On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 19:56 +0200, Andreas Vinsander wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Started the installation of 64 bit gentoo yesterday (when I saw that
> 2005.0 was available)... everything went smooth, until I rebooted into
> my new shiny system.
>
> The tar command keeps segfaulting on me when bootin dire
On Tue, 2005-03-29 at 20:32 +1000, Jason White wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I followed the 2005.0 upgrade guide and decided to use the
> Makefile-profile_update-2005.0 method.
>
> The makefile executed properly until it reached the following line:
>
> cp /emul/linux/x86/lib32/libsandbox.so /lib32
> (no s
On Sat, 2005-03-26 at 09:17 +, Sean Sullivan wrote:
> # Advanced Linux Sound Architecture
> #
> CONFIG_SND=y
> CONFIG_SND_TIMER=y
> CONFIG_SND_PCM=y
> CONFIG_SND_HWDEP=y
> CONFIG_SND_RAWMIDI=y
> CONFIG_SND_OSSEMUL=y
> CONFIG_SND_MIXER_OSS=y
> CONFIG_SND_PCM_OSS=y
> CONFIG_SND_BIT32_EMUL=y
You
This is happening as far back as glibc-2.3.4.20040808-r1 and is
cross-platform (I tested that version on sparc64). I think I remember
seeing a bug for it on bugzilla... please check there and if there isn't
one, please open a new one.
--Jeremy
On Fri, 2005-03-18 at 07:57 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> | Ok, and here's the fix I'm committing. First hunk's just a cleanup.
> | Donnie, if you want to move this somewhere else, that's fine, but I
> | needed to get this in asap.
>
> Can you please clarify the problem? All I'm seeing is a patch -- I never
> saw the issue, and the one-line comment is
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 19:07 -0800, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
> Ok guys, best thing to do is leave your system alone right now. I'm
> going to go look at sypdy's migration script and see what the problem
> is.
Ok, and here's the fix I'm committing. First hunk's j
es
> again, I will have libraries by duplicate, something I think that can
> lead to problems. I cannot reinstall because the cost in time would be
> very high (2004.3 doesn't support my raid chip, so I would need to use
> an intermediary harddisk again). Can someone give me som
On Mon, 2005-02-14 at 22:31 +0100, Simone Piunno wrote:
> On Monday 14 February 2005 21:42, Randall Nortman wrote:
>
> > Has anybody filed a bug on this?
>
> Yes, but apparently eradicator doesn't care enough, or may be he doesn't
> understand how dangerous this migration script can be for multi
Note also that it's not just amd64 in this regard. Sparc and PPC
should seriously benefit as well, given their 32/64 heritage. Portage is
headed that way, but from the discussion I've read, it's generally agreed
that full package signing and security support should come first, probably
with portag
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, that support is planned, but unless someone is willing to pay me
to implement it, it's still going to be about a year before that's
possible.
No rush, here. I'm at the end of the spectrum that likes, speaking
generally, to have approximately matched 32 and 64 bit st
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 16:34 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Almost a week ago, Jeremy Huddleston <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > The only things that have changes (from a user perspective) in 2005.0 is
> > that USE=multilib is forced on, and the 32bit glibc is now built
On Mon, 2005-02-07 at 16:12 +0100, Paul de Vrieze wrote:
> On Monday 07 February 2005 14:48, Ian Hastie wrote:
> > However my experience is that new versions will have the ~x86, but
> > forget the ~amd64 even though previous versions have been shown to
> > work. It seems some devs haven't realised
See bug #80591
Solution:
emerge --sync
export CPATH=/usr/include/gentoo-multilib/default
emerge glibc
The problem was a commit to multilib.eclass and glibc.ebuild that needed
to be concurrent, and the rsync update happened between the two, so
rsync was bad for about an hour. Sorry.
--Jeremy
On
Paul de Vrieze wrote:
C++ preprocessor "/lib/cpp" fails sanity check
This happened on emerge sys-libs/db.
You should include the output of config.log as that's the only way we
can see why it failed.
sys-libs/db also has some hacks in place that probably fail. These are in
db.eclass, and have a
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 05:33 -0700, Duncan wrote:
> Jeremy Huddleston posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> excerpted below, on Wed, 02 Feb 2005 03:32:40 -0800:
>
> > Peaceful coexistence of 32bit and 64bit packages at the same time would
> > be great, but quite honestly I do
On Wed, 2005-02-02 at 21:05 +1000, Mark Constable wrote:
> Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
> > It's very safe to enable. The multilib USE flag in 2004.3 enables a
> > multilib toolchain (this is forced on in 2005.0). If you want to avoid
> > multilib, then that means you
It's very safe to enable. The multilib USE flag in 2004.3 enables a
multilib toolchain (this is forced on in 2005.0). If you want to avoid
multilib, then that means you won't be able to use 32bit applications
(mozilla-bin, mplayer-bin with 32bit win codecs, openoffice-bin, etc).
On Wed, 2005-02-
For those of you who want a multilib free system (I've gotten requests
for this even though I think it's silly), I've created a
2005.0/no-multilib sub-profile. It sets MULTILIB_ABIS="amd64" so no x86
"junk" (except grub-static) gets installed, and I've package.mask'd
packages that require multilib
On Thu, 2005-01-27 at 13:41 -0500, Dylan Carlson wrote:
> Last time I tried to build 6.8.1 it bailed out during the compile.
> Depending on settings it bailed out at different points. I'm running
> -hardened, and I thought it was something to do with that.
>
> 6.8.0 is working fine, though, fo
For a while, xorg-x11-6.8.0-r4 wasn't quite the most amd64 friendly
beast, but last week I helped spyderous sort out the last of the
problems (well, the ones I was having atleast), so I'd like to get more
feedback from people using it here or bug reports from those who can't
get it to work still.
On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 10:35 -0700, Duncan wrote:
> OK, got gcc-config straightened out and it changes profiles as it should,
> now, but I'm still getting this error. I suspect something else is
> screwed up. Do I need to go back to 2004.3, remerge gcc, then come back
> to 2005.0? Do I just need
> Ahh... I didn't see anything about any gcc-wrapper. That might be what
> I'm missing. You don't mean gcc-config, do you? It is/was merged b4 the
> profile switch, but I don't know anything nor have I seen anything in the
> guide about gcc-wrapper.
gcc-config is what I meant. Do you have 1.3.
On Fri, 2005-01-21 at 06:55 -0700, Duncan wrote:
> Jeremy Huddleston posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> excerpted below, on Sat, 15 Jan 2005 18:43:52 -0800:
>
> > Additionally, the upgrade guide for current users has been placed online
> > thanks to the excellent xmliza
Piolyte has put together some test stages, and you can grab them here:
I've used the stage1 to emerge system and am now emerging kde, so
hopefully there aren't too many bugs left...
http://www.piolyte.net/gentoo/
Also, you will need to set the follwoing:
/etc/package.keywords:
sys-apps/portage ~
On Mon, 2005-01-17 at 12:31 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Duncan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Ahh... I recall someone mentioning that they had to put the 32-bit libdir
> > in their libdir path by hand, the new profile changed a couple things and
> > missed that.
The new baselayout's put it
On Sat, 2005-01-15 at 18:43 -0800, Jeremy Huddleston wrote:
> Ok... A couple updates. Firstly, Aspiring dev-to-be piolyte has put
> together a stage1 for us to test out. I'm currently using it as a base
> to start testing, and anyone interested in building a 2005.0 system from
>
Ok... A couple updates. Firstly, Aspiring dev-to-be piolyte has put
together a stage1 for us to test out. I'm currently using it as a base
to start testing, and anyone interested in building a 2005.0 system from
scratch can use a current 2004.3 livecd to boot then use this stage
tarball:
http://w
On Fri, 2005-01-14 at 00:16 -0500, Sean Dague wrote:
> This generates the following failure:
>
> !!! All ebuilds that could satisfy ">=linux-headers-2.6.8.1-r4" have been
> masked.
> !!! One of the following masked packages is required to complete your
> request:
> - sys-kernel/linux-headers-2.6.8
Ok, hopefully we've nabbed all the issues with the upgrade process
thanks to everyone who's tried it and given feedback. The result is an
updated README for the process and an automated approach using a
Makefile. Please see below.
$Header: /var/cvsroot/gentoo-x86/profiles/default-linux/amd64/200
Also,
It looks like some recent changes johnm made to kernel-2.eclass caused
linux-headers-2.6 to not install some things, so if you get a message
about missing include/linux/version.h, please emerge --sync and emerge
linux-headers.
Thanks.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed
Please file multilib-strict bugs on bugzilla. There'll be alot of them
and fixing them is a 2005.1 target. Thanks for hunting =)
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 23:55 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> Gawk tries to install stuff in /lib instead of /lib64. This comes up
> during emerge system. (I was hav
On Wed, 2005-01-12 at 21:01 -0600, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
> > 10) emerge -v glibc
>
> I think you might need emerge -v -O glibc emul-linux-x86-glibc here,
> because of a desire by portage to merge linux26-headers.
>
> I'm going to proceed in that way.
Actually, it should be fine with linux-hea
hparker had some trouble with my binpkg when updating to 2005.0, so I'm
going to recommend that people just compile it themselves rather than
use my binpkg...
Here's the updated README:
HOWTO upgrade from 2004.3 and 2004.3/lib64 to 2005.0
1) emerge -v '>=sys-apps/portage-2.0.51-r9'
2) emerge u
If you get an error like 'FAILED prerm: 2005.0 is in development, don't
use it.' just emerge --sync and try again. I just recently removed
that block (it was there because we were waiting on
>=sys-apps/portage-2.0.51-r9.
--Jeremy
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message pa
Ok, the 2005.0 profile is in need of some user testing. We don't have
stages yet, but I created a README in the profile directory to summarize
the upgrade process for existing systems. Here it is. Please discuss
any upgrade issues on the list and only file a bug at bugs.gentoo.org if
it is serio
Ok, so with future profiles, it will be possible to build your own x86
libs. Also, with current profiles, some people (like me) use their own
from inside an x86 chroot rather than the emul-x86-blah packages.
Right now, x86 binary packages have DEPEND="amd64? ( emul stuff )". I'd
like to change t
On Thu, 2005-01-06 at 14:35 +1300, Jerome Brown wrote:
> Sorry. What I meant was that as the default-linux/amd64/multilib-dev/lib
> is intended as the replacement for 2004.3/lib64, it seems confusing to
> then add a default-linux/amd64/multilib-dev/lib64 which not the expected
> upgrade path fro
On Wed, 2005-01-05 at 02:17 -0700, Duncan wrote:
> Jeremy Huddleston posted <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> excerpted below, on Tue, 04 Jan 2005 23:22:18 -0800:
>
> > What would you suggest for the names of these once it's finalized? I
> > was thinking '2005.1&
38 matches
Mail list logo
