| 1 |
On Monday 25 September 2006 19:16, Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> If you trust me not to pull some weird trick (I wouldn't, but hey, for |
| 4 |
> all you know I'm just some guy on a list, do you know me well enough to |
| 5 |
> trust? I'm not sure I'd trust a guy on the list in your spot, maybe |
| 6 |
> depends on how desperate I was), I have binpkgs of the following gcc |
| 7 |
> versions I could mail you: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Thanks anyway, Duncan, but I'm back to a stable 3.4.4 system now. I had to |
| 10 |
re-solve a problem with gnutls and I had to re-compile the kernel, but for |
| 11 |
the moment everything's looking solid. I probably ought to leave the GCC |
| 12 |
upgrade now until I come back from my honeymoon. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> That does explain why your eselect-compiler could say 4.1.1 yet you were |
| 15 |
> having problems as if it was 3.4.x. If 3.4.x was the only one on your |
| 16 |
> system... |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
But 4.1.1 did exist as well - it must have to compile the kernel with |
| 19 |
modules that had 4.1.1-magic. I don't know why the emerge process couldn't |
| 20 |
find it, but I'm sure it was there, or had been at some stage. (After |
| 21 |
restoring my backup with its 3.4.4 kernel modules, the 4.1.1 kernel in |
| 22 |
my /boot partition couldn't load those modules at boot time, so I had to |
| 23 |
boot an older system and recompile the kernel with 3.4.4 GCC. Soon done, |
| 24 |
but it confirms the presence of gcc-4.1.1.) |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
-- |
| 27 |
Rgds |
| 28 |
Peter |
| 29 |
-- |
| 30 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives