From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 4.0.0 (2022-12-14) on finch.gentoo.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.9 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_ADSP_NXDOMAIN, DMARC_MISSING,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A,RDNS_DYNAMIC autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=4.0.0 Received: from web.local (cpe-24-221-139-152.az.sprintbbd.net [24.221.139.152]) by chiba.3jane.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id F043EABD52 for ; Mon, 3 Jun 2002 01:03:37 -0500 (CDT) Received: (from apache@localhost) by web.local (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g5364CM02142; Sun, 2 Jun 2002 23:04:12 -0700 X-Authentication-Warning: web.local: apache set sender to webbb@desertscenes.net using -f Received: from 192.168.0.6 (SquirrelMail authenticated user webbb) by web.local with HTTP; Sun, 2 Jun 2002 23:04:12 -0700 (MST) Message-ID: <36846.192.168.0.6.1023084252.squirrel@web.local> Date: Sun, 2 Jun 2002 23:04:12 -0700 (MST) Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: GCC3.1 bootstrap fails From: "Brian Webb" To: In-Reply-To: <36664.192.168.0.6.1023076358.squirrel@web.local> References: <200206022332.09275.verwilst@gentoo.org> <36664.192.168.0.6.1023076358.squirrel@web.local> X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: SquirrelMail (version 1.2.6 [cvs]) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org Errors-To: gentoo-dev-admin@gentoo.org X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.6 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: gentoo-dev@gentoo.org List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Gentoo Linux developer list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Archives-Salt: 06b6ab3e-a9bd-49a7-8747-5c1a78c70130 X-Archives-Hash: a97b736415e990b9d4c8ed760b6c121e I think I may have found at least part of the problem. I noticed that on my other gcc-3.0 profile machines, texinfo couldn't be emerged. It turns out that texinfo is masked. Texinfo is a required system package in the gcc-3.0 profile and it's masked the package.mask, which obviously is not a good thing. If I unmask texinfo my existing systems are happy, but I haven't tested it on a bootstrap yet. Brian P.S. Sorry about the run-on emails. I really have to figure out why Squirrelmail is running all my paragraphs together!!!! > I tried the 1.3-gcc3.1 profile but ran into some problems, and now I > can't get any 3.0 profile to work! > I first booted from a 1.1a stage1 CD, I then downloaded an untared the > 1.3-gcc3.1 stage1, changed the CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS in make.conf to > "-march=athlon-xp -O3 -pipe", and bootstrapped. > I soon realized that make.profile was pointing to the default profile > when it started building gcc-2.95.3. Since this is a 3.1 bootstrap, it > seems like the default make.profile link should be to the 3.0 profile > instead, but that wasn't a problem. I started over, remembering to > change the make.profile link, and bootstrap finished successfully. > There were some errors about info files (this was mentioned in a > previous email), but I didn't think much of them. Unfortunately, the > "emerge system" step failed when building e2fsprogs because it couldn't > find makeinfo. > While I was trying to figure out how to build makeinfo I decided to > "emerge rsync" just in case something had gotten fixed in the last > couple of hours ;-). That's when things really fell apart. After that > I couldn't get any emerges to work. I kept getting "Couldn't find > match for..." from emerge. > At this point I decided that something was really messed up, so decided > to start over from a more standard gcc-3.1 bootstrap that worked for me > just a day or two ago. > I have successfully bootstrapped on a similar system using a 1.1a > stage1 and the 3.0 make profile as long as I don't change the CFLAGS or > CXXFLAGS until the "emerge system" step (after the gcc 3.1 compiler has > been built). Unfortunately, this is no longer working either. > I now get the "Couldn't find match for..." error messages almost > immediately after running bootstrap.sh. The error messages start just > after portage has been emerged. Has something recently changed with > portage or the gcc 3.0 profile that could have caused this? Any idea > how I can fix this? > Brian > >> Would be cool if you could try and bootstrap again with >> -fomit-frame-pointer, and now use the 1.3-gcc3.1 tarball from ibiblio >> (http://www.ibiblio.org/gentoo/releases/build/) i just made. If it >> fails, i guess we should filter out most of the optimisations... I >> think the new gcc3.1-compiled tarball will make all the gcc3.1-users >> much happier :o) I also updated the packages file from the gcc 3.1 >> profile, and the make.defaults. Please keep us posted on any >> progress! > > > > _______________________________________________ > gentoo-dev mailing list > gentoo-dev@gentoo.org > http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev