Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86
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++-v3 or running the revdep-rebuild, as it will leave you > with a broken python and therefore unable to emerge. Which returns us to the question why don't we build python with nocxx so that we could avoid this major PITA. -- jakub pgpQpg8uVxpUk.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86
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 having changed. > 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 Bug 64615. -- jakub pgpgEl2aFDbjP.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86
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 to >> change their gcc, so nothing is going to just magically break. > 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 bug #101471. This bug > was opened 2005-08-05 and it's still not fixed. > Whenever I try 3.4.4 I can't rebuild glibc because of this bug. Sure. So remove USE=vanilla from your use flags and it will work. That bug won't be fixed, because it's not a bug. -- Best regards, Jakub Moc mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95 B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E ... still no signature ;) pgpkKIpnkGEFu.pgp Description: PGP signature
