I somehow missed this post, so excuse me for the late reply.
2013/8/5 Mick :
> On Monday 05 Aug 2013 07:06:08 gevisz wrote:
>> My thanks to all who replied to my question.
>>
>> The problem was with my local router, which I also used as DNS.
>> After excluding it from /etc/resolv.config and /etc/i
On 12/08/13 05:49, 东方巽雷 wrote:
It seems that this variable is hard-code by gcc.I cannot change it any
more.When I use gcc -m32 to compile a 32bit program,gcc is looking for
/usr/lib rather than /usr/lib32.But in my system,/usr/lib is a symlink
to /usr/lib64.The real 32bit librarys is in /usr/lib3
On 12/08/2013 09:13, gevisz wrote:
> The response of the first router contained an error that prevented all the
> other applications to use it, the system knew about it (for example from
> the output of the host utility) but, nevertheless did not proceeded with
> the next router listed in resolv.co
On 2013-08-11 2:38 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 11/08/13 21:13, Neil Bothwick wrote:
There was a blocker (small b) because virtual/udev needed sys-fs/udev and
that gave a blocker that uninstalled eudev.
I believe it's 'b' if user doesn't have sys-fs/eudev in
/var/lib/portage/world, but 'B'
On 2013-08-11 1:48 PM, Marc Joliet wrote:
Am Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:30:57 -0400
schrieb Tanstaafl :
I just tried changing it
eselect profile set 3
eselect profile set 1
and it didn't create the link in /etc/portage, it is still in /etc...
Ah, then it *preserves* the current location. I have
Am Sun, 11 Aug 2013 21:29:41 +0200
schrieb Alan McKinnon :
[...]
> No. That links a file in /etc/portage to something that doesn't exist
> (arguments wrong way round), and the .. parent directory doesn't belong
> there at all:
>
> cd /etc/portage
> ln -s $POSTDIR/profiles/path/to/profile/you/want
On 12/08/2013 12:19, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-11 2:38 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>> On 11/08/13 21:13, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>> There was a blocker (small b) because virtual/udev needed sys-fs/udev
>>> and
>>> that gave a blocker that uninstalled eudev.
>
>> I believe it's 'b' if user doesn'
On 12/08/2013 12:21, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-11 1:48 PM, Marc Joliet wrote:
>> Am Sun, 11 Aug 2013 13:30:57 -0400
>> schrieb Tanstaafl :
>>> I just tried changing it
>>>
>>> eselect profile set 3
>>> eselect profile set 1
>>>
>>> and it didn't create the link in /etc/portage, it is still in
On 12/08/13 13:19, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-11 2:38 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 11/08/13 21:13, Neil Bothwick wrote:
There was a blocker (small b) because virtual/udev needed sys-fs/udev
and
that gave a blocker that uninstalled eudev.
I believe it's 'b' if user doesn't have sys-fs/eude
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/02/2013 05:01 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
>> Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>
>>> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default
>>> in sys-fs/udev Futhermore predictable network interface names
>>> work
On 2013-08-12 6:48 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 12/08/2013 12:19, Tanstaafl wrote:
Hmmm... so is it eudev that would need to be updated to 'fix' this? Or
virtual/udev? Or both?
It has to do with how virtuals work.
If you have the virtual in @world, and none of the packages that satisfy
the v
On 2013-08-12 6:48 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 12/08/2013 12:21, Tanstaafl wrote:
So, to do this manually just:
~ ln -s make.profile /usr/portage/profiles/default/linux/amd64/13.0
Please read the man page for ln.
You have the arguments in reverse.
Yeah, already noticed that, thanks... :)
On 2013-08-12 7:37 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
I just confirmed that while I do have sys-fs/udev in world, but I *do*
have virtual/udev.
Crap... I meant I do NOT have sys-fs/eudev (or sys-fs/udev) in @world...
On 12/08/13 14:37, hasufell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/02/2013 05:01 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optional and enabled by default
in sys-fs/udev Futhermore predictable network in
On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
how maintainership works.
But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is
annoying as 'ell and should be corrected where seen.
It is solving the problem
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
>
> On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>
>> True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
>> how maintainership works.
>> But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is
>> annoying as
On 12/08/2013 13:37, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-08-12 6:48 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 12/08/2013 12:19, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>> Hmmm... so is it eudev that would need to be updated to 'fix' this? Or
>>> virtual/udev? Or both?
>
>> It has to do with how virtuals work.
>>
>> If you have the virtua
I think the gcc version with x32 abi is faster.So I install a x32 version
on amd64.Now I have solved my problem by creating a new gcc specs
file.Thank you all the same.
2013/8/12 Samuli Suominen
> On 12/08/13 05:49, 东方巽雷 wrote:
>
>> It seems that this variable is hard-code by gcc.I cannot chang
On 12/08/13 15:17, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
how maintainership works.
But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something currently is
annoying as 'ell and should be corrected wh
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 12/08/13 15:17, Tanstaafl wrote:
>>
>> On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>>
>>> True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
>>> how maintainership works.
>>> But trying to lie to people it's some
On 12/08/13 15:19, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
how maintainership works.
But trying to lie to people it's somehow solving something
On 12/08/13 15:38, Alon Bar-Lev wrote:
On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 3:33 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 12/08/13 15:17, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-12 8:06 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
True, it won't be dropped for long as people are maintaining it. That's
how maintainership works.
But trying to l
On 08/12/2013 02:06 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
> On 12/08/13 14:37, hasufell wrote:
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
>> Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 08/02/2013 05:01 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
>>> On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
>
> Huh? USE="firmware-loader" is optio
On 12/08/13 16:39, hasufell wrote:
On 08/12/2013 02:06 PM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 12/08/13 14:37, hasufell wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/02/2013 05:01 AM, Samuli Suominen wrote:
On 02/08/13 05:48, Dale wrote:
Samuli Suominen wrote:
Huh? USE="firmware-loader"
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Anyone ever seen/can explain these?
>
> I had 3 of them, again, apparently during the .configure phase:
>
>> 2013-08-10T15:08:36-04:00 myhost kernel: conftest[12233]: segfault at 1 ip
>> 7f1fc65e8e47 sp 7690d6e0 error 4 in
>> libc-cli
On 2013-08-12 11:24 AM, Paul Hartman wrote:
On Sat, Aug 10, 2013 at 2:25 PM, Tanstaafl wrote:
Anyone ever seen/can explain these?
I had 3 of them, again, apparently during the .configure phase:
2013-08-10T15:08:36-04:00 myhost kernel: conftest[12233]: segfault at 1 ip
7f1fc65e8e47 sp 00
On 08/11/13 01:16, Daniel Frey wrote:
On 08/10/2013 09:27 AM, Andrew Lowe wrote:
Hi all,
As per usual an update of Libre Office is failing and causing all
sorts of build troubles. I have an install, the previous version, of
Libre Office working so how do I stop portage from trying to updat
Op dinsdag 13 augustus 2013 01:54:00 schreef Andrew Lowe:
> On 08/11/13 01:16, Daniel Frey wrote:
> > On 08/10/2013 09:27 AM, Andrew Lowe wrote:
> >> Hi all,
> >> As per usual an update of Libre Office is failing and causing all
> >> sorts of build troubles. I have an install, the previous ver
On 12/08/2013 20:05, Paul Klos wrote:
> Op dinsdag 13 augustus 2013 01:54:00 schreef Andrew Lowe:
>> On 08/11/13 01:16, Daniel Frey wrote:
>>> On 08/10/2013 09:27 AM, Andrew Lowe wrote:
Hi all,
As per usual an update of Libre Office is failing and causing all
sorts of build trou
2013/8/12 Alan McKinnon :
> On 12/08/2013 09:13, gevisz wrote:
>> The response of the first router contained an error that prevented all the
>> other applications to use it, the system knew about it (for example from
>> the output of the host utility) but, nevertheless did not proceeded with
>> the
30 matches
Mail list logo
