From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Oo5Od-0002U1-HC for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:07:23 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 07D71E0999; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:06:41 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA8A7E0998 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:06:40 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8BC2C1B40A6 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:06:40 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -2.91 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.91 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-0.311, BAYES_00=-2.599] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id igPqSaDgb0fS for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:06:34 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01B0F1B4025 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 02:06:31 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Oo5Nl-0000Cb-Ib for gentoo-user@gentoo.org; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 04:06:29 +0200 Received: from adsl-69-234-183-226.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net ([69.234.183.226]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 04:06:29 +0200 Received: from w41ter by adsl-69-234-183-226.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Wed, 25 Aug 2010 04:06:29 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: walt Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Bug 291488, Binutils. Workaround? Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 19:06:25 -0700 Message-ID: References: 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=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: adsl-69-234-183-226.dsl.irvnca.pacbell.net User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686; rv:2.0b5pre) Gecko/20100824 Shredder/3.2a1pre In-Reply-To: X-Archives-Salt: 4c21f72f-c6fb-4f1e-99eb-941e549dbadc X-Archives-Hash: cb5023d8c27066dfc19e4ba4bad24b95 On 08/24/2010 12:23 PM, Al wrote: > OK, this is a Prefix related bug, but I don't want to bother the small > team, with every question of a gentoo beginner. > > http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=291488 > > Binutils tries to build a 64 bit module on a 32 bit machine: archive64 > something... That bug seems to concern mostly Solaris and mostly on SPARC, if I read it correctly. Is that your situation? Anyway, the word "profile" in gentoo usually refers to a symlink in /etc pointing to a subdirectory in /usr/portage/profiles/*, like this: $ls -l /etc/make.profile lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 52 2009-10-23 17:34 /etc/make.profile -> /usr/portage/profiles/default/linux/x86/10.0/desktop Now, *my* profile (linux/x86) is a long way from Solaris/SPARC, so YMMV. Have a look at /usr/portage/profiles/profiles.desc and see if any of the entries seem to fit your situation. Using 64-bit LDFLAGS (/etc/make.conf) on a 32-bit machine seems like a fundamental error that should never occur if you are using the right installation medium (CD?DVD) for your hardware. I think more info from you will be needed, but ATM I don't know the right questions to ask you. Anyone else?