On Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:52:22 -0500, Jonathan Callen wrote:
> > Yes, things may be a little different with 4.9, but the last time a
> > rebuild was really required was,AFAIR, somewhere around 3.3.
> The last time a rebuild of (almost) everything was required was when
> the C++ ABI changed, with th
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
On 11/11/2014 04:03 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 20:19:36 + (UTC), James wrote:
>>
>> Agreeded. But after a gcc update, I think it wise, especially
>> since gcc-4.9 comethsoon?
>
> Yes, things may be a little different wi
On Wed, 12 Nov 2014 02:07:23 + (UTC), James wrote:
> > No, simply log out of the desktop and back in.
>
> Um, Tomas's little one-liner:
> lsof -n | grep 'DEL.*lib'
>
> revealed far to much to deal with. I got lib issues coming out of my
> arse (I've been hacking at a few things I do not fu
James wrote:
> Dale gmail.com> writes:
>
>> After I do a major upgrade or --emptytree, I switch to boot runlevel,
>> check with checkrestart and restart whatever it reports needs it.
>> Generally, switching to boot runlevel catches most everything.
> OK, so I emerge checkrestart and ran it. And t
> > > Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > > After an emerge -e world, a reboot is probably best, another
> > > > reason to avoid the unnecessary step of emerge -e world in
> > > > the first place.
> > This conflict what others have said. Curious. My take is that since
> > I updated the major com
On Tuesday 11 Nov 2014 21:03:56 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> Why? The compiler is not used by running software. If there was an ABI
> change meaning that mixing programs compiled with the two versions would
> cause problem, emerge -e would be prudent, but that hasn't happened for a
> long time. You don'
Tomas Mozes shmu.sk> writes:
> >> Rebooting catches *everything* even better than --emptytree ?
> > After an emerge -e world, a reboot is probably best, another
> > reason to
> > avoid the unnecessary step of emerge -e world in the first place.
> Or you can check the list of processes
On Tue, 11 Nov 2014 20:19:36 + (UTC), James wrote:
> Dale gmail.com> writes:
> > Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > > After an emerge -e world, a reboot is probably best, another
> > > reason to avoid the unnecessary step of emerge -e world in
> > > the first place.
>
> This conflict what others
Dale gmail.com> writes:
>
> Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >> Rebooting catches *everything* even better than --emptytree ?
> > --emptytree has nothing to do with rebooting. It simply forces emerge to
> > rebuild everything in world and their dependencies. Once you have
> > done, you will have daemons
Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:52:09 + (UTC), James wrote:
>
>>> I'd have thought you needed to emerge -e world if you really want to
>>> be protected.
>> Yea, maybe. I read the man page on emptytree. I get it actually replaces
>> by a "reinstall". Does this do more than if I
On 2014-11-10 23:23, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:52:09 + (UTC), James wrote:
> I'd have thought you needed to emerge -e world if you really want to
> be protected.
Yea, maybe. I read the man page on emptytree. I get it actually
replaces
by a "reinstall". Does this do mo
On Mon, 10 Nov 2014 18:52:09 + (UTC), James wrote:
> > I'd have thought you needed to emerge -e world if you really want to
> > be protected.
>
> Yea, maybe. I read the man page on emptytree. I get it actually replaces
> by a "reinstall". Does this do more than if I just reboot after
>
>
Peter Humphrey prh.myzen.co.uk> writes:
> > You should be able to just switch to 4.8 without rebuilding anything.
> > That's what I did. Of course it can't hurt to rebuild everything, but
> > you can schedule that for later (like an overnight rebuild of world
> > with --keep-going). It's not c
On Saturday 08 November 2014 18:17:02 Nikos Chantziaras wrote:
> On 07/11/14 19:46, James wrote:
> > Ok
> >
> > so I'm still on 4.7.3; but if I set 4.8.3
> > as the default, should I rebuild @system ?
> >
> > # gcc-config -l
> > [1] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-4.7.3 *
> > [2] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-4.
Nikos Chantziaras gmail.com> writes:
> > I saw the news item about 4.8.3-SSP, which I think is a good idea, but
> > how deeply, if at all, do I need to rebuild packages ?
> You don't need to rebuild, although there are known problems with having
> both 4.7 and 4.8 installed, and having 4.7 be
On 07/11/14 19:46, James wrote:
Ok
so I'm still on 4.7.3; but if I set 4.8.3
as the default, should I rebuild @system ?
# gcc-config -l
[1] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-4.7.3 *
[2] x86_64-pc-linux-gnu-4.8.3
I saw the news item about 4.8.3-SSP, which I think is a good idea, but
how deeply, if at
16 matches
Mail list logo
