On 06/21/11 23:55, Dale wrote:
> I just did my updates and ran into this:
>
> * Maintainer: s...@gentoo.org
> * USE:amd64 consolekit elibc_glibc kernel_linux multilib
> policykit userland_GNU
> * FEATURES: preserve-libs sandbox
>
> * Please install currently selected gcc version with U
On 22/06/11 06:31, Matthew Finkel wrote:
> On 06/21/11 23:55, Dale wrote:
>> I just did my updates and ran into this:
>>
>> * Maintainer: s...@gentoo.org
>> * USE:amd64 consolekit elibc_glibc kernel_linux multilib
>> policykit userland_GNU
>> * FEATURES: preserve-libs sandbox
>>
>> * P
On 22/06/11 07:25, justin wrote:
> On 22/06/11 06:31, Matthew Finkel wrote:
>> On 06/21/11 23:55, Dale wrote:
>>> I just did my updates and ran into this:
>>>
>>> * Maintainer: s...@gentoo.org
>>> * USE:amd64 consolekit elibc_glibc kernel_linux multilib
>>> policykit userland_GNU
>>> * FE
on 06/22/2011 06:55 AM Dale wrote the following:
> Heads up for folks about to do their updates, check into the USE flag
> fortran to see if you need to add it to yours before updating a bunch of
> stuff.
I noticed that if you don't add fortran to your USE flags and something
needs fortran, unless
on 06/22/2011 08:46 AM justin wrote the following:
> One little note,
>
> if portage requests that you should install dev-lang/ifc instead of
> gcc[fortran], you most probably have an entry
>
> sys-devel/gcc -fortran
>
> in
>
> your /etc/portage/package.use
>
> Just remove that.
>
I didn't
On 22/06/11 08:29, Thanasis wrote:
> on 06/22/2011 08:46 AM justin wrote the following:
>
>> One little note,
>>
>> if portage requests that you should install dev-lang/ifc instead of
>> gcc[fortran], you most probably have an entry
>>
>> sys-devel/gcc -fortran
>>
>> in
>>
>> your /etc/portage/pac
On 22/06/11 08:33, justin wrote:
> On 22/06/11 08:29, Thanasis wrote:
>> on 06/22/2011 08:46 AM justin wrote the following:
>>
>>> One little note,
>>>
>>> if portage requests that you should install dev-lang/ifc instead of
>>> gcc[fortran], you most probably have an entry
>>>
>>> sys-devel/gcc -fo
On 06/22/11 02:29, Thanasis wrote:
> on 06/22/2011 08:46 AM justin wrote the following:
>
>> One little note,
>>
>> if portage requests that you should install dev-lang/ifc instead of
>> gcc[fortran], you most probably have an entry
>>
>> sys-devel/gcc -fortran
>>
>> in
>>
>> your /etc/portage/pack
on 06/22/2011 09:33 AM justin wrote the following:
> On 22/06/11 08:29, Thanasis wrote:
>> on 06/22/2011 08:46 AM justin wrote the following:
>>
>>> One little note,
>>>
>>> if portage requests that you should install dev-lang/ifc instead of
>>> gcc[fortran], you most probably have an entry
>>>
>>>
on 06/22/2011 10:32 AM Matthew Finkel wrote the following:
> On 06/22/11 02:29, Thanasis wrote:
>> on 06/22/2011 08:46 AM justin wrote the following:
>>
>>> One little note,
>>>
>>> if portage requests that you should install dev-lang/ifc instead of
>>> gcc[fortran], you most probably have an entry
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Dale wrote:
>
> Heads up for folks about to do their updates, check into the USE flag
> fortran to see if you need to add it to yours before updating a bunch of
> stuff.
>
> Dale
This is my one strange, mystery global use flag. It's been turned on
in make.conf on
On Wednesday 22 Jun 2011 14:29:58 Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Dale wrote:
>
>
> > Heads up for folks about to do their updates, check into the USE flag
> > fortran to see if you need to add it to yours before updating a bunch of
> > stuff.
> >
> > Dale
>
> This is my
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 7:25 AM, Mick wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 Jun 2011 14:29:58 Mark Knecht wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 8:55 PM, Dale wrote:
>>
>>
>> > Heads up for folks about to do their updates, check into the USE flag
>> > fortran to see if you need to add it to yours before updating
Mark Knecht wrote:
I guess I can stop playing scaredicat and remove it. :-)
- Mark
I think the dev added it back. So, if you really don't need it, put the
minus sign in front.
If you use KDE like me, be prepared to put the thing back tho. Some KDE
packages depend on things that se
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Dale wrote:
> Mark Knecht wrote:
>>
>> I guess I can stop playing scaredicat and remove it. :-)
>>
>> - Mark
>>
>>
>>
>
> I think the dev added it back. So, if you really don't need it, put the
> minus sign in front.
>
> If you use KDE like me, be prepared to put
Mark Knecht wrote:
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 8:50 AM, Dale wrote:
Mark Knecht wrote:
I guess I can stop playing scaredicat and remove it. :-)
- Mark
I think the dev added it back. So, if you really don't need it, put the
minus sign in front.
If you use KDE like me, be pr
On 06/22/11 14:10, Dale wrote:
> I put -fortran in make.conf. I ran emerge -uvDNa world and let it
> rebuild a few packages. Then I get this:
>
> >>> Emerging (1 of 2) sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226
> * lapack-lite-3.1.1.tgz RMD160 SHA1 SHA256 size ;-)
> ...
Matthew Finkel wrote:
On 06/22/11 14:10, Dale wrote:
I put -fortran in make.conf. I ran emerge -uvDNa world and let it
rebuild a few packages. Then I get this:
Emerging (1 of 2) sci-libs/blas-reference-20070226
* lapack-lite-3.1.1.tgz RMD160 SHA1 SHA256 size ;-)
...
* Dale [110622 16:41]:
> Matthew Finkel wrote:
[...]
> > Do correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't blas-reference pulled in by
> > merging gcc with USE="fortran"? Or did you install blas-reference for
> > another reason?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> No clue. I just -c'd some stuff and kept running re
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Todd Goodman wrote:
>
> No actually blas-reference fails to build unless gcc is built with the
> fortran use flag enabled (since there's no fortran compiler available.)
>
> The deps pulling in blas-reference are in my previous mail.
>
> Todd
If you have virtual/f
Todd Goodman wrote:
* Dale [110622 16:41]:
Matthew Finkel wrote:
[...]
Do correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't blas-reference pulled in by
merging gcc with USE="fortran"? Or did you install blas-reference for
another reason?
No clue. I just -c'd some stuff and kept
* Mark Knecht [110622 18:35]:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Todd Goodman wrote:
>
> >
> > No actually blas-reference fails to build unless gcc is built with the
> > fortran use flag enabled (since there's no fortran compiler available.)
> >
> > The deps pulling in blas-reference are in my p
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 5:05 AM, Todd Goodman wrote:
> * Mark Knecht [110622 18:35]:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 2:28 PM, Todd Goodman wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > No actually blas-reference fails to build unless gcc is built with the
>> > fortran use flag enabled (since there's no fortran compiler avail
On Wednesday 22 June 2011 16:50:10 Dale wrote:
> If you use KDE like me, be prepared to put the thing back tho. Some KDE
> packages depend on things that seem to need it enabled.
Looks like it's only packages that are pulled in by kdeedu-meta. Do you need
all those?
--
Rgds
Peter
On Wednesday 22 June 2011 23:35:37 Dale wrote:
> Maybe we have something different then. I don't have blas-reference on
> here anymore either. My point was, disabling fortran to remove it only
> lead to other stuff being required. I think there is more on here now
> than there was before. So,
Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Wednesday 22 June 2011 16:50:10 Dale wrote:
If you use KDE like me, be prepared to put the thing back tho. Some KDE
packages depend on things that seem to need it enabled.
Looks like it's only packages that are pulled in by kdeedu-meta. Do you need
all those
On Thursday 23 June 2011 23:30:04 Peter Humphrey did opine thusly:
> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 23:35:37 Dale wrote:
> > Maybe we have something different then. I don't have
> > blas-reference on here anymore either. My point was, disabling
> > fortran to remove it only lead to other stuff being r
On 6/23/2011 6:22 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Wednesday 22 June 2011 16:50:10 Dale wrote:
>
>> If you use KDE like me, be prepared to put the thing back tho. Some KDE
>> packages depend on things that seem to need it enabled.
>
> Looks like it's only packages that are pulled in by kdeedu-meta
On Thu, Jun 23, 2011 at 3:36 PM, Dale wrote:
>
> I install with kde-meta. It pulls about all things KDE in with that. For
> me, it is better to use kde-meta than to do it any other way. Even with
> kde-meta, I think there is a few that I still had to emerge manually.
kde-meta say (to me) 'I w
Peter Humphrey wrote:
On Wednesday 22 June 2011 23:35:37 Dale wrote:
Maybe we have something different then. I don't have blas-reference on
here anymore either. My point was, disabling fortran to remove it only
lead to other stuff being required. I think there is more on here now
than th
On Thursday 23 June 2011 23:48:11 Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thursday 23 June 2011 23:30:04 Peter Humphrey did opine thusly:
> > On Wednesday 22 June 2011 23:35:37 Dale wrote:
> > > Maybe we have something different then. I don't have
> > > blas-reference on here anymore either. My point was, disa
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:54:14 -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote:
> It's one package (cantor) that has one dependency (R) that is optional
> (USE=-R) that falls squarely into the "if you aren't sure if you need it
> then you probably don't" category. So for most users, no, you don't need
> to build gcc wi
On 24 June 2011, at 01:14, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 20:01:30 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
>
>> 1) what's the difference between "package.keywords" and
>> "package.accept_keywords"?
>
> The latter is the new name for the former.
So I can just `mv /etc/portage/package.keywords
/e
On 23 June 2011, at 22:57, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>> ... I just keep entries in alphabetical order in single
>> files. I find it easier.
>
> That doesn't help with linked packages with different names. If foo
> requires libbar with USE="snafu", I put it in/etc/portage/package.use/foo
> Then if I re
* Mike Edenfield [110623 18:34]:
> On 6/23/2011 6:22 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Wednesday 22 June 2011 16:50:10 Dale wrote:
> >
> >> If you use KDE like me, be prepared to put the thing back tho. Some KDE
> >> packages depend on things that seem to need it enabled.
> >
> > Looks like it's
On 6/23/2011 8:31 PM, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:54:14 -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote:
It's one package (cantor) that has one dependency (R) that is optional
(USE=-R) that falls squarely into the "if you aren't sure if you need it
then you probably don't" category. So for most use
On Fri, 2011-06-24 at 13:02 +0100, Stroller wrote:
> On 23 June 2011, at 22:57, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> >> ... I just keep entries in alphabetical order in single
> >> files. I find it easier.
> >
> > That doesn't help with linked packages with different names. If foo
> > requires libbar with USE="
On Friday 24 June 2011 12:56:48 Stroller did opine thusly:
> On 24 June 2011, at 01:14, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 20:01:30 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
> >> 1) what's the difference between "package.keywords" and
> >> "package.accept_keywords"?
> >
> > The latter is the new name fo
On 6/24/2011 8:03 AM, Todd Goodman wrote:
* Mike Edenfield [110623 18:34]:
It's one package (cantor) that has one dependency (R) that is optional
(USE=-R) that falls squarely into the "if you aren't sure if you need it
then you probably don't" category. So for most users, no, you don't need
* Mike Edenfield [110624 08:25]:
> On 6/24/2011 8:03 AM, Todd Goodman wrote:
> > * Mike Edenfield [110623 18:34]:
>
> >> It's one package (cantor) that has one dependency (R) that is optional
> >> (USE=-R) that falls squarely into the "if you aren't sure if you need it
> >> then you probably don
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:38 AM, Todd Goodman wrote:
> * Mike Edenfield [110624 08:25]:
>> On 6/24/2011 8:03 AM, Todd Goodman wrote:
>> > * Mike Edenfield [110623 18:34]:
>>
>> >> It's one package (cantor) that has one dependency (R) that is optional
>> >> (USE=-R) that falls squarely into the "
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 13:02:23 +0100, Stroller wrote:
> I like the idea of package.use as a directory of indie files, but
> haven't bothered switching over because this works so well for me. The
> package.use directory system seems too simple to be true - is it really
> no more complex than a direct
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 12:56:48 +0100, Stroller wrote:
> >> 1) what's the difference between "package.keywords" and
> >> "package.accept_keywords"?
> >
> > The latter is the new name for the former.
>
> So I can just
> `mv /etc/portage/package.keywords /etc/portage/package.accept_keywords`
> an
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:43:50 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Or maybe 'kde-meta as currently constructed by someone somewhere is a
> bloat monster in some other people's opinions'. And, we're not
> required to use it.
kde-meta is, by definition, a bloat-monster. It's sole purpose is to
install everyt
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:35:55 -0400, Mike Edenfield wrote:
> > That's not the only one. Digikam has a hard depend on clapack, which
> > requires virtual/blas and thus a Fortran compiler.
>
> Hrm. I installed kde-meta and it didn't pull in Digikam.
I didn't say it would. I meant that installing
On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:03:04 -0400, Todd Goodman wrote:
> What seems strange then is that if everyone keeps telling Dale that he
> most likely doesn't need cantor and R then why is R enabled in the
> profile by default?
Because if you do need cantor, it works best with R. But the point is
that he
On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 08:43:50AM -0700, Mark Knecht wrote
> 95% of what I do in KDE is run Firefox or a VM for trading
> futures and the balance is mostly use a terminal to maintain my
> systems. I use Skype a little, backup to a few different external
> hard drives. Sometimes I play solitaire.
On 25 June 2011, at 14:58, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Saturday 25 June 2011 13:46:35 justin wrote:
> ...
>> Trying to avoid any fortran at all is stupid,
>
> That's the sort of arrogance that gets developers a bad name.
>
>> as already mentioned many math operations are faster if programmed in
>
On Sunday 26 June 2011 11:45:24 Stroller wrote:
> I would be glad to bitch out the devs and say "why aren't you doing it
> this way?", "why isn't this fixed yet?" but I don't feel I have any
> right to. I'm reserving bitching out the devs until I can afford to pay
> them money on a regular basis.
49 matches
Mail list logo
