| 1 |
On 07/06/2013 12:39 PM, Matt Turner wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Sat, Jul 6, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Rick "Zero_Chaos" Farina |
| 3 |
> <zerochaos@g.o> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> You are misremembering that we are using preserve_libs to save our butts |
| 5 |
>> when mpc is updated and gcc is still linked to the old mpc. I feel very |
| 6 |
>> uncomfortable as the recommendation of preserve-libs is to remerge as |
| 7 |
>> soon as possible not "build a whole system like this". Is there an |
| 8 |
>> actual failure here? Not that I've seen yet, but it's an awkward way to |
| 9 |
>> build in my opinion. |
| 10 |
> |
| 11 |
> Keeping the old libs seems perfectly fine, since it's in a seed stage |
| 12 |
> that we don't care about after stage1 is complete. |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> An unnecessary build of gcc may not matter much on a relatively fast |
| 15 |
> amd64, but it's going to be a pain on a bunch of slower architectures. |
| 16 |
> And on mips/multilib it'll be even worse since we get to build the |
| 17 |
> libraries for three ABIs. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Thanks Matt, I was going to make that point. ~3 days to recompile world |
| 21 |
on the lemote yeelong. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
-- |
| 24 |
Anthony G. Basile, Ph. D. |
| 25 |
Chair of Information Technology |
| 26 |
D'Youville College |
| 27 |
Buffalo, NY 14201 |
| 28 |
(716) 829-8197 |
Archives