| 1 |
On Sat, 11 Apr 2015 10:22:09 -0400, Alan Grimes wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> And then portage did two things. |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
> 1. It masked emul-linux -- A move that I support, it's time to see that |
| 6 |
> go. |
| 7 |
> |
| 8 |
> 2. It sent out a profile that sets variable ABI_x86 with 32 bit enabled. |
| 9 |
> ALARM: ABI_x86 should be set in exactly one place: |
| 10 |
> /etc/portage/make.conf and nowhere else. But, nevertheless, ABI_x86 WAS |
| 11 |
> set which broke the profile because my system cannot compile 32 bit |
| 12 |
> executables. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
That seems odd, I use several 64 bit profiles here and all of them have |
| 15 |
ABI_X86="64" |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
> Right now my system is completely unusable and will need fresh stage3 |
| 18 |
> packages followed by an emerge emptytree to recover. But before I can do |
| 19 |
> that, I need a sane profile |
| 20 |
|
| 21 |
Can't you just set ABI_X86="64 -32" in make.conf? |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
> and to know that the person who pushed out |
| 24 |
> the changes to portage, obviously without any testing whatsoever, that |
| 25 |
> broke my system so comprehensively is tortured, executed, butchered, and |
| 26 |
> then cremated. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
That's quite lenient, you could have left the execution until |
| 29 |
last :) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
-- |
| 33 |
Neil Bothwick |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
Top Oxymorons Number 7: Definite maybe |
Archives