Re: [gentoo-user] gcc slots

[Bruno Espinoza]

Acording to Gentoo Documentation, Portage and Emerge never delete an
existing version of gcc. If you want to do so, simply unemerge it. But be
care. You have to modifiy certain files to make emerge compile with the new
version. See http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gcc-upgrading.xml (GCC Updating
Guide) for details.

2007/1/9, Dan <dan@×××××××××.cx>:
>
> On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 23:29:15 +0000
> Mick <michaelkintzios@×××××.com> wrote:
>
> first of all, let me mention there's a short defense of top posting ...
> at the bottom ;)
>
> have you tried emerge --unmerge =gcc-3.4.5 ?  note that equal sign,
> it's usually necessary to include that when specifying a version.
>
> I also wanted to make sure you're following the gcc 3.x -> 4.x  upgrade
> guide online, because you'll need to, if you don't want a borked
> system.
>
> best of luck,
>
>   --dan.
>
> > Hi All,
> >
> > I just upgraded to gcc-4.1.1.  gcc-config -l shows that gcc-3.4.5 is
> > still there:
> >
> > # gcc-config -l
> >  [1] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.5
> >  [2] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.5-hardened
> >  [3] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.5-hardenednopie
> >  [4] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.5-hardenednopiessp
> >  [5] i686-pc-linux-gnu-3.4.5-hardenednossp
> >  [6] i686-pc-linux-gnu-4.1.1 *
> >
> > When I try to remove gcc-3.4.5, it doesn't exist:
> >
> > # emerge -C -p -v gcc-3.4.5
> >
> > >>> These are the packages that would be unmerged:
> >
> > --- Couldn't find 'gcc-3.4.5' to unmerge.
> >
> > >>> No packages selected for removal by unmerge.
> >
> > If it doesn't exist, why is it listed?  There's most likely a good
> > explanation for this, but it's getting late and I must be too tired
> > to understand it. Could you please care to explain?
>
> A defense of 'top posting' -- Caution, off topic!!!
>
> Whether the reply text goes before or after the message to which it
> replies depends entirely on personal preferance.  Some people choose to
> run their email clients at full screen and/or on a large display, and
> perhaps can see the top of the email and the bottom at the same time;
> thus they can look over the original post and then read the response.
> However, if one hasn't a big display or a fullscreen mail client (hey,
> I have lots of windows up that I want to see/switch between!) having
> responses at the end means you need to scroll way down to the bottom of
> each message to see the responses.  Usually, if you're following a
> thread closely, you'll already know the train of conversation, so all
> the response-to quotations are just in the way.  Even if you don't have
> to scroll the text at all, you still have to wade through the question
> to get to the answer.  In time, as the response-to quotations get
> longer and longer, much space is wasted by this section, and much
> scrolltime is also wasted.  Therefore, I conclude that although I
> respect the opinions of those who choose to bottom-post, and agree with
> the reasons it is nice, I also insist that there are also good reasons
> to top-post, and that I think the only real solution is for us all to
> live with each others preferences when we can't honor our own.
>
> Friendily,
>        Dan.
> --
> gentoo-user@g.o mailing list
>
>


-- 
BrunoProg64