headers
Marien Zwart | 1 Dec 2005 01:30
Picon
Favicon

Re: Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:50:02 -0500
Mark Loeser <halcy0n <at> gentoo.org> wrote:

> Jakub Moc <jakub <at> gentoo.org> said:
> > 1.12.2005, 0:29:48, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > revdep-rebuild --library=libstdc++.so.5 is all that's needed here to avoid
> > things like Bug 64615.
> 
> Yea, I updated my statement on the bug to reflect this.  C++ stuff should be
> the only thing affected, so this _should_ be enough.  Its also already
> something that's been in the ebuild for a while now.

Not sure if everyone is aware of this, but most installed pythons link
to libstdc++.so. This is not a problem if you run the above
revdep-rebuild (it should catch it just fine). It is a problem if you
get rid of gcc 3.3 before installing libstdc++-v3 or running the
revdep-rebuild, as it will leave you with a broken python and therefore
unable to emerge.

-- 
Marien.
--

-- 
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Jakub Moc | 1 Dec 2005 01:53
Picon
Favicon

Re[2]: Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86


1.12.2005, 1:30:41, Marien Zwart wrote:

> Not sure if everyone is aware of this, but most installed pythons link to
> libstdc++.so. This is not a problem if you run the above revdep-rebuild (it
> should catch it just fine). It is a problem if you get rid of gcc 3.3 before
> installing libstdc++-v3 or running the revdep-rebuild, as it will leave you
> with a broken python and therefore unable to emerge.

Which returns us to the question why don't we build python with nocxx so that
we could avoid this major PITA.

--

-- 

jakub
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Marien Zwart | 1 Dec 2005 02:07
Picon
Favicon

Re: Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 01:53:25 +0100
Jakub Moc <jakub <at> gentoo.org> wrote:

> 
> 1.12.2005, 1:30:41, Marien Zwart wrote:
> 
> > Not sure if everyone is aware of this, but most installed pythons link to
> > libstdc++.so. This is not a problem if you run the above revdep-rebuild (it
> > should catch it just fine). It is a problem if you get rid of gcc 3.3 before
> > installing libstdc++-v3 or running the revdep-rebuild, as it will leave you
> > with a broken python and therefore unable to emerge.
> 
> Which returns us to the question why don't we build python with nocxx so that
> we could avoid this major PITA.

Actually I'm looking into that. According to the information I have
found on the python-dev list and in python's documentation the libstdc++ 
link is not needed, but a dev asked a python herd member for it, and
therefore the link was added. Haven't "caught" that dev yet, so at the
moment I don't know why that link is there. If someone on this list
knows the reason it was added, please enlighten me.

-- 
Marien.
--

-- 
gentoo-dev <at> gentoo.org mailing list
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Philip Webb | 1 Dec 2005 02:19
Picon
Favicon

Re: Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

051130 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 17:34 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
>> As one of the "masses", I am certainly disturbed at that implication.
>> I don't remember any such need when I upgraded 2.9.5 -> 3.x (now 3.3.6).
>> This is the kind of issue on which I trust the devs to do sensible things,
>> but do we really need to rebuild our whole systems from the ground up ?
>> Ordinarily, I upgrade packages individually when it seems appropriate
>> & never do 'emerge world' with or without '-e' or other flags;
>> I do 'esync' every weekend & look at what is marked as having changed.
> Technically, you don't need to rebuild world.
> You only need to rebuild stuff that uses C++ and links to libstdc++.

That's what I wanted to know.
From this & other responses, it looks as if it would be a bad idea
eg to upgrade to KDE 3.5 just before adopting GCC 3.4 (smile),
but that 'revdep-rebuild' will reveal the (lengthy) list of needed remerges.

I would urge whoever is documenting this
to avoid a blanket recommendation to 'emerge -e system && emerge -e world'
or be prepared for a lot of negative reaction from the masses.

<spectate>

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow <at> chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
--

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

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lina Pezzella | 1 Dec 2005 03:53
Picon
Favicon

Re: Modular X porting: dependency changes


On Nov 22, 2005, at 4:13 AM, Grobian wrote:

> On 21-11-2005 19:15:58 -0800, Donnie Berkholz wrote:
>> | virtual/x11 isn't xorg for all profiles.
>>
>> Perhaps the relevant people (macos?) could get in touch with me,  
>> and we
>> can figure out what needs to happen.
>>
>> It may be that we'll need to add x11-base/apple-xfree into the ||  
>> list
>> as well. Using the virtual is not an option right now, because of the
>> previously mentioned bug.
>
> OSX doesn't have Xorg (yet?), so it would indeed cause some trouble  
> for
> us right now.  Since we're outnumbered here, I'd vote to make the
> change that is compatible with the majority of users right now.  I'm
> affraid it would just boil down to dropping the ppc-macos keyword on
> those packages that get xorg dependency.  The mentioned || list is an
> issue for more than xorg, so it should be considered some more IMHO.
> Kito, can you agree with this, or do you have another 'solution'?

I would want to know exactly how many keywords would be dropped with  
this solution. I would hate to see something that is working  
perfectly fine having support dropped due to syntax troubles in an  
ebuild...

--Lina Pezzella
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Spider (D.m.D. Lj. | 1 Dec 2005 04:03
Picon
Favicon

Re: glibc & binutils -aware hackers wanted for questions ;)

On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 02:29 +0100, Spider (D.m.D. Lj.) wrote:
> Hello, 
>   I've been looking some at Michael Meeks -Bdirect patches, and the
> possible performance boost they could give.
> 
> The good parts here is that it seems to be far less intrusive for the
> running system than prelink is, on the other hand, it does require a
> more intrusive surgery into the core systems.
> 
> So, now I'm just asking for comments and/or discussion here..  would it
> be worth the time spent on this? 
> http://sourceware.org/ml/binutils/2005-10/msg00436.html
> 

For the interested :

http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=114008

--

-- 
begin  .signature
Tortured users / Laughing in pain
See Microsoft KB Article Q265230 for more information.
end
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Lares Moreau | 1 Dec 2005 05:41
Picon

Re: Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 16:19 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Georgi Georgiev <chutz <at> gg3.net> said:
> > So make gcc-config produce warnings when changing the compiler.
> > 
> > "Switching to gcc-MAJOR.MINOR may break your system. Upgrade
> > instructions can be found at http://thedoc"
> > 
> > Trigger the message only when switching minor versions.
> 
> That's going to be really really annoying for someone like me that flips
> between gcc versions all the time to test things.
New flag?
# gcc-config -q foo
-q == quiet

just a thought
--

-- 
Lares Moreau <lares.moreau <at> gmail.com>  | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org
lares/irc.freenode.net                 |
Gentoo x86 Arch Tester                 |               ::0 Alberta, Canada
Public Key: 0D46BB6E  <at>  subkeys.pgp.net |          Encrypted Mail Preferred
Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628  C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
R Hill | 1 Dec 2005 06:17
Picon

Re: Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

Andrew Muraco wrote:
> Mark Loeser wrote:
>> Andrew Muraco <tuxp3 <at> leetworks.com> said:
>>> is a minimum. A full out doc with all the FAQ and important notes
>>> about what needs to be recompiled (in my opinion) would be a much
>>> more through upgrade path, ofcourse still include the einfo quick
>>> instructions. But I think the masses of users will not be happy when
>>> they realize that emerge -e world && emerge -e world means that they
>>> will be compiling for the next day (or 2 or 3), so a way to block the
>>> upgrade from messing up people that wish to keep 3.3.x as default
>>> would be a good idea.
>>>   
>>
>> gcc-3.4.* will not be selected as your system compiler after merging
>> it.  The
>> old gcc profile is still valid, therefore it is kept.  Users have to
>> consciously go and change their profile to change their gcc, so
>> nothing is
>> going to just magically break.
>>
> That makes me feel a bit more comfortable. I still think that something
> more then an einfo warning should be provided, as its easy to overlook
> those.

All arches other than x86 have made the switch to 3.4 stable already.  They did
so without problem and without extra docs.  Why does x86, the last to switch,
need to be special-cased?

--de.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Donnie Berkholz | 1 Dec 2005 09:13
Picon
Favicon

Re: Modular X porting: dependency changes


Lina Pezzella wrote:
| I would want to know exactly how many keywords would be dropped with
| this solution. I would hate to see something that is working  perfectly
| fine having support dropped due to syntax troubles in an  ebuild...

Portage's lack of sanity checks is completely unrelated to syntax troubles.

As far as progress on this issue, we're looking into adopting glep 37
and creating a virtual/x11 ebuild to address this.

Thanks,
Donnie
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Petteri Räty | 1 Dec 2005 10:19
Picon
Favicon

Re: Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 17:34 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
> 
> 
> Technically, you don't need to rebuild world.  You only need to rebuild
> stuff that uses C++ and links to libstdc++.
> 
> 

How about giving the following as an alternative:
revdep-rebuild --library=libstdc++.so.5

I haven't tested this myself in practise but from what you say this
should work.

Regards,
Petteri
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane