Denis wrote:
> I am upgrading from gcc-4.1.1-rX to gcc-4.1.2... Is it safe to just
> emerge the new version, or do I need to do "emerge -eav system" and
> "emerge -eav world", as the gcc upgrade guide suggests? Do I need to
> rebuild libtool every time I upgrade gcc?
>
> Thanks!
> Denis
Since th
On Sonntag, 20. Mai 2007, Denis wrote:
> I am upgrading from gcc-4.1.1-rX to gcc-4.1.2... Is it safe to just
> emerge the new version
yes
> , or do I need to do "emerge -eav system" and
> "emerge -eav world", as the gcc upgrade guide suggests? Do I need to
> rebuild libtool every time I upgrad
quoth the Peter:
> It appears that the realplayer binary still requires libstdc++.so.5 which
> is provided by libstdc++-v3-3.3.4. So despite the fact that this library
> may not be needed for recompiled c++ apps, binary ones like this may still
> require the old library :(
>
> ldd realplay.bin
> ..
> > I don't believe that I included the USE=nocxx variable.
>
> You can simply check with "emerge -pv gcc".
Yes, I must have included the nocxx in my use variable since a re-build of GCC
included the g++
compiler. From this point forward all packages using C++ would build with out
errors.
How
Am Samstag, 12. August 2006 09:05 schrieb ext Richard Broersma Jr:
> I don't believe that I included the USE=nocxx variable.
You can simply check with "emerge -pv gcc".
Bye...
Dirk
--
Dirk Heinrichs | Tel: +49 (0)162 234 3408
Configuration Manager | Fax: +49 (0)211 47068 1
On 8/12/06, Richard Broersma Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Unless you are crazy enough to have USE=nocxx, you get a c++ compiler
> with gcc. Others are controlled by USE flags.
I don't believe that I included the USE=nocxx variable. I will give another
try at re-building
GCC a little later
> Unless you are crazy enough to have USE=nocxx, you get a c++ compiler
> with gcc. Others are controlled by USE flags.
I don't believe that I included the USE=nocxx variable. I will give another
try at re-building
GCC a little later just to see if I get the same effect. (Honestly, I did add a
On 8/11/06, Richard Broersma Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Certain packages are failing to build because they make use of a C++ compiler.
Is there a way to
ensure that this and other compilers of enterest are included with GCC?
Unless you are crazy enough to have USE=nocxx, you get a c++ comp
--- Richard Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 8/11/06, Richard Broersma Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The error message displayed was "/sbin/depscan.sh missing". It seems that
> > without it I am
> unable
>
> It is part of sys-apps/baselayout:
>
> tacklebox / # equery belongs /sbin/de
On 8/11/06, Richard Broersma Jr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
The error message displayed was "/sbin/depscan.sh missing". It seems that
without it I am unable
It is part of sys-apps/baselayout:
tacklebox / # equery belongs /sbin/depscan.sh
[ Searching for file(s) /sbin/depscan.sh in *... ]
sys-
> -Original Message-
> From: Thomas T. Veldhouse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2006 10:25 AM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] gcc-4.1.1
> You didn't pay attention to what he wrote. I hope perhaps my post made
&
Bob Young wrote:
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Behalf Of Richard Fish
Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 9:24 PM
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] gcc-4.1.1
On 6/7/06, Bob Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
cha
Bob Young wrote:
Depends on what you consider sufficient. Although what the page recommends
was misquoted, it actually suggests:
emerge -e system
emerge -e system
emerge -e world
emerge -e world
That's probably is a little bit excessive, but the reason for doing the two
emerge -e systems is so
On 6/12/06, Bob Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
That being said, seems these two articles appear to be giving out bad
information:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=282474&highlight=
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-345229.html
Yes, I would have to agree. The first is just so utt
> -Original Message-
> From: Jerry McBride [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 7:10 PM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] gcc-4.1.1
>
>
> On Wednesday 07 June 2006 21:50, Bob Young wrote:
> Note that the
>
On Wednesday 07 June 2006 21:50, Bob Young wrote:
> > On 6/7/06, Roy Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > You might want to read:
> > >
> > > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=282474&highlight=
> > >
> > > which basically recommends:
> > >
> > > emerge -s
> > > emerge -s
> > > emerg
On 6/9/06, Vladimir G. Ivanovic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I definitely built libstdc++-v3 with gcc-4.1.1, but interestingly genlop
doesn't report any USE or CFLAGS for it. Hmmm.
Look at the ebuild for libstdc++-v3. It actually builds gcc-3.3 with
C++ support, and then pulls the libstdc++.so l
On Thu, 2006-06-08 at 11:05 -0700, Richard Fish wrote:
> There is simply no way to build libstdc++-v3 with the new compiler; it
> would break any programs that need it. Gcc likes to make incompatible
> changes in the C++ ABI from one version to the next, so building -v3
> with the new gcc would gi
Others have already coverd the major points, so just a couple of
things to add...
On 6/8/06, Bob Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Are you absolutely 100% sure that every single system utility and
application is *dynamically* linked, and that no apps or utilities anywhere
in the system specifies
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 07:00:22AM -0700, Bob Young wrote:
>
>
> > From: Hans-Werner Hilse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:32 AM
> > To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> > Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] gcc-4.1.1
> >
> > Try to
> -Original Message-
> From: Bo Ørsted Andresen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 7:29 AM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] gcc-4.1.1
>
>
> Thursday 08 June 2006 16:00 skrev Bob Young:
> > Show me some d
Thursday 08 June 2006 16:00 skrev Bob Young:
> Show me some documentation for this "staging" you refer to.
If you unpack the gcc sources you will find it in gcc-*/INSTALL/build.html as
already mentioned by Richard. But you can also see it at [1].
[1] http://gcc.gnu.org/install/build.html
--
Bo
> -Original Message-
> From: Hans-Werner Hilse [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2006 6:32 AM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] gcc-4.1.1
>
> You haven't understood a word from the posting you're replyi
Hi,
On Thu, 8 Jun 2006 05:34:49 -0700 "Bob Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> No, sorry that's just wrong. gcc is slotted, if the above were true
> there would be no need for gcc-config in order to select a default
> compiler.
Did you follow the documentation pointer given in the mail you are
r
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Behalf Of Richard Fish
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 9:24 PM
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] gcc-4.1.1
>
>
> On 6/7/06, Bob Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
thanks every body,
every thing goes fine now without errors i didn't change any thing
just a reboot then etc-update; env-update and every thing works fine.
On 6/8/06, Richard Fish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/7/06, Evan Klitzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> AFAIK, the only thing that you need
On 6/7/06, Evan Klitzke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
AFAIK, the only thing that you need to compile twice is GCC. And you
don't even really need to do that twice. The second pass will may
pass on new optimizations that will make it more efficient, but the
code it outputs will be exactly the same.
On 6/7/06, Bob Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
chain. At the end of the first emerge -e system you may have a new compiler,
but that new compiler was built with the old compiler.
This is false. Gcc uses itself to build itself. It uses the system
compiler to build an initial version of itself
> On 6/7/06, Roy Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You might want to read:
> >
> > http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=282474&highlight=
> >
> > which basically recommends:
> >
> > emerge -s
> > emerge -s
> > emerge -e
> > emerge -e
>
>
> Ugh, this is completely pointless. A sing
AFAIK, the only thing that you need to compile twice is GCC. And you
don't even really need to do that twice. The second pass will may
pass on new optimizations that will make it more efficient, but the
code it outputs will be exactly the same.
-- Evan Klitzke
On 6/7/06, Richard Fish <[EMAIL P
On 6/7/06, Roy Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You might want to read:
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=282474&highlight=
which basically recommends:
emerge -s
emerge -s
emerge -e
emerge -e
Ugh, this is completely pointless. A single "emerge -e world" is sufficient.
-Ric
On 6/7/06, Roy Wright <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Daniel da Veiga wrote:
> I'm watching this topic with curiosity, I have switched to ~x86
> recently and after it all (and a few debugging) I have all my packages
> testing now, but have not switched to the new GCC for fear of things
> breaking beyo
Daniel da Veiga wrote:
I'm watching this topic with curiosity, I have switched to ~x86
recently and after it all (and a few debugging) I have all my packages
testing now, but have not switched to the new GCC for fear of things
breaking beyound my knowledge on how to fix it. So, if people start
re
The pam-login/shadow blocking issue was a portage specific thing --
you would have gotten it no matter what version of gcc you were
running. In this case it was because pam-login being deprecated.
On 6/7/06, Mike Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I had some weird problems with the emerge -e syst
On 6/7/06, Mike Huber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I had some weird problems with the emerge -e system (libraries not
being properly identified to ./config scripts, that blocking issue
with pam.d & shadow, usual unstable tree stuff), but after toying with
it for a few hours, I have a successfully r
I had some weird problems with the emerge -e system (libraries not
being properly identified to ./config scripts, that blocking issue
with pam.d & shadow, usual unstable tree stuff), but after toying with
it for a few hours, I have a successfully running desktop.
On 6/7/06, Roy Wright <[EMAIL PRO
Mohammed Hagag wrote:
i just want to know if any one here have built a full desktop with
gcc-4.1.1 without problems ?
i have some problems with xf86 video drivers and some other ebuilds.
i did a bootstartp from normal stage3 and i'm doing emerge -e world
now but some important packages did not c
Did it without any problem.
> -Message d'origine-
> De : Mohammed Hagag [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Envoyé : mercredi 7 juin 2006 15:54
> À : gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Objet : [gentoo-user] gcc-4.1.1
>
> i just want to know if any one here have built a full desktop with
> gcc-4.1.1 w
Wednesday 07 June 2006 15:53 skrev Mohammed Hagag:
> i just want to know if any one here have built a full desktop with
> gcc-4.1.1 without problems ?
I had to run 'fix_libtool_files.sh 3.3.6' (my previous gcc was v. 3.3.6). I
did not have to emerge -e world (at least not yet). I have compiled qt
On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 16:53:31 +0300, Mohammed Hagag wrote:
> i just want to know if any one here have built a full desktop with
> gcc-4.1.1 without problems ?
> i have some problems with xf86 video drivers and some other ebuilds.
What problems?
> i did a bootstartp from normal stage3 and i'm doing
Mohammed Hagag wrote:
> i just want to know if any one here have built a full desktop with
> gcc-4.1.1 without problems ?
> i have some problems with xf86 video drivers and some other ebuilds.
>
> i did a bootstartp from normal stage3 and i'm doing emerge -e world
> now but some important packages
I use many software from gnome/kde/... and no problemsOn 6/7/06, Peper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> any one here know any thing about these problems ??after emerge -e world everything is working fine.--Best Regards,Peper--gentoo-user@gentoo.org
mailing list-- Julien Cabillot
> any one here know any thing about these problems ??
after emerge -e world everything is working fine.
--
Best Regards,
Peper
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On 02/06/06, Peper <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> And still I get this. Any ideas?
I have run into many strange problems with confcache, have you flushed(just
remove /var/tmp/confcache) it after upgrade to 4.1.1?
I can't even find that file in my system. :-(
--
Best Regards,
Peper
--
gentoo-us
> And still I get this. Any ideas?
I have run into many strange problems with confcache, have you flushed(just
remove /var/tmp/confcache) it after upgrade to 4.1.1?
--
Best Regards,
Peper
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On 5/28/06, John Laremore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
quit f
John, donate your computer to charity. This whole internet thing is
just not for you...
-Richard
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
e you arse holes.
>
>
> From: Bo ?rsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
> Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:25 +
ted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 Problems
> Date: Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:25 +0200
> MIME-Version: 1.0
> Received: from robin.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102]) by
> bay0-mc2-f10.
On Monday 29 May 2006 03:03, John Laremore wrote:
> quit fucking email bombing me you ass holes.
stop insulting people
stop sending html mail
Nobody is bombing you - why did you suscribe to this mailing list, if you
don't want emails from it?
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
quit fucking email bombing me you ass holes.
From: Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>Reply-To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.orgTo: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.orgSubject: Re: [gentoo-user] GCC 4.1.1 ProblemsDate: Mon, 29 May 2006 00:10:25 +0200MIME-Version: 1.0Received:
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
>On Monday 29 May 2006 01:11, Teresa and Dale wrote:
>
>
>>Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Monday 29 May 2006 00:43, Teresa and Dale wrote:
>>>
>>>
Don't use that one. LOL Which is it so the rest of us can avoid it?
Why ask for problems w
On Monday 29 May 2006 01:11, Teresa and Dale wrote:
> Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> >On Monday 29 May 2006 00:43, Teresa and Dale wrote:
> >>Don't use that one. LOL Which is it so the rest of us can avoid it?
> >>Why ask for problems when we have enough already. ;-)
> >
> >I am using it becaue
On Monday 29 May 2006 01:25, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> Monday 29 May 2006 00:51 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
> > > The digest still changed so it would have to be a mirror that the devs
> > > who created the digests used..
> >
> > what?
> >
> > I am talking about the problem, that mirrors might c
Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>Monday 29 May 2006 01:11 skrev Teresa and Dale:
>
>
>>Well, if they corrupt things, I can see why they are free. That really
>>sucks but I guess you are stuck with crossing your fingers and hoping it
>>will be a good file.
>>
>>
>
>Well, that's what the digest ver
Monday 29 May 2006 01:11 skrev Teresa and Dale:
> Well, if they corrupt things, I can see why they are free. That really
> sucks but I guess you are stuck with crossing your fingers and hoping it
> will be a good file.
Well, that's what the digest verification is for, right. It ensures that he
w
Monday 29 May 2006 00:51 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
> > The digest still changed so it would have to be a mirror that the devs
> > who created the digests used..
>
> what?
>
> I am talking about the problem, that mirrors might corrupt files and that
> this is why making a new digest may not be a
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
>On Monday 29 May 2006 00:43, Teresa and Dale wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Don't use that one. LOL Which is it so the rest of us can avoid it?
>>Why ask for problems when we have enough already. ;-)
>>
>>
>
>I am using it becaue I am only allowed to download a certain volu
On Monday 29 May 2006 00:43, Teresa and Dale wrote:
> Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
> >On Monday 29 May 2006 00:10, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> >>Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
> This change could be a
> bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix...
>
On Monday 29 May 2006 00:41, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> Monday 29 May 2006 00:32 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
> > > While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it more
> > > likely.
> >
> > because I know at least one mirror which regularly corrupts files.
>
> The digest still chan
Hemmann, Volker Armin wrote:
>On Monday 29 May 2006 00:10, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
>
>
>>Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
>>
>>
This change could be a
bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix...
>>>more probably - the mirror
Monday 29 May 2006 00:32 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
> > While that is possible I'm not really sure why you consider it more
> > likely.
>
> because I know at least one mirror which regularly corrupts files.
The digest still changed so it would have to be a mirror that the devs who
created the d
On Monday 29 May 2006 00:10, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
> Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
> > > This change could be a
> > > bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix...
> >
> > more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it
> > with a h
Sunday 28 May 2006 21:48 skrev Hemmann, Volker Armin:
> > This change could be a
> > bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix...
>
> more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it with
> a hacked package.
While that is possible I'm not really sure why you
On Sunday 28 May 2006 19:54, Bo Ørsted Andresen wrote:
This change could be a
> bugfix. By making your own digest you don't get this bugfix...
more probably - the mirror corrupted the file. Or someone replaced it with a
hacked package.
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
Sunday 28 May 2006 21:26 skrev Richard Fish:
> I just have to say that if upstream authors include a bug-fix without
> releasing a new version (and a differently named tarball), they need a
> good clubbing.
I agree with that. Still, apparently that is what happened here. It's stupid,
but since th
On 5/28/06, Bo Ørsted Andresen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
this security measure. In this case the tar file changed without changing the
name after you originally installed the package (or after it was downloaded
to the mirror that you are using...). This change could be a bugfix. By
making your o
Sunday 28 May 2006 19:36 skrev Kristian Poul Herkild:
> It's not GCC-related, and it's not exactly the first time we've had to
> make our own digests ;)
You should never make your own digest of a package that you have not altered
(or downloaded to an overlay...) yourself. Proper procedure is:
1.
JimD wrote:
> Jason Weisberger wrote:
>> List,
>>
>> I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
>> right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the
>> sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think
>> would be related to GCC, but the
Jason Weisberger wrote:
> List,
>
> I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
> right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the
> sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think
> would be related to GCC, but then again:
>
> app-a
Saturday 27 May 2006 23:22 skrev Jason Weisberger:
> I will be going on vacation for about a week, and when I get back I'll
> try to do all this again, hell, maybe even from a fresh install. I
> hear the benefits are worth it.
What benefits?
--
Bo Andresen
pgpt3NNfGxdh5.pgp
Description: PGP s
On 5/27/06, Jason Weisberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I've read a few things about 4.1.1 not playing well with GTK packages
on the forums, however, and that still appears to be the case. I'll
get exact error messages when I return and bring this thread up again.
Cool. Hopefully any problems
List,
I suppose that I just found it odd that it popped up after I switched
to GCC 4.1.1. Maybe coincidence. I'll delete all my digest files and
let them download again, because this is popping up on quite a few
packages. Maybe a bad mirror.
I will be going on vacation for about a week, and w
On 5/27/06, Hemmann, Volker Armin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
so run ebuild blabla.ebuild digest
wow, that is hard...
Probably better to just delete the distfiles and let them be
downloaded again though...
-Richard
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
On 5/27/06, Jason Weisberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
List,
I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the
sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think
would be related to GCC, but
On Saturday 27 May 2006 17:40, Jason Weisberger wrote:
> List,
>
> I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
> right? WRONG. So far I've had just about every problem under the
> sun, mostly in the form of filesize errors which I wouldn't think
> would be related to G
On Sat, 27 May 2006 19:40:06 +0400, Jason Weisberger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
app-admin/perl-cleaner
These packages quit on me after telling me that the reported filesize
by the ebuild wasn't equal to the downloaded filesize. This only
happened with gcc-config 6 (4.1.1). When I switched b
Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Jason Weisberger wrote:
>
> >I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
> >right? WRONG.
>
> Yes, very much so. See my "Upgrading to gcc 4.1: emerge -e world required?"
> thread.
Yea, since the soname was the same, I was under
Jason Weisberger wrote:
I figure upgrading to GCC 4.1.1 from 3.4.5 wouldn't be such a pain,
right? WRONG.
Yes, very much so. See my "Upgrading to gcc 4.1: emerge -e world required?"
thread.
These packages quit on me after telling me that the reported filesize
by the ebuild wasn't equal to t
78 matches
Mail list logo
