libstdc++-v3-3.3.4 compile problems.

segin

The error:

Specialized · Apprentice Joined: 11 Jan 2005 Posts: 264

Have you compiled your system with gcc-3.3.4 or with 3.4?

segin · Posted: Tue Jun 21, 2005 11:13 pm Post subject:

i had 3.3.5-(somedate)-r1, and 3.4.4, as i was trying to phase out the older gcc,
the upgrade to gcc 3.3.6 failed, as posted before, an the libstdc++-v3 thing came up as a upgrade on a routine emerge -
Dau world.

Did someone explictly break the old GCC just to be an asshole?

Specialized · Apprentice Joined: 11 Jan 2005 Posts: 264

You need to compile your whole system with the same gcc. If you want to update your gcc you have to switch to the new gcc an do this:

taipan67 · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 12:00 pm Post subject:

@segin:

The error-message you received is usually because of miss-typed CFLAGS - have a look at this post in the 'Frequently Asked Questions' forum. Did you have some CFLAGS in your /etc/make.conf before switching compilers? If so, their absence now might indicate why the problem was solved...

EDIT: Actually, even if /etc/make.conf has no CFLAGS, 'emerge --info' should still list the ones from /etc/make.globals - is there any reason you removed them from your initial post? If they're a bit extreme, you'll get better help if you provide all info that might be applicable...

@Specialized:

I'm on the wrong thread for this, but i'd like to ask a favour. I've just built a Stage1 which has gone a bit screwy in the logic, & i stumbled on this thread while trying to find a solution...

Can you check & see if 'emerge -e system' built two versions of gcc for you? When i did

hielvc · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 4:43 pm Post subject:

taipan67
From what I can tell this a flaw in the logic of gcc-config. It has a habit of switching to the last gcc version built. So if you made gcc-3.4.4 it switched to that, then you updated, gcc-3.3.4 to gcc-3.3.6 and it switched to that..To stick with gcc-3.4.4 do this " echo "<=/sys-devel/gcc-3.3*" >> /etc/portage/package.mask " then try a "emerge gcc -uDp " to check. See "man portage" for more info. Then use my script, see tag, and if you have any questions about this ask them on that thread.

segin First set up your CFLAGS then try " gcc-config -l " to see which if any gcc-is selected. It will have a star besides it. In your case if you have gcc-3.3.? and gcc-3.4.4 " gcc-config 5 " should select gcc-3.4.4. Then get An emerge wrapper for more correctly building the toolchain . What you all will want to do is an " emwrap.sh -set && emewrap.sh -se ". This builds thw TC more correctly and then the system files . If when that completes do " emwrap.sh -seb " which rebuilds the the TC and all system files. Taking care of the libary prob.

Dont waste your time just doing an "emerge system -e && emerge system -e" unl;ess your goiing to do the 2nd half " emerge world -e && emerge world -e "
_________________
An A-Z Index of the Linux BASH command line

taipan67 · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 5:02 pm Post subject:

Thanks, hielvc! I already had your 'emerge wrapper' thread bookmarked, i'd just never gotten round to giving it an exhaustive read. Now i think i will, prior to either trying to salvage what i've already started, or starting from scatch with these valuable lessons firmly in mind! :wink:

_________________
"Anyone who goes to see a psychiatrist should have their head examined!"

Bob P · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:14 pm Post subject:

one of the quotes appears to be causing the page length to go extra-wide. could somebody please edit that post that's causing the extra-wide page display by breaking-up the line that's causing the problem?

in regard to the Personal Messages about these toolkit issues from @taipan67, there's a huge problem that's waiting for anyone who performs a GCC upgrade: the unacceptably high rate of bad ebuilds that find their way into the portage tree. i hate to admit it, but QA for ebuilds in gentoo could be alot better, and the appearance of bad ebuilds in the portage tree causes far too many problems.

as a result, rebuilding the toolkit is actually a pretty dangerous undertaking -- even if you know what you're doing its really hard to get it done right. alot of the time, there are bad ebuilds in the portage tree and even if you know what you're doing and you rebuild properly you're still doomed to failure. i learned the hard way with the Jackass Project that we had to wait for all of the toolkit ebuilds in the portage tree to be "right" before we could release Jackass. from a practical standpoint, we compiled regularly over a period of months before we found a stable portage snapshot. what this means is that even if you do things right, errors in the portage tree could still prevent a rebuild from being successful. the problems that people have had doing a Stage 1/3 with GCC 3.4.4 instead of GCC 3.4.3 further illustrate the perils caused by randomly resyncing portage with a full ~x86 specification. if the portage tree contains bad ebuilds (as it does most of the time), full ~x86 is suicidal. you would be much better off using package-specific ~x86 settings in package.keywords.

IIRC from your post in the Stage 1/3 threads, you've tried bootstrapping into a full ~x86 system while performing a Stage 1 install. IMHO that is absolutely a foolish undertaking, as the probability of success with full ~x86 ebuilds at any random time is rather remote. if you're having problems after having done that, your best bet is to wipe your system and start over. seriously, i'm pretty experienced at installing Gentoo, and there's no way that I would attempt to do what you've done. i developed a new installation method to specifically avoid the problems that you're having, so there's no way that i could advise doing what you're doing. similarly, there's also no way that i'd waste my time trying to rebuild a fundamentally b0rked system when its easier to just extract a functionally equivalent jackass stage 3 tarball. my advice is to cut your losses and start over.

if you're running an Intel x86 system (ie: a Pentium branded processor) then my recommendation would be to just install from one of the Jackass! ISOs. the toolkit on those CDs is built to provide the equivalent of a Stage 1 install on each of the pentium arches, while providing the package in an easy to install Stage 3 tarball. this would allow you to stop wasting time fighting to rebuild a system that's fundamentally unsound. and a new jackass install is guaranteed to take less time than attempting to rebuild the toolkit on a dysfunctional Stage 1 ~x86 install.

if you are planning on running a full ~x86 system, my recommendation is not to do that. its a foolish undertaking. i don't do it, i advise against it, and in all honesty i simply cannot afford the time to respond to personal requests from people like @taipan67 asking me to join threads like this one, and provide free consultation services helping to repair b0rked systems -- especially when the problem has been caused by methods that i have specifically advised against. i apologize if this sounds harsh, but i've made it very plain in the Stage 1/3 Guides that I don't have time to provide personalized support via Personal Messages for people who are following the Stage 1/3 Guide -- all of the support requests need to be put into the Support Threads, so that I don't end up answering the same questions over and over again. Similarly, there's just not enough of me to go around to answer PMs from the people who aren't even attempting to follow the Stage 1/3 Guide but think of me as someone who's capable of solving their problems. Although i do appreciate the compliment that these requests bring, i'm not the only guy around here who can be helpful -- there are alot of guys who know alot more than i do and they'll certainly find this thread and try to help out. i do like to volunteer help when i have the time to peruse the forums, but with the significant time commitment that i've already made to the Jackass! Support Group and the multiple Stage 1/3 Support threads, i just don't have the time to read the forums for my own edification -- much less to help people in other areas -- and i just don't have the time to respond to any more PMs on this subject. I apologize if this sounds harsh -- that's not my intention.

Sorry i couldn't be more helpful.

good luck!
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks

taipan67 · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 7:57 pm Post subject:

Specialized · Apprentice Joined: 11 Jan 2005 Posts: 264

Don't know if you still need to know, but in my Case only gcc-3.4 would be emerged:

taipan67 · Posted: Thu Jun 23, 2005 11:14 pm Post subject:

Bob P · Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:13 pm Post subject:

there's absolutely no danger in using emerge -e system as it is employed in the Stage 1/3 Guide. i think you must be confused about something.
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks

segin · Posted: Sat Jun 25, 2005 5:52 pm Post subject:

If you did read any of my posts, you should realize that i got rid of gcc-3.3.X.

after 3.3.6 failed to emerge, and this here library failing, i just stopped using the old gcc...

The funny part is that you don't seem to get that i "mv gcc-3.3.x /dev/null"

All apps needing the older gcc libstdc++ file.... i made a hardlink (forgot to pass -s to ln) libstdc++.so.5 to libstdc++-3-libc6.2-2-2.10.0.so. I have been told that this will not work, but evidence from the apps that continue to work without any problem suggests what I have heard to be FUD (like all the FUD about one of our developers, anarchy (Jory A. Pratt))