View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
nxsty Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 1556 Location: .se
|
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
weedy wrote: | why did we stop filtering flags? |
I haven't stoped filtering any flags. What flag would that be? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nxsty Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 1556 Location: .se
|
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
abhay Apprentice
Joined: 30 Jul 2005 Posts: 161
|
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
nxsty Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 1556 Location: .se
|
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
mbar Veteran
Joined: 19 Jan 2005 Posts: 1990 Location: Poland
|
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Large as in "enlarged by a few kilobytes" or "enlarged by a few megabytes"? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
abhay Apprentice
Joined: 30 Jul 2005 Posts: 161
|
Posted: Sun Oct 08, 2006 10:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
nxsty Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 1556 Location: .se
|
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
nxsty Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 1556 Location: .se
|
Posted: Tue Oct 10, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Non_E Apprentice
Joined: 17 Jan 2006 Posts: 160 Location: Czech Republic
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:16 pm Post subject: Downgrade |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Martin.Jansa n00b
Joined: 09 Mar 2004 Posts: 55 Location: Prague
|
Posted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 6:25 pm Post subject: Re: Downgrade |
|
|
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 |
|
|
nxsty Veteran
Joined: 23 Jun 2004 Posts: 1556 Location: .se
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Martin.Jansa n00b
Joined: 09 Mar 2004 Posts: 55 Location: Prague
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
PrakashP Veteran
Joined: 27 Oct 2003 Posts: 1249 Location: C.C.A.A., Germania
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had the same issue. I just hacked the ebuild to not die at that check. portage thinks 90 < 20061005 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SpanKY Developer
Joined: 18 Apr 2002 Posts: 321 Location: Somerville, MA
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
PrakashP wrote: | portage thinks 90 < 20061005 |
FYI, last i check, 90 is less than 20061005 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
roderick l33t
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 Posts: 908 Location: St. John's, NL CANADA
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
SpanKY Developer
Joined: 18 Apr 2002 Posts: 321 Location: Somerville, MA
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
R. Daneel Olivaw n00b
Joined: 06 Jul 2004 Posts: 47
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
JoKo Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 16 May 2004 Posts: 141 Location: Xanthi, Greece
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Scullder Guru
Joined: 16 Mar 2006 Posts: 466 Location: France
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
JoKo Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 16 May 2004 Posts: 141 Location: Xanthi, Greece
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks a lot, Scullder, glibc is now emerging... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
roderick l33t
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 Posts: 908 Location: St. John's, NL CANADA
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 _________________ If God were a pickle, I'd still say "no pickle on my burger".
http://roderick-greening.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
SpanKY Developer
Joined: 18 Apr 2002 Posts: 321 Location: Somerville, MA
|
Posted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
roderick l33t
Joined: 11 Jul 2005 Posts: 908 Location: St. John's, NL CANADA
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 1:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 _________________ If God were a pickle, I'd still say "no pickle on my burger".
http://roderick-greening.blogspot.com/ |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nirax Guru
Joined: 06 Jul 2004 Posts: 319 Location: Germany, old Europe
|
Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
Gergan Penkov Veteran
Joined: 17 Jul 2004 Posts: 1464 Location: das kleinste Kuhdorf Deutschlands :)
|
Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 11:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
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 |
|
|
|