I updated world yesterday, and discovered that bash functionality was
severly degraded on my machine. No up-arrow to scroll through history,
no tab-completion, etc, etc. A bit of Google searching turned up the
fact that bash no-longer uses an internal "readline" library, but now
depends on the
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:03 PM, Samuraiii wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2012-09-07 19:38, Andrey Moshbear wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Samuraiii wrote:
>>
>>> Are there any tips for gentoo amd64 with core2duo?
>>> Google doesn't seem to give any usable answers (I don't need configure
>>> binhost
2012/9/8 Neil Bothwick
> 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 g
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
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
On 2012-09-07 19:38, Andrey Moshbear wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Samuraiii wrote:
>
>> Are there any tips for gentoo amd64 with core2duo?
>> Google doesn't seem to give any usable answers (I don't need configure
>> binhost yet)
> While I can make a binpkg for gcc:{4,5,4.6,4.7} or g
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]'
An
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 07:25:42 -0500, Dale wrote:
> Since when you run emerge it loads everything into ram,
> regardless of whether portages work directory is on tmpfs or not, it
> doesn't matter. This test is NOT about portage loading things into ram
> WHILE emerging, it was about having the work
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 11:32 AM, "Roland Häder" wrote:
>> Weird, I'm on 2.8.0-r1 and didn't have to do any hoop jumping to get
>> there (~amd64).
> Yes, it is really weird thing. :/ I use x86 (i686, my laptop does only
> support 32 bit; it is a Thinkpad R51).
Did you check b.g.o to see if anyone
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:24 PM, Samuraiii wrote:
> Are there any tips for gentoo amd64 with core2duo?
> Google doesn't seem to give any usable answers (I don't need configure
> binhost yet)
While I can make a binpkg for gcc:{4,5,4.6,4.7} or glibc-2.15-r2 on my
c2d-penryn laptop, my adsl upload r
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Samuraiii wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2012-09-07 18:09, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Samuraiii
> wrote:
>
> On 2012-09-07 17:44, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Samuraiii
> wrote:
>
> On 2012-09-07 13:04, William Kenworthy
Am 07.09.2012 14:53, schrieb Tanstaafl:
> On 2012-09-07 7:44 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Tanstaafl
>> wrote:
>>> This has never happened to me before...
>>>
>>> Since when did a simple GCC upgrade *automatically* REMOVE my prior GCC
>>> install???
>>>
>>> I have
On 2012-09-07 18:03, Michael Mol wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Samuraiii wrote:
On 2012-09-07 17:37, Andrey Moshbear wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:04 AM, William Kenworthy
wrote:
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 12:46 +0
On 2012-09-07 18:09, Michael Mol wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Samuraiii wrote:
On 2012-09-07 17:44, Michael Mol wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Samuraiii
wrote:
On 2012-09-07 13:04, William Kenworthy wr
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:57 AM, Samuraiii wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2012-09-07 17:44, Michael Mol wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Samuraiii
> wrote:
>
> On 2012-09-07 13:04, William Kenworthy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 12:46 +0200, Samuraiii wrote:
>
> On 2012-09-07 11:49, Andrey Moshb
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Samuraiii wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2012-09-07 17:37, Andrey Moshbear wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:04 AM, William Kenworthy
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 12:46 +0200, Samuraiii wrote:
>>
>> On 201
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Samuraiii wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2012-09-07 17:37, Andrey Moshbear wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:04 AM, William Kenworthy
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 12:46 +0200, Samuraiii wrote:
>
> On 2012-09-07 11:49, Andrey Moshbear wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5
On 2012-09-07 17:44, Michael Mol wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Samuraiii wrote:
On 2012-09-07 13:04, William Kenworthy wrote:
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 12:46 +0200, Samuraiii wrote:
On 2012-09-07 11:49, Andrey Moshbear
On 2012-09-07 17:37, Andrey Moshbear
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:04 AM, William Kenworthy wrote:
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 12:46 +0200, Samuraiii wrote:
On 2012-09-07 11:49, Andrey Moshbear wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:35 AM, Samuraiii wrote:
> On 2012-09-07 13:04, William Kenworthy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 12:46 +0200, Samuraiii wrote:
>
> On 2012-09-07 11:49, Andrey Moshbear wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Andrey Moshbear
> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:46 AM
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 7:04 AM, William Kenworthy wrote:
> On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 12:46 +0200, Samuraiii wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2012-09-07 11:49, Andrey Moshbear wrote:
>>
>> > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Andrey Moshbear
>> > wrote:
>> > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Samuraiii
>> > > wro
On 2012-09-07 13:04, William Kenworthy
wrote:
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 12:46 +0200, Samuraiii wrote:
On 2012-09-07 11:49, Andrey Moshbear wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Andrey Moshbear wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Tanstaafl 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
slot replace the previous
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2012-09-07 9:22 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Tanstaafl
>> 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
On 2012-09-07 9:22 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Tanstaafl 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
mature. You are on your own
Sorry... I should
On 2012-09-07 9:12 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Tanstaafl 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.
All of us told you that you are wrong. Since y
On 2012-09-07, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2012-09-07 7:44 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>> This always happens if the gcc your are upgrading to is in the same
>> slot as the previous one.
>
> Well, I've been managing this gentoo server since I installed it over 8
> years ago, and I don't *ever* recall
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2012-09-07 7:44 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Tanstaafl
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This has never happened to me before...
>>>
>>> Since when did a simple GCC upgrade *automatically* REMOVE my prior GCC
>>> install??
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2012-09-07 7:44 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Tanstaafl
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This has never happened to me before...
>>>
>>> Since when did a simple GCC upgrade *automatically* REMOVE my prior GCC
>>> install??
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2012-09-07 7:44 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Tanstaafl
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> This has never happened to me before...
>>>
>>> Since when did a simple GCC upgrade *automatically* REMOVE my prior GCC
>>> install??
On 2012-09-07 7:44 AM, Markos Chandras wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Tanstaafl 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 ne
Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
>
>> But whether it is on tmpfs or just regular memory doesn't matter. Once
>> emerge starts, everything is in ram including portages work directory
>> which would be on tmpfs here. That's why it doesn't matter if portage
>> is on tmpfs or not.
Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
>
>> But this is what you guys are missing too. If you want to use tmpfs,
>> you have to have enough ram to begin with. Whether you use tmpfs or
>> not, you have to have enough ram to do the compile otherwise you start
>> using swap or it just c
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:24 PM, Tanstaafl 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 something to fall
On 07/09/12 14:24, Tanstaafl 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 something to fall back on if the current on
On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 00:14:00 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote
> On Thu, Sep 06, 2012 at 02:13:04PM +0100, pat wrote
> > On Thu, 6 Sep 2012 14:00:22 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote
> > >
> > > Please post contents of /etc/conf.d/net
> > >
> > > --
> > > Neil Bothwick
> > >
> > > Top Oxymorons Number 5: Twelve
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 (
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 something to fall back on if the current one breaks.
I am NOT a happy campe
On Fri, 2012-09-07 at 12:46 +0200, Samuraiii wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2012-09-07 11:49, Andrey Moshbear wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Andrey Moshbear
> > wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Samuraiii
> > > wrote:
> > > > Hello
> > > > yesterday I probably broke my GCC
> > >
On 2012-09-07 11:49, Andrey Moshbear
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Andrey Moshbear wrote:
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Samuraiii wrote:
Hello
yesterday I probably broke my GCC
Problem is
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Andrey Moshbear wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Samuraiii wrote:
>>
>> Hello
>> yesterday I probably broke my GCC
>>
>> Problem is following:
>> When i try to emerge ANY package it fails with this :
>>
>> checking whether the C compiler works... yes
>> che
On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 4:46 AM, Samuraiii wrote:
>
> Hello
> yesterday I probably broke my GCC
>
> Problem is following:
> When i try to emerge ANY package it fails with this :
>
> checking whether the C compiler works... yes
> checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
> checking f
The 07/09/12, Nicolas Sebrecht wrote:
> > There is another flaw in your assumption above. I already had the
> > tarballs downloaded BEFORE even the first emerge.
>
> This is not a flaw in assumption. This is negligible.
Fixing myself: s/negligible/out of the scope/
--
Nicolas Sebrecht
Hello
yesterday I probably broke my GCC
Problem is following:
When i try to emerge ANY package it fails with this :
checking whether the C compiler works... yes
checking for C compiler default output file name... a.out
checking for suffix of executables...
checking whether we are cross compiling
The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
> But this is what you guys are missing too. If you want to use tmpfs,
> you have to have enough ram to begin with. Whether you use tmpfs or
> not, you have to have enough ram to do the compile otherwise you start
> using swap or it just crashes. Having ram is a prereq
The 06/09/12, Dale wrote:
> But whether it is on tmpfs or just regular memory doesn't matter. Once
> emerge starts, everything is in ram including portages work directory
> which would be on tmpfs here. That's why it doesn't matter if portage
> is on tmpfs or not. Once emerge loads up the files
46 matches
Mail list logo
