[gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 551 bytes --]

This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably
going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon.  If any of the
archs that have already done the move from having 3.3 stable to 3.4 could
give us a heads up on what to expect, that would be great.  Only thing I see
as lacking is we might want to get a doc together on how to properly upgrade
your toolchain so we don't get an influx of bugs from users that have a
system half compiled with 3.3 and the other half with 3.4 so they get linking
errors.

Thanks,

Mark

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mike Frysinger]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 09:22:33AM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Only thing I see
> as lacking is we might want to get a doc together on how to properly upgrade
> your toolchain so we don't get an influx of bugs from users that have a
> system half compiled with 3.3 and the other half with 3.4 so they get linking
> errors.

there is a bug open about this issue ...
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Bjarke Istrup Pedersen]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Does this mean that we can get rid of the libstd++ dependency of gcc,
and move it to the binary packages that depends on gcc 3.3 .
I know this has been discussed before, but once it's stable I see no
reason to keep the dependency in the gcc ebuild, when it could be in the
binary packages.

Bjarke
Mark Loeser skrev:
> This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably
> going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon.  If any of the
> archs that have already done the move from having 3.3 stable to 3.4 could
> give us a heads up on what to expect, that would be great.  Only thing I see
> as lacking is we might want to get a doc together on how to properly upgrade
> your toolchain so we don't get an influx of bugs from users that have a
> system half compiled with 3.3 and the other half with 3.4 so they get linking
> errors.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFDi0h3O+Ewtpi9rLERAibAAKCedui46gqRaBmwMpkufdQdw88ikQCfcgQu
UybgL9DJQXbD93CxuiHztEQ=
=+tUe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Daniel Gryniewicz]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 626 bytes --]

On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 19:12 +0100, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:

> 
> Does this mean that we can get rid of the libstd++ dependency of gcc,
> and move it to the binary packages that depends on gcc 3.3 .
> I know this has been discussed before, but once it's stable I see no
> reason to keep the dependency in the gcc ebuild, when it could be in the
> binary packages.
> 

Well, right after the upgrade, there will still be tons of non-binary
programs built against the old libstdc++, so no.  Unless you want to
force everyone to emerge -e world after the upgrade (which will make you
very unpopular).

Daniel

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[R Hill]

Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 19:12 +0100, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
> 
>> Does this mean that we can get rid of the libstd++ dependency of gcc,
>> and move it to the binary packages that depends on gcc 3.3 .
>> I know this has been discussed before, but once it's stable I see no
>> reason to keep the dependency in the gcc ebuild, when it could be in the
>> binary packages.
>>
> 
> Well, right after the upgrade, there will still be tons of non-binary
> programs built against the old libstdc++, so no.  Unless you want to
> force everyone to emerge -e world after the upgrade (which will make you
> very unpopular).

Everybody _should_ be doing emerge -e world after the upgrade. :P

But moving the libstdc++-v3 dep from gcc to packagefoo-bin would cause breakage
for anyone who tries to run binary packages built against gcc 3.3 and not
installed through portage.  Firefox nightlies come to mind.


--de.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mike Frysinger]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 05:24:52PM -0500, Daniel Gryniewicz wrote:
> On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 19:12 +0100, Bjarke Istrup Pedersen wrote:
> > Does this mean that we can get rid of the libstd++ dependency of gcc,
> > and move it to the binary packages that depends on gcc 3.3 .
> > I know this has been discussed before, but once it's stable I see no
> > reason to keep the dependency in the gcc ebuild, when it could be in the
> > binary packages.
> 
> Well, right after the upgrade, there will still be tons of non-binary
> programs built against the old libstdc++, so no.  Unless you want to
> force everyone to emerge -e world after the upgrade (which will make you
> very unpopular).

not really an issue ... gcc is SLOTed for everyone to gccmajor.gccminor

that means when people upgrade to gcc-3.4, gcc-3.3 will remain on their
system until they remove it

so if user fails to rebuild all their packages before unmerging gcc-3.3
they will be screwed, but OH WELL
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 786 bytes --]

Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
> that means when people upgrade to gcc-3.4, gcc-3.3 will remain on their
> system until they remove it
> 
> so if user fails to rebuild all their packages before unmerging gcc-3.3
> they will be screwed, but OH WELL

Yea.  Even after they remove it though, libstdc++-v3 should be pulled in
after that.  Only issue I really see is people that have libraries compiled
with 3.3 and 3.4 and don't know why stuff is broken.  I don't know how large
of a problem that will be though.

-- 
Mark Loeser   -   Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting toolchain x86)
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
                  mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
                  http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Gregorio Guidi]

On Tuesday 29 November 2005 03:40, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
> > that means when people upgrade to gcc-3.4, gcc-3.3 will remain on their
> > system until they remove it
> >
> > so if user fails to rebuild all their packages before unmerging gcc-3.3
> > they will be screwed, but OH WELL
>
> Yea.  Even after they remove it though, libstdc++-v3 should be pulled in
> after that.  Only issue I really see is people that have libraries compiled
> with 3.3 and 3.4 and don't know why stuff is broken.  I don't know how
> large of a problem that will be though.

It will be huge, see
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64615
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61146

Every user _must_ be instructed to run
'revdep-rebuild --soname libstdc++.so.5',
if a system contains things linking to libstdc++.so.5 and things linking to 
libstdc++.so.6 I consider it horribly broken.

Thus having libstdc++-v3 installed apparently solves a problem but in fact 
does not solve anything, the only solution is to recompile everything c++ 
related on the system.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1008 bytes --]

On Tuesday 29 November 2005 09:51, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
> Every user _must_ be instructed to run
> 'revdep-rebuild --soname libstdc++.so.5',
> if a system contains things linking to libstdc++.so.5 and things
> linking to libstdc++.so.6 I consider it horribly broken.
>
A system is only horribly broken if it contains binaries or libraries that 
link to both libstdc++.so.5 *and* libstdc++.so.6. This creates 
instabilities. The situation you describe is only that of a system in 
transition.

> Thus having libstdc++-v3 installed apparently solves a problem but in
> fact does not solve anything, the only solution is to recompile
> everything c++ related on the system.

It is also needed for third party apps that were linked against 
libstdc++.so.5. As long as those applications do not depend on other 
libraries that are linked against a newer c++ lib things are totally ok.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Graham Murray]

Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> writes:

> It is also needed for third party apps that were linked against 
> libstdc++.so.5. As long as those applications do not depend on other 
> libraries that are linked against a newer c++ lib things are totally ok.

But unfortunately is does happen. For example on my system (~x86 built
with gcc 3.4.4) opera is linked against libstdc++.so.5 and
libqt-mt.so.3 which in turn is linked against libstdc++.so.6
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1584 bytes --]

On Tuesday 29 November 2005 10:53, Graham Murray wrote:
> Paul de Vrieze <pauldv@gentoo.org> writes:
> > It is also needed for third party apps that were linked against
> > libstdc++.so.5. As long as those applications do not depend on other
> > libraries that are linked against a newer c++ lib things are totally
> > ok.
>
> But unfortunately is does happen. For example on my system (~x86 built
> with gcc 3.4.4) opera is linked against libstdc++.so.5 and
> libqt-mt.so.3 which in turn is linked against libstdc++.so.6

Opera is indeed an example of an application where it doesn't work. 
Mozilla, the jdk's and many games are however "good" examples. The 
general rule is that using libraries written in c++ doesn't work for 
transitioning. This is partly caused by the fact that the linker makes 
all symbols global, and as such doesn't look at (or record) the soname of 
the library where the symbol is supposed to come from. Please be aware 
though that doing so would still not fix c++ issues as extending objects 
with one symbol table (and library of origin) with objects (children) 
with another symbol table (and library of origin) is bound to break. If 
for example a library function returns a c++ string object. Which methods 
should then be used on this object?

Paul

ps. The sandbox we use in portage actually also relies on this behaviour 
of the linker, as we replace glibc symbols by our own versions of them 
that check permissions.

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1668 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:51 +0100, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
> On Tuesday 29 November 2005 03:40, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
> > > that means when people upgrade to gcc-3.4, gcc-3.3 will remain on their
> > > system until they remove it
> > >
> > > so if user fails to rebuild all their packages before unmerging gcc-3.3
> > > they will be screwed, but OH WELL
> >
> > Yea.  Even after they remove it though, libstdc++-v3 should be pulled in
> > after that.  Only issue I really see is people that have libraries compiled
> > with 3.3 and 3.4 and don't know why stuff is broken.  I don't know how
> > large of a problem that will be though.
> 
> It will be huge, see
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=64615
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=61146
> 
> Every user _must_ be instructed to run
> 'revdep-rebuild --soname libstdc++.so.5',
> if a system contains things linking to libstdc++.so.5 and things linking to 
> libstdc++.so.6 I consider it horribly broken.

*sigh*

...and when it tries to "recompile" openoffice-bin? doom3?

A system linked against both libraries is definitely *not* broken, as
there are plenty of cases where this is necessary.

> Thus having libstdc++-v3 installed apparently solves a problem but in fact 
> does not solve anything, the only solution is to recompile everything c++ 
> related on the system.

Except the binary apps that you don't have the source to be able to
recompile.  So now we're right back where we were, aren't we?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 09:50:34AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:51 +0100, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
> > Every user _must_ be instructed to run
> > 'revdep-rebuild --soname libstdc++.so.5',
> > if a system contains things linking to libstdc++.so.5 and things linking to 
> > libstdc++.so.6 I consider it horribly broken.
> 
> ...and when it tries to "recompile" openoffice-bin? doom3?

revdep-rebuild should ignore those packages
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 767 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:03 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 09:50:34AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:51 +0100, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
> > > Every user _must_ be instructed to run
> > > 'revdep-rebuild --soname libstdc++.so.5',
> > > if a system contains things linking to libstdc++.so.5 and things linking to 
> > > libstdc++.so.6 I consider it horribly broken.
> > 
> > ...and when it tries to "recompile" openoffice-bin? doom3?
> 
> revdep-rebuild should ignore those packages

Just curious, but how?  How does it know that doom3 isn't compiled from
source and should be ignored?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2575 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 10:42 -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:03 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 09:50:34AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 09:51 +0100, Gregorio Guidi wrote:
> > > > Every user _must_ be instructed to run
> > > > 'revdep-rebuild --soname libstdc++.so.5',
> > > > if a system contains things linking to libstdc++.so.5 and things linking to 
> > > > libstdc++.so.6 I consider it horribly broken.
> > > 
> > > ...and when it tries to "recompile" openoffice-bin? doom3?
> > 
> > revdep-rebuild should ignore those packages
> 
> Just curious, but how?  How does it know that doom3 isn't compiled from
> source and should be ignored?

  broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/gconfbe1.uno.so (requires
libORBit-2.so.0 libgconf-2.so.4)
  broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/gnome-set-default-application
(requires libORBit-2.so.0 libORBitCosNaming-2.so.0 libbonobo-2.so.0
libbonobo-activation.so.4 libgconf-2.so.4 libgnomevfs-2.so.0)
  broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/libofficebean.so.1.1 (requires
libjawt.so)
  broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/libvclplug_kde680li.so.1.1
(requires  libkdecore.so.4 libkdeui.so.4 libqt-mt.so.3)

broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/_bsddb.so (requires  libdb-3.1.so)

broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/_tkinter.so (requires  libBLT24.so libtcl8.3.so libtk8.3.so)

broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/bz2.so (requires  libbz2.so.0)

broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/dbm.so (requires  libgdbm.so.2)

broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/gdbm.so (requires  libgdbm.so.2)

broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/python-core-2.3.4/lib/lib-dynload/mpz.so (requires  libgmp.so.3)
  broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/ucpgvfs1.uno.so (requires
libgnomevfs-2.so.0)

These are the packages that I would merge, in order:

Calculating dependencies ...done!
[ebuild   R   ] app-office/openoffice-bin-2.0.0


It most definitely does not recognize binary packages of any kind.

Just to let you know, every successful revdep-rebuild followed by
another also wants openoffice-bin again.  Interestingly enough, it did
*not* list any of the games I have installed on that machine that are
in /opt.  Is /opt ignored?

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mike Frysinger]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:52:11AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
>   broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/gconfbe1.uno.so (requires
> libORBit-2.so.0 libgconf-2.so.4)

binary packages should never be in /usr/

> Is /opt ignored?

yes, because our policy specifically says binary packages in /opt
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Andreas Proschofsky]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1062 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 16:04 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:52:11AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> >   broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/gconfbe1.uno.so (requires
> > libORBit-2.so.0 libgconf-2.so.4)
> 
> binary packages should never be in /usr/
> 
> > Is /opt ignored?
> 
> yes, because our policy specifically says binary packages in /opt

It's not that easy for every package. For instance openoffice and
openoffice-bin need to got to the same location, cause OOo does a user
install and this will break when changing between them (and all the
settings / paths and so on).

So either we would have both in /opt which then means that the source
based OOo is ignored too, or we have them in /usr/lib which results in
the ooo-bin annoyance. I would say the second one is less harmful.

Btw, there is a long running bug about the revdep-rebuild, which also
has a solution for this:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32276

bye
Andreas

-- 
Andreas Proschofsky
Gentoo Developer / OpenOffice.org

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1248 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 18:37 +0100, Andreas Proschofsky wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 16:04 +0000, Mike Frysinger wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 10:52:11AM -0500, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > >   broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/gconfbe1.uno.so (requires
> > > libORBit-2.so.0 libgconf-2.so.4)
> > 
> > binary packages should never be in /usr/
> > 
> > > Is /opt ignored?
> > 
> > yes, because our policy specifically says binary packages in /opt
> 
> It's not that easy for every package. For instance openoffice and
> openoffice-bin need to got to the same location, cause OOo does a user
> install and this will break when changing between them (and all the
> settings / paths and so on).
> 
> So either we would have both in /opt which then means that the source
> based OOo is ignored too, or we have them in /usr/lib which results in
> the ooo-bin annoyance. I would say the second one is less harmful.
> 
> Btw, there is a long running bug about the revdep-rebuild, which also
> has a solution for this:
> 
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32276

Great!

So it is being fixed.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Paul Varner]

On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 18:37 +0100, Andreas Proschofsky wrote:
> It's not that easy for every package. For instance openoffice and
> openoffice-bin need to got to the same location, cause OOo does a user
> install and this will break when changing between them (and all the
> settings / paths and so on).
> 
> So either we would have both in /opt which then means that the source
> based OOo is ignored too, or we have them in /usr/lib which results in
> the ooo-bin annoyance. I would say the second one is less harmful.
> 
> Btw, there is a long running bug about the revdep-rebuild, which also
> has a solution for this:
> 
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=32276

While we are talking about this, I would like to point out the following
message that I sent here on November 3rd:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/32556/

To summarize, in order for revdep-rebuild to ignore binary packages, it
needs help from the package maintainers.  This is done, by the package
installing a file into /etc/revdep-rebuild/ that tells revdep-rebuild
what directories to ignore.

Regards,
Paul
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Peter Ruskin]

On Tuesday 29 November 2005 15:52, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Just curious, but how?  How does it know that doom3 isn't
> > compiled from source and should be ignored?
>
>   broken /usr/lib32/openoffice/program/gconfbe1.uno.so (requires
> libORBit-2.so.0 libgconf-2.so.4)

Just add /usr/lib32/openoffice to SEARCH_DIRS_MASK 
in /etc/revdep-rebuild/99revdep-rebuild.

-- 
Peter
========================================================================
Gentoo Linux: Portage 2.0.51.22-r3.	kernel-2.6.13-gentoo-r5.
i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+.		gcc(GCC): 3.3.5-20050130.
KDE: 3.5 (RC1).				Qt: 3.3.4.
========================================================================
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 870 bytes --]

On Tuesday 29 November 2005 03:40, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org> said:
> > that means when people upgrade to gcc-3.4, gcc-3.3 will remain on
> > their system until they remove it
> >
> > so if user fails to rebuild all their packages before unmerging
> > gcc-3.3 they will be screwed, but OH WELL
>
> Yea.  Even after they remove it though, libstdc++-v3 should be pulled
> in after that.  Only issue I really see is people that have libraries
> compiled with 3.3 and 3.4 and don't know why stuff is broken.  I don't
> know how large of a problem that will be though.

From my own experience of updating quite some while ago, I remember that 
the libraries are sufficiently compatible such that not so many bugs 
occur.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 959 bytes --]

On Mon, Nov 28, 2005 at 09:22:33AM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably
> going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon.  If any of the
> archs that have already done the move from having 3.3 stable to 3.4 could
> give us a heads up on what to expect, that would be great.  Only thing I see
> as lacking is we might want to get a doc together on how to properly upgrade
> your toolchain so we don't get an influx of bugs from users that have a
> system half compiled with 3.3 and the other half with 3.4 so they get linking
> errors.

We will also need to instruct users to recompile their kernel with
gcc-3.4 otherwise the external modules (which will be recompiled with
gcc-3.4 during `emerge -e world`) will fail to load because of
vermagic mismatch.

Regards,
Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 211 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Paul de Vrieze]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 370 bytes --]

On Tuesday 29 November 2005 12:18, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> gcc-3.4 during `emerge -e world`) will fail to load because of

Why should one do that? It's not needed. But of course recompiling the 
kernel and external modules at some point makes sense.

Paul

-- 
Paul de Vrieze
Gentoo Developer
Mail: pauldv@gentoo.org
Homepage: http://www.devrieze.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 868 bytes --]

Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org> said:
> We will also need to instruct users to recompile their kernel with
> gcc-3.4 otherwise the external modules (which will be recompiled with
> gcc-3.4 during `emerge -e world`) will fail to load because of
> vermagic mismatch.

This assumes that they do an `emerge -e world'.  We aren't going to be able
to protect users from all of the stupid mistakes they can make, but the
upgrade path is sane and very doable.  Perhaps the docs team could come up
with a generic toolchain guide that will possibly help stop any of the stupid
mistakes users could make.

-- 
Mark Loeser   -   Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting toolchain x86)
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
                  mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
                  http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Curtis Napier]

Speaking as a user who upgraded from 3.3.x to 3.4.x a loooooong loooong 
time ago and also as a forum mod who sees questins about this on a daily 
basis:

Users are more or less aware that they will have to rebuild the entire 
world including the kernel when they upgrade gcc. If they aren't already 
aware of it they soon learn that it is necessary and they aren't averse 
to it. This is a from source distro afterall, so TELLING them in an 
upgrade guide that they *HAVE* to do this wouldn't be such a bad thing. 
It solves 99% of all the problems reported in a gcc upgrade for people 
who *didn't* do an "emerge -e world".

Doing it from the outset will save the forums and bugs a lot of stress 
and heartache that could have been easily avoided.

Just my 2 $DENOMINATION's
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[William Kenworthy]

As a user who has done this on a number of systems - its no sweat. 

Also, check some of the older guides for upgrading from gcc-2.95 to 3,
and 3.0 to 3.1 - should still be around somewhere.  Its been done
before, more than once - ask some of the older devs whove been around
since the early days(!).

Traps this time were uninstalling 3.3.6 without installing the
sys-libs/libstdc++-v3 first.  Ive put off removing 3.3.6 from the other
systems until I get the nerve up again.

So as well as instructions to do the task, some rescue for common
mistakes like this would be nice.

BillK

On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 08:50 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote:
> Speaking as a user who upgraded from 3.3.x to 3.4.x a loooooong loooong 
> time ago and also as a forum mod who sees questins about this on a daily 
> basis:
> 
> Users are more or less aware that they will have to rebuild the entire 
> world including the kernel when they upgrade gcc. If they aren't already 
> aware of it they soon learn that it is necessary and they aren't averse 
> to it. This is a from source distro afterall, so TELLING them in an 
> upgrade guide that they *HAVE* to do this wouldn't be such a bad thing. 
> It solves 99% of all the problems reported in a gcc upgrade for people 
> who *didn't* do an "emerge -e world".
> 
> Doing it from the outset will save the forums and bugs a lot of stress 
> and heartache that could have been easily avoided.
> 
> Just my 2 $DENOMINATION's
-- 
William Kenworthy <billk@iinet.net.au>
Home!
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Tres Melton]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 847 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 08:50 -0500, Curtis Napier wrote:

> Doing it from the outset will save the forums and bugs a lot of stress 
> and heartache that could have been easily avoided.

Don't forget the #gentoo channel.  I meant to comment on this about the
stage 1/2 thing but never did.  I'm not picking sides but if the forum
mods and the channel ops were both notified explicitly of changes that
*are* coming then we could help head off a bunch of bugs and user
aggravation.  I'm pretty active in most places Gentoo but the first I
heard about the stage 1/2 removal was GWN.  If you could drop an email
to the forum-mods address (??) and ops@gentoo.org a few days or so
before something gets to the users that would be great.

> Just my 2 $DENOMINATION's

My 2/100 $DENOMINATION's  :)
-- 
Tres Melton
IRC & Gentoo: RiverRat

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Henrik Brix Andersen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 372 bytes --]

On Tue, Nov 29, 2005 at 08:21:51AM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> This assumes that they do an `emerge -e world'.

Well, the same problem will arise should they upgrade their gcc and
install a new external kernel module (with or without `emerge -e
world`).

Regards,
Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Metadistribution | Mobile computing herd

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 211 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mike Williams]

On Monday 28 November 2005 14:22, Mark Loeser wrote:
> This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably
> going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon.  If any of the
> archs that have already done the move from having 3.3 stable to 3.4 could
> give us a heads up on what to expect, that would be great.  Only thing I
> see as lacking is we might want to get a doc together on how to properly
> upgrade your toolchain so we don't get an influx of bugs from users that
> have a system half compiled with 3.3 and the other half with 3.4 so they
> get linking errors.

Shouldn't this be a profile thing? i.e. 200{4,5}.X stays at 3.3.X, 2006.X-> go 
to 3.4.X

-- 
Mike Williams

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1226 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:01 +0000, Mike Williams wrote:
> On Monday 28 November 2005 14:22, Mark Loeser wrote:
> > This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably
> > going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon.  If any of the
> > archs that have already done the move from having 3.3 stable to 3.4 could
> > give us a heads up on what to expect, that would be great.  Only thing I
> > see as lacking is we might want to get a doc together on how to properly
> > upgrade your toolchain so we don't get an influx of bugs from users that
> > have a system half compiled with 3.3 and the other half with 3.4 so they
> > get linking errors.
> 
> Shouldn't this be a profile thing? i.e. 200{4,5}.X stays at 3.3.X, 2006.X-> go 
> to 3.4.X

Nope.

While it would be possible to limit it to a specific profile, it really
makes it a pain in the ass, especially for two versions that are almost
compatible, as opposed to the profiles that we have done in the past
where we were going from things like gcc2 to gcc3, that were not very
compatible, at all.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Andrew Muraco]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:

>On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 15:01 +0000, Mike Williams wrote:
>  
>
>>On Monday 28 November 2005 14:22, Mark Loeser wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>This is basically a heads-up email to everyone to say that we are probably
>>>going to be moving gcc-3.4.4-r1 to stable on x86 very soon.  If any of the
>>>archs that have already done the move from having 3.3 stable to 3.4 could
>>>give us a heads up on what to expect, that would be great.  Only thing I
>>>see as lacking is we might want to get a doc together on how to properly
>>>upgrade your toolchain so we don't get an influx of bugs from users that
>>>have a system half compiled with 3.3 and the other half with 3.4 so they
>>>get linking errors.
>>>      
>>>
>>Shouldn't this be a profile thing? i.e. 200{4,5}.X stays at 3.3.X, 2006.X-> go 
>>to 3.4.X
>>    
>>
>
>Nope.
>
>While it would be possible to limit it to a specific profile, it really
>makes it a pain in the ass, especially for two versions that are almost
>compatible, as opposed to the profiles that we have done in the past
>where we were going from things like gcc2 to gcc3, that were not very
>compatible, at all.
>  
>
Out of curiosity, if this goes into effect before 2006.0 is released, 
then ALL the stages for x86 and the livecd would be built with gcc34? If 
so then I think this may benefit alot of users, especially ones that do 
a stage1/2 just so they can shove gcc34 into there system at an early 
stage. Also, if gcc34 gets moved to x86, would gcc40 be ~x86? This I see 
as a bigger problem for those of us that are already running gcc34. But 
I'm sure many ~x86 users would welcome that, after all what fun is ~x86 
without some breakage every now and then ;-)

Greetings,

Tuxp3
Andrew Muraco
www.leetworks.com
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1207 bytes --]

On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 23:41 -0500, Andrew Muraco wrote:
> Out of curiosity, if this goes into effect before 2006.0 is released, 
> then ALL the stages for x86 and the livecd would be built with gcc34? If 
> so then I think this may benefit alot of users, especially ones that do 
> a stage1/2 just so they can shove gcc34 into there system at an early 
> stage. Also, if gcc34 gets moved to x86, would gcc40 be ~x86? This I see 
> as a bigger problem for those of us that are already running gcc34. But 
> I'm sure many ~x86 users would welcome that, after all what fun is ~x86 
> without some breakage every now and then ;-)

2006.0 is still a ways off, but yes, all of the stages would be built
with gcc 3.4 exclusively.  Of course, this would happen whether we made
the change globally (for x86) or if we only did it via profile.  The
problem with doing it via profile is we *already have* people on 2005.0
and 2005.1 profiles running gcc 3.4, so it means causing a much more
disruptive upgrade for all ~x86 users, or anyone who has merged gcc 3.4
explicitly already.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[tuxp3]

> On Tue, 2005-11-29 at 23:41 -0500, Andrew Muraco wrote:
>> Out of curiosity, if this goes into effect before 2006.0 is released,
>> then ALL the stages for x86 and the livecd would be built with gcc34? If
>> so then I think this may benefit alot of users, especially ones that do
>> a stage1/2 just so they can shove gcc34 into there system at an early
>> stage. Also, if gcc34 gets moved to x86, would gcc40 be ~x86? This I see
>> as a bigger problem for those of us that are already running gcc34. But
>> I'm sure many ~x86 users would welcome that, after all what fun is ~x86
>> without some breakage every now and then ;-)
>
> 2006.0 is still a ways off, but yes, all of the stages would be built
> with gcc 3.4 exclusively.  Of course, this would happen whether we made
> the change globally (for x86) or if we only did it via profile.  The
> problem with doing it via profile is we *already have* people on 2005.0
> and 2005.1 profiles running gcc 3.4, so it means causing a much more
> disruptive upgrade for all ~x86 users, or anyone who has merged gcc 3.4
> explicitly already.
>
> --
> Chris Gianelloni
> Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
> x86 Architecture Team
> Games - Developer
> Gentoo Linux

Again, would anyone know what will happen to ~x86 gcc?, Will it become
gcc40 or just use the stable x86 gcc for everyone? (except those who are
already playing with gcc40 at their own risk)

Tux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mike Frysinger]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 09:16:40AM -0500, tuxp3@leetworks.com wrote:
> Again, would anyone know what will happen to ~x86 gcc?, Will it become
> gcc40 or just use the stable x86 gcc for everyone?

4.0.2-r1 wont be going into ~arch, but 4.0.2-r2 most likely will

i think we've done a good deal of polishing off most of the common
gcc4 issues in portage
-mike
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Graham Murray]

tuxp3@leetworks.com writes:

> Again, would anyone know what will happen to ~x86 gcc?, Will it become
> gcc40 or just use the stable x86 gcc for everyone? (except those who are
> already playing with gcc40 at their own risk)

Even if ~x86 does change to gcc40 then gcc is slotted so we can
continue to use gcc3.4.4.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1187 bytes --]

Mark Loeser <halcy0n@gentoo.org> said:
> Only thing I see
> as lacking is we might want to get a doc together on how to properly upgrade
> your toolchain so we don't get an influx of bugs from users that have a
> system half compiled with 3.3 and the other half with 3.4 so they get linking
> errors.

Seems people read this to mean that I was going to write a doc, which I have
no intentions on doing.  I believe adding "It is recommended that you `emerge
-e system && emerge -e world` after merging gcc-3.4" to the einfo at the end
of the gcc-3.4.4 install should be good enough.  I'm not sure how other archs
handled the migration, but I haven't been able to find any docs online.  

So, let me know if marking it stable in the next day or two is completely 
stupid and I should wait to announce this via the GWN or something, or if its 
an alright move and people aren't going to stab me for marking it stable.

-- 
Mark Loeser   -   Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting toolchain x86)
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
                  mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
                  http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 343 bytes --]

Mark Loeser wrote:
> 
> So, let me know if marking it stable in the next day or two is completely 
> stupid and I should wait to announce this via the GWN or something, or if its 
> an alright move and people aren't going to stab me for marking it stable.
> 

gentoo-announce at least. I wish emerge --news was already here.

Regards,
Petteri

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Wernfried Haas]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 01:56:40PM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Seems people read this to mean that I was going to write a doc, which I have
> no intentions on doing.
I don't think a whole doc is necessary, but instructions for a safe
upgrade would be fine. A think a one-liner like
emerge -u gcc && emerge -e system && emerge -e world && emerge -P gcc
&& emerge whateverneedstobedoneafterwards should suffice as documentation.

> I believe adding "It is recommended that you `emerge
> -e system && emerge -e world` after merging gcc-3.4" to the einfo at the end
> of the gcc-3.4.4 install should be good enough. 
Maybe people look closer if they upgrade gcc, but einfo still gets
overlooked easily.

> So, let me know if marking it stable in the next day or two is completely 
> stupid and I should wait to announce this via the GWN or something, or if its 
> an alright move and people aren't going to stab me for marking it stable.
Assuming a clear upgrade path is provided i think it would be
fine. We'll make some sticky thread on the forum mentioning that
instructions, i bet it couldn't hurt to put them on the gentoo
mainpage, as topic in #gentoo etc. I'm also pretty sure next GWN is
likely to report about the update.
Just because we haven't got emerge --news it doesn't mean we haven't
got lots of ways to reach our users. Every user that gets to read them
in time is a potential bug report less.

cheers,
	Wernfried

-- 
Wernfried Haas (amne) - amne at gentoo dot org
Gentoo Forums: http://forums.gentoo.org
IRC: #gentoo-forums on freenode - email: forum-mods at gentoo dot org
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Andrew Muraco]

Wernfried Haas wrote:

>On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 01:56:40PM -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
>  
>
>>Seems people read this to mean that I was going to write a doc, which I have
>>no intentions on doing.
>>    
>>
>I don't think a whole doc is necessary, but instructions for a safe
>upgrade would be fine. A think a one-liner like
>emerge -u gcc && emerge -e system && emerge -e world && emerge -P gcc
>&& emerge whateverneedstobedoneafterwards should suffice as documentation.
>
>  
>
>>I believe adding "It is recommended that you `emerge
>>-e system && emerge -e world` after merging gcc-3.4" to the einfo at the end
>>of the gcc-3.4.4 install should be good enough. 
>>    
>>
>Maybe people look closer if they upgrade gcc, but einfo still gets
>overlooked easily.
>
>  
>
>>So, let me know if marking it stable in the next day or two is completely 
>>stupid and I should wait to announce this via the GWN or something, or if its 
>>an alright move and people aren't going to stab me for marking it stable.
>>    
>>
>Assuming a clear upgrade path is provided i think it would be
>fine. We'll make some sticky thread on the forum mentioning that
>instructions, i bet it couldn't hurt to put them on the gentoo
>mainpage, as topic in #gentoo etc. I'm also pretty sure next GWN is
>likely to report about the update.
>Just because we haven't got emerge --news it doesn't mean we haven't
>got lots of ways to reach our users. Every user that gets to read them
>in time is a potential bug report less.
>
>cheers,
>	Wernfried
>  
>
Personally, I would set a date next week, so that way GWN and other 
places can be prepare for this, a definate date for users to know that 
it IS going to happen, and I personally think that a sticky on the forum 
(i would even be willing to write a little something, but i'm no expert) 
is a minimum. A full out doc with all the FAQ and important notes about 
what needs to be recompiled (in my opinion) would be a much more through 
upgrade path, ofcourse still include the einfo quick instructions. But I 
think the masses of users will not be happy when they realize that 
emerge -e world && emerge -e world means that they will be compiling for 
the next day (or 2 or 3), so a way to block the upgrade from messing up 
people that wish to keep 3.3.x as default would be a good idea.

just my $.02

Tux
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1079 bytes --]

Andrew Muraco <tuxp3@leetworks.com> said:
> is a minimum. A full out doc with all the FAQ and important notes about 
> what needs to be recompiled (in my opinion) would be a much more through 
> upgrade path, ofcourse still include the einfo quick instructions. But I 
> think the masses of users will not be happy when they realize that 
> emerge -e world && emerge -e world means that they will be compiling for 
> the next day (or 2 or 3), so a way to block the upgrade from messing up 
> people that wish to keep 3.3.x as default would be a good idea.

gcc-3.4.* will not be selected as your system compiler after merging it.  The
old gcc profile is still valid, therefore it is kept.  Users have to
consciously go and change their profile to change their gcc, so nothing is
going to just magically break.

-- 
Mark Loeser   -   Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting toolchain x86)
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
                  mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
                  http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Andrew Muraco]

Mark Loeser wrote:

>Andrew Muraco <tuxp3@leetworks.com> said:
>  
>
>>is a minimum. A full out doc with all the FAQ and important notes about 
>>what needs to be recompiled (in my opinion) would be a much more through 
>>upgrade path, ofcourse still include the einfo quick instructions. But I 
>>think the masses of users will not be happy when they realize that 
>>emerge -e world && emerge -e world means that they will be compiling for 
>>the next day (or 2 or 3), so a way to block the upgrade from messing up 
>>people that wish to keep 3.3.x as default would be a good idea.
>>    
>>
>
>gcc-3.4.* will not be selected as your system compiler after merging it.  The
>old gcc profile is still valid, therefore it is kept.  Users have to
>consciously go and change their profile to change their gcc, so nothing is
>going to just magically break.
>
That makes me feel a bit more comfortable. I still think that something 
more then an einfo warning should be provided, as its easy to overlook 
those.

Tux
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Georgi Georgiev]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1560 bytes --]

maillog: 30/11/2005-15:16:35(-0500): Andrew Muraco types
> Mark Loeser wrote:
> 
> >Andrew Muraco <tuxp3@leetworks.com> said:
> > 
> >
> >>is a minimum. A full out doc with all the FAQ and important notes about 
> >>what needs to be recompiled (in my opinion) would be a much more through 
> >>upgrade path, ofcourse still include the einfo quick instructions. But I 
> >>think the masses of users will not be happy when they realize that 
> >>emerge -e world && emerge -e world means that they will be compiling for 
> >>the next day (or 2 or 3), so a way to block the upgrade from messing up 
> >>people that wish to keep 3.3.x as default would be a good idea.
> >>   
> >>
> >
> >gcc-3.4.* will not be selected as your system compiler after merging it.  
> >The
> >old gcc profile is still valid, therefore it is kept.  Users have to
> >consciously go and change their profile to change their gcc, so nothing is
> >going to just magically break.
> >
> That makes me feel a bit more comfortable. I still think that something 
> more then an einfo warning should be provided, as its easy to overlook 
> those.

So make gcc-config produce warnings when changing the compiler.

"Switching to gcc-MAJOR.MINOR may break your system. Upgrade
instructions can be found at http://thedoc"

Trigger the message only when switching minor versions.

-- 
/\   Georgi Georgiev   /\ On-line, adj.: The idea that a human being /\
\/    chutz@gg3.net    \/ should always be accessible to a computer. \/
/\ http://www.gg3.net/ /\                                            /\

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Andrew Muraco]

Georgi Georgiev wrote:

>maillog: 30/11/2005-15:16:35(-0500): Andrew Muraco types
>  
>
>>Mark Loeser wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Andrew Muraco <tuxp3@leetworks.com> said:
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>>>is a minimum. A full out doc with all the FAQ and important notes about 
>>>>what needs to be recompiled (in my opinion) would be a much more through 
>>>>upgrade path, ofcourse still include the einfo quick instructions. But I 
>>>>think the masses of users will not be happy when they realize that 
>>>>emerge -e world && emerge -e world means that they will be compiling for 
>>>>the next day (or 2 or 3), so a way to block the upgrade from messing up 
>>>>people that wish to keep 3.3.x as default would be a good idea.
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>gcc-3.4.* will not be selected as your system compiler after merging it.  
>>>The
>>>old gcc profile is still valid, therefore it is kept.  Users have to
>>>consciously go and change their profile to change their gcc, so nothing is
>>>going to just magically break.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>That makes me feel a bit more comfortable. I still think that something 
>>more then an einfo warning should be provided, as its easy to overlook 
>>those.
>>    
>>
>
>So make gcc-config produce warnings when changing the compiler.
>
>"Switching to gcc-MAJOR.MINOR may break your system. Upgrade
>instructions can be found at http://thedoc"
>
>Trigger the message only when switching minor versions.
>
I like that idea alot actually. Perhaps also include in that warning 
message that switching back is OKAY aslong as nothing has been compiled 
with the new minor version.
:-P I vote for this choice.
Greetings,
Tux
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 871 bytes --]

Georgi Georgiev <chutz@gg3.net> said:
> So make gcc-config produce warnings when changing the compiler.
> 
> "Switching to gcc-MAJOR.MINOR may break your system. Upgrade
> instructions can be found at http://thedoc"
> 
> Trigger the message only when switching minor versions.

That's going to be really really annoying for someone like me that flips
between gcc versions all the time to test things.

How to inform users of updates is not really the scope here though (go argue
this on the news GLEP).  Making sure the information for how to properly 
upgrade is available is what we are looking at.

-- 
Mark Loeser   -   Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting toolchain x86)
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
                  mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
                  http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Lares Moreau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 894 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 16:19 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Georgi Georgiev <chutz@gg3.net> said:
> > So make gcc-config produce warnings when changing the compiler.
> > 
> > "Switching to gcc-MAJOR.MINOR may break your system. Upgrade
> > instructions can be found at http://thedoc"
> > 
> > Trigger the message only when switching minor versions.
> 
> That's going to be really really annoying for someone like me that flips
> between gcc versions all the time to test things.
New flag?
# gcc-config -q foo
-q == quiet

just a thought
-- 
Lares Moreau <lares.moreau@gmail.com>  | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org
lares/irc.freenode.net                 |
Gentoo x86 Arch Tester                 |               ::0 Alberta, Canada
Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net |          Encrypted Mail Preferred
Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628  C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

[gentoo-dev] Re: Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[R Hill]

Andrew Muraco wrote:
> Mark Loeser wrote:
>> Andrew Muraco <tuxp3@leetworks.com> said:
>>> is a minimum. A full out doc with all the FAQ and important notes
>>> about what needs to be recompiled (in my opinion) would be a much
>>> more through upgrade path, ofcourse still include the einfo quick
>>> instructions. But I think the masses of users will not be happy when
>>> they realize that emerge -e world && emerge -e world means that they
>>> will be compiling for the next day (or 2 or 3), so a way to block the
>>> upgrade from messing up people that wish to keep 3.3.x as default
>>> would be a good idea.
>>>   
>>
>> gcc-3.4.* will not be selected as your system compiler after merging
>> it.  The
>> old gcc profile is still valid, therefore it is kept.  Users have to
>> consciously go and change their profile to change their gcc, so
>> nothing is
>> going to just magically break.
>>
> That makes me feel a bit more comfortable. I still think that something
> more then an einfo warning should be provided, as its easy to overlook
> those.

All arches other than x86 have made the switch to 3.4 stable already.  They did
so without problem and without extra docs.  Why does x86, the last to switch,
need to be special-cased?


--de.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Jason Wever]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 424 bytes --]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 23:17:31 -0600
R Hill <dirtyepic.sk@gmail.com> wrote:

> All arches other than x86 have made the switch to 3.4 stable
> already.  They did so without problem and without extra docs.  Why
> does x86, the last to switch, need to be special-cased?

Actually, SPARC isn't even onto gcc-3.4 in testing keywords yet in the
non-testing profiles.

Cheers,
-- 
Jason Wever
Gentoo/Sparc Team Co-Lead

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1457 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 23:17 -0600, R Hill wrote:
> > That makes me feel a bit more comfortable. I still think that something
> > more then an einfo warning should be provided, as its easy to overlook
> > those.
> 
> All arches other than x86 have made the switch to 3.4 stable already.  They did
> so without problem and without extra docs.  Why does x86, the last to switch,
> need to be special-cased?

Honestly, it is because x86 is the *vast* majority of our user base.
When we change something there, we get an onslaught of
complaints/comments/opinions.  The truth is that while we have a large
"silent majority" of people that know what we're doing, we also have the
very "vocal minority" of people that only managed to get Gentoo working
because they followed some guide to the letter.  These people freak out
at patch-level bumps that require fix_libtool_files.sh, so I can only
imagine how confusing something like that would be to them.  Yes, the
other arches have done this.  In the case of at least one, they aligned
it with a new profile/release, to ease the pain.  They also were very
sure to announce it beforehand.  Seeing as how I have been on the
receiving end of this border-line harassment for making a change that
doesn't hurt anything, I don't want anyone on my team to make the same
mistake.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Lares Moreau]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 999 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 23:17 -0600, R Hill wrote:
> All arches other than x86 have made the switch to 3.4 stable already.  They did
> so without problem and without extra docs.  Why does x86, the last to switch,
> need to be special-cased?

From what I understand, most other archs have done the switch from 3.3
to 3.4 by use of a profile switch (Please Correct me if I am wrong). x86
on the other hand is attempting to do so without the profile switch, and
to get it accomplished 'gracefully' w/o great amounts of user effort.
The libstdc++ issue, mentioned earlier) is the only thing I can think of
that is inhibiting out goal.

Later Days
-- 
Lares Moreau <lares.moreau@gmail.com>  | LRU: 400755 http://counter.li.org
lares/irc.freenode.net                 |
Gentoo x86 Arch Tester                 |               ::0 Alberta, Canada
Public Key: 0D46BB6E @ subkeys.pgp.net |          Encrypted Mail Preferred
Key fingerprint = 0CA3 E40D F897 7709 3628  C5D4 7D94 483E 0D46 BB6E

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Peter Ruskin]

On Wednesday 30 November 2005 20:12, Mark Loeser wrote:
> gcc-3.4.* will not be selected as your system compiler after
> merging it.  The old gcc profile is still valid, therefore it is
> kept.  Users have to consciously go and change their profile to
> change their gcc, so nothing is going to just magically break.

But we should not yet be encouraged to switch to 3.4.  I upgraded to 
i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.4 a long time ago but my gcc profile is still 
firmly fixed at 3.3.5-20050130 because of bug #101471.  This bug 
was opened 2005-08-05 and it's still not fixed.

Whenever I try 3.4.4 I can't rebuild glibc because of this bug.

-- 
Peter
========================================================================
Gentoo Linux: Portage 2.0.51.22-r3.	kernel-2.6.13-gentoo-r5.
i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+.		gcc(GCC): 3.3.5-20050130.
KDE: 3.5.0.				Qt: 3.3.4.
========================================================================
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1083 bytes --]


30.11.2005, 22:19:27, Peter Ruskin wrote:

> On Wednesday 30 November 2005 20:12, Mark Loeser wrote:
>> gcc-3.4.* will not be selected as your system compiler after
>> merging it.  The old gcc profile is still valid, therefore it is
>> kept.  Users have to consciously go and change their profile to
>> change their gcc, so nothing is going to just magically break.

> But we should not yet be encouraged to switch to 3.4.  I upgraded to 
> i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.4 a long time ago but my gcc profile is still 
> firmly fixed at 3.3.5-20050130 because of bug #101471.  This bug 
> was opened 2005-08-05 and it's still not fixed.

> Whenever I try 3.4.4 I can't rebuild glibc because of this bug.

Sure. So remove USE=vanilla from your use flags and it will work. That bug
won't be fixed, because it's not a bug.


-- 
Best regards,

 Jakub Moc
 mailto:jakub@gentoo.org
 GPG signature: http://subkeys.pgp.net:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xCEBA3D9E
 Primary key fingerprint: D2D7 933C 9BA1 C95B 2C95  B30F 8717 D5FD CEBA 3D9E

 ... still no signature ;)

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Peter Ruskin]

On Wednesday 30 November 2005 21:27, Jakub Moc wrote:
> > But we should not yet be encouraged to switch to 3.4.  I
> > upgraded to i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.4 a long time ago but my gcc
> > profile is still firmly fixed at 3.3.5-20050130 because of bug
> > #101471.  This bug was opened 2005-08-05 and it's still not
> > fixed.
> >
> > Whenever I try 3.4.4 I can't rebuild glibc because of this bug.
>
> Sure. So remove USE=vanilla from your use flags and it will work.
> That bug won't be fixed, because it's not a bug.

Thanks...just trying now.

-- 
Peter
========================================================================
Gentoo Linux: Portage 2.0.51.22-r3.	kernel-2.6.13-gentoo-r5.
i686 AMD Athlon(tm) XP 3200+.		gcc(GCC): 3.3.5-20050130.
KDE: 3.5.0.				Qt: 3.3.4.
========================================================================
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Harald van Dijk]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 774 bytes --]

On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 10:27:47PM +0100, Jakub Moc wrote:
> 
> 30.11.2005, 22:19:27, Peter Ruskin wrote:
> > But we should not yet be encouraged to switch to 3.4.  I upgraded to 
> > i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.4 a long time ago but my gcc profile is still 
> > firmly fixed at 3.3.5-20050130 because of bug #101471.  This bug 
> > was opened 2005-08-05 and it's still not fixed.
> 
> > Whenever I try 3.4.4 I can't rebuild glibc because of this bug.
> 
> Sure. So remove USE=vanilla from your use flags and it will work. That bug
> won't be fixed, because it's not a bug.

That bug won't be fixed because the toolchain people don't care, but
especially as long as there is no warning whatsoever that USE=vanilla is
not supported by them, it's definitely a bug.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Simon Strandman]

Peter Ruskin skrev:

>On Wednesday 30 November 2005 20:12, Mark Loeser wrote:
>  
>
>>gcc-3.4.* will not be selected as your system compiler after
>>merging it.  The old gcc profile is still valid, therefore it is
>>kept.  Users have to consciously go and change their profile to
>>change their gcc, so nothing is going to just magically break.
>>    
>>
>
>But we should not yet be encouraged to switch to 3.4.  I upgraded to 
>i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.4 a long time ago but my gcc profile is still 
>firmly fixed at 3.3.5-20050130 because of bug #101471.  This bug 
>was opened 2005-08-05 and it's still not fixed.
>
>Whenever I try 3.4.4 I can't rebuild glibc because of this bug.
>
>  
>
Why don't you just reemerge gcc 3.4.4 without the vanilla USE-flag then?

-- 
Simon Strandman <simon.strandman@telia.com>

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Philip Webb]

051130 Andrew Muraco wrote:
> I think the masses of users will not be happy when they realize
> that 'emerge -e world && emerge -e world' ...

Should that be 'emerge -e system && emerge -e world' ?

> ... means that they will be compiling for the next day or 2 or 3 ,

</spectate>

As one of the "masses", I am certainly disturbed at that implication.
I don't remember any such need when I upgraded 2.9.5 -> 3.x (now 3.3.6).
This is the kind of issue on which I trust the devs to do sensible things,
but do we really need to rebuild our whole systems from the ground up ?

Ordinarily, I upgrade packages individually when it seems appropriate
& never do 'emerge world' with or without '-e' or other flags;
I do 'esync' every weekend & look at what is marked as having changed.

I would very much appreciate a doc somewhere
which explains the advantages of moving to 3.4
& why a wholesale ground-up rebuild is necessary, if indeed it is.
As always, my thanks to those who do the volunteer work.

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Ciaran McCreesh]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 489 bytes --]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 17:34:56 -0500 Philip Webb <purslow@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
| As one of the "masses", I am certainly disturbed at that implication.
| I don't remember any such need when I upgraded 2.9.5 -> 3.x (now
| 3.3.6).

The 2.x -> 3.x upgrade was far worse. Maybe you're just repressing the
memory of it...

-- 
Ciaran McCreesh : Gentoo Developer (I can kill you with my brain)
Mail            : ciaranm at gentoo.org
Web             : http://dev.gentoo.org/~ciaranm


[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Grant Goodyear]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 442 bytes --]

Philip Webb wrote: [Wed Nov 30 2005, 04:34:56PM CST]
> As one of the "masses", I am certainly disturbed at that implication.
> I don't remember any such need when I upgraded 2.9.5 -> 3.x (now 3.3.6).

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/new-upgrade-to-gentoo-1.4.xml

-g2boojum-
-- 
Grant Goodyear	
Gentoo Developer
g2boojum@gentoo.org
http://www.gentoo.org/~g2boojum
GPG Fingerprint: D706 9802 1663 DEF5 81B0  9573 A6DC 7152 E0F6 5B76

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1131 bytes --]

Philip Webb <purslow@sympatico.ca> said:
> I would very much appreciate a doc somewhere
> which explains the advantages of moving to 3.4
> & why a wholesale ground-up rebuild is necessary, if indeed it is.
> As always, my thanks to those who do the volunteer work.

C++ compat was broken between 3.3 and 3.4, so C++ libs compiled against 3.3
and 3.4 aren't going to play nice with each other.  KDE is the common example
of breakage here.  If I'm wrong, then someone will hopefully correct me here,
but this is the only way to keep everything sane as far as I know.

As for a doc, look at: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102876

I'm hoping we can get something thrown together relatively quickly so I can
mark it stable.  Nothing is going to be required immediately from the user
though, since their compiler won't be changed to 3.4 until they do so.

-- 
Mark Loeser   -   Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting toolchain x86)
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
                  mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
                  http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Chris Gianelloni]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1557 bytes --]

On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 17:34 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
> As one of the "masses", I am certainly disturbed at that implication.
> I don't remember any such need when I upgraded 2.9.5 -> 3.x (now 3.3.6).
> This is the kind of issue on which I trust the devs to do sensible things,
> but do we really need to rebuild our whole systems from the ground up ?

Lots of things broke way back then, too.  Also, there wasn't even
slotted gcc ebuilds back then, so it really is hard to compare.  There
were a lot of things done in the past that were really broken that we
have since learned from...

> Ordinarily, I upgrade packages individually when it seems appropriate
> & never do 'emerge world' with or without '-e' or other flags;
> I do 'esync' every weekend & look at what is marked as having changed.

Technically, you don't need to rebuild world.  You only need to rebuild
stuff that uses C++ and links to libstdc++.

> I would very much appreciate a doc somewhere
> which explains the advantages of moving to 3.4
> & why a wholesale ground-up rebuild is necessary, if indeed it is.
> As always, my thanks to those who do the volunteer work.

Well, the "advantages" are simple.  Upstream no longer supports 3.3
anymore.  They barely support 3.4, but having some support from upstream
is better than none.  This means 3.3 will be relegated to a legacy
version and likely won't be updated except for security bugs.

-- 
Chris Gianelloni
Release Engineering - Strategic Lead
x86 Architecture Team
Games - Developer
Gentoo Linux

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 569 bytes --]


1.12.2005, 0:29:48, Chris Gianelloni wrote:

> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 17:34 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:

>> Ordinarily, I upgrade packages individually when it seems appropriate
>> & never do 'emerge world' with or without '-e' or other flags;
>> I do 'esync' every weekend & look at what is marked as having changed.

> Technically, you don't need to rebuild world.  You only need to rebuild
> stuff that uses C++ and links to libstdc++.

revdep-rebuild --library=libstdc++.so.5 is all that's needed here to avoid
things like Bug 64615.


-- 

jakub

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Mark Loeser]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 779 bytes --]

Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> said:
> 1.12.2005, 0:29:48, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > Technically, you don't need to rebuild world.  You only need to rebuild
> > stuff that uses C++ and links to libstdc++.
> 
> revdep-rebuild --library=libstdc++.so.5 is all that's needed here to avoid
> things like Bug 64615.

Yea, I updated my statement on the bug to reflect this.  C++ stuff should be
the only thing affected, so this _should_ be enough.  Its also already
something that's been in the ebuild for a while now.

-- 
Mark Loeser   -   Gentoo Developer (cpp gcc-porting toolchain x86)
email         -   halcy0n AT gentoo DOT org
                  mark AT halcy0n DOT com
web           -   http://dev.gentoo.org/~halcy0n/
                  http://www.halcy0n.com

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Marien Zwart]

On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:50:02 -0500
Mark Loeser <halcy0n@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> said:
> > 1.12.2005, 0:29:48, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > revdep-rebuild --library=libstdc++.so.5 is all that's needed here to avoid
> > things like Bug 64615.
> 
> Yea, I updated my statement on the bug to reflect this.  C++ stuff should be
> the only thing affected, so this _should_ be enough.  Its also already
> something that's been in the ebuild for a while now.

Not sure if everyone is aware of this, but most installed pythons link
to libstdc++.so. This is not a problem if you run the above
revdep-rebuild (it should catch it just fine). It is a problem if you
get rid of gcc 3.3 before installing libstdc++-v3 or running the
revdep-rebuild, as it will leave you with a broken python and therefore
unable to emerge.

-- 
Marien.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re[2]: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Jakub Moc]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 549 bytes --]


1.12.2005, 1:30:41, Marien Zwart wrote:

> Not sure if everyone is aware of this, but most installed pythons link to
> libstdc++.so. This is not a problem if you run the above revdep-rebuild (it
> should catch it just fine). It is a problem if you get rid of gcc 3.3 before
> installing libstdc++-v3 or running the revdep-rebuild, as it will leave you
> with a broken python and therefore unable to emerge.

Which returns us to the question why don't we build python with nocxx so that
we could avoid this major PITA.


-- 

jakub

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 183 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Marien Zwart]

On Thu, 1 Dec 2005 01:53:25 +0100
Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> wrote:

> 
> 1.12.2005, 1:30:41, Marien Zwart wrote:
> 
> > Not sure if everyone is aware of this, but most installed pythons link to
> > libstdc++.so. This is not a problem if you run the above revdep-rebuild (it
> > should catch it just fine). It is a problem if you get rid of gcc 3.3 before
> > installing libstdc++-v3 or running the revdep-rebuild, as it will leave you
> > with a broken python and therefore unable to emerge.
> 
> Which returns us to the question why don't we build python with nocxx so that
> we could avoid this major PITA.

Actually I'm looking into that. According to the information I have
found on the python-dev list and in python's documentation the libstdc++ 
link is not needed, but a dev asked a python herd member for it, and
therefore the link was added. Haven't "caught" that dev yet, so at the
moment I don't know why that link is there. If someone on this list
knows the reason it was added, please enlighten me.

-- 
Marien.
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Matthias Langer]

On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 01:30 +0100, Marien Zwart wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:50:02 -0500
> Mark Loeser <halcy0n@gentoo.org> wrote:
> 
> > Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> said:
> > > 1.12.2005, 0:29:48, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > revdep-rebuild --library=libstdc++.so.5 is all that's needed here to avoid
> > > things like Bug 64615.
> > 
> > Yea, I updated my statement on the bug to reflect this.  C++ stuff should be
> > the only thing affected, so this _should_ be enough.  Its also already
> > something that's been in the ebuild for a while now.
> 
> Not sure if everyone is aware of this, but most installed pythons link
> to libstdc++.so. This is not a problem if you run the above
> revdep-rebuild (it should catch it just fine). It is a problem if you
> get rid of gcc 3.3 before installing libstdc++-v3 or running the
> revdep-rebuild, as it will leave you with a broken python and therefore
> unable to emerge.

How right you are; that just happend to me two days ago after removing
gcc-3.3.6 before emerge -e system on x86. Luckily it was a fresh
install ...

matthias
> 
> -- 
> Marien.

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Matthias Langer]

On Fri, 2005-12-02 at 03:03 +0100, Matthias Langer wrote:
> On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 01:30 +0100, Marien Zwart wrote:
> > On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 18:50:02 -0500
> > Mark Loeser <halcy0n@gentoo.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > Jakub Moc <jakub@gentoo.org> said:
> > > > 1.12.2005, 0:29:48, Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> > > > revdep-rebuild --library=libstdc++.so.5 is all that's needed here to avoid
> > > > things like Bug 64615.
> > > 
> > > Yea, I updated my statement on the bug to reflect this.  C++ stuff should be
> > > the only thing affected, so this _should_ be enough.  Its also already
> > > something that's been in the ebuild for a while now.
> > 
> > Not sure if everyone is aware of this, but most installed pythons link
> > to libstdc++.so. This is not a problem if you run the above
> > revdep-rebuild (it should catch it just fine). It is a problem if you
> > get rid of gcc 3.3 before installing libstdc++-v3 or running the
> > revdep-rebuild, as it will leave you with a broken python and therefore
> > unable to emerge.
> 
> How right you are; that just happend to me two days ago after removing
> gcc-3.3.6 before emerge -e system on x86. Luckily it was a fresh
> install ...

But besides of this fact, which was my very own fault, i'm very happy
with gcc-3.4. I thought, that maybe some c++ packages would fail to
compile, as I'm a c++ devel myself and know that there are differneces
in the c++ code that gcc-3.3.x and gcc-3.4.x are accepting. However, I'm
running gcc-3.4 now on 2 of 3 gentoo boxes i'm mentaining and are very
pleased with the results.

matthias

> 
> matthias
> > 
> > -- 
> > Marien.
> 

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Philip Webb]

051130 Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 17:34 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
>> As one of the "masses", I am certainly disturbed at that implication.
>> I don't remember any such need when I upgraded 2.9.5 -> 3.x (now 3.3.6).
>> This is the kind of issue on which I trust the devs to do sensible things,
>> but do we really need to rebuild our whole systems from the ground up ?
>> Ordinarily, I upgrade packages individually when it seems appropriate
>> & never do 'emerge world' with or without '-e' or other flags;
>> I do 'esync' every weekend & look at what is marked as having changed.
> Technically, you don't need to rebuild world.
> You only need to rebuild stuff that uses C++ and links to libstdc++.

That's what I wanted to know.
>From this & other responses, it looks as if it would be a bad idea
eg to upgrade to KDE 3.5 just before adopting GCC 3.4 (smile),
but that 'revdep-rebuild' will reveal the (lengthy) list of needed remerges.

I would urge whoever is documenting this
to avoid a blanket recommendation to 'emerge -e system && emerge -e world'
or be prepared for a lot of negative reaction from the masses.

<spectate>

-- 
========================,,============================================
SUPPORT     ___________//___,  Philip Webb : purslow@chass.utoronto.ca
ELECTRIC   /] [] [] [] [] []|  Centre for Urban & Community Studies
TRANSIT    `-O----------O---'  University of Toronto
-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[Petteri Räty]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 405 bytes --]

Chris Gianelloni wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 17:34 -0500, Philip Webb wrote:
> 
> 
> Technically, you don't need to rebuild world.  You only need to rebuild
> stuff that uses C++ and links to libstdc++.
> 
> 

How about giving the following as an alternative:
revdep-rebuild --library=libstdc++.so.5

I haven't tested this myself in practise but from what you say this
should work.

Regards,
Petteri



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 256 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] Moving GCC-3.4 to stable on x86

[solar]

On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 13:56 -0500, Mark Loeser wrote:
> Mark Loeser <halcy0n@gentoo.org> said:
> > Only thing I see
> > as lacking is we might want to get a doc together on how to properly upgrade
> > your toolchain so we don't get an influx of bugs from users that have a
> > system half compiled with 3.3 and the other half with 3.4 so they get linking
> > errors.
> 
> Seems people read this to mean that I was going to write a doc, which I have
> no intentions on doing.  I believe adding "It is recommended that you `emerge
> -e system && emerge -e world` after merging gcc-3.4" to the einfo at the end
> of the gcc-3.4.4 install should be good enough.  I'm not sure how other archs
> handled the migration, but I haven't been able to find any docs online.  
> 
> So, let me know if marking it stable in the next day or two is completely 
> stupid and I should wait to announce this via the GWN or something, or if its 
> an alright move and people aren't going to stab me for marking it stable.


einfo "$stuff" and mark it stable later today wins my vote.

-- 
solar <solar@gentoo.org>
Gentoo Linux

-- 
gentoo-dev@gentoo.org mailing list