From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5770A138CC5 for ; Mon, 4 May 2015 15:41:07 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 34947E092A; Mon, 4 May 2015 15:40:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com (ironport2-out.teksavvy.com [206.248.154.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34CA8E090E for ; Mon, 4 May 2015 15:40:54 +0000 (UTC) X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgUFAGvvdVRFxL4T/2dsb2JhbAA3gVOhb4EIgXUBAQQBOhwoCwshExIPBSU3iACiEYt1DB4EAhAQCAICAhoDA4M+AzwWgjtjBI1Vh2GFbYhAhFg X-IPAS-Result: AgUFAGvvdVRFxL4T/2dsb2JhbAA3gVOhb4EIgXUBAQQBOhwoCwshExIPBSU3iACiEYt1DB4EAhAQCAICAhoDA4M+AzwWgjtjBI1Vh2GFbYhAhFg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.11,557,1422939600"; d="scan'208";a="118209445" Received: from 69-196-190-19.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO waltdnes.org) ([69.196.190.19]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with SMTP; 04 May 2015 11:40:52 -0400 Received: by waltdnes.org (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 04 May 2015 11:40:23 -0400 From: "Walter Dnes" Date: Mon, 4 May 2015 11:40:23 -0400 To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Difference between "normal distcc" and "distcc with pump"? Message-ID: <20150504154023.GA2599@waltdnes.org> References: <20150503011001.GA30510@waltdnes.org> <20150504035908.GA1014@waltdnes.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) X-Archives-Salt: 48457931-84c1-4b4f-b8bc-c124e539e800 X-Archives-Hash: fc71318bb2624c74c13390dcbdcfe901 On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:29:34AM -0400, Fernando Rodriguez wrote > The error on the link that you posted looks like cause by pump mode, > this one I'm not so sure. > > It looks like you're not using the cross compiler on the host as > it would not generate 64 bit code. Did you add -m32 to your CFLAGS > on the client box? Also you may need to set the custom-cflags use > flag. Can you verify that it is using the cross compiler on the host? I did a large world update this past week. If all the libs and programs were going as 64-bit code, to my 32-bit-only machine, Gentoo should be badly broken by now, to the point of being unbootable. The problem appears to be isolated to seamonkey. I'll first try adding "-m32". If that doesn't work, I'll drop the "pump" option. I'll let you know how things turn out. -- Walter Dnes I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications