Stage 1/3 Installation Support - 2005.0 & GCC 3.4.3

southpaw · Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 8:24 pm Post subject:

Hey Sith,
Thanks for your reply, however, I won't be able to try your suggestion until later tonight for I too many arron's to run today on this manic monday. Now after I read your post I got to thinking about the command you told me to try and it made me wonder about my current install as opposed to my prior install that posted about on page 16 I think. Anyway, what I wanted to ask you before I start rambling too much is, do you think that this issue has anything to do with a funky binutils ebuild for the pentium3 architecture? Now me being a noob and all, I don't know if the ebuilds are written as architecture specific or are they written as one for all, for example binutils-2.15.92.0.2-r2 for all x86 (i686, pentium3, pentium4, and so on..)??
Just a thought, I didn't mean to go too off topic if I was, I just thought I'd ask.
thanx
_________________
Legalize It

Sith_Happens · Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 9:02 pm Post subject:

Bob P · Posted: Mon May 02, 2005 9:44 pm Post subject:

yeah, i have seen that problem too. for those who may not be aware of it, there is a sticky thread about it in Portage and Programming:

https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-325007.html

i would expect that if portage's new default of strict features checking were the problem, then he might have gotten a digest verification warning. unfortunately, the error that he's listed is kind of sketchy.

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

southpaw · Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 5:32 am Post subject:

Hey guys,
thanks for the heads up on that bug report Bob, I had a funny feeling once I seen the FEATURES="-strict" command that Sith tipped me off to, that it had something to do with bad ebuilds. That seems to happening all too often lately, anyway I'm about to dive back in here. I already made my adjustment in my make.conf so I'll let you guys know how it turns out.
thanx again
_________________
Legalize It

Sith_Happens · Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 2:33 pm Post subject:

Bob P · Posted: Tue May 03, 2005 3:39 pm Post subject:

realistically, speaking, changing the features checking in portage to strict hasn't caused ebuilds to go bad -- its just thrown up a brick wall that stops some of the bad ebuilds from compiling. the problem isn't really that ebuilds are suddenly going bad -- the problem is that some ebuild maintainers have always been lazy and sloppy, and their ebuilds have always been bad, but they've gone undetected for a long time. the absence of strict features checking in portage has allowed the shoddy ebuild maintainers to get away with shoddy maintenance. the implementation of strict features checking in portage is designed to stop these people dead in their tracks and compel them to fix their ebuilds. ultimately, i think its a good idea, but its definitely a speedbump right now.
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks

ats2 · Apprentice Joined: 22 Apr 2005 Posts: 297

Hm. Okay.
Back to gcc 3.3.5 I guess.

Cheers.

southpaw · Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 4:44 am Post subject:

Hello again,
I just thought I'd let you guys know that disabeling strict under FEATURES worked fine, however, a couple of steps later in the guide where it says to enter:

# gcc-config -l

...the output shows this:

[1] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.3.5-20050130 *
[2] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.3.5-20050130-hardened
[3] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.3.5-20050130-hardenednopie
[4] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.3.5-20050130-hardenednossp

I'm a little confused here, because I haven't done anything out of the ordinary other than
FEATURES="-strict"
and i don't think that would do cause the problem, but then again how would I know...
Let me know what you guys think,
thanx
_________________
Legalize It

southpaw · Posted: Wed May 04, 2005 12:57 pm Post subject:

Hey guys,
I'd like to apologize about my last post, I made a mistake and for some odd reason I figured out how to fix it.
I didn't realize at first that when I entered the command:

gcc-config -l

and I got the out that I showed you was directly affected by /etc/portage/package.keywords
heres how I had it originally:

sys-devel/gcc~x86
sys-devel/gcc-config~x86
sys-libs/libstdc++-v3~x86
sys-libs/glibc~x86

...and then this is how I changed it:

sys-devel/gcc ~x86
sys-devel/gcc-config ~x86
sys-libs/libstdc++-v3 ~x86
sys-libs/glibc ~x86

unfortunately I was a little thrown by the guide because of the way my printer printed it up, it looked as if there wasn't supposed to be a space before ~x86, but last night I started browsing "portage & programming" and I saw a thread where they were disscussing errors due to incorrect keywords which made me think about how I had entered the text. Anyway, this isn't the first time I've made this mistake but it is the first time I figured out how to correct it and just in case any other nOOb's made the same mistake they can see this post and realize how to correct it without going to the lengths that I've gone through to correct it.
thanx again
_________________
Legalize It

southpaw · Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 2:31 pm Post subject:

Finally,
well, I just finished with the install and I'm in the process of installing my desktop environment, the system is running great. Once again I'd like to thank you guys for helping me out I really appreciate your comments and suggestions.
thanx
_________________
Legalize It

starrbuck · Posted: Fri May 06, 2005 3:39 pm Post subject:

Bob P · Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 4:59 pm Post subject:

uh... i think he was referring to how much faster the Stage 1/3 install is than out-of-the-box Gentoo. :wink:

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

Bob P · Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 5:04 pm Post subject:

Taevin · n00b Joined: 09 Feb 2005 Posts: 6

I recently got a new system and I decided to take the old one and wipe Windows from it, replacing it with Gentoo. I had heard good things about the Stage 1 on 3 installation method so I figured I'd give it a shot this time instead of starting from Stage 1. Everything went great with the install until trying to change compilers from 3.3.5 to 3.4.3.

Sith_Happens · Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 8:50 pm Post subject:

We've run into this problem during the development of the Jackass! Project (which I highly recommend you use instead of doing a Stage 1/3 Install). Try running emerge -P gcc to unmerge the older gcc 3.3.5, and see if that fixes the problem.
_________________
"That question was less stupid; though you asked it in a profoundly stupid way."
I'm the brains behind Jackass! | Tutorials: Shorewall

Bob P · Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 8:52 pm Post subject:

there is a documented problem with some verisons of gcc-config that are broken. if you prune the older version of gcc off of your system using "emerge -P gcc", that may fix the problem.

edit: dammit sith!

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

Taevin · n00b Joined: 09 Feb 2005 Posts: 6

Thanks for the quick reply. However, the emerge -P gcc did not fix the problem

I just get this instead:

Sith_Happens · Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 9:41 pm Post subject:

We'll you could also try re-emerging gcc-config after pruning gcc, but Jackass! is another good option. (I'm not biased in any way :wink:

)
_________________
"That question was less stupid; though you asked it in a profoundly stupid way."
I'm the brains behind Jackass! | Tutorials: Shorewall

Bob P · Posted: Tue May 10, 2005 12:11 am Post subject:

macawgumbo · Apprentice Joined: 28 May 2004 Posts: 165

I should think that adding

moocha · Watchman Joined: 21 Oct 2003 Posts: 5722

Bob P · Posted: Thu May 19, 2005 8:51 pm Post subject:

In response to the people who keep sending me Private Messages requesting personalized support, I'd like to reiterate my Official Support Policy for the Stage 1/3 Guide:

flipnode · Apprentice Joined: 03 Oct 2004 Posts: 172 Location: USA

Okay, sorry bob about that Private Message I sent today. I just got to the end of this help forum and noticed your last post. There seems to be some small minor wording issues with the 1/3 Tutorial.

I will list the Two I have found so far.

Bob P · Posted: Fri May 20, 2005 3:02 am Post subject:

you know, if you hadn't told everyone that you were the guy that sent me the PM, nobody would have ever known!

with regard to the Stage 1/3 Guide not specifically mentioning that the user has to create the configuration files themselves -- you're right -- the user has to manually create those files using a text editor. when i wrote the docs i specifically avoided the issue of teaching a neophyte how to use a text editor, and assumed that everyone using the Guide was an advanced/expert user and would know: 1) how to use a text editor and 2) that a Gentoo user is typically expected to create/edit configuration files.

as the Stage 1/3 Guide is an advanced/expert method, i never considered that such extensive documention would be necessary. i just thought it would be simpler to just use the "cat" command to display the output of what the file would look like when you're finished. in doing that i assumed that most people familiar with basic gentoo file editing skills would have realized that they would have needed to create the files. so far i've had several thousand of people download the Stage 1/3 guide, and you're the first person who's notified me of the problem.

at any rate, i'm glad to hear that you've figured out the problem. good luck with your install.
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks