On Monday 25 September 2006 19:16, Duncan wrote: > If you trust me not to pull some weird trick (I wouldn't, but hey, for > all you know I'm just some guy on a list, do you know me well enough to > trust? I'm not sure I'd trust a guy on the list in your spot, maybe > depends on how desperate I was), I have binpkgs of the following gcc > versions I could mail you:
Thanks anyway, Duncan, but I'm back to a stable 3.4.4 system now. I had to re-solve a problem with gnutls and I had to re-compile the kernel, but for the moment everything's looking solid. I probably ought to leave the GCC upgrade now until I come back from my honeymoon. > That does explain why your eselect-compiler could say 4.1.1 yet you were > having problems as if it was 3.4.x. If 3.4.x was the only one on your > system... But 4.1.1 did exist as well - it must have to compile the kernel with modules that had 4.1.1-magic. I don't know why the emerge process couldn't find it, but I'm sure it was there, or had been at some stage. (After restoring my backup with its 3.4.4 kernel modules, the 4.1.1 kernel in my /boot partition couldn't load those modules at boot time, so I had to boot an older system and recompile the kernel with 3.4.4 GCC. Soon done, but it confirms the presence of gcc-4.1.1.) -- Rgds Peter -- [email protected] mailing list
