Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Tweaked glibc 2.4 + 2.5 + snapshot ebuilds
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Unsupported Software
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
nxsty
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

weedy wrote:
why did we stop filtering flags?


I haven't stoped filtering any flags. What flag would that be?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nxsty
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

R-Type wrote:
I get this when building the new binutils-2.17.50.0.5 build from your overlay. the bdirect useflag is enabled. This is on amd64.


I got that error too. Suse is building the same version of bintuils with the patches with an almost identical toolchain so I've no idea whats wrong. I'm going too look at their specs file and the other patches that they apply.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
abhay
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 161

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nxsty wrote:
Everbody using binutils 2.17.50.0.5 from portage should use this ebuild instead as the regression is pretty serious (binutils bug #3314) Get it from toolchain_overlay.

Damn!!! I just completed moving to new hashstyle and compiled whole world using this binutils version. Does this mean I have to recompile everything AGAIN? :(
How bad is it?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nxsty
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

abhay wrote:
nxsty wrote:
Everbody using binutils 2.17.50.0.5 from portage should use this ebuild instead as the regression is pretty serious (binutils bug #3314) Get it from toolchain_overlay.

Damn!!! I just completed moving to new hashstyle and compiled whole world using this binutils version. Does this mean I have to recompile everything AGAIN? :(
How bad is it?


If you´re on 64 bit you should or all your binaries will be unnecessary large. It doesn´t seem to be a problem on 32 bit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mbar
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 19 Jan 2005
Posts: 1952
Location: Poland

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Large as in "enlarged ;) by a few kilobytes" or "enlarged by a few megabytes"?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
abhay
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 30 Jul 2005
Posts: 161

PostPosted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nxsty wrote:
If you´re on 64 bit you should or all your binaries will be unnecessary large. It doesn´t seem to be a problem on 32 bit.

I am on 32bit so I'll let the things stay :phew:
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nxsty
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mbar wrote:
Large as in "enlarged ;) by a few kilobytes" or "enlarged by a few megabytes"?


Looks like it's pretty bad. The latest opensuse alpha release is double in size because of this. :/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nxsty
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se

PostPosted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I synced the ebuilds with portage (~arch keywords for 2.5) and added a new snapshot from the 2.6 branch (you're crazy if you're using this :))
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Non_E
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 17 Jan 2006
Posts: 160
Location: Czech Republic

PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:16 pm    Post subject: Downgrade Reply with quote

nxsty wrote:
I synced the ebuilds with portage (~arch keywords for 2.5) and added a new snapshot from the 2.6 branch (you're crazy if you're using this :))
I am crazy :-) but unfortunately portage claims that I try to downgrade glibc. Therefore I cannot do that. Nevermind, I shall stay with 2.5 glibc version.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin.Jansa
n00b
n00b


Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 55
Location: Prague

PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:25 pm    Post subject: Re: Downgrade Reply with quote

Quote:
I am crazy :-) but unfortunately portage claims that I try to downgrade glibc. Therefore I cannot do that. Nevermind, I shall stay with 2.5 glibc version.

I'm crazy enough too and this rice is successfully emerged. (And I'm a bit scary about reboot :)).
To emerge this you need to remove sanity check section in ebuild and redigest it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nxsty
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What version of glibc and portage did you have before trying to compile 2.5.90? I have 2.5 and 2.1.1-r1 installed and portage didn't complain about downgrading.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Martin.Jansa
n00b
n00b


Joined: 09 Mar 2004
Posts: 55
Location: Prague

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nxsty wrote:
What version of glibc and portage did you have before trying to compile 2.5.90? I have 2.5 and 2.1.1-r1 installed and portage didn't complain about downgrading.

Downgrading is between:
Fri Oct 6 10:48:09 2006 >>> sys-libs/glibc-2.5.20061005
Wed Oct 11 14:42:07 2006 >>> sys-libs/glibc-2.5.90.20061010
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PrakashP
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 27 Oct 2003
Posts: 1246
Location: C.C.A.A., Germania

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had the same issue. I just hacked the ebuild to not die at that check. portage thinks 90 < 20061005
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SpanKY
Developer
Developer


Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 321
Location: Worcester, MA

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PrakashP wrote:
portage thinks 90 < 20061005


FYI, last i check, 90 is less than 20061005
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
roderick
l33t
l33t


Joined: 11 Jul 2005
Posts: 908
Location: St. John's, NL CANADA

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SpanKY wrote:
PrakashP wrote:
portage thinks 90 < 20061005


FYI, last i check, 90 is less than 20061005


And it's a big problem when using dates as file/package versioning... what a pita for us all (like Wine for example.... I have to manually mask it to prevent from downgrading to a 2005 version when 0.9x is newer).

If they are pre versions, then the date and versioning should be something like _pYYYYMMDD to avoid these sort's of up/downgrade bouncing.

My 2 cents...
_________________
If God were a pickle, I'd still say "no pickle on my burger".
http://roderick-greening.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SpanKY
Developer
Developer


Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 321
Location: Worcester, MA

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

roderick wrote:
And it's a big problem when using dates as file/package versioning


so complain to the people who did the versioning, dont blame portage

roderick wrote:
(like Wine for example.... I have to manually mask it to prevent from downgrading to a 2005 version when 0.9x is newer).


i did that on purpose ... some people wanted me to rename them to 0_preXX and that's just more effort than it's worth

people who want to use the old versions need to declare such masks as they are unsupported and i'll prob punt them all in the future
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
R. Daneel Olivaw
n00b
n00b


Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 47

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

R-Type wrote:

I get this when building the new binutils-2.17.50.0.5 build from your overlay. the bdirect useflag is enabled. This is on amd64.


same here on amd 64 with gcc-4.1.1-r1
binutils compiles well without the bdirect useflag
the only other useflag is "nls"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JoKo
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 May 2004
Posts: 141
Location: Xanthi, Greece

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PrakashP wrote:
I had the same issue. I just hacked the ebuild to not die at that check. portage thinks 90 < 20061005

Could you post the changes you've made? I have the same issue... Thanks in advance
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Scullder
Guru
Guru


Joined: 16 Mar 2006
Posts: 466
Location: France

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JoKo wrote:
PrakashP wrote:
I had the same issue. I just hacked the ebuild to not die at that check. portage thinks 90 < 20061005

Could you post the changes you've made? I have the same issue... Thanks in advance


comment line 1061 like that

Code:

pkg_setup() {
    # prevent native builds from downgrading ... maybe update to allow people
    # to change between diff -r versions ? (2.3.6-r4 -> 2.3.6-r2)
    if ! is_crosscompile && ! tc-is-cross-compiler ; then
        if has_version '>'${CATEGORY}/${PF} ; then
            eerror "Sanity check to keep you from breaking your system:"
            eerror " Downgrading glibc is not supported and a sure way to destruction"
#           die "aborting to save your system"
        fi
    fi


then

# ebuild glibc-2.5.90.20061010.ebuild digest

update and you may break your gentoo :)
_________________
Linux gentoo 2.6.18-ck1-r2 #1 PREEMPT Fri Nov 17 01:37:56 CET 2006 x86_64 AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3000+ AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JoKo
Tux's lil' helper
Tux's lil' helper


Joined: 16 May 2004
Posts: 141
Location: Xanthi, Greece

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks a lot, Scullder, glibc is now emerging...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
roderick
l33t
l33t


Joined: 11 Jul 2005
Posts: 908
Location: St. John's, NL CANADA

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SpanKY wrote:
roderick wrote:
And it's a big problem when using dates as file/package versioning


so complain to the people who did the versioning, dont blame portage

roderick wrote:
(like Wine for example.... I have to manually mask it to prevent from downgrading to a 2005 version when 0.9x is newer).


i did that on purpose ... some people wanted me to rename them to 0_preXX and that's just more effort than it's worth

people who want to use the old versions need to declare such masks as they are unsupported and i'll prob punt them all in the future


Oh, I know it's not portage... it's the package naming. THere seems to be no great do's and don't for portage package naming/versioning and there should be (at least I haven't seen one - if there is, it should be put out there for all to see).

We should try and clean up the naming. If that means old wine needs to be re-named or punted (just as one example), I'm all for it. It's a pain to have to keep track of updates and ensure someone hasn't broken something in the versioning, causing an old package to be preferred over a newer one. They should be hard masked (if they are bad versions - and force someone who wants th eold one to unmask, rather than the cureent reverse).

Just me $0.02 :P
_________________
If God were a pickle, I'd still say "no pickle on my burger".
http://roderick-greening.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SpanKY
Developer
Developer


Joined: 18 Apr 2002
Posts: 321
Location: Worcester, MA

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

roderick wrote:
If that means old wine needs to be re-named or punted (just as one example)


all the old wine versions are marked -* so unless you have a local package.keywords thing, this is not a problem for most people
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
roderick
l33t
l33t


Joined: 11 Jul 2005
Posts: 908
Location: St. John's, NL CANADA

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

SpanKY wrote:
roderick wrote:
If that means old wine needs to be re-named or punted (just as one example)


all the old wine versions are marked -* so unless you have a local package.keywords thing, this is not a problem for most people


Wasn't always :P
_________________
If God were a pickle, I'd still say "no pickle on my burger".
http://roderick-greening.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nirax
Guru
Guru


Joined: 06 Jul 2004
Posts: 319
Location: Germany, old Europe

PostPosted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

im not sure if i understand the current overlay status atm regarding the size-regression on amd64 and BDIRECT.
is it "safe" to merge now from toolchain overlay the:

sys-devel/binutils-2.17.50.0.3 and
sys-libs/glibc-2.5

on an AMD64 system?
current LDFLAGS are
LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1 -Wl,-Bdirect -Wl,-hashvals -Wl,-zdynsort"

do i have to take Bdirect out after this merge ?

thanks for clarification,
nirax
_________________
quot licet iovi non licet bovi
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Gergan Penkov
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 17 Jul 2004
Posts: 1464
Location: das kleinste Kuhdorf Deutschlands :)

PostPosted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hm I have yesterday updated openoffice to 2.0.4 and because I use xulrunner instead of firefox, I had to bump the ebuild myself. Now this was what I noted as addition to the ebuild:
Code:
use debug || export LINKFLAGSOPTIMIZE="${LDFLAGS}"

and today (after the update) openoffice starts at least 2 times faster than the earlier version - can someone confirm this?
For reference these are my LDFLAGS:
Code:
LDFLAGS="-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--as-needed -Wl,--hash-style=both"

_________________
"I knew when an angel whispered into my ear,
You gotta get him away, yeah
Hey little bitch!
Be glad you finally walked away or you may have not lived another day."
Godsmack
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Unsupported Software All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31  Next
Page 28 of 31

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum