| 1 |
> > > Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 2 |
|
| 3 |
> > > > After an emerge -e <at> world, a reboot is probably best, another |
| 4 |
> > > > reason to avoid the unnecessary step of emerge -e <at> world in |
| 5 |
> > > > the first place. |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
|
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> > This conflict what others have said. Curious. My take is that since |
| 10 |
> > I updated the major compiler, gcc, it warrants an --emptytree rebuild |
| 11 |
> > and reboot, just to be safe. |
| 12 |
|
| 13 |
> Why? The compiler is not used by running software. If there was an ABI |
| 14 |
> change meaning that mixing programs compiled with the two versions would |
| 15 |
> cause problem, emerge -e would be prudent, but that hasn't happened for a |
| 16 |
> long time. You don't dismantle and reassenble your car just because you |
| 17 |
> bought a new set of spanners... |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Re: [gentoo-dev] more help needed with gcc-4.8 stabilization |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
It's a long thread, and not the ony one that hints at issues |
| 23 |
of installing 4.8.x and still having 4.7.3 set as the default. |
| 24 |
"webkit-gtk" was one that took me a few tries to get to compile |
| 25 |
completely. ymmv. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Obviously many things have been resolved that are listed in the thread. |
| 28 |
" have you considered to stabilize gcc:4.9 instead possibly 4.9.2 ? |
| 29 |
I'm not really suggesting to do so, but seem that most of the problems |
| 30 |
of 4.9.1 are the same of 4.8.3 so maybe it's worth considering. " |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
that said 4.8.3 is marked stable by the devs, but a large part of that |
| 33 |
is 4.9.x is needed by some "key" codes coming down the pipe. No, I did |
| 34 |
not write thus down, just made myself a mental note up upgrade everything |
| 35 |
to 4.8.3 in preparation for 4.9.x. (Chrome is on, I think). |
| 36 |
|
| 37 |
> > > After I do a major upgrade or --emptytree, I switch to boot runlevel, |
| 38 |
> > > check with checkrestart and restart whatever it reports needs it. |
| 39 |
> > > Generally, switching to boot runlevel catches most everything. |
| 40 |
> > |
| 41 |
> > OK, so I emerge checkrestart and ran it. And there are almost a dozen |
| 42 |
> > things it says need a reboot (mostly lxde). "These processes do not |
| 43 |
> > seem to have an associated init script to restart them". |
| 44 |
> > |
| 45 |
> > So I have to reboot anyways. |
| 46 |
> |
| 47 |
> No, simply log out of the desktop and back in. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
Um, Tomas's little one-liner: |
| 50 |
lsof -n | grep 'DEL.*lib' |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
revealed far to much to deal with. I got lib issues coming out of my arse |
| 53 |
(I've been hacking at a few things I do not fully understand |
| 54 |
(wink wink :: nudge nudge) ? |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
|
| 57 |
> Bear in mind that some of what checkrestart reports is unimportant |
| 58 |
> anyway. Just because a process is using a slightly older in-memory |
| 59 |
> version of a library doesn't mean it is suddenly going to stop working. I |
| 60 |
> have services that have been flagged by checkrestart for weeks that are |
| 61 |
> still fine, I just don't want to stop and restart them. |
| 62 |
|
| 63 |
Granted. My need to reboot is because I've been noodling around with |
| 64 |
many many things. My current desktop: lxde is crippled and deprecated. |
| 65 |
Lx1t-0.8.0 is in the tree now, but masked waiting on another package |
| 66 |
or 2 to be tweaked. |
| 67 |
|
| 68 |
|
| 69 |
|
| 70 |
> Yes, things may be a little different with 4.9, but the last time a |
| 71 |
> rebuild was really required was,AFAIR, somewhere around 3.3. |
| 72 |
|
| 73 |
|
| 74 |
OK, so I reboot workstations more often than you. I hope that does |
| 75 |
not upset you? Yes, I've kept workstations online for over a year more |
| 76 |
times that I can count (fingers and toes). And when the reboot comes, It's a |
| 77 |
day or 2 fixing things, imho. YMMV. A judicious reboot now and again, timed |
| 78 |
well, is keenly a good idea, imho. ymmv. Besides I'm an old FT via |
| 79 |
redundancy, kind of guy; aka I *always* have spare systems, ready to go. |
| 80 |
|
| 81 |
|
| 82 |
On the server side. When I have to be "responsible" for servers others |
| 83 |
use, I *always* have duplicated hot spares, or I don't do it. I'm not |
| 84 |
saying that other should/have to do what I do. I'm very lazy and only |
| 85 |
get lucky when it counts. No I'm too forgetful to be considered smart |
| 86 |
anymore. So, I use spare hardwares, boot them up and away I go! I live |
| 87 |
in Florida; so the power failures can "jump" UPS's, ethernet cables and |
| 88 |
all sorts of strange issues, not just admin issues dictace FT via |
| 89 |
redundancy for me. I may just move my shop onto a sail boat, so then |
| 90 |
I'd have metal_chloride issuse to deal with...... |
| 91 |
|
| 92 |
|
| 93 |
So, via hardware redudancy, as thecomplete system level, I can |
| 94 |
diagnose failures at my liesure, sipping coffee, wine |
| 95 |
or a beverage that would make Alan crazy (quite a few of these....). |
| 96 |
|
| 97 |
I deeply appreciate your concerns over the admin skills of an old_fart.... |
| 98 |
RFC 5798. |
| 99 |
|
| 100 |
cheers? |
| 101 |
James |
Archives