Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> I've encountered the same and didn't know how to solve it. I found out that
> mkstemp was some standard C function so I remerged glibc, but that didn't do
> the trick. Eventuella I restarted my installation. It as i686 with 32 bit
> though. Did you change CHOST maybe
On Wednesday 02 September 2009 16:13:12 Mike Kazantsev wrote:
> On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 13:12:22 +0200
>
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Wednesday 02 September 2009 01:16:10 Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> > > Am Mittwoch, 2. September 2009 schrieb Nick Khamis:
> > > > Hello Everyone.
> > > >
> > > > I am tr
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 13:12:22 +0200
Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Wednesday 02 September 2009 01:16:10 Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> > Am Mittwoch, 2. September 2009 schrieb Nick Khamis:
> > > Hello Everyone.
> > >
> > > I am trying to update-python and I am stuck at "checking for working
> > > mkstemp..
On Wednesday 02 September 2009 01:16:10 Frank Steinmetzger wrote:
> Am Mittwoch, 2. September 2009 schrieb Nick Khamis:
> > Hello Everyone.
> >
> > I am trying to update-python and I am stuck at "checking for working
> > mkstemp." for ever, what should I do.. This is a fresh install
> > AMD64.
I did not change CHOST just CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS as per the manual.
h
Regards,
Ninus
Am Mittwoch, 2. September 2009 schrieb Nick Khamis:
> Hello Everyone.
>
> I am trying to update-python and I am stuck at "checking for working
> mkstemp." for ever, what should I do.. This is a fresh install AMD64.
>
> Thanks in Advanced,
> Ninus.
I've encountered the same and didn't know how
Hello Everyone.
I am trying to update-python and I am stuck at "checking for working
mkstemp." for ever, what should I do.. This is a fresh install AMD64.
Thanks in Advanced,
Ninus.
* Alan McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> You are expecting autoconf to actually do something sane when it runs???
>
*rofl*
The point is: the way autoconf does its 'checks' is completely
insane - beginning with the expectation that an dumb script
is more clever than an operator ;-o
I've
Brandon Mintern ha scritto:
I had thought the same thing myself some time ago, and I discovered
that there had been work on a FEATURE called confcache. I believe it
was abandoned, though, due to major difficulties. This is merely a
guess, but I think some of the problems arise in that some of the
On Fri, 02 May 2008 11:25:41 +0200
Wolf Canis wrote:
> Brandon Mintern wrote:
> > ccache caches the compile step. I believe the OP was specifically
> > looking for something that would cache the answers to the "checking
> > for" lines (the configuration step).
>
> Yes, you are right, but I th
Brandon Mintern wrote:
ccache caches the compile step. I believe the OP was specifically
looking for something that would cache the answers to the "checking
for" lines (the configuration step).
Yes, you are right, but I thought that ccache cached parts of the
configuration too.
That's what
ccache caches the compile step. I believe the OP was specifically
looking for something that would cache the answers to the "checking
for" lines (the configuration step).
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 4:49 AM, Wolf Canis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Hello,
> "ccache" does caching, I use
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In the middle of doing a major upgrade from very old pkgs to current
2008 and compiling lots and lots of stuff.
Seeing that line `checking for WHATEVER' go by 486,211 times so far
makes me wonder if there wouldn't be someway to cache all those
answers somewhere so whatev
On Thursday 01 May 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thursday 01 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In the middle of doing a major upgrade from very old pkgs to
> > current 2008 and compiling lots and lots of stuff.
> >
> > Seeing that line `checking for WHATEVER' go by 486,211 times so
> > far m
On Thursday 01 May 2008, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In the middle of doing a major upgrade from very old pkgs to current
> 2008 and compiling lots and lots of stuff.
>
> Seeing that line `checking for WHATEVER' go by 486,211 times so far
> makes me wonder if there wouldn't be someway to cache all t
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 3:11 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the middle of doing a major upgrade from very old pkgs to current
> 2008 and compiling lots and lots of stuff.
>
> Seeing that line `checking for WHATEVER' go by 486,211 times so far
> makes me wonder if there wouldn't be someway t
In the middle of doing a major upgrade from very old pkgs to current
2008 and compiling lots and lots of stuff.
Seeing that line `checking for WHATEVER' go by 486,211 times so far
makes me wonder if there wouldn't be someway to cache all those
answers somewhere so whatever test is done for each li
On Saturday 11 August 2007 20:53:59 Canek Peláez wrote:
> On 8/11/07, Mark Knecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >emerge gnome fails. Does anyone recognize what portage is
> > complaining about here?
>
> I'm not really sure, but I solved it by reemerging dev-perl/XML-Parser.
> --
> Canek
On 8/11/07, Mark Knecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>emerge gnome fails. Does anyone recognize what portage is
> complaining about here?
I'm not really sure, but I solved it by reemerging dev-perl/XML-Parser.
--
Canek Peláez Valdés
Facultad de Ciencias, UNAM
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing
Hi,
emerge gnome fails. Does anyone recognize what portage is
complaining about here?
Thanks,
Mark
dragonfly ~ # emerge -pvDuN gnome
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild U ] gnome-base/gnome-vfs-2.18.1 [2.16.3-r1] USE="hal ipv6
20 matches
Mail list logo
