From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1EELUp-00038B-PH for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 06:39:24 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8B6YQ6m031376; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 06:34:26 GMT Received: from dbmail-mx1.orcon.net.nz (loadbalancer2.orcon.net.nz [219.88.242.4]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8B6Umxx008364 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 06:30:50 GMT Received-SPF: None (dbmail-mx1.orcon.net.nz: domain of nick@rout.co.nz does not designate permitted sender hosts) receiver=dbmail-mx1.orcon.net.nz; client-ip=60.234.144.216; envelope-from=; helo=sf.rout.dyndns.org; Received: from sf.rout.dyndns.org (60-234-144-216.bitstream.orcon.net.nz [60.234.144.216]) by dbmail-mx1.orcon.net.nz (8.13.2/8.13.2/Debian-1) with ESMTP id j8B6Ztld015614 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:35:55 +1200 Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage? From: Nick Rout To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org In-Reply-To: <200509102303.08309.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> References: <1126375769.5733.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200509102303.08309.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 18:33:20 +1200 Message-Id: <1126420400.11899.23.camel@sf.rout.dyndns.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.2.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV version 0.86.2, clamav-milter version 0.86 on dbmail-mx1.orcon.net.nz X-Virus-Status: Clean X-Archives-Salt: ab5dd2c8-fdff-4a1d-840e-84aa357dfb86 X-Archives-Hash: 7b252bc0db076ef4a47a0cfd8f91d264 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 -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list