Re: [gentoo-user] USE one more time!
Thank you, Matt, for the explanation. That clears it up. My PIII dual 933 is on glibc after 10 hours so maybe sometime this week it will finish! On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 06:13:23 -0800 Matt Tucker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: -- Jonathan Chocron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake thusly: I have noticed the same thing, it is due to the export CONFIG_PROTECT="-*" instruction that you pass right before emerging portage. I only see one solution : you can 'export CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK="/etc/make.conf"' Hope this helps Actually, trying to set CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK="/etc/make.conf" won't work, for a couple reasons. First of all, protect_mask means "don't protect". It's for marking directories under CONFIG_PROTECT which shouldn't be protected. What would make more sense is CONFIG_PROTECT="-* /etc/make.conf", but this won't work either, because the config_protect mechanism only deals with directories. Trying to set it to /etc/make.conf will simply ensure that any files that want to install to /etc/make.conf/... are protected. And there obviously aren't any. In regards to bootstrap.sh, it copies make.conf before starting, and then restores it when complete. This is good because it also explicitly does CONFIG_PROTECT="-*" and then immediately "emerge portage", which overwrites the make.conf you've just so carefully created. But if you look more closely, it actually is doing this: read make.conf settings into environment (including CFLAGS) backup make.conf emerge portage (overwrites make.conf) emerge baselayout texinfo gettext binutils gcc emerge glibc baselayout texinfo gettext zlib binutils gcc restore make.conf So everything gets built optimized during bootstrap, but it's not obvious from the filesystem. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] USE one more time!
-- Jonathan Chocron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> spake thusly: > I have noticed the same thing, it is due to the export > CONFIG_PROTECT="-*" instruction that you pass right > before emerging portage. I only see one solution : > you can 'export CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK="/etc/make.conf"' > > Hope this helps Actually, trying to set CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK="/etc/make.conf" won't work, for a couple reasons. First of all, protect_mask means "don't protect". It's for marking directories under CONFIG_PROTECT which shouldn't be protected. What would make more sense is CONFIG_PROTECT="-* /etc/make.conf", but this won't work either, because the config_protect mechanism only deals with directories. Trying to set it to /etc/make.conf will simply ensure that any files that want to install to /etc/make.conf/... are protected. And there obviously aren't any. In regards to bootstrap.sh, it copies make.conf before starting, and then restores it when complete. This is good because it also explicitly does CONFIG_PROTECT="-*" and then immediately "emerge portage", which overwrites the make.conf you've just so carefully created. But if you look more closely, it actually is doing this: read make.conf settings into environment (including CFLAGS) backup make.conf emerge portage (overwrites make.conf) emerge baselayout texinfo gettext binutils gcc emerge glibc baselayout texinfo gettext zlib binutils gcc restore make.conf So everything gets built optimized during bootstrap, but it's not obvious from the filesystem. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] USE one more time!
Thanks. I figured bootstrap would want a solid, known set of parameters. Now if I can figure out why building stage 1 takes so long! On 21 Feb 2003 09:27:46 + Mike Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 01:36, Brett I.Holcomb wrote: 1. Is my edited /etc/make.conf really used during bootstrap. 2. Is the USE variable used for stage 1? Sort of. If you look in the bootstrap script there are (were?) references to 'cleanup', this, I believe, handles the moving around of make.conf. It does make sense to drop to a known, good, solid set of parameters (not just USE) when doing the actual bootstrap. The gcc, glibc, binutils, etc you are left with should have been compiled to your specs when it's all finished, as they are compiled at least twice. -- Mike Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] USE one more time!
This is during stage 1 - I don't set the CONFIG_PROTECT until AFTER stage 1. On Fri, 21 Feb 2003 10:26:07 +0100 (CET) Jonathan Chocron <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: I have noticed the same thing, it is due to the export CONFIG_PROTECT="-*" instruction that you pass right before emerging portage. I only see one solution : you can 'export CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK="/etc/make.conf"' Hope this helps Jonathan --- "Brett I. Holcomb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Is the USE variable in /etc/make.conf really used during a bootstrap compile? I ask because I've noticed that if I edit /etc/make.conf per the instructions, then do the bootstrap and cat or less /etc/make.conf stage 1 is building it does not have my changes in it - make.conf.build has them but make.conf has the default. I assume make.conf is used by the bootstrap to get architecture, make, and download agent information (if any). So 1. Is my edited /etc/make.conf really used during bootstrap. 2. Is the USE variable used for stage 1? Thanks. -- Brett I. Holcomb AKA Grunt <>< -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list ___ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] USE one more time!
On Fri, 2003-02-21 at 01:36, Brett I.Holcomb wrote: > 1. Is my edited /etc/make.conf really used during bootstrap. > > 2. Is the USE variable used for stage 1? Sort of. If you look in the bootstrap script there are (were?) references to 'cleanup', this, I believe, handles the moving around of make.conf. It does make sense to drop to a known, good, solid set of parameters (not just USE) when doing the actual bootstrap. The gcc, glibc, binutils, etc you are left with should have been compiled to your specs when it's all finished, as they are compiled at least twice. -- Mike Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [gentoo-user] USE one more time!
I have noticed the same thing, it is due to the export CONFIG_PROTECT="-*" instruction that you pass right before emerging portage. I only see one solution : you can 'export CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK="/etc/make.conf"' Hope this helps Jonathan --- "Brett I. Holcomb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> a écrit : > Is the USE variable in /etc/make.conf really used > during a bootstrap compile? > > I ask because I've noticed that if I edit > /etc/make.conf per the > instructions, then do the bootstrap and cat or less > /etc/make.conf stage 1 is > building it does not have my changes in it - > make.conf.build has them but > make.conf has the default. > > I assume make.conf is used by the bootstrap to get > architecture, make, and > download agent information (if any). > > So > > 1. Is my edited /etc/make.conf really used during > bootstrap. > > 2. Is the USE variable used for stage 1? > > Thanks. > > -- > > Brett I. Holcomb > AKA Grunt <>< > > -- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list > ___ Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.com -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-user] USE one more time!
Is the USE variable in /etc/make.conf really used during a bootstrap compile? I ask because I've noticed that if I edit /etc/make.conf per the instructions, then do the bootstrap and cat or less /etc/make.conf stage 1 is building it does not have my changes in it - make.conf.build has them but make.conf has the default. I assume make.conf is used by the bootstrap to get architecture, make, and download agent information (if any). So 1. Is my edited /etc/make.conf really used during bootstrap. 2. Is the USE variable used for stage 1? Thanks. -- Brett I. Holcomb AKA Grunt <>< -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
