| 1 |
On Wednesday 27 May 2015 21:09:27 Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, 27 May 2015 18:38:08 +0000 (UTC), James wrote: |
| 3 |
> > Eselect news list 2015-3-28 lists "True multilib support on amd64" |
| 4 |
> > |
| 5 |
> > For me, I run a simple profile: [1] default/linux/amd64/13.0 * |
| 6 |
> > |
| 7 |
> > Because I run lxde and have experimented with several other minimalistic |
| 8 |
> > desktops, including lxqt. Currently, I run lxde. If I emerge with the |
| 9 |
> > --deep option, I get so much breakage that 3000 lines of scrollback is |
| 10 |
> > not enough to get to the head of the problem. Many errors contain the |
| 11 |
> > common string "abi_x86_32" which is central to the aforementioned news |
| 12 |
> > item. I have read this news item many times, tried many ideas, and |
| 13 |
> > still have this phantom problem. I can delete some packages had at |
| 14 |
> > the update, hours to days, get it cleaned up to where -D works and a |
| 15 |
> > couple of emerge --syncs later the problem reappears. Global update |
| 16 |
> > without (-D) --deep are just fine. |
| 17 |
> > |
| 18 |
> > |
| 19 |
> > I have no idea if this "phantom issue" relates to yours or not. I have |
| 20 |
> > hesitated to post about it, because in a decade of gentoo usage (and |
| 21 |
> > there have been some ruff patches to say the least) I have never |
| 22 |
> > experienced a transient recurring problem like this. I think I need a |
| 23 |
> > much longer version of that news item and some cook_book syntax to |
| 24 |
> > fixing these (phantom) multilb issues on my amd64 systems that I am |
| 25 |
> > experiencing. |
| 26 |
> > |
| 27 |
> > Some simple questions:: |
| 28 |
> > |
| 29 |
> > 1. How do you test if indeed a system is multilib? |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> It is, as you are not using a no-multilib profile. |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> > 2. Can a system be change, readily, from multilib to not and then back? |
| 34 |
> |
| 35 |
> No. |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
> > 3. Is a more specific profile needed for one where you intend to |
| 38 |
> > run only a minimalist (lxqt) desktop (than what I listed above)? |
| 39 |
> |
| 40 |
> No, that is a fairly basic profile. |
| 41 |
> |
| 42 |
> > Comments and guidance are warmly appreciated. |
| 43 |
> > Peter I'm not trying to hijack your thread, but enquire as to |
| 44 |
> > commonality. |
| 45 |
> |
| 46 |
> Your problem is different but has been covered in previous threads, as |
| 47 |
> well as the news item. You could add ABI_X86="32 64" to make.conf, but |
| 48 |
> that won't fit in with your desire for minimalism. So you need to run |
| 49 |
> emerge with --autounmask-write then run etc-update or equivalent to apply |
| 50 |
> the changes to package.use. |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
Only to add that maintainers are regularly updating packages and this is why |
| 53 |
you may find that suddenly new packages require USE="abi_x86_32", when a week |
| 54 |
ago they didn't. |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
It is worth noting that one multilib box of mine has not asked me (yet) to set |
| 57 |
USE="abi_x86_32" on any of its packages, while my laptop is regularly |
| 58 |
prompting me to do so. I have concluded that the former has no packages which |
| 59 |
are using 32bit code, while the latter does (I know that at least Skype is a |
| 60 |
culprit). |
| 61 |
|
| 62 |
So in extremis you could I guess purge any 32bit coded packages from your PC |
| 63 |
and the "abi_x86_32" prompts should leave you alone. I shouldn't forget to |
| 64 |
add your usual disclaimer: "YMMV" :-) |
| 65 |
|
| 66 |
-- |
| 67 |
Regards, |
| 68 |
Mick |
Archives