From: byte.size226@simplelogin.com
To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: [gentoo-user] Migrating existing Gentoo to binpkg
Date: Fri, 15 Nov 2024 12:42:31 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <173167455567.7.12220560602579978916.495919527@simplelogin.com> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2055 bytes --]
Hello,
I'm sure this has been asked before but, clearly, my archive search
skills are sub-par. I'm hoping it would be a quick "yes/no" kind of answer.
Long story short, I decided to try out the Gentoo setup with binary
package host. I've been making my way through the relevant news item [1]
and guides [2,3].
I already have "/etc/portage/binrepos.conf" and "/etc/portage/gnupg" set
up correctly - no issues there. In make.conf I also added:
FEATURES="getbinpkg binpkg-request-signature"
My only question that remains is whether I should change the existing
value for CFLAGS (I presume so). Currently, I have:
COMMON_FLAGS="-march=znver4 -O2 -pipe"
(yes CFLAGS etc are set to use $COMMON_FLAGS).
Since I'm planning to use binary packages from x86-64-v3, I presume this
should be changed to:
COMMON_FLAGS="-march=x86-64-v3 -O2 -pipe"
or, perhaps:
COMMON_FLAGS="-march=x86-64-v3 -mtune=znver4 -O2 -pipe" ?
I also have a hefty $CPU_FLA
GS_X86 (also added to $USE) from
"cpuid2cpuflags" but am not worried about this as packages that don't
fit will simply be built from source as usual.
Anyway, in both cases running my usual:
emerge -aqvND --update --keep-going --with-bdeps=y @world
doesn't yield any changes to the system. I presume because, as of now,
everything is up to date.
In contrast, adding "--rebuilt-binaries" shows a lot of binary packages
being pulled in and "--emptytree", as expected, shows a full rebuild
with a lot of binary packages being pulled in.
So, to the actual questions:
1) What would be the preferred CFLAGS configuration or, since
"-march=znver4" is a newer subset of x86-64-v3, can I simply keep the
existing one?
2) To reinstall the current source based packages with their binary
equivalent, "--rebuilt-binaries" sufficient or should I just go for
"--emptytree @world"?
Thanks,
Victor
[1] https://www.gentoo.org/news/2023/12/29/Gentoo-binary.html
[2] h
ttps://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Gentoo_Binary_Host_Quickstart
[3] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Binary_package_guide
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 249 bytes --]
next reply other threads:[~2024-11-15 12:42 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-11-15 12:42 byte.size226 [this message]
2024-11-15 14:05 ` [gentoo-user] Migrating existing Gentoo to binpkg Jacques Montier
2024-11-15 14:15 ` Matt Jolly
2024-11-15 14:52 ` byte.size226
2024-11-15 15:41 ` Eli Schwartz
2024-11-17 14:44 ` byte.size226
2024-11-18 9:21 ` Dr Rainer Woitok
2024-11-19 12:06 ` byte.size226
2024-11-15 15:36 ` Eli Schwartz
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=173167455567.7.12220560602579978916.495919527@simplelogin.com \
--to=byte.size226@simplelogin.com \
--cc=gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox