Re: [gentoo-user] any problems with gcc 3.3?
I second that. I upgrade all the time, that's one of the reasons i started using gentoo - to live on the bleeding edge :-). I can say i have never had the problems that my friends whose update cycles are like 3 months or so, have On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 16:56:10 +0100 "Hemmann, Volker Armin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I am definetly on the bleeding edge. 86 forever, unmasking > interessting packages and so on. > > I have some friends using gentoo, too, who watch my suffering if there > is any. I am their private beta tester. > > But now the interssting thing: I have less problems, means failling > ebuilds. then my friends who update only one or two times a month. > Oh, btw, I had kdepim 3.2.0 installed, and kmail did not eat my > inbox... -- GPG public keys available at pgp.mit.edu pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] any problems with gcc 3.3?
Hi, On Tuesday 10 February 2004 05:15, Collins Richey wrote: > My experience has been that all too frequently something slips by the > quality control process (not too surprising with all the permutations > and combinations). Just check the archives for the fallout from the > latest gcc, if you want a reason for going slow! I'm still sitting on a > gcc and glibc update myself. I am definetly on the bleeding edge. 86 forever, unmasking interessting packages and so on. I have some friends using gentoo, too, who watch my suffering if there is any. I am their private beta tester. But now the interssting thing: I have less problems, means failling ebuilds. then my friends who update only one or two times a month. Oh, btw, I had kdepim 3.2.0 installed, and kmail did not eat my inbox... Glück Auf Volker -- Conclusions In a straight-up fight, the Empire squashes the Federation like a bug. Even with its numerical advantage removed, the Empire would still squash the Federation like a bug. Accept it. -Michael Wong -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] any problems with gcc 3.3?
begin quote On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 21:15:20 -0700 Collins Richey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My $.02. Collins' painless method is what I use: I'll bite ;) (good advice in general though) > I'll never understand why they do this. > Lots of people have broken their systems this way. Mainly to keep you folks on edge and make sure everyone actually reads what the diff with etc-update is and does.that and the fact that we believe that our users are capable of tending their own systems. *G* (lets let it die here) > My experience has been that all too frequently something slips by the > quality control process (not too surprising with all the permutations > and combinations). Just check the archives for the fallout from the > latest gcc, if you want a reason for going slow! I'm still sitting on > a gcc and glibc update myself. Yeah, unfortunately things do crop up that noone ever noticed or got bitten by during the few weeks (or gcc , months. ) that its been in ~. Some things that will generally bite is if you linger too far behind, as such testing is mostly undoable from our behalf. Danger zone ahead. //Spider -- begin .signature This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. end pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] any problems with gcc 3.3?
On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:29:11 -0800 Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I noticed that gcc 3.3 snuck into stable for x86 a few days ago with > no fanfare... > > [ebuild U ] sys-devel/gcc-3.3.2-r5 [3.2.3-r3] > > Can I assume that upgrading is painless? The move from 3.1 to 3.2 was > pretty bad IIRC due to binary incompatibility or something, but I'd > like to know if it's safe to upgrade without b0rking my server. > My $.02. Collins' painless method is what I use: 1) emerge sync every few days 2) emerge -pUv world (I have some ~x86 packages) 3) analyze the packages offered 4) if any of the biggies are there (gcc, glibc, xfree, kde, gnome, etc.), let them age a couple of weeks and check in forums or here. 5) If you see any favorites, emerge them manually. 6) When well aged, emerge [-u | -U ] world 7) never update world withoyut checking!!! 8) if baselayout is to be updated, backup your /etc first, and do etc-update very carefully. It will offer to replace things like fstab, which is 100% fatal. I'll never understand why they do this. Lots of people have broken their systems this way. My experience has been that all too frequently something slips by the quality control process (not too surprising with all the permutations and combinations). Just check the archives for the fallout from the latest gcc, if you want a reason for going slow! I'm still sitting on a gcc and glibc update myself. Enjoy, YMMV. -- Collins - Denver Area - Gentoo stable kernel 2.6.2-rc1 -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] any problems with gcc 3.3?
Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > I noticed that gcc 3.3 snuck into stable for x86 a few days ago with no > fanfare... > > [ebuild U ] sys-devel/gcc-3.3.2-r5 [3.2.3-r3] > > Can I assume that upgrading is painless? The move from 3.1 to 3.2 was > pretty bad IIRC due to binary incompatibility or something, but I'd like > to know if it's safe to upgrade without b0rking my server. Some programs won't compile, due to the stricter standards conformance in 3.3.2. -- Hilsen Harald. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] any problems with gcc 3.3?
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 11:33:03PM +, Mike Williams wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Monday 09 February 2004 23:29, Alan wrote: > > I noticed that gcc 3.3 snuck into stable for x86 a few days ago with no > > fanfare... > > > > [ebuild U ] sys-devel/gcc-3.3.2-r5 [3.2.3-r3] > > > > Can I assume that upgrading is painless? The move from 3.1 to 3.2 was > > pretty bad IIRC due to binary incompatibility or something, but I'd like > > to know if it's safe to upgrade without b0rking my server. > > If you do get any bad behaviour, run ldconfig. > All fine here. Good to hear, thanks! I just get kinda nervous sometimes with "big" upgrades like this :) alan -- Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://arcterex.net "There are only 3 real sports: bull-fighting, car racing and mountain climbing. All the others are mere games."-- Hemingway -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] any problems with gcc 3.3?
begin quote On Mon, 9 Feb 2004 15:29:11 -0800 Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I noticed that gcc 3.3 snuck into stable for x86 a few days ago with > no > fanfare... > > [ebuild U ] sys-devel/gcc-3.3.2-r5 [3.2.3-r3] > > Can I assume that upgrading is painless? The move from 3.1 to 3.2 was > pretty bad IIRC due to binary incompatibility or something, but I'd > like to know if it's safe to upgrade without b0rking my server. > Binary compability is fine I've found, However there are issues when libstdc++.so.5 is removed in the mid-install, the new package is copied over perfectly, but the subsequent spawning of env-update fails because libstdc++.so.5 is gone until env-update is run (oops) solution is to run ldconfig on the system if env-update fails. I -HOPE- this is getting dealt with by the responsible persons... *cough* (and, this only seems to be the case on -some- installs, which is annoying in the extreme) //Spider -- begin .signature This is a .signature virus! Please copy me into your .signature! See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information. end pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] any problems with gcc 3.3?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 09 February 2004 23:29, Alan wrote: > I noticed that gcc 3.3 snuck into stable for x86 a few days ago with no > fanfare... > > [ebuild U ] sys-devel/gcc-3.3.2-r5 [3.2.3-r3] > > Can I assume that upgrading is painless? The move from 3.1 to 3.2 was > pretty bad IIRC due to binary incompatibility or something, but I'd like > to know if it's safe to upgrade without b0rking my server. If you do get any bad behaviour, run ldconfig. All fine here. - -- Mike Williams -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFAKBivInuLMrk7bIwRApJnAJ4rYGs+9CrF/DqrWL9vFfmtGsETVgCfT5wD GRj7x9TodIVWVGJ7coVmXB8= =rPFj -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-user] any problems with gcc 3.3?
I noticed that gcc 3.3 snuck into stable for x86 a few days ago with no fanfare... [ebuild U ] sys-devel/gcc-3.3.2-r5 [3.2.3-r3] Can I assume that upgrading is painless? The move from 3.1 to 3.2 was pretty bad IIRC due to binary incompatibility or something, but I'd like to know if it's safe to upgrade without b0rking my server. alan -- Alan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://arcterex.net "There are only 3 real sports: bull-fighting, car racing and mountain climbing. All the others are mere games."-- Hemingway -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
