Robert Cole | 1 Mar 16:34 2003

-pentium4 vs -pentium3

I recently noted a warning in the new make.conf file to not use the -pentium4 
compiler option and to use -pentium3 instead. My entire system was built from 
stage1 with -pentium4 and I'm not having any issues.

To be safe I switched it to p3 for now. 

Anymore detail on this? Is this something that has to be fixed in gentoo 
specifically or all source in general?

Robert

--
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list

Klaus-J. Wolf | 1 Mar 19:10 2003
Picon

portage -p output question

Hi,

just a question.
In the "emerge -up --world" output, is it correct that "D" means 
something like downgrade?

I'm getting something like that (portage 2.0.47-r6), and I would expect 
a "D" flag in lines 1, 6, and 7:

1) [ebuild    U ] dev-java/blackdown-jdk-1.3.1-r7 [1.4.1] 

2) [ebuild    U ] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-2.4.20-r1 [2.4.19-r10] 

3) [ebuild    UD] app-games/gnugo-3.0.0 [3.2] 

4) [ebuild    U ] app-admin/gkrellm-2.1.7a [1.2.13] 

5) [ebuild    U ] x11-plugins/gkrellm-mailwatch-2.1 [0.7.2] 

6) [ebuild    U ] media-video/nvidia-kernel-1.0.3123-r2 [1.0.4191-r1] 

7) [ebuild    UD] media-sound/alsa-driver-0.9.0_rc6 [0.9.0_rc7] 

8) [ebuild    UD] app-emulation/bochs-1.4 [2.0.2] 

Or can someone point at some documentation?

Kind regards,
k.j.

(Continue reading)

Paul de Vrieze | 1 Mar 19:24 2003
Picon

Re: portage -p output question

On Saturday 01 March 2003 19:10, Klaus-J. Wolf wrote:
> Hi,
>
> just a question.
> In the "emerge -up --world" output, is it correct that "D" means
> something like downgrade?

In the new portage version the "D" only appears when the lower version package 
is in the same slot, so the newer version would be unmerged.

Paul

--

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Researcher
Mail: pauldv <at> cs.kun.nl
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net
Jeff Kowing | 1 Mar 22:22 2003
Picon

-pentium4 vs -pentium3

Robert Cole writes:
 > I recently noted a warning in the new make.conf file to not use the -pentium4 
 > compiler option and to use -pentium3 instead. My entire system was built from 
 > stage1 with -pentium4 and I'm not having any issues.
 > 
 > To be safe I switched it to p3 for now. 
 > 
 > Anymore detail on this? Is this something that has to be fixed in gentoo 
 > specifically or all source in general?

Robert, I was bit by at least one of the problems a while back.  It
seems that some of the floating point code is not quite right yet for
pentium4.  I believe this is a gcc and maybe glibc issue.  The
particular example that caused me problems is the glibc modf()
function.  See
http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=27211&highlight=python+float
for more info and a sample c program that will highlight the problem.

It was suggested at the time by Nick Jones (see
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/23056) that I back
down to pentium2.  I haven't updated my portage recently, so I
haven't looked at what the new updated make.conf file suggests but I
definitely would follow any advice it gives.

--

-- 
Jeff Kowing
jeffrey.d.kowing <at> nasa.gov

--
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list
(Continue reading)

Oleg Letsinsky | 2 Mar 07:20 2003
Picon

Perl interface to portage

Hi!

Sorry if my qustion has been answered somewhere already, but I've spent
some time reading FAQ, searching through the ebuilds tree and didn't
find an answer - are there any perl bindings for portage available?
(well, frankly I don't understand why would anyone want to use anything
else for writing a system toolset, but it's probably just a matter of
  personal preference :) ). Should I start writing my own one, or there
  is something already available?

Thanks
--

-- 
  May the bluebird of happiness twiddle your bits.

--
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list

Mishael Sibiryakov | 2 Mar 13:17 2003
Picon

Re: Perl interface to portage

On Sun, 2 Mar 2003 09:20:18 +0300
Oleg Letsinsky <letsinsky <at> mtu-net.ru> wrote:

	And what for it is necessary?
	
	Can we shall write on C ? :))

OL\-> Hi!
OL\-> 
OL\-> Sorry if my qustion has been answered somewhere already, but I've spent
OL\-> some time reading FAQ, searching through the ebuilds tree and didn't
OL\-> find an answer - are there any perl bindings for portage available?
OL\-> (well, frankly I don't understand why would anyone want to use anything
OL\-> else for writing a system toolset, but it's probably just a matter of
OL\->   personal preference :) ). Should I start writing my own one, or there
OL\->   is something already available?
OL\-> 
OL\-> Thanks
OL\-> -- 
OL\->   May the bluebird of happiness twiddle your bits.
OL\-> 

--
Time    :  17:15:56-02:03:2003
NP      :  Hybrid - Mixes 'In the Mix'
SysStat :  5:15pm  up 6 days,  6:02, 16 users,  load average: 0.25, 0.25, 0.16

--
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list

(Continue reading)

Leon Brocard | 2 Mar 13:29 2003

Re: Perl interface to portage

Oleg Letsinsky sent the following bits through the ether:

> are there any perl bindings for portage available?

What do you want to do? Figure out dependencies? Parsing the output of
qpkg is fairly easy, or do you want to parse /usr/portage/metadata and
figure out dependencies?

Leon
--

-- 
Leon Brocard.............................http://www.astray.com/
scribot.................................http://www.scribot.com/

... Afraid of heights? Not me, I'm afraid of widths!

--
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list

Alain Penders | 2 Mar 14:51 2003
Picon

Re: Perl interface to portage

On Sun, Mar 02, 2003 at 09:20:18AM +0300, Oleg Letsinsky wrote:
> Sorry if my qustion has been answered somewhere already, but I've spent
> some time reading FAQ, searching through the ebuilds tree and didn't
> find an answer - are there any perl bindings for portage available?
> (well, frankly I don't understand why would anyone want to use anything
> else for writing a system toolset, but it's probably just a matter of
>   personal preference :) ). Should I start writing my own one, or there
>   is something already available?

There currently is no real API to portage in any language.  The best way to
get information out of portage is using the new 'portageq' command line tool,
which was designed for just that.  portageq will also work on the upcoming
portage 2.1, very few of the other interfaces will.  If there's things you
need to know from portage that portageq doesn't provide, let me know.

Alain

--
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list

Dhruba Bandopadhyay | 2 Mar 15:37 2003
Picon

Re: -pentium4 vs -pentium3

Jeff Kowing said:
> Robert, I was bit by at least one of the problems a while back.  It
> seems that some of the floating point code is not quite right yet for
> pentium4.  I believe this is a gcc and maybe glibc issue.  The
> particular example that caused me problems is the glibc modf()
> function.  See
> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=27211&highlight=python+float
> for more info and a sample c program that will highlight the problem.
>
> It was suggested at the time by Nick Jones (see
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/23056) that I back
> down to pentium2.  I haven't updated my portage recently, so I
> haven't looked at what the new updated make.conf file suggests but I
> definitely would follow any advice it gives.

I'm also using P4 and have not faced any problems.  Would changing to P3
result in any noticeable drop in performance?  Also, has gcc 3.2.2
compensated for this problem at all in comparison to previous releases?

--
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list

Riyad Kalla | 2 Mar 16:58 2003
Picon

RE: -pentium4 vs -pentium3

I second these two questions...

-----Original Message-----
From: Dhruba Bandopadhyay [mailto:dhruba <at> codewordt.co.uk] 
Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2003 7:37 AM
To: gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] -pentium4 vs -pentium3

Jeff Kowing said:
> Robert, I was bit by at least one of the problems a while back.  It
> seems that some of the floating point code is not quite right yet for
> pentium4.  I believe this is a gcc and maybe glibc issue.  The
> particular example that caused me problems is the glibc modf()
> function.  See
> http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic.php?t=27211&highlight=python+float
> for more info and a sample c program that will highlight the problem.
>
> It was suggested at the time by Nick Jones (see
> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.user/23056) that I back
> down to pentium2.  I haven't updated my portage recently, so I
> haven't looked at what the new updated make.conf file suggests but I
> definitely would follow any advice it gives.

I'm also using P4 and have not faced any problems.  Would changing to P3
result in any noticeable drop in performance?  Also, has gcc 3.2.2
compensated for this problem at all in comparison to previous releases?

--
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list

(Continue reading)


Gmane