| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 5:07 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Sith_Happens wrote: | | tarpman wrote: | Bob - something to fix next time you're on:
As usual, a major update is released, and it immediately proceeds to break something. As of GCC 3.4.4, Python needs to be recompiled BEFORE pruning GCC 3.3.5, as it depends on libstdc++.so.5, which is removed with GCC 3.3.5.
Bug #84961 |
I'll tell you man, python hates a gcc upgrade in so many ways.... |
yet another library problem protects python's position as Public Enemy Number 1. 
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
rutski89
Guru
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 468
Location: United States N.Y.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 5:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bob P wrote: | | Sith_Happens wrote: | | tarpman wrote: | Bob - something to fix next time you're on:
As usual, a major update is released, and it immediately proceeds to break something. As of GCC 3.4.4, Python needs to be recompiled BEFORE pruning GCC 3.3.5, as it depends on libstdc++.so.5, which is removed with GCC 3.3.5.
Bug #84961 |
I'll tell you man, python hates a gcc upgrade in so many ways.... |
yet another library problem protects python's position as Public Enemy Number 1. |
Acutally, I tried "man ld" its complaining as well. So its not just python :-/ 
_________________
<< ^ | ~ >> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 7:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i think that the problems you guys have been having are attributable to attempts to try to use a Guide that was written to support GCC 3.4.3 with the expectation that it will work interchangeably with GCC 3.4.4 (or any toolkit component upgrade). experienced Gentoo users know better.
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rutski89
Guru
Joined: 14 Mar 2005
Posts: 468
Location: United States N.Y.
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Wonderful! I'm going to restart my install with the new guide. Thainks for the quick update, you rock Bob P! 
_________________
<< ^ | ~ >> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 7:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
just remember, i haven't actually tried it, and the GCC 3.4.4 version of the Guide isn't guaranteed to work yet, as GCC 3.4.4 is currently b0rken. 
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 15, 2005 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
 Problems Setting Hostname & Domainname
the new stable branch versions of baselayout have deprecated the use of /etc/hostname and /etc/dnsdomainname in favor of /etc/conf.d/hostname and /etc/conf.d/domainname. if you install/update to sys-apps/baselayout-1.11.12-r4 or later and you've used the deprecated /etc/hostname and /etc/dnsdomainname methods, you'll notice boot warnings. you can make them go away by following the second set of examples in Section 10.2 of the Stage 1/3 Guide.
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sircave
n00b
Joined: 31 Mar 2005
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 4:37 pm Post subject: What about AMD? |
|
|
I was reading through this post and unless I missed it, I did not see this very well written document reffering to or applying to athlon-xp CPU's. Should I follow this documentation and change my Architecture, e.g. i686 or athlon-xp or not use this documentation for AMD CPU's at all?
I really hope this question makes sense.
_________________
Registered Linux User # 375419
Got Root?
Last edited by sircave on Sat Jun 18, 2005 1:17 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sith_Happens
Veteran
Joined: 15 Dec 2004
Posts: 1807
Location: The University of Maryland at College Park
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:05 pm Post subject: Re: What about AMD? |
|
|
| sircave wrote: | I was reading through this post and unless I missed it, I did not see this very well written document reffering to or applying to athlon-xp CPU's. Should I follow this documentation and change my Architecture, e.g. i686 or athlon-xp or not use this documentation for AMD CPU's at all?
I really hope this question makes sense. |
The documentation is written using a Pentium as an example, with the idea that the reader would have the intelligence to change -march=pentium to say -march=athlon-xp to fit their particular x86 architecture. If thats too much for you to handle though, you could always check out the Jackass! project (the link is in my sig). We've got an Athlon-XP stage that's ready built so it will save you time and frustration.
_________________
"That question was less stupid; though you asked it in a profoundly stupid way."
I'm the brains behind Jackass! | Tutorials: Shorewall |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 17, 2005 5:29 pm Post subject: Re: What about AMD? |
|
|
| sircave wrote: | I was reading through this post and unless I missed it, I did not see this very well written document reffering to or applying to athlon-xp CPU's. Should I follow this documentation and change my Architecture, e.g. i686 or athlon-xp or not use this documentation for AMD CPU's at all?
I really hope this question makes sense. |
The Jackass! Has Landed. 
Here are a few pointers that will make your life on the Gentoo Forums easier both for you and for everyone else:
1. Documentation, Tips & Tricks is not a Support Forum, and this is an Instructional Thread, not a Support Thread.
The Support Thread is located HERE. Its hard to imagine that you could have missed the multiple boldfaced RED warnings about that, but if you did, please comply with the Forum rules and post all of your support requests to the Official Support Thread. That's why we have it.
Click Here.
2. What to do about changing to other CPUs is very plainly stated in the Guide. It seems that you didn't read this part:
| Stage 1/3 Installation Guide wrote: | 6.5 Configuring the USE Flags, Portage Options, and Compile Options: /etc/make.conf
In this example, we're compiling for the x86 architecture and a Pentium-class i586 subarchitecture. Our CHOST setting will be i586-pc-linux-gnu. Do not blindly follow the Guide and use this setting unless you are building for a 586-class computer! Use the appropriate tarball, CHOST setting, and architecture specifications for your processor. |
3. Athlon-XP has been specifically addressed either in the Guide or the Support Thread.
I'd recommend using the text-search feature of your browser to find the information that already exists in these threads rather than asking someone to re-post it. Re-posting only adds alot of unnecessary bulk to the threads and in the big sheme of things, its counterproductive.
4. Please don't use ALL-BLUE posts.
In the context of the Stage 1/3 Guides and their associated Support Threads, we've been using the convention of "blue" posts to highlight important updates and support information that are essential for people who are troubleshooting problems. The purpose of the emboldened blue support information is to make these important announcements stand out from all of the noise in the support threads. Although this is not an official Gentoo Forums policy, its the convention that we've been following in the Stage 1/3 and Jackass! Support threads, so we'd appreciate it if you could follow the convention. By using bright blue text to solicit a support request in a Documentation thread, it appears that you've inadvertently broken some rules and conventions just to capture our attention. Now that your post has gotten our attention, if you could please remove the blue flags, that would help everyone.
5. The Jackass! Has Landed. Sith makes a good point. You should really check out The Jackass! Project (after editing the blue out of that previous post!).
thanks.
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheChuckster
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Posts: 91
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 20, 2005 7:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It seems like your guide calls for compiling glibc an unnecessary third time when you emerge -e system. How can we avoid this? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sith_Happens
Veteran
Joined: 15 Dec 2004
Posts: 1807
Location: The University of Maryland at College Park
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheChuckster wrote: | | It seems like your guide calls for compiling glibc an unnecessary third time when you emerge -e system. How can we avoid this? |
Use a Jackass! stage (link in my sig).
_________________
"That question was less stupid; though you asked it in a profoundly stupid way."
I'm the brains behind Jackass! | Tutorials: Shorewall |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheChuckster wrote: | | It seems like your guide calls for compiling glibc an unnecessary third time when you emerge -e system. How can we avoid this? |
unnecessary? i would not call the final emerge -e system unnecessary. its absolutely essential to perform those passes to completely debug the installation. sure, there are other ways that this could be done, but they are MUCH more labor intensive and would require ALOT more seat time than simply performing an emerge -e system and taking an extended break from sitting at the console. the way that's mentioned in the Guide is the EASY way to do it. sure, there are other ways, but they're all HARDER.
the Guide states very plainly in the warnings provided that it is an advanced/expert installation method that will take a long time to complete. if you are not willing to spend the time on the Guide that is necessary to perform it in its entirety, then I recommend that you don't perform an install using this Guide. similarly, if you do not understand why the steps in the Guide are being performed, and you don't agree with them, I would recommend that you don't perform an install using this Guide.
if you don't want to follow the Guide, you don't have to. if you think that the third emerge of glbic is unnecessary, then don't do it. if you know enough to find another way to solve the problem, compile only the individual packages that need to be recompiled to solve the problem with retention in static libraries. just don't ask us for help when you make a mistake that borks your system. the recommended method works. other methods may not. feel free to experiment if you like, but if you deviate from the Guide and your solution doesn't work, don't ask us for help.
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheChuckster
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 18 Aug 2003
Posts: 91
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Well I installed it and it works perfectly, though there isn't much benefit to this install as compared to the normal particularly in the area of speed. I wasn't attacking you with the previous post. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 22, 2005 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheChuckster wrote: | | Well I installed it and it works perfectly, though there isn't much benefit to this install as compared to the normal particularly in the area of speed. I wasn't attacking you with the previous post. |
there is a HUGE, MEASURABLE and undisputable difference in speed between a standard Gentoo install using GCC 3.3.5 and any install that uses GCC 3.4.3 and enables NPTL library. When you add GCC 3.4.3, NPTL, and the CFLAG optimizations that are used in the Stage 1/3 Guide, you HAVE to notice a significant speed improvement. if you're not experiencing an improvement, I'd say that there are only three possibilities that would explain your observations:
1. some component of your installation failed, and you're not actually getting the speed increase (ie: NPTL failure, b0rked GCC 3.4.3 libraries, etc.)
2. you are using subjective measurements such as perceived speed insted of objective benchmarks that provide firm and irrefutable numbers
3. you're just trying to yank my chain.
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SkyLeach
Apprentice
Joined: 05 Nov 2002
Posts: 177
Location: Knoxville, TN
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 08, 2005 5:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just a note: I think the -finvisibility-inlines-hidden g++ option has been removed and/or implemented differently.
I am no compiler expert, but I think the option -fno-implement-inlines will accomplish the same thing?
Perhaps this should be updated in the guide, since this topic has a pretty high rank in a google search on gentoo+nptl
_________________
-SL
http://www.skyleach.org |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheNull
n00b
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 23, 2005 8:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is it okay to do this install through a knoppix livecd, or does it have to be done using a gentoo minimal livecd?
_________________
Need programming help?
Visit CODEnet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 24, 2005 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
i've never done it using knoppix. i've only done it using the most current Gentoo Live CD. i have heard that other guys have done it using Knoppix, but never having done that approach, i couldn't begin to offer guidance or support.
have fun!
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheNull
n00b
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 37
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 25, 2005 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I did the install through knoppix =)
I did get the sandbox access error during the whole install, but once I rebooted, everything was fine.
_________________
Need programming help?
Visit CODEnet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bob P
Advocate
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zecora
l33t
Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 627
Location: Minneapolis, MN
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 4:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Is 2005.1 really the same install?
Edit: What I mean is Bob do you need to do anything different between the 2005.0 and 2005.1 install?
Edit: I will post this in the 2005.0 3.4.4 thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ScriptBlue
n00b
Joined: 27 Jul 2005
Posts: 21
Location: New York City, New York, US
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 08, 2005 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice article really lives up to its title "Faster than a Speeding Bullet... More Powerful than a Locomotive! ".
But libstdc++ has been upgraded to 6, so people will have to symlink libstdc++.so.6 to /usr/lib/libstdc++.so.5 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pjp
Administrator
Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 20067
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 09, 2005 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Locked by author's request. Moved from DT&T.
_________________
Quis separabit? Quo animo? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Unsupported Software
instead, you should use this version of the Stage 1/3 Guide for 2005.0 and GCC 3.4.4:
