| 1 |
Patrick Börjesson wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
>>Oh, and despite what Patrick said, I think you were right to post here |
| 4 |
>>first-- no need to clog up b.g.o with what might be a configuration |
| 5 |
>>problem and waste developer's time closing an invalid bug. |
| 6 |
>> |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
>I really don't see how this could be a configuration problem, since it |
| 10 |
>would have complained about an erroneous compilation flag if it was the |
| 11 |
>k8 thing that was at fault... And missing files (which the compilation |
| 12 |
>error points at) sounds pretty much like a valid bug to me... |
| 13 |
> |
| 14 |
> |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Errors building packages are *frequently* configuration problems. |
| 18 |
Anybody who has followed this list for at least a month knows that. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Thus, this is a perfectly valid forum to get feedback on an issue before |
| 21 |
filing a new bug report on b.g.o. Bug reports that are not really bugs |
| 22 |
just waste valuable developer time. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
That said, I do agree that this looks like an AMD64 specific bug. |
| 25 |
|
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
>>I think it's always wise to try to make sure that it really is a bug |
| 28 |
>>before posting it. |
| 29 |
>> |
| 30 |
>> |
| 31 |
> |
| 32 |
>Of course, but looking at the ordinary response from developers to these |
| 33 |
>kind of emails, I'd guess that b.g.o is where they want the report, not |
| 34 |
>here... |
| 35 |
> |
| 36 |
> |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
"Here" being gentoo-user, there are not a lot of developer responses |
| 39 |
here. On gentoo-dev, you are correct, the standard response is "file on |
| 40 |
b.g.o." But I still maintain that it is better to ask here (or on the |
| 41 |
forums, or on #gentoo) first. |
| 42 |
|
| 43 |
>>And it seems to me that if there is a bug, it might be a *documentation* |
| 44 |
>>bug (because the other person who mentioned using march=k8 said that |
| 45 |
>>that was the recommendation of the docs, but that seems to no longer be |
| 46 |
>>the case, if people using this flag are regularly receiving compilation |
| 47 |
>>errors). |
| 48 |
>> |
| 49 |
>> |
| 50 |
> |
| 51 |
>Documentation bug? Not recommended by the docs any more? |
| 52 |
>You might want to actually try to find information about the subjects |
| 53 |
>you respond to. |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
>Straight out of the AMD64 Gentoo Handbook: |
| 56 |
>"AMD64 users who want to use a native 64 bit system should use |
| 57 |
>-march=k8" |
| 58 |
>Combining that cite with the information from the gcc info page, I'm |
| 59 |
>pretty sure it's not a "documentation bug". |
| 60 |
> |
| 61 |
> |
| 62 |
> |
| 63 |
|
| 64 |
Hold on...the -march thing would be an easy mistake to make for those of |
| 65 |
us who don't run AMD processors, and are just trying to help. Afterall, |
| 66 |
the platform keyword is "amd64". And gcc info says that k8, opteron, |
| 67 |
athlon64, and athlon-fx are all equivalent, although I would suggest |
| 68 |
that the non-k8 options are more descriptive. |
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
-Richard |
| 71 |
|
| 72 |
-- |
| 73 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives