| 1 |
On Wednesday 14 December 2005 15:27, Chris Gianelloni spammed: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > > You cannot set USE flags for your lower stages. You will need to |
| 4 |
> > > create a profile. The USE flags *must* match what is in the profile. |
| 5 |
|
| 6 |
Understood, finally. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
> Correct. Only stage4 is safe for changing USE flags. |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> No, you do what I said and make a profile. I am honestly getting a |
| 11 |
> little frustrated with having to repeat this. With a proper profile, |
| 12 |
> you can have a stage2/stage3 with nptl. It isn't possible to have a |
| 13 |
> stage1 with nptl on x86, since nptl isn't ported to i386 CHOST. Look at |
| 14 |
> default-linux/x86/dev/2006.0 as a good example, as we're using nptl by |
| 15 |
> default there. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Is stage4 ok with nptl in the USE flags? Or am I going to HAVE to go the |
| 18 |
profile route to get nptl? You can't stick nptl in the profile and expect |
| 19 |
generic x86 arch builds to work, unless the chost was changed... |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> I have no way of guaranteeing that the stages you made are good. Please |
| 22 |
> follow the instructions I sent in my last email for your builds, as |
| 23 |
> there is no way for me to verify anything other than the recommended |
| 24 |
> procedures. Use a known good stage3 tarball as a stage1 seed. At that |
| 25 |
> point, you don't need to rebuild stage1. Basically, to duplicate what |
| 26 |
> you have done you would need: stage3 -> stage1 -> stage2 -> stage3 |
| 27 |
> (remember that the stage3 *must* be generic to build a stage1) -> |
| 28 |
> stage1. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Just did, with a stage3-x86-2005.1-r1, this time with a correct subarch :) |
| 31 |
Hah hah, can't slip anything by you, can I! |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
It is still broken. I won't bother to file any more bug reports about it. |
| 34 |
You can try building a stage1-x86 from the stage3-x86 yourself if you want |
| 35 |
to verify, or you can wait for a release to break, or whatever. It keeps |
| 36 |
trying to install glibc in /tmp/stage1root, before linux-headers, and the |
| 37 |
glibc build keeps looking for those headers to be present |
| 38 |
in /tmp/stage1root. The weird thing about it is that before the actual |
| 39 |
emerge start it indicates the headers will be installed first, then |
| 40 |
proceeds to do glibc before. Maybe it is a circular dependency, I don't |
| 41 |
know. I am sick of screwing with it, I just mounted everything and |
| 42 |
installed the headers into /tmp/stage1root and resumed. Maybe it is just a |
| 43 |
bug somewhere in the snapshot from 20051205, I don't know. I give up. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
> Unfortunately, in many cases, catalyst is a "fix it yourself" |
| 46 |
> application. If it doesn't break our release-building, it is reduced in |
| 47 |
> priority, as catalyst is first and foremost our release-building tool. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Just out of curiosity, WHY is it designed to be so inflexible as far as use |
| 50 |
flags in stage2? The bootstrap.sh in stage2 strips all use flags except |
| 51 |
nls, userlocales, nptl, nptlonly, multilib I think, and runs with USE="-* |
| 52 |
build bootstrap allowed_flags", so why the restriction from using nptl and |
| 53 |
such in the stage2 via catalyst? And stage3 for that matter. I am not |
| 54 |
trying to be facetious here, I am just wondering what the reasoning behind |
| 55 |
the design is... |
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
> Patches are always welcome, however. |
| 58 |
|
| 59 |
Believe me, you wouldn't like what patches I would have in mind :) |
Archives