On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 03:03 +0100, Matthias Langer wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 01:30 +0100, Marien Zwart wrote:
> > 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:
> >
On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 01:30 +0100, Marien Zwart wrote:
> 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 t
On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 18:37 +0100, Andreas Proschofsky wrote:
> It's not that easy for every package. For instance openoffice and
> openoffice-bin need to got to the same location, cause OOo does a user
> install and this will break when changing between them (and all the
> settings / paths and so
Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 17:34 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
>
>
> Technically, you don't need to rebuild world. You only need to rebuild
> stuff that uses C++ and links to libstdc++.
>
>
How about giving the following as an alternative:
revdep-rebuild --library=libstdc++.s
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
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
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.
[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
> 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 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
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 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, 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 10:52:11AM -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, 2005-11-29 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, 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, 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
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
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 be screwed, but OH WELL
Yea. Even after they remove it though,
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 05:24:52PM -0500, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 19:12 +0100, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
> > Does this mean that we can get rid of the libstd++ dependency of gcc,
> > and move it to the binary packages that depends on gcc 3.3 .
> > I know this has been d
On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 19:12 +0100, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
>
> Does this mean that we can get rid of the libstd++ dependency of gcc,
> and move it to the binary packages that depends on gcc 3.3 .
> I know this has been discussed before, but once it's stable I see no
> reason to keep the dep
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Does this mean that we can get rid of the libstd++ dependency of gcc,
and move it to the binary packages that depends on gcc 3.3 .
I know this has been discussed before, but once it's stable I see no
reason to keep the dependency in the gcc ebuild, whe
On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 09:22:33AM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> 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 the
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 heads up on what to expect, that would be great. Only thing I se
61 matches
Mail list logo
