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 1EEVW2-0001FK-Ah for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:21:18 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with SMTP id j8BHFYLE002295; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:15:34 GMT Received: from amun.rz.tu-clausthal.de (amun.rz.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.2.12]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.4/8.13.4) with ESMTP id j8BH8b1r012059 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 17:08:37 GMT Received: from amun.rz.tu-clausthal.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 384412A9359 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:12:52 +0200 (CEST) Received: from tu-clausthal.de (hathor.rz.tu-clausthal.de [139.174.2.1]) by amun.rz.tu-clausthal.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id C94F92A9325 for ; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:12:51 +0200 (CEST) Received: from energy.heim10.tu-clausthal.de ([139.174.241.94] verified) by tu-clausthal.de (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.3.6) with ESMTP id 7645537 for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:12:51 +0200 From: Volker Armin Hemmann To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Nasty bugs in portage? Date: Sun, 11 Sep 2005 19:12:51 +0200 User-Agent: KMail/1.8.2 References: <1126375769.5733.59.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200509111838.37092.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> <642958cc0509110958794615f7@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <642958cc0509110958794615f7@mail.gmail.com> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200509111912.51475.volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> X-Virus-Scanned: by PureMessage V4.7 at tu-clausthal.de X-Spam-Level: * (26%, 'BAYES_90_100 3, __CD 0, __CT 0, __CTE 0, __CTYPE_CHARSET_QUOTED 0, __CT_TEXT_PLAIN 0, __HAS_MSGID 0, __MIME_TEXT_ONLY 0, __MIME_VERSION 0, __SANE_MSGID 0, __USER_AGENT 0') X-Archives-Salt: a9867237-ace1-4475-aac8-ec1e0b617449 X-Archives-Hash: d0fbf4677999e467a0f229ccf7eaef5f 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