[gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Frank Schafer]

... or which distribution to install during less than 4 days?

Hi list,

as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work
(started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning).

When I returned home from work I found in the logs, that ``emerge
--emptytree system'' failed at package 28 of 186

python-fcksum-1.7.1
i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc ....bla...bla
 ^
 |
 +- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

gcc-config error:
  could not run/locate "i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc"

My architecture is i686 and it seems that 27 packages before
python-fchksum found the i686(that's SIX-eight-six)-pc-linux-gnu-gcc.

Could be my fault. I had set up ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to "~x86".

Today in the morning I started up from scratch. That's about an hour of
editing files, making file systems and so on, 1,5 hours of bootstrap.sh.

``emerge -p --emptytree system'' showed me, that it will install
python-fchksum with the ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="x86" too. So far, so good.
Yesterday I got a portage snapshot 20050907, today I got a portage
snapshot 20050908. Maybe the bug is fixed. So I started emerge system.
At least it didn't install two versions of gcc. That saved some time. It
ran 2,5 hours and ...

   ... kabooooom ...

Unfortunately I can't tell you if the python-fchksum failure has gone
away. I didn't reach this ebuild :(

automake-1.25-r3
  autoconf-2.58 or better is required

That's package 24 of 186 (or so).

Why the hell do we try to install x versions of autoconf and
automake?????

So my presumption for the time demand of a Gentoo installation looks
like this.

A breakage will occure every 15'th package (2 breakages during the first
30 within 2 days).

That makes 15 days for a package amount something below 200. (BTW that's
the time it took me to build a full featured LFS system.)
New bugs will occur (I'm seeing this on this list "emerge -u world"
broke this_and_tahat_or_something_else posts, and that for I left gentoo
a year ago.).
If bugs are removed twice as quick as new ones arise I'll need about ONE
MONTH (!!!!!!!!) to get a running system.

This "breaks" even the time demand of installation AND configuration of
a 4 node IBM AIX HCMP cluster!

So which distribution would you suggest me to install during less than 4
days? I'm wondering about Slackware.

I've set up my USE flags to everything I'll want from the final system.
There is a DVD burner so I included everything regarding to CD/DVD, all
af the audio and video codecs, disabled kde and gnome (I'll never use
this), enabled emacs (my favorite editor), bash-completion, xaw3d, all
of the image formats and xinerama, disabled emboss (I don't have a clue
why THIS is a default). There is a sound card so I enabled all audio
related flags. I plan to install Oracle 9i on this machine, thus I
enabled oracle.

Should I start to only disable the things I won't need for the ``emerge
--emptytree sysrem'' and re-edit the USE flags afterward? Hmmm... this
probably doesn't solve the automake problem and disabling python to
solve the python-fchksum problem IMHO isn't a good idea because emerge
and thus gentoo itself is python based.

I'd be glad for every hint. Waiting for fixage isn't an option. 

Regards
Frank

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Dave Nebinger]

> When I returned home from work I found in the logs, that ``emerge
> --emptytree system'' failed at package 28 of 186
>
> python-fcksum-1.7.1
> i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc ....bla...bla
> ^
> |
> +- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> gcc-config error:
>  could not run/locate "i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc"

My guess is that during the -emptytree system emergence that gcc was built 
to target your system.

Sometimes when this happens the internal build system gets a little confused 
when it is time to switch over, but this is easily resolved by running the 
fix_libtool_files.sh script in /sbin.

You would need to do this when you get errors similar to that listed above.

The good news is that you'll only need to do this during the beginning when 
the system is being built from scratch; once you're up and running you 
normally won't need to do this again.
> automake-1.25-r3
>  autoconf-2.58 or better is required
>
> Why the hell do we try to install x versions of autoconf and
> automake?????

Because packages have individual automake/autoconf version requirements. 
Each automake/autoconf is slotted, they don't take up much disk, and they're 
good to have around for a successful emerge.

> So my presumption for the time demand of a Gentoo installation looks
> like this.
>
> A breakage will occure every 15'th package (2 breakages during the first
> 30 within 2 days).

That's an analysis based upon two initial emptytree emerges.  I would expect 
that for the 200 package estimate that you're using you will probably 
encounter a total of 4 breaks (I think that's what I had, it was so long 
ago, but there was one fix_libtool_files.sh run and a couple of changes to 
/etc/portage/package.keywords to enable ~x86 versions of a few packages 
where I needed a later version).

Completing an install in 4 days will not be a problem if you have the time 
to check on the emerge process every now and then and resolve the minor 
problems that crop up.

> So which distribution would you suggest me to install during less than 4
> days? I'm wondering about Slackware.

You can still stick with gentoo ;-)

If you don't have the time to watch over the stage 1 build process, you can 
jump straight to a stage 3 then update packages from there.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Frank Schafer]

On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 14:37 -0400, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> > When I returned home from work I found in the logs, that ``emerge
> > --emptytree system'' failed at package 28 of 186
> >
> > python-fcksum-1.7.1
> > i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc ....bla...bla
> > ^
> > |
> > +- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > gcc-config error:
> >  could not run/locate "i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc"
> 
> My guess is that during the -emptytree system emergence that gcc was built 
> to target your system.
> 
> Sometimes when this happens the internal build system gets a little confused 
> when it is time to switch over, but this is easily resolved by running the 
> fix_libtool_files.sh script in /sbin.
> 
> You would need to do this when you get errors similar to that listed above.
> 
> The good news is that you'll only need to do this during the beginning when 
> the system is being built from scratch; once you're up and running you 
> normally won't need to do this again.

I don't get You at this point. I'll have to start ''emerge --emptytree
system'', wait until it crashes, run ''fix_libtool_files.sh'' and run
''emerge --emptytree system'' ones more, hoping that it won't crash this
time?

Or should I go to a second virtual console, chroot there too, wait until
gcc was built on the first console and run ''fix_libtool_files.sh'' from
there?

''emerge system'' builds glibc, gcc, gcc-config (yes there is "Switching
native compiler to i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.3.6" in the log) and then the
packages for which the build crashes. How can I run
''fix_libtool_files.sh'' between ONE COMMAND??????

> > automake-1.25-r3
> >  autoconf-2.58 or better is required
> >
> > Why the hell do we try to install x versions of autoconf and
> > automake?????
> 
> Because packages have individual automake/autoconf version requirements. 
> Each automake/autoconf is slotted, they don't take up much disk, and they're 
> good to have around for a successful emerge.
> 
> > So my presumption for the time demand of a Gentoo installation looks
> > like this.
> >
> > A breakage will occure every 15'th package (2 breakages during the first
> > 30 within 2 days).
> 
> That's an analysis based upon two initial emptytree emerges.  I would expect 
> that for the 200 package estimate that you're using you will probably 
> encounter a total of 4 breaks (I think that's what I had, it was so long 
> ago, but there was one fix_libtool_files.sh run and a couple of changes to 
> /etc/portage/package.keywords to enable ~x86 versions of a few packages 
> where I needed a later version).
> 
> Completing an install in 4 days will not be a problem if you have the time 
> to check on the emerge process every now and then and resolve the minor 
> problems that crop up.
> 
> > So which distribution would you suggest me to install during less than 4
> > days? I'm wondering about Slackware.
> 
> You can still stick with gentoo ;-)
> 
> If you don't have the time to watch over the stage 1 build process, you can 
> jump straight to a stage 3 then update packages from there.
> 

Well, that's the same ads installing Fedora (within 2 hours).

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[John Jolet]

> > If you don't have the time to watch over the stage 1 build process, you
> > can jump straight to a stage 3 then update packages from there.
>
> Well, that's the same ads installing Fedora (within 2 hours).
With respect, that is NOT the same as installing fedora.  This laptop has had 
fedora, suse, mandrake(then mandriva), and now gentoo.  With all but gentoo, 
in kde, my memory was at 95% utilized, and swap at 10%.  With gentoo, in kde, 
memory is 46% free and swap 100% free.  The system runs faster, boots faster, 
and shuts down faster.  I used stage 3 install and built kde with emerge 
kde-meta (okay, so THAT took 16 hours).  Even starting with a stage 3, this 
is a better, more responsive system.  And since I built the kernel from 
source to start with, patching it is easier.  Not saying you shouldn't expect 
a stage 1 install to work, but even with a stage 3, there's no comparison.
-- 
John Jolet
Your On-Demand IT Department
512-762-0729
www.jolet.net
john@jolet.net
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Frank Schafer]

On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 14:26 -0500, John Jolet wrote:
> > > If you don't have the time to watch over the stage 1 build process, you
> > > can jump straight to a stage 3 then update packages from there.
> >
> > Well, that's the same ads installing Fedora (within 2 hours).
> With respect, that is NOT the same as installing fedora.  This laptop has had 
> fedora, suse, mandrake(then mandriva), and now gentoo.  With all but gentoo, 
> in kde, my memory was at 95% utilized, and swap at 10%.  With gentoo, in kde, 
> memory is 46% free and swap 100% free.  The system runs faster, boots faster, 
> and shuts down faster.  I used stage 3 install and built kde with emerge 
> kde-meta (okay, so THAT took 16 hours).  Even starting with a stage 3, this 
> is a better, more responsive system.  And since I built the kernel from 
> source to start with, patching it is easier.  Not saying you shouldn't expect 
> a stage 1 install to work, but even with a stage 3, there's no comparison.
> -- 
> John Jolet
> Your On-Demand IT Department
> 512-762-0729
> www.jolet.net
> john@jolet.net

... what don't solve the problem.

I've filed a bug, which returned as "RESOLVED" because duplicate. Well
the duplicate was python-fchksum related but described something totally
different.

All I want is to Install Gentoo, ... and that crashed two times within
two days within one command.

I CANT RUN fix_libtool_files.sh BETWEEN ONE COMMAND!!!!!!!

Even "Ubuntu - Linux for human beings", the system I'm writing this
email from and for which I recognized that
# alias HUMAN_BEING='BFU'
is better than Gentoo just now, ... because it's installable.

:(

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Zac Medico]

Frank Schafer wrote:
> is better than Gentoo just now, ... because it's installable.

I'd recommend a stage3 install.  The lower stages are intended more as a means to create a stage3 than for anything else.

Zac
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Dave Nebinger]

> I don't get You at this point. I'll have to start ''emerge --emptytree
> system'', wait until it crashes, run ''fix_libtool_files.sh'' and run
> ''emerge --emptytree system'' ones more, hoping that it won't crash this
> time?

No, after the fix_libtool_files.sh run, you do the "emerge --resume" to have 
it pick up where it left off.

>> > So which distribution would you suggest me to install during less than 
>> > 4
>> > days? I'm wondering about Slackware.
>>
>> You can still stick with gentoo ;-)
>>
>> If you don't have the time to watch over the stage 1 build process, you 
>> can
>> jump straight to a stage 3 then update packages from there.
>>
>
> Well, that's the same ads installing Fedora (within 2 hours).

We as a community do not like to see people abandoning Gentoo for the likes 
of fedora or slack.

That said, there are folks for whom the binary distributions are more 
appropriate than gentoo.  You will lose the fine-grained control over the 
packages that are installed as well as an in-depth understanding of what 
linux actually is, and you'll also be tied to their release cycles, etc.

Gentoo just seems daunting to the uninitiated; once you get the feel for the 
tools and with the full backing of the community, I think you would find 
gentoo is just what you're looking for.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Frank Schafer]

On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 15:39 -0400, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> > I don't get You at this point. I'll have to start ''emerge --emptytree
> > system'', wait until it crashes, run ''fix_libtool_files.sh'' and run
> > ''emerge --emptytree system'' ones more, hoping that it won't crash this
> > time?
> 
> No, after the fix_libtool_files.sh run, you do the "emerge --resume" to have 
> it pick up where it left off.
> 

OK, I'll try this if I need it. For now I'm at a point where THIS
probably doesn't help. (Building automake requires an autoconf which
isn't installed.)

> >> > So which distribution would you suggest me to install during less than 
> >> > 4
> >> > days? I'm wondering about Slackware.
> >>
> >> You can still stick with gentoo ;-)
> >>
> >> If you don't have the time to watch over the stage 1 build process, you 
> >> can
> >> jump straight to a stage 3 then update packages from there.
> >>
> >
> > Well, that's the same ads installing Fedora (within 2 hours).
> 
> We as a community do not like to see people abandoning Gentoo for the likes 
> of fedora or slack.
> 
> That said, there are folks for whom the binary distributions are more 
> appropriate than gentoo.  You will lose the fine-grained control over the 
> packages that are installed as well as an in-depth understanding of what 
> linux actually is, and you'll also be tied to their release cycles, etc.
> 
> Gentoo just seems daunting to the uninitiated; once you get the feel for the 
> tools and with the full backing of the community, I think you would find 
> gentoo is just what you're looking for.
> 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 700 bytes --]

On Fri, 01 Jan 1988 00:18:00 +0100, Frank Schafer wrote:

> > The good news is that you'll only need to do this during the
> > beginning when the system is being built from scratch; once you're up
> > and running you normally won't need to do this again.
> 
> I don't get You at this point. I'll have to start ''emerge --emptytree
> system'', wait until it crashes, run ''fix_libtool_files.sh'' and run
> ''emerge --emptytree system'' ones more, hoping that it won't crash this

emerge --resume will restart with the package that failed previously. You
don't need to start over each time.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Your lack of organisation does not represent an
emergency in my world.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 835 bytes --]

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:37:22 -0400, Dave Nebinger wrote:

> If you don't have the time to watch over the stage 1 build process, you
> can jump straight to a stage 3 then update packages from there.

That's exactly what I did with my laptop. It arrived at 1pm and I needed
it fully functional for the next morning, so I did a Stage 3 install in a
little over an hour (including compiling the kernel). I then emerged KDE
and some other essentials from a package CD and it was fine.

When I had time, I set ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to ~ppc, fiddled with my USE flags 
and did update -uavDN world, which recompiled just about everything,
giving me the same as if I'd done stage 1 to start with, except I had a
usable computer in far less time.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If a stealth bomber crashes in a forest, will it make a sound?

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Justin Patrin]

On 9/10/05, Frank Schafer <frank.schafer@t-systems.cz> wrote:
> ... or which distribution to install during less than 4 days?
> 
> Hi list,
> 
> as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work
> (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning).
> 
> When I returned home from work I found in the logs, that ``emerge
> --emptytree system'' failed at package 28 of 186
> 
> python-fcksum-1.7.1
> i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc ....bla...bla
>  ^
>  |
>  +- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> gcc-config error:
>   could not run/locate "i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc"
> 
> My architecture is i686 and it seems that 27 packages before
> python-fchksum found the i686(that's SIX-eight-six)-pc-linux-gnu-gcc.
> 
> Could be my fault. I had set up ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to "~x86".

That's the first problem. Unless you want to deal with explosions,
don't set your entire system to be unstable. That's a recipe for
problems. Leave the global setting at stable. Then, if you need an
unstable version use /etc/portage/package.keywords to set ~x86 for
just the package you want to install.

> 
> Today in the morning I started up from scratch. That's about an hour of
> editing files, making file systems and so on, 1,5 hours of bootstrap.sh.
> 
> ``emerge -p --emptytree system'' showed me, that it will install
> python-fchksum with the ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="x86" too. So far, so good.
> Yesterday I got a portage snapshot 20050907, today I got a portage
> snapshot 20050908. Maybe the bug is fixed. So I started emerge system.
> At least it didn't install two versions of gcc. That saved some time. It
> ran 2,5 hours and ...
> 
>    ... kabooooom ...
> 
> Unfortunately I can't tell you if the python-fchksum failure has gone
> away. I didn't reach this ebuild :(
> 

I suggest starting from a stage3 build. I've installed many stage 3
builds and it nearly always works with no breakage. Once your minimal
system up and running (always go for minimal on the initial emerge,
then boot into your system, then emerge more) then you can easily do
an emptytree emerge to re-build things....if you *really* want to. I'm
of the mind that starting with stage3 is perfectly fine. Eventually
all of those packages will be updated and recompiled, so there's
really no reason to do it manually right at the beginning.

One more thing. What optimization setting(s) are you using?

-- 
Justin Patrin

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Frank Schafer]

On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 12:42 -0700, Justin Patrin wrote:
> On 9/10/05, Frank Schafer <frank.schafer@t-systems.cz> wrote:
> > ... or which distribution to install during less than 4 days?
> > 
> > Hi list,
> > 
> > as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work
> > (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning).
> > 
> > When I returned home from work I found in the logs, that ``emerge
> > --emptytree system'' failed at package 28 of 186
> > 
> > python-fcksum-1.7.1
> > i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc ....bla...bla
> >  ^
> >  |
> >  +- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> > 
> > gcc-config error:
> >   could not run/locate "i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc"
> > 
> > My architecture is i686 and it seems that 27 packages before
> > python-fchksum found the i686(that's SIX-eight-six)-pc-linux-gnu-gcc.
> > 
> > Could be my fault. I had set up ACCEPT_KEYWORDS to "~x86".
> 
> That's the first problem. Unless you want to deal with explosions,
> don't set your entire system to be unstable. That's a recipe for
> problems. Leave the global setting at stable. Then, if you need an
> unstable version use /etc/portage/package.keywords to set ~x86 for
> just the package you want to install.
> 
> > 
> > Today in the morning I started up from scratch. That's about an hour of
> > editing files, making file systems and so on, 1,5 hours of bootstrap.sh.
> > 
> > ``emerge -p --emptytree system'' showed me, that it will install
> > python-fchksum with the ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="x86" too. So far, so good.
> > Yesterday I got a portage snapshot 20050907, today I got a portage
> > snapshot 20050908. Maybe the bug is fixed. So I started emerge system.
> > At least it didn't install two versions of gcc. That saved some time. It
> > ran 2,5 hours and ...
> > 
> >    ... kabooooom ...
> > 
> > Unfortunately I can't tell you if the python-fchksum failure has gone
> > away. I didn't reach this ebuild :(
> > 
> 
> I suggest starting from a stage3 build. I've installed many stage 3
> builds and it nearly always works with no breakage. Once your minimal
> system up and running (always go for minimal on the initial emerge,
> then boot into your system, then emerge more) then you can easily do
> an emptytree emerge to re-build things....if you *really* want to. I'm
> of the mind that starting with stage3 is perfectly fine. Eventually
> all of those packages will be updated and recompiled, so there's
> really no reason to do it manually right at the beginning.
> 
> One more thing. What optimization setting(s) are you using?
> 
> -- 
> Justin Patrin
> 

Thanks

CFLAGS="-O2 -march=pentuim2"

But all the way, that emerge builds a package which requires another
which isn't installed - this IS a bug (the autoconf via automake
problem).


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Saturday 10 September 2005 20:09, Frank Schafer wrote:
> ... or which distribution to install during less than 4 days?
>
> Hi list,
>
> as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work
> (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning).
>

where did you get the idea that --emptytree is needed or even a wise decision?
--emptytree is almost NEVER needed and since it is a troublesom procedure, it 
should not be made, until you are totally sure, that you need it.

emerge system

is all you need to do, to get the base system.
After that, emerge what you like to have, but NEVER use --emptytree, except 
when you are able to deal with the consequences.

Obviously you are not, so do not do it. 
NO


was that clear enough?

For your gcc-problem, there is the fix script, others mentioned - but a lot of 
times all that is needed is to run gcc-config to set the correct gcc.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Nick Rout]

On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 23:03 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Saturday 10 September 2005 20:09, Frank Schafer wrote:
> > ... or which distribution to install during less than 4 days?
> >
> > Hi list,
> >
> > as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work
> > (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning).
> >
> 
> where did you get the idea that --emptytree is needed or even a wise decision?
> --emptytree is almost NEVER needed and since it is a troublesom procedure, it 
> should not be made, until you are totally sure, that you need it.
> 


I imagine he read the install instructions, which are pretty clear about
doing an 

emerge --emptytree system

What makes you think this is wrong?

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=6#doc_chap2

(bottom of the page)

> emerge system
> 
> is all you need to do, to get the base system.
> After that, emerge what you like to have, but NEVER use --emptytree, except 
> when you are able to deal with the consequences.
> 
> Obviously you are not, so do not do it. 
> NO
> 
> 
> was that clear enough?


> 
> For your gcc-problem, there is the fix script, others mentioned - but a lot of 
> times all that is needed is to run gcc-config to set the correct gcc.
-- 
Nick Rout <nick@rout.co.nz>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 945 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:33:20 +1200, Nick Rout wrote:

> I imagine he read the install instructions, which are pretty clear about
> doing an 
> 
> emerge --emptytree system
> 
> What makes you think this is wrong?
> 
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=6#doc_chap2

This is about building the system, not rebuilding it. Ay this point of
the installation, system has not been merged, so the only rebuilding
--emptytree does is the packages installed by bootstrap.sh. As the about
docs say, --emptytree is only needed then if you have changed your CFLAGS,
otherwise --newuse is sufficient.

Rebuilding an entire system that is working fine is a clear breach of "if
it ain't broke, don't fix it", so should only be done if you are aware of
the potential problems and consequences, and how to deal with them.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Bury a lawyer 12 feet under, because deep down they're nice.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Sunday 11 September 2005 08:33, Nick Rout wrote:
> On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 23:03 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > On Saturday 10 September 2005 20:09, Frank Schafer wrote:
> > > ... or which distribution to install during less than 4 days?
> > >
> > > Hi list,
> > >
> > > as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work
> > > (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning).
> >
> > where did you get the idea that --emptytree is needed or even a wise
> > decision? --emptytree is almost NEVER needed and since it is a troublesom
> > procedure, it should not be made, until you are totally sure, that you
> > need it.
>
> I imagine he read the install instructions, which are pretty clear about
> doing an
>
> emerge --emptytree system
>
> What makes you think this is wrong?
>
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=6#doc_ch
>ap2
>
> (bottom of the page)
>

WRONG

it is there to show you, what emerge system wants to install. there is nothing 
about doing it! (Check again, see the -p)

And in the 2005.1 handbook is no (!) --emptytree.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Mark Shields]

>From http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=6:


// start quote

Building the System  

 To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. Then
 go do something to keep your mind busy, because this step takes a
long time to  complete.


Code Listing 22: Building the System 
# emerge --emptytree system

   

 Again, if you haven't touched the default CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS
setting, using --newuse is sufficient.

//  end quote

So you see, it does tell you to do an emerge --emptytree system,
unless you haven't changed the defalt CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS, in which case
you can just use the --newuse in place of --emptytree.

On 9/11/05, Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:
> On Sunday 11 September 2005 08:33, Nick Rout wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 23:03 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 September 2005 20:09, Frank Schafer wrote:
> > > > ... or which distribution to install during less than 4 days?
> > > >
> > > > Hi list,
> > > >
> > > > as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work
> > > > (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning).
> > >
> > > where did you get the idea that --emptytree is needed or even a wise
> > > decision? --emptytree is almost NEVER needed and since it is a troublesom
> > > procedure, it should not be made, until you are totally sure, that you
> > > need it.
> >
> > I imagine he read the install instructions, which are pretty clear about
> > doing an
> >
> > emerge --emptytree system
> >
> > What makes you think this is wrong?
> >
> > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=6#doc_ch
> >ap2
> >
> > (bottom of the page)
> >
> 
> WRONG
> 
> it is there to show you, what emerge system wants to install. there is nothing
> about doing it! (Check again, see the -p)
> 
> And in the 2005.1 handbook is no (!) --emptytree.
> --
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> 



-- 
- Mark Shields

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Sunday 11 September 2005 18:58, Mark Shields wrote:
> >From http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=6:
>
> // start quote
>
> Building the System
>
>  To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. Then
>  go do something to keep your mind busy, because this step takes a
> long time to  complete.
>
>
> Code Listing 22: Building the System
> # emerge --emptytree system
>
>
>
>  Again, if you haven't touched the default CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS
> setting, using --newuse is sufficient.
>
> //  end quote
>
> So you see, it does tell you to do an emerge --emptytree system,
> unless you haven't changed the defalt CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS, in which case
> you can just use the --newuse in place of --emptytree.


and this one:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/2005.1/handbook-x86.xml?full=1

does not talk about --emptytree at all, so which one is correct?

(btw, when I installed my gentoo --emptytree was totally not needed.)

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Zac Medico]

Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Sunday 11 September 2005 18:58, Mark Shields wrote:
> 
>>>From http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=6:
>>
[snip]
>>
>>So you see, it does tell you to do an emerge --emptytree system,
>>unless you haven't changed the defalt CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS, in which case
>>you can just use the --newuse in place of --emptytree.
> 
> 
> 
> and this one:
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/2005.1/handbook-x86.xml?full=1
> 
> does not talk about --emptytree at all, so which one is correct?
> 
> (btw, when I installed my gentoo --emptytree was totally not needed.)
> 

The "emerge --emptytree" will ensure that all of your packages have been compiled with your latest CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS settings.  It is not stricly required because packages compiled with different CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS are interoperable.

Note that the 2005.1 handbook mentions only the stage3 and not stage1 or stage2.  Installation from the lower stages is more error prone and best avoided.

Zac
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Dave Nebinger]

> Note that the 2005.1 handbook mentions only the stage3 and not stage1 or 
> stage2.  Installation from the lower stages is more error prone and best 
> avoided.

Hardly.  Starting from a stage 3 is like starting from any old binary 
distribution.

Starting from stage 1 & 2 allows you to build a box customized from the 
ground up optimized for your hardware (assuming you've set the cflags 
correctly before beginning).

IMHO, stage 3 is for those that don't want to take the lengthy build time 
for some of the larger packages, i.e. X and kde/gnome, in order to have a 
basic working gentoo system in a short timeframe.

Granted it will be more error-prone to start at a lower stage, but we're all 
here because we want that level of build.  If we were happy with stage 3 
installs, we'd be running from some binary distribution instead.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Zac Medico]

Dave Nebinger wrote:
>> Note that the 2005.1 handbook mentions only the stage3 and not stage1
>> or stage2.  Installation from the lower stages is more error prone and
>> best avoided.
> 
> 
> Hardly.  Starting from a stage 3 is like starting from any old binary
> distribution.
> 
> Starting from stage 1 & 2 allows you to build a box customized from the
> ground up optimized for your hardware (assuming you've set the cflags
> correctly before beginning).
> 
> IMHO, stage 3 is for those that don't want to take the lengthy build
> time for some of the larger packages, i.e. X and kde/gnome, in order to
> have a basic working gentoo system in a short timeframe.
> 
> Granted it will be more error-prone to start at a lower stage, but we're
> all here because we want that level of build.  If we were happy with
> stage 3 installs, we'd be running from some binary distribution instead.
> 

A stage3 install has most of the benefits of a stage1 or stage2.  Portage gives you the ability to rebuild *every* single package if you choose.

Zac
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Dave Nebinger]

> A stage3 install has most of the benefits of a stage1 or stage2.  Portage 
> gives you the ability to rebuild *every* single package if you choose.

And like the binary distributions, it's targeted towards the generic 386, 
not the pentium class machines we're all using (at least it was the last 
time I checked, but it might have changed since then).

So, like I said, it is just like using another binary distribution.

And if you use a stage 3 and rebuild every package, it's not that different 
than starting from a stage 1 or 2, is it?

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Zac Medico]

Dave Nebinger wrote:
>> A stage3 install has most of the benefits of a stage1 or stage2. 
>> Portage gives you the ability to rebuild *every* single package if you
>> choose.
> 
> 
> And like the binary distributions, it's targeted towards the generic
> 386, not the pentium class machines we're all using (at least it was the
> last time I checked, but it might have changed since then).
> 

Actually, the catalyst documentation states that an x86 stage1 is supposed to be targeted towards the generic 386.  This makes it possible to derive more specialized stages (stage2 and stage3) from it.  Normally, there is a specialized stage3 hosted on the mirrors for each major subarch (586, 686, athon, etc...).

> So, like I said, it is just like using another binary distribution.

Portage gives you the ability to rebuild *every* single package in a more flexible way than any binary distribution that I know of.

> 
> And if you use a stage 3 and rebuild every package, it's not that
> different than starting from a stage 1 or 2, is it?
> 

Except that a stage3 is less error prone.

Zac
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 440 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:30:45 -0400, Dave Nebinger wrote:

> And if you use a stage 3 and rebuild every package, it's not that
> different than starting from a stage 1 or 2, is it?

There's one major difference, the system is available for use in around
an hour. Rebuilding after the system is working means you can still get
on with using the computer at the same time.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

No maintenance: Impossible to fix.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[John Jolet]

On Sunday 11 September 2005 13:12, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> > Note that the 2005.1 handbook mentions only the stage3 and not stage1 or
> > stage2.  Installation from the lower stages is more error prone and best
> > avoided.
>
> Hardly.  Starting from a stage 3 is like starting from any old binary
> distribution.
>
see below
> Starting from stage 1 & 2 allows you to build a box customized from the
> ground up optimized for your hardware (assuming you've set the cflags
> correctly before beginning).
>
> IMHO, stage 3 is for those that don't want to take the lengthy build time
> for some of the larger packages, i.e. X and kde/gnome, in order to have a
> basic working gentoo system in a short timeframe.
I'm not sure where you get this from, since X and kde/gnome  aren't IN a 
stage-3 tarball.  As I stated before, iterative testing with several binary 
distros and a stage-3 gentoo on this here laptop have shown that, even 
starting with stage-3, gentoo is faster and more efficient.
-- 
John Jolet
Your On-Demand IT Department
512-762-0729
www.jolet.net
john@jolet.net
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Dave Nebinger]

>> Starting from stage 1 & 2 allows you to build a box customized from the
>> ground up optimized for your hardware (assuming you've set the cflags
>> correctly before beginning).
>>
>> IMHO, stage 3 is for those that don't want to take the lengthy build time
>> for some of the larger packages, i.e. X and kde/gnome, in order to have a
>> basic working gentoo system in a short timeframe.
> I'm not sure where you get this from, since X and kde/gnome  aren't IN a
> stage-3 tarball.

Oops, my bad.  Shows how many stage-3 installs I've done ;-)

> As I stated before, iterative testing with several binary
> distros and a stage-3 gentoo on this here laptop have shown that, even
> starting with stage-3, gentoo is faster and more efficient.

I wasn't questioning whether gentoo would be faster and/or more efficient 
than the other binary distros.

My point was that, for the most part, saying "start with stage 3" is like 
saying "use a binary distrib".  With stage 3 you're starting with 
precompiled binaries that are built targeting someone else's hardware, not 
your own. 

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 525 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:15:46 -0500, John Jolet wrote:

> > IMHO, stage 3 is for those that don't want to take the lengthy build
> > time for some of the larger packages, i.e. X and kde/gnome, in order
> > to have a basic working gentoo system in a short timeframe.

> I'm not sure where you get this from, since X and kde/gnome  aren't IN
> a stage-3 tarball.

No, but they are on the GRP package CDs that accompany each release.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Tribble math: * + * = ***********************************

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[John Jolet]

On Sunday 11 September 2005 16:57, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 14:15:46 -0500, John Jolet wrote:
> > > IMHO, stage 3 is for those that don't want to take the lengthy build
> > > time for some of the larger packages, i.e. X and kde/gnome, in order
> > > to have a basic working gentoo system in a short timeframe.
> >
> > I'm not sure where you get this from, since X and kde/gnome  aren't IN
> > a stage-3 tarball.
>
> No, but they are on the GRP package CDs that accompany each release.
yes, but there's no requirement to use grp packages with a stage-3.
-- 
John Jolet
Your On-Demand IT Department
512-762-0729
www.jolet.net
john@jolet.net
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 686 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:24:19 -0500, John Jolet wrote:

> > > > IMHO, stage 3 is for those that don't want to take the lengthy
> > > > build time for some of the larger packages, i.e. X and kde/gnome,
> > > > in order to have a basic working gentoo system in a short
> > > > timeframe.
> > >
> > > I'm not sure where you get this from, since X and kde/gnome  aren't
> > > IN a stage-3 tarball.
> >
> > No, but they are on the GRP package CDs that accompany each release.

> yes, but there's no requirement to use grp packages with a stage-3.

There is if you're using stage 3 as quoted above.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I'm writing a book. I've got the page numbers done.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Nick Rout]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 00:15:58 +0100
Neil Bothwick wrote:

> > > No, but they are on the GRP package CDs that accompany each release.
> 
> > yes, but there's no requirement to use grp packages with a stage-3.
> 
> There is if you're using stage 3 as quoted above.

what have you been smoking Neil? A stage 3 install just means you have a biggish tarball at the start and it installs a very basic working system
ready to comile on. You still do your own kernel and you can EITHER use
GRP packages OR compile them yourself. Soem people prefer to use GRP and stage 3 to get a working system and then add or change packages later.
At least they then have a gui and can read their email and peruse
bugzilla/forums/wiki (OK I know you can do all those things in a console
too)

You can also use the GRP packages if you started from stage 1. They are
simply pre-compiled with a pre-defined set of USE flags, and a set of
CFLAGS for their architecture.

-- 
Nick Rout <nick@rout.co.nz>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 838 bytes --]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 11:49:52 +1200, Nick Rout wrote:

> > > > No, but they are on the GRP package CDs that accompany each
> > > > release.
> > 
> > > yes, but there's no requirement to use grp packages with a stage-3.
> > 
> > There is if you're using stage 3 as quoted above.
> 
> what have you been smoking Neil? A stage 3 install just means you have
> a biggish tarball at the start and it installs a very basic working
> system ready to comile on. You still do your own kernel and you can
> EITHER use GRP packages OR compile them yourself. 

I know, but the quote you removed was about using stage 3 to save time
to have a running system asap. If that's your objective, you're hardly
going to follow it up by compiling KDE and X from scratch, are you?


-- 
Neil Bothwick

A wok is what you throw at a wabbit.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Andrew MacKenzie]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 994 bytes --]

> > what have you been smoking Neil? A stage 3 install just means you have
> > a biggish tarball at the start and it installs a very basic working
> > system ready to comile on. You still do your own kernel and you can
> > EITHER use GRP packages OR compile them yourself. 
> I know, but the quote you removed was about using stage 3 to save time
> to have a running system asap. If that's your objective, you're hardly
> going to follow it up by compiling KDE and X from scratch, are you?
I always have...

stage 3 gets me to a point where while I'm compiling X, KDE, qt, Gnome, and
the rest of the world, I can use my computer.  Especially since the first
things I emerge are those I'm likely to use (mutt, irc client, etc.).

-- 
// Andrew MacKenzie  |  http://www.edespot.com
// GPG public key: http://www.edespot.com/~amackenz/public.key
// Anyone who has had a bull by the tail knows five or six more things
// than someone who hasn't.
//                 -- Mark Twain

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[John Jolet]

On Sunday 11 September 2005 18:15, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> > yes, but there's no requirement to use grp packages with a stage-3.
>
> There is if you're using stage 3 as quoted above.
No, there isn't.  This laptop was built with a stage 3 tarball, everything 
else was compiled from source.  I know because I watched kde build for 16 
hours.
-- 
John Jolet
Your On-Demand IT Department
512-762-0729
www.jolet.net
john@jolet.net
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1014 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:59:14 -0500, John Jolet wrote:

> > > yes, but there's no requirement to use grp packages with a stage-3.
> >
> > There is if you're using stage 3 as quoted above.

> No, there isn't.  This laptop was built with a stage 3 tarball,
> everything else was compiled from source.  I know because I watched kde
> build for 16 hours.

Read the quote you removed

> > > > IMHO, stage 3 is for those that don't want to take the lengthy
> > > > build time for some of the larger packages, i.e. X and kde/gnome,
> > > > in order to have a basic working gentoo system in a short
> > > > timeframe.

You clearly were prepared to take the lengthy build time for KDE etc. But
others don't have that luxury, like when I built my laptop, so Stage 3 +
GRP does the whole job in less than 10% of the time you spent on KDE
alone... not that this has anything to do with the original topic :)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Megabyte: (n.) more than you can comprehend and less than you'll need.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Nick Rout]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:12:51 +0200
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> On Sunday 11 September 2005 18:58, Mark Shields wrote:
> > >From http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=6:
> >
> > // start quote
> >
> > Building the System
> >
> >  To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. Then
> >  go do something to keep your mind busy, because this step takes a
> > long time to  complete.
> >
> >
> > Code Listing 22: Building the System
> > # emerge --emptytree system
> >
> >
> >
> >  Again, if you haven't touched the default CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS
> > setting, using --newuse is sufficient.
> >
> > //  end quote
> >
> > So you see, it does tell you to do an emerge --emptytree system,
> > unless you haven't changed the defalt CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS, in which case
> > you can just use the --newuse in place of --emptytree.
> 
> 
> and this one:
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/2005.1/handbook-x86.xml?full=1
> 
> does not talk about --emptytree at all, so which one is correct?
> 
> (btw, when I installed my gentoo --emptytree was totally not needed.)

Well it seems to me that doc does not deal with a stage 1 or stage 2
install, I haven't read every word, but I can't find any reference to
bootstrap.

So its irrelevant.

> 
> -- 
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

-- 
Nick Rout <nick@rout.co.nz>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Frank Schafer]

On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 19:12 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Sunday 11 September 2005 18:58, Mark Shields wrote:
> > >From http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=6:
> >
> > // start quote
> >
> > Building the System
> >
> >  To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. Then
> >  go do something to keep your mind busy, because this step takes a
> > long time to  complete.
> >
> >
> > Code Listing 22: Building the System
> > # emerge --emptytree system
> >
> >
> >
> >  Again, if you haven't touched the default CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS
> > setting, using --newuse is sufficient.
> >
> > //  end quote
> >
> > So you see, it does tell you to do an emerge --emptytree system,
> > unless you haven't changed the defalt CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS, in which case
> > you can just use the --newuse in place of --emptytree.
> 
> 
> and this one:
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/2005.1/handbook-x86.xml?full=1
> 
> does not talk about --emptytree at all, so which one is correct?
> 
> (btw, when I installed my gentoo --emptytree was totally not needed.)
> 

Then ``emerge system'' didn't replace the packages installed by
``sbin/bootstrap.sh'' with new ones (which are probably built with
different compiler settings).

Frank
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Monday 12 September 2005 09:00, Frank Schafer wrote:

> > >
> > > So you see, it does tell you to do an emerge --emptytree system,
> > > unless you haven't changed the defalt CFLAGS/CXXFLAGS, in which case
> > > you can just use the --newuse in place of --emptytree.
> >
> > and this one:
> > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/2005.1/handbook-x86.xml?full=1
> >
> > does not talk about --emptytree at all, so which one is correct?
> >
> > (btw, when I installed my gentoo --emptytree was totally not needed.)
>
> Then ``emerge system'' didn't replace the packages installed by
> ``sbin/bootstrap.sh'' with new ones (which are probably built with
> different compiler settings).
>
> Frank

first, bootstrap was only gcc and glibc and stuff and they were rebuilt.
And even if they were not rebuilt, it did not matter, because one of the next 
updates would rebuilt them.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 547 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:58:19 -0400, Mark Shields wrote:

> // start quote
> 
> Building the System  
> 
>  To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system.
> //  end quote
> 
> So you see, it does tell you to do an emerge --emptytree system,

When BUILDING THE SYSTEM. This thread was all about rebuilding the
system, which is a completely different, and usually unnecessary, process.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Ralph's Observation - It is a mistake to allow any mechanical object
to realize that you are in a hurry.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Holly Bostick]

Neil Bothwick schreef:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:58:19 -0400, Mark Shields wrote:
> 
> 
>> // start quote
>> 
>> Building the System
>> 
>> To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. //
>>  end quote
>> 
>> So you see, it does tell you to do an emerge --emptytree system,
> 
> 
> When BUILDING THE SYSTEM. This thread was all about rebuilding the 
> system, which is a completely different, and usually unnecessary, 
> process.
> 

No, Neil, this thread (or the original issue, at least), is occurring
during the initial install process:

> Hi list,
> 
> as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work 
> (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning).
> 

... because he's following the (old?) Handbook, which does say to use
--emptytree, although we don't quite know why.

But Frank also says:

> I'd be glad for every hint. Waiting for fixage isn't an option.

So possibly we might consider using our expertise to actually help the
guy, in case anyone might happen to know why he's getting this breakage
during his inital installation, rather than arguing about whether he
should be using --emptytree or not, especially since-- as the system is
not yet installed, it doesn't matter if it's explicitly stated or not,
because he's essentially doing an emptytree-- *not* doing an emerge -e
is not likely to solve/mitigate the issue, which is apparently that
automake is trying to install before its dependency (autoconf), for
unknown reasons.

Holly


-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 739 bytes --]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:16:23 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote:

> No, Neil, this thread (or the original issue, at least), is occurring
> during the initial install process:

Whoops, my mistake. This comes up so often it's easy to get the threads
muddled up :(

> So possibly we might consider using our expertise to actually help the
> guy, in case anyone might happen to know why he's getting this breakage
> during his inital installation, rather than arguing about whether he
> should be using --emptytree or not,

Hasn't this already been covered early in the thread? Run fix_libtool.sh
to fix the error then do emerge --resume to carry on.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If at first you don't succeed, skydiving is not for you.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Frank Schafer]

On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 23:01 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 21:16:23 +0200, Holly Bostick wrote:
> 
> > No, Neil, this thread (or the original issue, at least), is occurring
> > during the initial install process:
> 
> Whoops, my mistake. This comes up so often it's easy to get the threads
> muddled up :(
> 
> > So possibly we might consider using our expertise to actually help the
> > guy, in case anyone might happen to know why he's getting this breakage
> > during his inital installation, rather than arguing about whether he
> > should be using --emptytree or not,
> 
> Hasn't this already been covered early in the thread? Run fix_libtool.sh
> to fix the error then do emerge --resume to carry on.
> 
> 

If I get it right ``fix_libtool_files.sh'' corrects the settings for
libtool according to the native compiler if gcc has changed. During a
native install there isn't an older version of gcc. So this should be
(and was) the wrong answer.

Regards and thanks for all the tries to help me
Frank

PS: see the [WORKAROUNDED] post
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 835 bytes --]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 09:11:21 +0200, Frank Schafer wrote:

> > Hasn't this already been covered early in the thread? Run
> > fix_libtool.sh to fix the error then do emerge --resume to carry on.

> If I get it right ``fix_libtool_files.sh'' corrects the settings for
> libtool according to the native compiler if gcc has changed. During a
> native install there isn't an older version of gcc. So this should be
> (and was) the wrong answer.

Fair comment, but emerge --resume is still important. your original post
seemed to assume that after fixing the problem, you'd have to run emerge
--emptytree again, which is not the case. It is annoying to have to stop
the process to fix something, but not so nearly annoying as if you have
to start over.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Sir! Romulan warbird decloaki»®õ÷üÁ NO CARRIER

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Frank Schafer]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 08:33 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> > If I get it right ``fix_libtool_files.sh'' corrects the settings for
> > libtool according to the native compiler if gcc has changed. During a
> > native install there isn't an older version of gcc. So this should be
> > (and was) the wrong answer.
> 
> Fair comment, but emerge --resume is still important. your original post
> seemed to assume that after fixing the problem, you'd have to run emerge
> --emptytree again, which is not the case. It is annoying to have to stop
> the process to fix something, but not so nearly annoying as if you have
> to start over.
> 
> 
That's very right and we should be glad to have this switch :)

I did a lot of experiments on saturday and yesterday. So I decided to
make the whole procedure (starting with making the filesystems) what
took about 10 minutes and then:

``scripts/nootstrap.sh && touch /var/log/portage/bootstrap && emerge
--oneshot --nodeps autoconf && emerge --oneshot --nodeps
autoconf-wrapper && emerge --oneshot --nodeps python &&
touch /var/log/portage/bugworkaround && emerge --emptytree system''

After firing up this command I went to sleep. If the comp works hard
meanwhile I'm having sweet dreams about my pets ... this don't hurt so
much ;)

In the morning the system was up and ``ls -ltr /var/log/portage'' showed
me that it took something about 5 hours.

Thanks for your assistence
Frank

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Dave Nebinger]

> If I get it right ``fix_libtool_files.sh'' corrects the settings for
> libtool according to the native compiler if gcc has changed. During a
> native install there isn't an older version of gcc. So this should be
> (and was) the wrong answer.

Incorrect.  The stage 1 install starts with a generic 386 version of gcc 
and, when re-emerging the system, the version of gcc targeted for your 
system is built.  So yes, there is an older version of gcc that did change 
and yes, it probably would have resolved the issue that you previously 
posted.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Frank Schafer]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 18:31 -0400, Dave Nebinger wrote:
> > If I get it right ``fix_libtool_files.sh'' corrects the settings for
> > libtool according to the native compiler if gcc has changed. During a
> > native install there isn't an older version of gcc. So this should be
> > (and was) the wrong answer.
> 
> Incorrect.  The stage 1 install starts with a generic 386 version of gcc 
> and, when re-emerging the system, the version of gcc targeted for your 
> system is built.  So yes, there is an older version of gcc that did change 
> and yes, it probably would have resolved the issue that you previously 
> posted.
> 
It didnt.

The sequence:
scripts/bootstrap.sh && emerge --oneshot --nodeps autoconf && emerge
--oneshot --nodeps automake && emerge --oneshot --nodeps python &&
emerge --emptytree system

did resolve it.

Regards

PS: The bugs were even known in b.g.o. but this site is often
unaccessible for me. Dunno why it timeouts so often.
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Nick Rout]

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:45:26 +0100
Neil Bothwick wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 12:58:19 -0400, Mark Shields wrote:
> 
> > // start quote
> > 
> > Building the System  
> > 
> >  To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system.
> > //  end quote
> > 
> > So you see, it does tell you to do an emerge --emptytree system,
> 
> When BUILDING THE SYSTEM. This thread was all about rebuilding the
> system, which is a completely different, and usually unnecessary, process.

No its not, do I have to quote the original poster:

<quote> 

Hi list,

as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work
(started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning).

</quote>

> 
> 
> -- 
> Neil Bothwick
> 
> Ralph's Observation - It is a mistake to allow any mechanical object
> to realize that you are in a hurry.

-- 
Nick Rout <nick@rout.co.nz>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Frank Schafer]

On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 18:38 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Sunday 11 September 2005 08:33, Nick Rout wrote:
> > On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 23:03 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > > On Saturday 10 September 2005 20:09, Frank Schafer wrote:
> > > > ... or which distribution to install during less than 4 days?
> > > >
> > > > Hi list,
> > > >
> > > > as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work
> > > > (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning).
> > >
> > > where did you get the idea that --emptytree is needed or even a wise
> > > decision? --emptytree is almost NEVER needed and since it is a troublesom
> > > procedure, it should not be made, until you are totally sure, that you
> > > need it.
> >
> > I imagine he read the install instructions, which are pretty clear about
> > doing an
> >
> > emerge --emptytree system
> >
> > What makes you think this is wrong?
> >
> > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=6#doc_ch
> >ap2
> >
> > (bottom of the page)
> >
> 
> WRONG
> 
> it is there to show you, what emerge system wants to install. there is nothing 
> about doing it! (Check again, see the -p)
> 
> And in the 2005.1 handbook is no (!) --emptytree.


LOL, LOL, LOL!!!!!!
this is cut'n-pasted from the "Gentoo Handbook 6d JUST NOW!!!!
snip-------------------------------
Building the System

To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. Then go
do something to keep your mind busy, because this step takes a long time
to complete.

Code Listing 22: Building the System
# emerge --emptytree system
---------------------------------snap

LOL, LOL, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

You MUST be a German! Not able to read and arrogant (talking about
ability of others)!

0,02$
Frank

PS: and yes, I DID build from stage1 and DID change CFLAGS.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Michael Schreckenbauer]

Am Montag, 12. September 2005 08:56 schrieb Frank Schafer:
> On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 18:38 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > And in the 2005.1 handbook is no (!) --emptytree.
>
> LOL, LOL, LOL!!!!!!
> this is cut'n-pasted from the "Gentoo Handbook 6d JUST NOW!!!!

The 2005.1 Handbook, which Volker referes to,  has no Section 6d.
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/2005.1/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=6

> snip-------------------------------
> Building the System
>
> To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. Then go
> do something to keep your mind busy, because this step takes a long time
> to complete.
> Code Listing 22: Building the System
> # emerge --emptytree system
> ---------------------------------snap

You are reading the "Gentoo Linux x86 Handbook"
(http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=6),
which is a different one.

> LOL, LOL, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
> You MUST be a German! Not able to read and arrogant (talking about
> ability of others)!

In fact YOU did not read Volkers post carefully. Now call me arrogant, cause I 
am german too. Even worse, I am bavarian :)

> 0,02$
> Frank
>
> PS: and yes, I DID build from stage1 and DID change CFLAGS.

Did you change the CFLAGS after bootstrapping? If not, there is no need for 
--emptytree. The CFLAGS you set for bootstrap ARE your default CFLAGS.
I always do stage1 installs. I even do the bootstrap ~x86. I never ever used 
--emptytree when emerging the system.

Regards,
Michael

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Frank Schafer]

On Mon, 2005-09-12 at 11:12 +0200, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote:
> Am Montag, 12. September 2005 08:56 schrieb Frank Schafer:
> > On Sun, 2005-09-11 at 18:38 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > > And in the 2005.1 handbook is no (!) --emptytree.
> >
> > LOL, LOL, LOL!!!!!!
> > this is cut'n-pasted from the "Gentoo Handbook 6d JUST NOW!!!!
> 
> The 2005.1 Handbook, which Volker referes to,  has no Section 6d.
> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/2005.1/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=6
> 
> > snip-------------------------------
> > Building the System
> >
> > To start building the system, execute emerge --emptytree system. Then go
> > do something to keep your mind busy, because this step takes a long time
> > to complete.
> > Code Listing 22: Building the System
> > # emerge --emptytree system
> > ---------------------------------snap
> 
> You are reading the "Gentoo Linux x86 Handbook"
> (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-x86.xml?part=1&chap=6),
> which is a different one.
> 
> > LOL, LOL, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
> > You MUST be a German! Not able to read and arrogant (talking about
> > ability of others)!
> 
> In fact YOU did not read Volkers post carefully. Now call me arrogant, cause I 
> am german too. Even worse, I am bavarian :)
> 
> > 0,02$
> > Frank
> >
> > PS: and yes, I DID build from stage1 and DID change CFLAGS.
> 
> Did you change the CFLAGS after bootstrapping? If not, there is no need for 
> --emptytree. The CFLAGS you set for bootstrap ARE your default CFLAGS.
> I always do stage1 installs. I even do the bootstrap ~x86. I never ever used 
> --emptytree when emerging the system.
> 
> Regards,
> Michael
> 

Brrrr. bavarian ;)
BTW: I'm a hmmm, living in ... see the email

As I mentioned, I've changed nearly everything experimenting to get the
install and then ...
see my [WORKAROUNDED] post.

Regards
Frank

PS: Volker simply made me a bit angry calling me unable. I'm a UNIX
programmer / system administrator since 15 years. Xcuse me.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Monday 12 September 2005 08:56, Frank Schafer wrote:
>
>
> LOL, LOL, LOL!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> You MUST be a German! Not able to read and arrogant (talking about
> ability of others)!
>

and you must  be a little racist, aren't you?

May arrogance is a function of my grade of tiredness, which excuse do you 
have?


I installed successfully half a douzend gentoo boxes (1.0, 1.1, 1.1a, 1.4, 
2004) and never were there any --emptytree

And before sending my mails I looked into the handbook: no emptytree.

It is not my fault, that there are two handbooks, one with emptytree and one 
without.

But it is your fault to send a mail full of 'lol's.

So why don't you sit down, drink a Staropramen 12° and relax a little bit?



-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Nick Rout]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:53:04 +0200
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:


> 
> I installed successfully half a douzend gentoo boxes (1.0, 1.1, 1.1a, 1.4, 
> 2004) and never were there any --emptytree
> 
> And before sending my mails I looked into the handbook: no emptytree.
> 
> It is not my fault, that there are two handbooks, one with emptytree and one 
> without.

Yeah and IF you look at the two handbooks, you will see that the
handbook WITHOUT --emptytree is for installing from stage3, so that part
is missed out completely.

Again: the command for --emptytree is in the "Progressing from Stage2 to Stage3" section of the "Gentoo Handbook"

The Gentoo 2005.1 Handbook does a stage3 install so that section is
SKIPPED. Please note the prelude to the 2005.1 handbook:

"Welcome to the Gentoo Linux 2005.1 Handbooks. These handbooks are released together with the Gentoo Linux releases and contain the necessary installation instructions to install Gentoo Linux 2005.1 WITHOUT AN INTERNET CONNECTION.

However, IF YOU WANT to install Gentoo Linux using THE LATEST VERSIONS of all available packages, please USE the Installation Instructions in THE GENTOO LINUX HANDBOOK for your architecture. "

Have you got it now???

(Sorry about the added SHOUTING, but I am sick of repeating myself)


> 

> -- 
> gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

-- 
Nick Rout <nick@rout.co.nz>

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Wednesday 14 September 2005 03:45, Nick Rout wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:53:04 +0200
>
> Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > I installed successfully half a douzend gentoo boxes (1.0, 1.1, 1.1a,
> > 1.4, 2004) and never were there any --emptytree
> >
> > And before sending my mails I looked into the handbook: no emptytree.
> >
> > It is not my fault, that there are two handbooks, one with emptytree and
> > one without.
>
> Yeah and IF you look at the two handbooks, you will see that the
> handbook WITHOUT --emptytree is for installing from stage3, so that part
> is missed out completely.
>
> Again: the command for --emptytree is in the "Progressing from Stage2 to
> Stage3" section of the "Gentoo Handbook"
>
> The Gentoo 2005.1 Handbook does a stage3 install so that section is
> SKIPPED. Please note the prelude to the 2005.1 handbook:
>

no need to shout, I got it well before your mail!

I just got to the handbook for 2005.1 and did a search for emptytree. Yes, my 
fault *shrug* but nobody can be as flawless as you. 
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] [WORKAROUNDED]Nasty bugs in portage?

[Frank Schafer]

On Sat, 2005-09-10 at 23:03 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> On Saturday 10 September 2005 20:09, Frank Schafer wrote:
> > ... or which distribution to install during less than 4 days?
> >
> > Hi list,
> >
> > as I wrote yesterday I planned to complete installation after work
> > (started ``emerge --emptytree system'' in the morning).
> >
> 
> where did you get the idea that --emptytree is needed or even a wise decision?
> --emptytree is almost NEVER needed and since it is a troublesom procedure, it 
> should not be made, until you are totally sure, that you need it.
> 
> emerge system
> 
> is all you need to do, to get the base system.
> After that, emerge what you like to have, but NEVER use --emptytree, except 
> when you are able to deal with the consequences.
> 
> Obviously you are not, so do not do it. 
> NO
> 
> 
> was that clear enough?
> 

Yes, that WAS clear enough. So we have an even more nasty documentation
bug in the gentoo installation handbook (it tells to ``emerge
--emptytree system'') and a nasty portage (or was it bootstrap?) bug (it
tells me to be aware, that we need to add -e to emerge system now after
finishing.

> For your gcc-problem, there is the fix script, others mentioned - but a lot of 
> times all that is needed is to run gcc-config to set the correct gcc.

gcc-config ran after the installation. (see in one fo my further posts,
there was the "Native compiler changed to ..." amongst the messages.

I've found (with some help of b.g.o.) that these ARE bugs. Here's the
whole success story.

scripts/bootstrap.sh
#to work around the autoconf dependency bug
emerge --oneshot --nodeps autoconf
emerge --oneshot --nodeps aotoconf-wrapper
#to work around the python-fchksum dependency bug
emerge --oneshot --nodeps python
emerge --emptytree system

No fix_libtool_files.sh necessary. Why? There never was an older version
of gcc.

Some words to the autoconf ... will start a new thread.

So much to the ability.

Frank

PS: You're a German? Probably this is the reason for your arrogance.

-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage?

[Hans-Werner Hilse]

Hi,

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 20:09:29 +0200
Frank Schafer <frank.schafer@t-systems.cz> wrote:

> When I returned home from work I found in the logs, that ``emerge
> --emptytree system'' failed at package 28 of 186
> 
> python-fcksum-1.7.1
> i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc ....bla...bla
>  ^
>  |
>  +- !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> gcc-config error:
>   could not run/locate "i386-pc-linux-gnu-gcc"
> 
> My architecture is i686 and it seems that 27 packages before
> python-fchksum found the i686(that's SIX-eight-six)-pc-linux-gnu-gcc.

Hm, when editing /etc/make.conf, did you change the CHOST setting? That
could cause such behaviour... I think that may be amongst the reasons
why /etc/make.conf.example reads like:

---snip---
# Host Setting
# ============
#
# DO NOT CHANGE THIS SETTING UNLESS YOU ARE USING STAGE1!
---snip---

...I guess you aren't using a stage1?


As a side note: When building a minimal system, using
USE=-*
in /etc/make.conf should be considered. You can then fine tune each and
every package in /etc/portage/package.use. That's quite like my setup,
my global USE is set to "-* nptl ssl nls pam". All the other stuff is
set per package. I have one build host machine that distributes the
binary packages and portage tree snapshots to my other computers.

-hwh
-- 
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list