Gentoo Archives: gentoo-alpha

From: Marc Giger <gigerstyle@×××.ch>
To: gentoo-alpha@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-alpha] Gentoo Alpha questions
Date: Fri, 05 Mar 2004 16:06:18
In Reply to: RE: [gentoo-alpha] Gentoo Alpha questions by "Donsbach
1 On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 10:35:34 -0500
2 "Donsbach, Jeff" <jeff.donsbach@××.com> wrote:
4 >
5 > Jean-Sebatien,
6 >
7 > I too have an XL-366 and just recently went through the Gentoo
8 > install. It was not all the difficult. If you are already running a
9 > 2.4 kernel, it will be pretty easy. That was my biggest hurdle in that
10 > I has still been running on old 2.2.19 kernel.
11 >
12 > Yes, you can custom build things for your machine type (ev56). I have
13 > already noticed that it does seem a bit snappier than before. I had
14 > been running Red Hat 6.2 (ancient I know). How I went about it is I
15 > basically installed the system stuff (/, /usr, /var ) to an unused
16 > partition. Then I followed the instructions on the gentoo site for
17 > "Installing from a running system". Basically, you start by untarring
18 > one of the "stages" (I started with Stage 1) to your new partition and
19 > then doing a "chroot" to that from the running system. Then you kick
20 > off the bootstrap process. Starting from Stage 1, I think my system
21 > ran almost all night building things. The process would probably be
22 > faster if you started from a higher stage or tried an install from the
23 > LiveCD (a new image for that was offered up last week by Jay Maynard).
24 >
25 > As for Perl performance, I haven't done enough Perl work to say
26 > whether the performance difference in using a "-mcpu ev56" build flag
27 > is noticeable or not.
29 Forget it. If you want a real performance boost with perl you should try
30 to compile it with ccc. Good luck and a lot of fun:-)
32 >
33 > Apache 2 installs without a hitch. I did have a problem building Samba
35 Hehe, yes installs without a hitch but...I had a runtime problem with
36 the db module in apache (sdbm?). It was miscompiled with optimisation
37 enabled. I know that since a long time, but it was undergone. I will
38 post a patch for that.
40 > last week though, which I haven't had time to chase down yet. I'm
41 > getting some duplicate/conflicting symbol definitions in two header
42 > files.
43 >
44 > One thing I did notice is that the "vanilla-sources" kernel source
45 > tree does not seem to obey the Portage build flags for machine type
46 > that I had set. It still built an "ev5" kernel even though I had set
47 > "-mcpu ev56" build flags for Portage. I looked at it a little bit and
48 > it looked like a few tweaks to the kernel source Makefiles would fix
49 > that problem. It may already be fixed in one of the other kernel trees
50 > (alpha-sources and/or compaq-sources for instance). I didn't look
51 > however.
53 That's totally right, because the CFLAGS in portage has nothing to do
54 with the CFLAGS in the kernel tree. So if you wish to compile with ev56
55 then you should select the right processor-variant in .config .
56 Are you sure that you have an ev56? XL-366 doesn't sound like an ev56:-)
57 but I may be wrong since I haven't looked up.
59 >
60 > I have also installed the sshd daemon and that works fine too. I have
61 > not tied fetchmail, or SpamAssassin yet. However, I "force built" Zope
62 > 2.6.4 (it was not marked to build on alpha in the Portage tree) and so
63 > far that too seems to be working too.
65 Last week I installed zope too. I will fill a bugreport so that Aron
66 mark it stable. Ok?!
68 greets
70 Marc
72 --
73 gentoo-alpha@g.o mailing list