Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
Davyd McColl wrote: > > > On January 3, 2019 8:59:09 AM Dale wrote: > >> Davyd McColl wrote: >>> >>> >>> On January 3, 2019 12:29:34 AM Dale wrote: >>> Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 02/01/2019 22:45, Dale wrote: >> I changed some USE flags. I figure that is one thing that would >> make >> Firefox different from say the average user who just downloads >> Firefox >> from the website. > Is there a reason you don't want to try the firefox-bin package I > meantion in my previous post? > > > That will be if I can't get a source build to work. Thing is, I won't be surprised if it does the same thing. I suspect this is a bug related to some permission issue or something related to it within Firefox itself. I've wondered if I should allow Firefox to store the files in its own download directory and then move them after it is completed. I may try that as well. Long term tho, I do prefer building from source. It's sort of why I like Gentoo. ;-) It's on the list of options tho. It would eliminate any local build configs too. It is a good idea to at least test it. I may try that next. If it still does it, it isn't me for sure. It's Firefox itself. >>> I agree it's a good idea to try the bin. Also perhaps to try to to >>> back to as vanilla USE flags as possible. IIRC, my only deviances from >>> the default USE flags are to disable pulseaudio and enable clang >>> (though that was only recently after the announcement about how it was >>> supposed to improve performance so much, and was to become the >>> mozilla-preferred method). >>> >>> Fortunately, at least Firefox builds relatively quickly, unlike >>> chromium (~40 min vs ~2.5h on my machine). >> >> Yea, it is a good idea. Thing is, my network is busy right now. I'm on >> a video download binge again. -_O >> >> Question. Just what is clang? I did a eix for it but its description >> is minimal and not to informative, if one doesn't already know what it >> is. If you know, what does it add to Firefox and briefly how does it do >> it? The reason I ask, could that help with my current issue? I'm all >> for Firefox being faster, even on this pretty fast rig, but I'd also >> give it a try as well if it would fix this issue and as a bonus make >> Firefox work better/faster/whatever as well. > It's a front-end for llvm (a kind of generic compiler) - bascially a > compiler replacement for gcc which has shown good compile times and > the Mozilla team is claiming fairly reasonable performance gains when > compiled with clang. It's been around a while, so it's not like you're > taking a huge chance or anything. It's just not quite as venerable as > gcc. >> >> Thanks. >> >> Dale >> >> :-) :-) When I read the info from eix, I was thinking it might be something like that. Doubt it would fix my current issue so I'll save that for later, when I get this issue sorted out. Thanks for the info. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On January 3, 2019 8:59:09 AM Dale wrote: Davyd McColl wrote: On January 3, 2019 12:29:34 AM Dale wrote: Nikos Chantziaras wrote: On 02/01/2019 22:45, Dale wrote: I changed some USE flags. I figure that is one thing that would make Firefox different from say the average user who just downloads Firefox from the website. Is there a reason you don't want to try the firefox-bin package I meantion in my previous post? That will be if I can't get a source build to work. Thing is, I won't be surprised if it does the same thing. I suspect this is a bug related to some permission issue or something related to it within Firefox itself. I've wondered if I should allow Firefox to store the files in its own download directory and then move them after it is completed. I may try that as well. Long term tho, I do prefer building from source. It's sort of why I like Gentoo. ;-) It's on the list of options tho. It would eliminate any local build configs too. It is a good idea to at least test it. I may try that next. If it still does it, it isn't me for sure. It's Firefox itself. I agree it's a good idea to try the bin. Also perhaps to try to to back to as vanilla USE flags as possible. IIRC, my only deviances from the default USE flags are to disable pulseaudio and enable clang (though that was only recently after the announcement about how it was supposed to improve performance so much, and was to become the mozilla-preferred method). Fortunately, at least Firefox builds relatively quickly, unlike chromium (~40 min vs ~2.5h on my machine). Yea, it is a good idea. Thing is, my network is busy right now. I'm on a video download binge again. -_O Question. Just what is clang? I did a eix for it but its description is minimal and not to informative, if one doesn't already know what it is. If you know, what does it add to Firefox and briefly how does it do it? The reason I ask, could that help with my current issue? I'm all for Firefox being faster, even on this pretty fast rig, but I'd also give it a try as well if it would fix this issue and as a bonus make Firefox work better/faster/whatever as well. It's a front-end for llvm (a kind of generic compiler) - bascially a compiler replacement for gcc which has shown good compile times and the Mozilla team is claiming fairly reasonable performance gains when compiled with clang. It's been around a while, so it's not like you're taking a huge chance or anything. It's just not quite as venerable as gcc. Thanks. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
Davyd McColl wrote: > > > On January 3, 2019 12:29:34 AM Dale wrote: > >> Nikos Chantziaras wrote: >>> On 02/01/2019 22:45, Dale wrote: I changed some USE flags. I figure that is one thing that would make Firefox different from say the average user who just downloads Firefox from the website. >>> Is there a reason you don't want to try the firefox-bin package I >>> meantion in my previous post? >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> That will be if I can't get a source build to work. Thing is, I won't >> be surprised if it does the same thing. I suspect this is a bug related >> to some permission issue or something related to it within Firefox >> itself. I've wondered if I should allow Firefox to store the files in >> its own download directory and then move them after it is completed. I >> may try that as well. >> >> Long term tho, I do prefer building from source. It's sort of why I >> like Gentoo. ;-) It's on the list of options tho. It would eliminate >> any local build configs too. It is a good idea to at least test it. I >> may try that next. If it still does it, it isn't me for sure. It's >> Firefox itself. > I agree it's a good idea to try the bin. Also perhaps to try to to > back to as vanilla USE flags as possible. IIRC, my only deviances from > the default USE flags are to disable pulseaudio and enable clang > (though that was only recently after the announcement about how it was > supposed to improve performance so much, and was to become the > mozilla-preferred method). > > Fortunately, at least Firefox builds relatively quickly, unlike > chromium (~40 min vs ~2.5h on my machine). Yea, it is a good idea. Thing is, my network is busy right now. I'm on a video download binge again. -_O Question. Just what is clang? I did a eix for it but its description is minimal and not to informative, if one doesn't already know what it is. If you know, what does it add to Firefox and briefly how does it do it? The reason I ask, could that help with my current issue? I'm all for Firefox being faster, even on this pretty fast rig, but I'd also give it a try as well if it would fix this issue and as a bonus make Firefox work better/faster/whatever as well. Thanks. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Contradictionary reports from eix/emerge
On 01/03 08:15, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 03/01/2019 07:37, tu...@posteo.de wrote: > > Hi, > > > > after updateing I have run (beside others) this command: > > > > eclean-dist -C -d -v > > > > and got: > > > > The following unavailable installed packages were found > > sys-devel/autoconf-2.13 > > > > Running > > > > eix sys-devel/autoconf > > > > and got > > > > [U] sys-devel/autoconf > > Available versions: > > (2.1) 2.13-r1 > > Portage is telling the truth. You have 2.13 installed, which doesn't exist > anymore. Note the "-r1" in "2.13-r1". > > > > Installed versions: 2.13(2.1)(01:46:26 PM 09/15/2018)(USERLAND="-BSD") > > 2.69-r4(2.69)(09:29:15 PM 01/02/2019)(-emacs) > > So you have 2.13 and 2.69-r4 installed. It seems you missed the "2.69-r4" in > the above line? > > oh! yes, I missed it...sorry. Thanks ! :) Cheers Meino
[gentoo-user] Re: Contradictionary reports from eix/emerge
On 03/01/2019 07:37, tu...@posteo.de wrote: Hi, after updateing I have run (beside others) this command: eclean-dist -C -d -v and got: The following unavailable installed packages were found sys-devel/autoconf-2.13 Running eix sys-devel/autoconf and got [U] sys-devel/autoconf Available versions: (2.1) 2.13-r1 Portage is telling the truth. You have 2.13 installed, which doesn't exist anymore. Note the "-r1" in "2.13-r1". Installed versions: 2.13(2.1)(01:46:26 PM 09/15/2018)(USERLAND="-BSD") 2.69-r4(2.69)(09:29:15 PM 01/02/2019)(-emacs) So you have 2.13 and 2.69-r4 installed. It seems you missed the "2.69-r4" in the above line?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On January 3, 2019 12:29:34 AM Dale wrote: Nikos Chantziaras wrote: On 02/01/2019 22:45, Dale wrote: I changed some USE flags. I figure that is one thing that would make Firefox different from say the average user who just downloads Firefox from the website. Is there a reason you don't want to try the firefox-bin package I meantion in my previous post? That will be if I can't get a source build to work. Thing is, I won't be surprised if it does the same thing. I suspect this is a bug related to some permission issue or something related to it within Firefox itself. I've wondered if I should allow Firefox to store the files in its own download directory and then move them after it is completed. I may try that as well. Long term tho, I do prefer building from source. It's sort of why I like Gentoo. ;-) It's on the list of options tho. It would eliminate any local build configs too. It is a good idea to at least test it. I may try that next. If it still does it, it isn't me for sure. It's Firefox itself. I agree it's a good idea to try the bin. Also perhaps to try to to back to as vanilla USE flags as possible. IIRC, my only deviances from the default USE flags are to disable pulseaudio and enable clang (though that was only recently after the announcement about how it was supposed to improve performance so much, and was to become the mozilla-preferred method). Fortunately, at least Firefox builds relatively quickly, unlike chromium (~40 min vs ~2.5h on my machine). Dale :-) :-)
[gentoo-user] Contradictionary reports from eix/emerge
Hi,
after updateing I have run (beside others) this command:
eclean-dist -C -d -v
and got:
The following unavailable installed packages were found
sys-devel/autoconf-2.13
Running
eix sys-devel/autoconf
and got
[U] sys-devel/autoconf
Available versions:
(2.1) 2.13-r1
(2.64) 2.64-r1
(2.69) 2.69-r4
() **
{emacs USERLAND="BSD"}
Installed versions: 2.13(2.1)(01:46:26 PM 09/15/2018)(USERLAND="-BSD")
2.69-r4(2.69)(09:29:15 PM 01/02/2019)(-emacs)
Homepage:https://www.gnu.org/software/autoconf/autoconf.html
Description: Used to create autoconfiguration files
which is in sync wth the abouve.
But when I do
emerge --selective=n -va sys-devel/autoconf
I get
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild R] sys-devel/autoconf-2.69-r4:2.69::gentoo USE="-emacs" 0 KiB
Total: 1 package (1 reinstall), Size of downloads: 0 KiB
Why will autoconf be RE-installed. This version isn't installed at
all. Why do I get '[ebuild R]' instead of an update?
How often do I need to reinstall autoconf until it will not be
reported back as being old and no longer in the database.
(I checked it...it is not masked.)? ;)
Thank you very much in advance for any help!
Cheers!
Meino
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 02/01/2019 22:45, Dale wrote: >> I changed some USE flags. I figure that is one thing that would make >> Firefox different from say the average user who just downloads Firefox >> from the website. > Is there a reason you don't want to try the firefox-bin package I > meantion in my previous post? > > > That will be if I can't get a source build to work. Thing is, I won't be surprised if it does the same thing. I suspect this is a bug related to some permission issue or something related to it within Firefox itself. I've wondered if I should allow Firefox to store the files in its own download directory and then move them after it is completed. I may try that as well. Long term tho, I do prefer building from source. It's sort of why I like Gentoo. ;-) It's on the list of options tho. It would eliminate any local build configs too. It is a good idea to at least test it. I may try that next. If it still does it, it isn't me for sure. It's Firefox itself. Dale :-) :-)
[gentoo-user] Re: Where is ustat.h?
On 02/01/2019 16:28, Peter Humphrey wrote: That's the end of that idea then. I wanted to see if my problem with loop- mounting an iso was something introduced with a recent gcc, but now I may never know. It seems that if GCC 7 doesn't emerge with the latest glibc, then that's a bug you should report.
[gentoo-user] Re: Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
On 02/01/2019 22:45, Dale wrote: I changed some USE flags. I figure that is one thing that would make Firefox different from say the average user who just downloads Firefox from the website. Is there a reason you don't want to try the firefox-bin package I meantion in my previous post?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Firefox, downloading files and odd behavior.
Davyd McColl wrote: > And fwiw, I haven't had this problem with building from source either. > And just recently switched to clang too, though Firefox was plenty > speedy before so I'm not really noticing the gains that were advertised. > > -d > > I changed some USE flags. I figure that is one thing that would make Firefox different from say the average user who just downloads Firefox from the website. I'm not sure my googling skills are correct but I don't see anyone else having this issue, if I'm looking for the right things. This is the current flag settings. [ebuild R ~] www-client/firefox-64.0::gentoo USE="dbus gmp-autoupdate screenshot startup-notification system-harfbuzz system-jpeg system-sqlite -bindist -clang -custom-cflags -custom-optimization -debug -eme-free -geckodriver -hardened -hwaccel -jack -lto (-neon) -pulseaudio (-selinux) -system-icu -system-libevent -system-libvpx -test -wifi" L10N="-ach -af -an -ar -as -ast -az -bg -bn-BD -bn-IN -br -bs -ca -cak -cs -cy -da -de -dsb -el -en-GB -en-ZA -eo -es-AR -es-CL -es-ES -es-MX -et -eu -fa -ff -fi -fr -fy -ga -gd -gl -gn -gu -he -hi -hr -hsb -hu -hy -id -is -it -ja -ka -kab -kk -km -kn -ko -lij -lt -lv -mai -mk -ml -mr -ms -nb -nl -nn -or -pa -pl -pt-BR -pt-PT -rm -ro -ru -si -sk -sl -son -sq -sr -sv -ta -te -th -tr -uk -uz -vi -xh -zh-CN -zh-TW" I disabled system-icu, system-libevent, system-libvpx and may change some others before it is over. I used the info from euse -i to try to pick ones that might affect this. Thing is, it just did it again a minute ago with two files. That is another thing that is odd, when it does it, it does it a good bit until it stops. It may affect several downloads before I can get it working again. Then it works again for a good while. I might add, pausing and resuming made it work, this time. Thing is, the next download may or may not work right. I won't know until I start another set. This is a interesting issue. I'm not sure what to do to narrow it down really. Trying these USE flags is all I can come up with. It seems like others are stumped as well. :/ Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] SystemRescueCD with nonm
On Wednesday, 2 January 2019 08:48:19 GMT Dan Johansson wrote:
> > Hmm ... I've mounted it, modified it and eventually tried to run the bash
> > script to copy it over to a USB stick. It wasn't happy to run this time,
> > following my modifications:
> >
> > # bash ./usb_inst.sh
> > Device [/dev/sdb] detected as [ USB DISK Pro] is removable and
> > size=954MB
> > * Device [/dev/sdb] is not mounted
> > Device [/dev/sdc] detected as [ USB DISK Pro] is removable and
> > size=1MB
> > * Device [/dev/sdc] is not mounted
> > dialog: loadlocale.c:130: _nl_intern_locale_data: Assertion `cnt < (sizeof
> > (_nl_value_type_LC_TIME) / sizeof (_nl_value_type_LC_TIME[0]))' failed.
> > ./usb_inst.sh: line 491: 6296 Aborted ${PROG_DIALOG} --
> > infobox "$1" 20 75
> > dialog: loadlocale.c:130: _nl_intern_locale_data: Assertion `cnt < (sizeof
> > (_nl_value_type_LC_TIME) / sizeof (_nl_value_type_LC_TIME[0]))' failed.
> > ./usb_inst.sh: line 491: 6297 Aborted ${PROG_DIALOG} --
> > infobox "$1" 20 75
>
> I had the same issue some days ago. Try unset'ing all LC_ variables in
> your shell before you run usb_inst.sh as "dialog" in the iso can
> apparently not handle something else than "C" (or empty).
Thanks Dan, seeing the LC_TIME related error I tried changing mine to 'C' and
also to unset it, but it kept failing. Eventually I set LC_ALL to 'C' which
allowed the script to run.
Before this I tried running isohybrid, but I must have done it wrong. The USB
stick gave an error when I tried to boot with it, some boot binary file
missing. :-/
I now have a sysrescuecd with graphics and wireless firmware needed by my
system.
Sadly it won't boot on a more recent HP laptop which came with MSWindows 10
and Secure Booting enabled. I was able to boot clonezilla with the Ubuntu
kernel, but not sysrescuecd. I assume it requires signing the kernel with the
MS/RHL keys to allow it to boot, but I have not looked into it further.
--
Regards,
Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Where is ustat.h?
On Wednesday, 2 January 2019 10:47:50 GMT Nikos Chantziaras wrote: > On 02/01/2019 12:27, Peter Humphrey wrote: > > I'm trying to compile gcc-7.3.0-r3 to test a hypothesis, but I get this > > failure: > > > > /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-7.3.0-r3/work/gcc-7.3.0/libsanitizer/saniti > > zer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cc:157:10: fatal error: > > sys/ustat.h: No such file or directory> > > #include > > > > I thought it might be in sys-kernel/linux-headers, but installing a > > contemporaneous version didn't help. Google doesn't, either. > > > > Can anyone point me in the right direction? > > It seems it was provided by old glibc versions. It doesn't exist anymore. Ah, and of course we can't downgrade glibc because it would be "...a sure way to destruction." (That's what we're told if we try to do it.) That's the end of that idea then. I wanted to see if my problem with loop- mounting an iso was something introduced with a recent gcc, but now I may never know. -- Regards, Peter.
[gentoo-user] Re: Where is ustat.h?
It seems it's a recent removal then. It's not there on my system
(glibc-2.28-r4.)
On 02/01/2019 12:58, Franz Fellner wrote:
❯ qfile /usr/include/sys/ustat.h
sys-libs/glibc (/usr/include/sys/ustat.h)
~ 36s
❯ eix -e glibc
[I] sys-libs/glibc
Available versions: (2.2) [M]**2.19-r2^s [M]2.21-r2^s
[M]2.22-r4^s [M]2.23-r4^s [M]~2.24-r4^s [M]2.25-r11^s [M]2.26-r7^s
2.27-r6^s ~2.28-r4^s **^s
{audit caps cet compile-locales debug doc gd hardened
headers-only +multiarch multilib nscd profile +rpc selinux suid
systemtap test vanilla}
Installed versions: 2.27-r6(2.2)^s(09:53:17 25.10.2018)(multiarch
multilib -audit -caps -compile-locales -doc -gd -hardened -headers-only
-nscd -profile -selinux -suid -systemtap -vanilla)
Homepage: https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/
Description: GNU libc C library
Am Mi., 2. Jan. 2019 um 12:46 Uhr schrieb Nikos Chantziaras
mailto:rea...@gmail.com>>:
On 02/01/2019 12:27, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> I'm trying to compile gcc-7.3.0-r3 to test a hypothesis, but I
get this
> failure:
>
>
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-7.3.0-r3/work/gcc-7.3.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cc:157:10:
fatal error: sys/ustat.h: No such file or directory
> #include
>
> I thought it might be in sys-kernel/linux-headers, but installing a
> contemporaneous version didn't help. Google doesn't, either.
>
> Can anyone point me in the right direction?
It seems it was provided by old glibc versions. It doesn't exist
anymore.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Where is ustat.h?
❯ qfile /usr/include/sys/ustat.h
sys-libs/glibc (/usr/include/sys/ustat.h)
~ 36s
❯ eix -e glibc
[I] sys-libs/glibc
Available versions: (2.2) [M]**2.19-r2^s [M]2.21-r2^s [M]2.22-r4^s
[M]2.23-r4^s [M]~2.24-r4^s [M]2.25-r11^s [M]2.26-r7^s 2.27-r6^s ~2.28-r4^s
**^s
{audit caps cet compile-locales debug doc gd hardened headers-only
+multiarch multilib nscd profile +rpc selinux suid systemtap test vanilla}
Installed versions: 2.27-r6(2.2)^s(09:53:17 25.10.2018)(multiarch
multilib -audit -caps -compile-locales -doc -gd -hardened -headers-only
-nscd -profile -selinux -suid -systemtap -vanilla)
Homepage:https://www.gnu.org/software/libc/
Description: GNU libc C library
Am Mi., 2. Jan. 2019 um 12:46 Uhr schrieb Nikos Chantziaras <
rea...@gmail.com>:
> On 02/01/2019 12:27, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > I'm trying to compile gcc-7.3.0-r3 to test a hypothesis, but I get this
> > failure:
> >
> >
> /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-7.3.0-r3/work/gcc-7.3.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cc:157:10:
> fatal error: sys/ustat.h: No such file or directory
> > #include
> >
> > I thought it might be in sys-kernel/linux-headers, but installing a
> > contemporaneous version didn't help. Google doesn't, either.
> >
> > Can anyone point me in the right direction?
>
> It seems it was provided by old glibc versions. It doesn't exist anymore.
>
>
>
[gentoo-user] Re: Where is ustat.h?
On 02/01/2019 12:27, Peter Humphrey wrote: I'm trying to compile gcc-7.3.0-r3 to test a hypothesis, but I get this failure: /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-7.3.0-r3/work/gcc-7.3.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cc:157:10: fatal error: sys/ustat.h: No such file or directory #include I thought it might be in sys-kernel/linux-headers, but installing a contemporaneous version didn't help. Google doesn't, either. Can anyone point me in the right direction? It seems it was provided by old glibc versions. It doesn't exist anymore.
[gentoo-user] Where is ustat.h?
I'm trying to compile gcc-7.3.0-r3 to test a hypothesis, but I get this failure: /var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-7.3.0-r3/work/gcc-7.3.0/libsanitizer/sanitizer_common/sanitizer_platform_limits_posix.cc:157:10: fatal error: sys/ustat.h: No such file or directory #include I thought it might be in sys-kernel/linux-headers, but installing a contemporaneous version didn't help. Google doesn't, either. Can anyone point me in the right direction? -- Regards, Peter.
Re: [gentoo-user] SystemRescueCD with nonm
Hmm ... I've mounted it, modified it and eventually tried to run the bash
script to copy it over to a USB stick. It wasn't happy to run this time,
following my modifications:
# bash ./usb_inst.sh
Device [/dev/sdb] detected as [ USB DISK Pro] is removable and
size=954MB
* Device [/dev/sdb] is not mounted
Device [/dev/sdc] detected as [ USB DISK Pro] is removable and
size=1MB
* Device [/dev/sdc] is not mounted
dialog: loadlocale.c:130: _nl_intern_locale_data: Assertion `cnt < (sizeof
(_nl_value_type_LC_TIME) / sizeof (_nl_value_type_LC_TIME[0]))' failed.
./usb_inst.sh: line 491: 6296 Aborted ${PROG_DIALOG} --
infobox "$1" 20 75
dialog: loadlocale.c:130: _nl_intern_locale_data: Assertion `cnt < (sizeof
(_nl_value_type_LC_TIME) / sizeof (_nl_value_type_LC_TIME[0]))' failed.
./usb_inst.sh: line 491: 6297 Aborted ${PROG_DIALOG} --
infobox "$1" 20 75
I had the same issue some days ago. Try unset'ing all LC_ variables in
your shell before you run usb_inst.sh as "dialog" in the iso can
apparently not handle something else than "C" (or empty).
--
Dan Johansson
***
This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons!
***
