View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
uxbod Guru
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 Posts: 474 Location: UK
|
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 8:50 am Post subject: ~amd64 |
|
|
Has anybody successfully built a system using the unstable/pre-release software from scratch ? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
kfiaciarka Veteran
Joined: 20 May 2005 Posts: 1498 Location: Dobre Miasto, Poland
|
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes:) But there are some packages that must remain stable : udev, baselayout,cvs maybe more:) |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Rafixus n00b
Joined: 06 Jan 2003 Posts: 67
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
uxbod Guru
Joined: 30 Dec 2002 Posts: 474 Location: UK
|
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good point. Me thinks I will rebuild with stable, and run discreet ~ packages Thanks. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Monkeh Veteran
Joined: 06 Aug 2005 Posts: 1656 Location: England
|
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 12:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kfiaciarka wrote: | Yes:) But there are some packages that must remain stable : udev, baselayout,cvs maybe more:) |
Crap. The current ~arch baselayouts are perfectly stable and vastly more featured than the stable ones. udev works just fine for me, ~amd64 and ~x86. As does cvs, and portage, and every other package in those arches with ~ versions. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jonnevers Veteran
Joined: 02 Jan 2003 Posts: 1594 Location: Gentoo64 land
|
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
uxbod wrote: | Good point. Me thinks I will rebuild with stable, and run discreet ~ packages Thanks. |
this is what I've been doing. though you'll find that as you build up your system your package.keywords file will get larger and larger. its an amd64 thing
mine is huge right now mainly because i've gone to modular xorg7 and gnome 2.14.
- Jon |
|
Back to top |
|
|
fangorn Veteran
Joined: 31 Jul 2004 Posts: 1886
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
niskel Guru
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 Posts: 457 Location: Fredericton, NB, Canada
|
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 2:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I run completely ~amd64 with GCC 4.1 built from Stage1. I have absolutely zero issues, my system is stable as a rock even with Xorg 7.0 and KDE 3.5.2.
For me, I run ~amd64 and selectively choose my M~ and -* packages. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
EzInKy Veteran
Joined: 11 Oct 2002 Posts: 1742 Location: Kentucky
|
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Absolutely. Mine is built from the ground up using gcc-4.0.2 and "~amd64". There are occasional problems like the recent expat issue. Another may be brewing with the latest udev. If you keep an eye on the forums things usually run pretty smoothly. _________________ Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
no4b Bodhisattva
Joined: 18 Jan 2004 Posts: 774 Location: Tarnów, Poland
|
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I also have ~amd64 with gcc 4.1. I can sincerely recomend it. _________________ GTK2/GNOME - The weakest link! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Janax Apprentice
Joined: 17 Aug 2004 Posts: 162 Location: Iowa
|
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 7:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm running gcc-4.1.0, ~amd64, and some enhanced ebuilds (glibc, qt, no-sources, etc). I started following this 'Unsupported Software' stuff in January and it's worked out great for the most part. I haven't ventured into XGL territory yet though, so no advice as far as that goes!
The Evolution Guide 1.1.3 and Evolution Guide 2.0.1 are what I used when building my system from scratch lately. You'll want to follow the 1.1.3 version and reference the 2.0.1 version because the older version is more directly applicable if you want to build an 'amd64' ARCH system. The newer version includes a pre-made stage3 tarball that runs 32-bit - a definite NO if you're like me! So when you follow the guide(s), substitute the amd64 arch for the x86 arch and research any other questions you have!
If you need specific things like make.conf files, emerge info, etc., I'll be glad to post them up here. Also, you may be able to decipher something from my post here if your cross-referencing skills are up to it. A lot of that info will be outdated, however, since it's been over a month since it was posted...
p.s. I decided to give this 'bleeding edge' stuff a try when I kept adding most everything to my package.keywords file anyway. No regrets here! _________________ Americans for Fair Taxation because the current tax system is not only burdensome but corrupt as well! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spielc Guru
Joined: 20 Apr 2004 Posts: 452
|
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well uxbod if you have no experience with linux (not to speak of gentoo ) at all, i would highly recommend to go with the stable branch first cuz the testing branch can be a bitch and if you don't know what you are doing, you won't be able to fix/recover your system when you broke something and with ~... it will happen quite often.
i absolutely agree with kfiaciarka that certain packages (udev, baselayout...) should be installed from the stable branch (but atm you are not able to, you have to install the stable version of the packages and mask everything after it and this is my main point of criticism about portage). After a baselayout update my system was so seriously broken that i wasn't able to login any more cuz the system crashed every time i started it but as i have some experience with how to fix a broken system (1 1/2 years of gentoo on amd64/~amd64 teaches you alot ) i was able to fix it but it was very annoying as there are issues with almost every version of the above mentioned packages. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
zxy Veteran
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 Posts: 1160 Location: in bed in front of the computer
|
Posted: Tue Apr 04, 2006 11:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I used to have stable version amd64 and then eventually I had enough of writing packages to package.keywords. Slowly but surely you get a mess.
So now i have ACCEPT_KEYWORDS set to ~amd64, I've built gcc 4.0.3 and I'm seriously thinking of using 4.1.x. System is solid and FAST.
Something like udev can make some problems (evdev a few days ago). But this lasts for a few hours, maybe a day. If you wait for a day with critical packages than you don't have to worry too much.
With the last evdev problem I've got the solution to it while compiling kde - dirty symlink trick. But it did it's job until things get fixed i portage. Or it may be fixed already as new portage and gentoolkit was available. I didn't check.
With ~arch you get newer (probably better) software and maybe an oportunity to learn something. That's an adveture. A little risk maybe, lots of good stuff.
When mixing ~arch with arch I had worse experience than with solo ~arch. And mixing arches also gives you much work, when certain packages become stable and you have to remove them from package.keywords - or else...
Decide for yourself. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
zxy Veteran
Joined: 06 Jan 2006 Posts: 1160 Location: in bed in front of the computer
|
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sorry my mistake, I wrote there were problems with evdev. I was with expat. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Avuton Olrich Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 02 Jul 2004 Posts: 114
|
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just to put in my 2c, ~x86/~amd64 is _much_ more stable than x86/amd64 in my experience. Run it for long enough and you'll find out why. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GetCool Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2003 Posts: 324 Location: Madison, Wisconsin
|
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Avuton Olrich wrote: | Just to put in my 2c, ~x86/~amd64 is _much_ more stable than x86/amd64 in my experience. Run it for long enough and you'll find out why. |
I can certainly believe those who claim to be running a pure ~amd64 system without any problems, but to say that ~amd64 is "much more stable" than amd64 seems a little warped.
I don't mean to discredit your experiences, but on a global scale (meaning if every user tries this), I find it really hard to believe that any ~arch is going to be universally more stable than the standard arch install.
Of course, I've never done a pure ~amd64 install, but having done several amd64 installs straight out of the handbook, I've had zero problems that weren't user error or some package that just had a learning curve. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
niskel Guru
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 Posts: 457 Location: Fredericton, NB, Canada
|
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 4:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
Really, what most people fail to realize is that %99 of the packages in ~arch are actually marked stable upstream. The reason they are marked 'testing' in Gentoo is for exactly the reason it sounds like, to test it. These are almost always completely stable packages, they just haven't had the time/manpower to test them thuroughly on a Gentoo system. There is no boogie man lurking behind that tilde, just mostly new software. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
GetCool Guru
Joined: 23 Nov 2003 Posts: 324 Location: Madison, Wisconsin
|
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
niskel wrote: | Really, what most people fail to realize is that %99 of the packages in ~arch are actually marked stable upstream. The reason they are marked 'testing' in Gentoo is for exactly the reason it sounds like, to test it. These are almost always completely stable packages, they just haven't had the time/manpower to test them thuroughly on a Gentoo system. There is no boogie man lurking behind that tilde, just mostly new software. |
I can understand that, because, for example, the new nVidia drivers were under ~amd64 seemingly forever, despite the fact that they were posted on nVidia's web site as the current stable version. I would imagine that the same is true for many other packages.
However, the reason why I don't use ~amd64 globally is because I'm running Gentoo, and I'm using portage, and one of the main features of portage is the division of "arch" and "~arch". If there was really no point in making that distinction, then the developers wouldn't have implemented that feature. Subsequently, if making that distinction is now obsolete (as you claim), then it is an obsolete feature that needs to be removed. Until it is removed (if it ever is), I will stick with the standard "arch".
In short, I use plain amd64 because that's the "intended" arch when installing Gentoo on an AMD64 system. I am not saying that it is better or worse than using ~amd64; I am only saying that for me and my usage of my machine, a plain amd64 build is more than adequate. Performance is fantastic as it is, stability is solid, and I don't need to live on the bleeding edge. If I discover that a testing version of a specific package has a newly-implemented feature that I require, I mark it ~amd64 in my package.keywords. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
EzInKy Veteran
Joined: 11 Oct 2002 Posts: 1742 Location: Kentucky
|
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
GetCool wrote: |
In short, I use plain amd64 because that's the "intended" arch when installing Gentoo on an AMD64 system. I am not saying that it is better or worse than using ~amd64; I am only saying that for me and my usage of my machine, a plain amd64 build is more than adequate. Performance is fantastic as it is, stability is solid, and I don't need to live on the bleeding edge. If I discover that a testing version of a specific package has a newly-implemented feature that I require, I mark it ~amd64 in my package.keywords.
|
Which is exactly how you should use portage. I run "~amd64" on one box and "~x86" on another simply because I enjoy testing new software. I don't think anyone here is trying to convince people to switch, they are just informing the original poster that for the most part a pure "~arch" system does work well. _________________ Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Chickpea l33t
Joined: 03 Jun 2002 Posts: 846 Location: Vancouver WA
|
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 6:28 am Post subject: Me too! |
|
|
Well, I run "system" packages as stable amd64 but this is only my second or third day with a new system....I just started building recently when I upgraded so that I could seperate my linux box from the windows box.
For me it is nearly impossible to run a totally "stable" system with amd64 so a few packages are ~amd64...like graveman,gnomad,libnjb,libusb...because I need them and the so called "stable" ones are not working for my system.
I know what I need from my system to make it usable for me. I am not a gamer or programmer or anything fancy. I just became this Linux Nut and wont let go. Sure I could use Windows or Mac (and believe me I am tempted by those delicious Apples) but it would not be as fun. Whatever has got me hooked on linux has me stuck right here where I am. And I love it.
So I am on the fence mostly stable but slight insane! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spielc Guru
Joined: 20 Apr 2004 Posts: 452
|
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
Monkeh wrote: | kfiaciarka wrote: | Yes:) But there are some packages that must remain stable : udev, baselayout,cvs maybe more:) |
Crap. The current ~arch baselayouts are perfectly stable and vastly more featured than the stable ones. udev works just fine for me, ~amd64 and ~x86. As does cvs, and portage, and every other package in those arches with ~ versions. |
Well i can confirm myself that the thing kfiaciarka said is NOT crap! Baselayout has broken my system more than once (read my post above this was the worst case i have to admit but still i think this mustn't occur even on a testing system) and udev usually managed that somehow something was not working any more as it should.
that's why i usually tell everybody to be careful with new testing-versions of baselayout and the other above mentioned packages, although they might have cool new features and breaking a already fine running system is not what i call a feature
I have a friend who has almost the same system as i do (he has another proc, more ram and another vid-card) and no matter what i do, some things work fine on my system, which doesn't work at all on his and vice versa, so you might be the lucky one that has no problem with these packages at all but other ppl like me DO have problems, so marking a comment as crap is NOT what i call netiquette as he surely has made some bad experiences with these packages as have i...
Maybe must be stable is the wrong expression tho, but there are issues with it and NOBODY can doubt that (just look at the bugzilla if you don't believe me)
So to sum it up: You can surely go for the testing versions of these packages (maybe to try and see what happens in your special case ) but be warned that you MIGHT break something and if you don't know how to fix it you are more likely than not f*****... So in case you don't want that to happen, it's better to stick to the stable versions |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Monkeh Veteran
Joined: 06 Aug 2005 Posts: 1656 Location: England
|
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 9:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
spielc wrote: | Well i can confirm myself that the thing kfiaciarka said is NOT crap! Baselayout has broken my system more than once (read my post above this was the worst case i have to admit but still i think this mustn't occur even on a testing system) and udev usually managed that somehow something was not working any more as it should. |
I've been running the latest baselayout for months. I update it as soon as there is an update available. Except for my own stupid mistakes, I have had no issues with baselayout. Nor have I had any issues with udev. Infact, I have had no issues in the last several months whatsoever, ~amd64 on my desktop and ~x86 on my laptop, except those which are my own fault. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
niskel Guru
Joined: 17 Nov 2004 Posts: 457 Location: Fredericton, NB, Canada
|
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 12:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know about anyone's exact situation here but the only time baselayout has ever caused problems for me (and I update my system daily) is when I neglected to run etc-update. This will almost always screw something up and more often than not something major but this is not a problem with the stability of the package, this is when the PEBCAK. Base layout, if you bother to read the einfo, warns about this so if it causes problems, it is almost always your own fault. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spielc Guru
Joined: 20 Apr 2004 Posts: 452
|
Posted: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
niskel wrote: | I don't know about anyone's exact situation here but the only time baselayout has ever caused problems for me (and I update my system daily) is when I neglected to run etc-update. This will almost always screw something up and more often than not something major but this is not a problem with the stability of the package, this is when the PEBCAK. Base layout, if you bother to read the einfo, warns about this so if it causes problems, it is almost always your own fault. |
In my case it was caused by baselayout itself NOT me having forgotten to do a etc-update or anything else. I always update the system manually so i see if i have to run etc-update anyway. And i do that when i'm told to. I'm using gentoo long enough to know how important it is to do a etc-update when portage is telling you to do it. Period.
All i wanted to point out is that baselayout CAN break your system EVEN if you do everything you are told to do. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
VanDan Guru
Joined: 30 Sep 2002 Posts: 586 Location: Australia
|
Posted: Tue Apr 11, 2006 5:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've been bitten by base-layout changes plenty.
Just today, for example, the net.lo script was updated to something that can't bring up network devices! Great piece of testing there. Luckily I can do that myself, and also I know to just downgrade to a previous version of baselayout.
On my G3, I had[/b] an absolute frigging catastrophe when some eeeeeeeeeeeeediot updated /etc/init.d/clock so that the system would not boot at all if setting the clock from the hardware clock via systohc failed. The thing is that systohc ALWAYS fails on G3s. It took me a week to get the disk into another system, get it detected ( mac partition table ), figure out a work-around, take the disk home, test it out, bring it back to work, make another change ... |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|