Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gcc 4.7.3 --> 4.8.3

2014-11-14 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:52:22 -0500, Jonathan Callen wrote: > > Yes, things may be a little different with 4.9, but the last time a > > rebuild was really required was,AFAIR, somewhere around 3.3. > The last time a rebuild of (almost) everything was required was when > the C++ ABI changed, with th

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gcc 4.7.3 --> 4.8.3

2014-11-12 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 02:07:23 + (UTC), James wrote: > > No, simply log out of the desktop and back in. > > Um, Tomas's little one-liner: > lsof -n | grep 'DEL.*lib' > > revealed far to much to deal with. I got lib issues coming out of my > arse (I've been hacking at a few things I do not fu

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gcc 4.7.3 --> 4.8.3

2014-11-11 Thread Dale
James wrote: > Dale gmail.com> writes: > >> After I do a major upgrade or --emptytree, I switch to boot runlevel, >> check with checkrestart and restart whatever it reports needs it. >> Generally, switching to boot runlevel catches most everything. > OK, so I emerge checkrestart and ran it. And t

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gcc 4.7.3 --> 4.8.3

2014-11-11 Thread Mick
On Tuesday 11 Nov 2014 21:03:56 Neil Bothwick wrote: > Why? The compiler is not used by running software. If there was an ABI > change meaning that mixing programs compiled with the two versions would > cause problem, emerge -e would be prudent, but that hasn't happened for a > long time. You don'

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gcc 4.7.3 --> 4.8.3

2014-11-11 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 20:19:36 + (UTC), James wrote: > Dale gmail.com> writes: > > Neil Bothwick wrote: > > > After an emerge -e world, a reboot is probably best, another > > > reason to avoid the unnecessary step of emerge -e world in > > > the first place. > > This conflict what others

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gcc 4.7.3 --> 4.8.3

2014-11-11 Thread Dale
Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:52:09 + (UTC), James wrote: > >>> I'd have thought you needed to emerge -e world if you really want to >>> be protected. >> Yea, maybe. I read the man page on emptytree. I get it actually replaces >> by a "reinstall". Does this do more than if I

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gcc 4.7.3 --> 4.8.3

2014-11-10 Thread Tomas Mozes
On 2014-11-10 23:23, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:52:09 + (UTC), James wrote: > I'd have thought you needed to emerge -e world if you really want to > be protected. Yea, maybe. I read the man page on emptytree. I get it actually replaces by a "reinstall". Does this do mo

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gcc 4.7.3 --> 4.8.3

2014-11-10 Thread Neil Bothwick
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:52:09 + (UTC), James wrote: > > I'd have thought you needed to emerge -e world if you really want to > > be protected. > > Yea, maybe. I read the man page on emptytree. I get it actually replaces > by a "reinstall". Does this do more than if I just reboot after > >

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gcc 4.7.3 --> 4.8.3

2014-11-09 Thread Peter Humphrey
On Saturday 08 November 2014 18:17:02 Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 07/11/14 19:46, James wrote: > > Ok > > > > so I'm still on 4.7.3; but if I set 4.8.3 > > as the default, should I rebuild @system ? > > > > # gcc-config -l > > [1] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-4.7.3 * > > [2] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-4.