiev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> So make gcc-config produce warnings when changing the compiler.
>
> "Switching to gcc-MAJOR.MINOR may break your system. Upgrade
> instructions can be found at http://thedoc";
>
> Trigger the message only when switching minor versions.
That's going to
Georgi Georgiev wrote:
maillog: 30/11/2005-15:16:35(-0500): Andrew Muraco types
Mark Loeser wrote:
Andrew Muraco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
is a minimum. A full out doc with all the FAQ and important notes about
what needs to be recompiled (in my opinion) would be a much more
maillog: 30/11/2005-15:16:35(-0500): Andrew Muraco types
> Mark Loeser wrote:
>
> >Andrew Muraco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> >
> >
> >>is a minimum. A full out doc with all the FAQ and important notes about
> >>what needs to be recompiled (in my opinion) would be a much more through
> >>upgrade
Mark Loeser wrote:
Andrew Muraco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
is a minimum. A full out doc with all the FAQ and important notes about
what needs to be recompiled (in my opinion) would be a much more through
upgrade path, ofcourse still include the einfo quick instructions. But I
think the mas
Andrew Muraco <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> is a minimum. A full out doc with all the FAQ and important notes about
> what needs to be recompiled (in my opinion) would be a much more through
> upgrade path, ofcourse still include the einfo quick instructions. But I
> think the masses of users will
Wernfried Haas wrote:
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 01:56:40PM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
Seems people read this to mean that I was going to write a doc, which I have
no intentions on doing.
I don't think a whole doc is necessary, but instructions for a safe
upgrade would be fine. A think a o
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 01:56:40PM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Seems people read this to mean that I was going to write a doc, which I have
> no intentions on doing.
I don't think a whole doc is necessary, but instructions for a safe
upgrade would be fine. A think a one-liner like
emerge -u gcc &&
Mark Loeser wrote:
>
> So, let me know if marking it stable in the next day or two is completely
> stupid and I should wait to announce this via the GWN or something, or if its
> an alright move and people aren't going to stab me for marking it stable.
>
gentoo-announce at least. I wish emerge
Mark Loeser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Only thing I see
> as lacking is we might want to get a doc together on how to properly upgrade
> your toolchain so we don't get an influx of bugs from users that have a
> system half compiled with 3.3 and the other half with 3.4 so they get linking
> errors.
On Monday 28 November 2005 21:01, Curtis Napier wrote:
> A seperate tag like , as
> someone mentioned earlier, would also be a huge help but would still
> give you the homepage info as well.
Seems like we are all ok for the tag in metadata then... should this
require a GLEP or it's a simple chang
On Fri, 2005-11-25 at 19:24 +, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > I'm looking to minimize what is in a stage1 tarball, not increase it. I
> > would much prefer that we instead had a proper dependency tree, than
> > hacking around it. Applications that need to add users on Linux
> > *should* DEPEND on
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 09:22 -0500, Michael Cummings wrote:
> Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Here's the deal. We have a new user that installs Gentoo. After
> > installing Gentoo, he tries to "emerge nagios" and it dies on building
> > apache over a bug that has been known for some time and still isn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
> Again, would anyone know what will happen to ~x86 gcc?, Will it become
> gcc40 or just use the stable x86 gcc for everyone? (except those who are
> already playing with gcc40 at their own risk)
Even if ~x86 does change to gcc40 then gcc is slotted so we can
continue to
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 09:16:40AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Again, would anyone know what will happen to ~x86 gcc?, Will it become
> gcc40 or just use the stable x86 gcc for everyone?
4.0.2-r1 wont be going into ~arch, but 4.0.2-r2 most likely will
i think we've done a good deal of polis
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> Here's the deal. We have a new user that installs Gentoo. After
> installing Gentoo, he tries to "emerge nagios" and it dies on building
> apache over a bug that has been known for some time and still isn't
> resolved. How exactly does that make us look? How exactly do
> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 23:41 -0500, Andrew Muraco wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, if this goes into effect before 2006.0 is released,
>> then ALL the stages for x86 and the livecd would be built with gcc34? If
>> so then I think this may benefit alot of users, especially ones that do
>> a stage1/2 jus
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 12:53 +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Wednesday 30 November 2005 01:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > 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 U
On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 07:01 +0100, Matthias Schwarzott wrote:
> 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)
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 23:41 -0500, Andrew Muraco wrote:
> Out of curiosity, if this goes into effect before 2006.0 is released,
> then ALL the stages for x86 and the livecd would be built with gcc34? If
> so then I think this may benefit alot of users, especially ones that do
> a stage1/2 just s
On Wednesday 30 November 2005 01:11, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> 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
40 matches
Mail list logo
