| 1 |
I think I may have found at least part of the problem. I noticed that on |
| 2 |
my other gcc-3.0 profile machines, texinfo couldn't be emerged. It turns |
| 3 |
out that texinfo is masked. Texinfo is a required system package in the |
| 4 |
gcc-3.0 profile and it's masked the package.mask, which obviously is not a |
| 5 |
good thing. If I unmask texinfo my existing systems are happy, but I |
| 6 |
haven't tested it on a bootstrap yet. |
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
Brian |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
P.S. Sorry about the run-on emails. I really have to figure out why |
| 12 |
Squirrelmail is running all my paragraphs together!!!! |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> I tried the 1.3-gcc3.1 profile but ran into some problems, and now I |
| 15 |
> can't get any 3.0 profile to work! |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> I first booted from a 1.1a stage1 CD, I then downloaded an untared the |
| 18 |
> 1.3-gcc3.1 stage1, changed the CFLAGS and CXXFLAGS in make.conf to |
| 19 |
> "-march=athlon-xp -O3 -pipe", and bootstrapped. |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
> I soon realized that make.profile was pointing to the default profile |
| 22 |
> when it started building gcc-2.95.3. Since this is a 3.1 bootstrap, it |
| 23 |
> seems like the default make.profile link should be to the 3.0 profile |
| 24 |
> instead, but that wasn't a problem. I started over, remembering to |
| 25 |
> change the make.profile link, and bootstrap finished successfully. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
> There were some errors about info files (this was mentioned in a |
| 28 |
> previous email), but I didn't think much of them. Unfortunately, the |
| 29 |
> "emerge system" step failed when building e2fsprogs because it couldn't |
| 30 |
> find makeinfo. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
> While I was trying to figure out how to build makeinfo I decided to |
| 33 |
> "emerge rsync" just in case something had gotten fixed in the last |
| 34 |
> couple of hours ;-). That's when things really fell apart. After that |
| 35 |
> I couldn't get any emerges to work. I kept getting "Couldn't find |
| 36 |
> match for..." from emerge. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
> At this point I decided that something was really messed up, so decided |
| 39 |
> to start over from a more standard gcc-3.1 bootstrap that worked for me |
| 40 |
> just a day or two ago. |
| 41 |
|
| 42 |
> I have successfully bootstrapped on a similar system using a 1.1a |
| 43 |
> stage1 and the 3.0 make profile as long as I don't change the CFLAGS or |
| 44 |
> CXXFLAGS until the "emerge system" step (after the gcc 3.1 compiler has |
| 45 |
> been built). Unfortunately, this is no longer working either. |
| 46 |
> I now get the "Couldn't find match for..." error messages almost |
| 47 |
> immediately after running bootstrap.sh. The error messages start just |
| 48 |
> after portage has been emerged. Has something recently changed with |
| 49 |
> portage or the gcc 3.0 profile that could have caused this? Any idea |
| 50 |
> how I can fix this? |
| 51 |
> Brian |
| 52 |
> |
| 53 |
>> Would be cool if you could try and bootstrap again with |
| 54 |
>> -fomit-frame-pointer, and now use the 1.3-gcc3.1 tarball from ibiblio |
| 55 |
>> (http://www.ibiblio.org/gentoo/releases/build/) i just made. If it |
| 56 |
>> fails, i guess we should filter out most of the optimisations... I |
| 57 |
>> think the new gcc3.1-compiled tarball will make all the gcc3.1-users |
| 58 |
>> much happier :o) I also updated the packages file from the gcc 3.1 |
| 59 |
>> profile, and the make.defaults. Please keep us posted on any |
| 60 |
>> progress! |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> _______________________________________________ |
| 65 |
> gentoo-dev mailing list |
| 66 |
> gentoo-dev@g.o |
| 67 |
> http://lists.gentoo.org/mailman/listinfo/gentoo-dev |
Archives