| 1 |
On 8/21/06, Stefan G. Weichinger <lists@×××××.at> wrote: |
| 2 |
> Richard Fish schrieb: |
| 3 |
> > or "emerge -e world" to complete. I would be tempted to just change |
| 4 |
> > the flags and hold off on recompiling everything until the next |
| 5 |
> > version of gcc comes out. |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> ( ... "next version" in terms of minor- or major-version?) |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Gcc version numbers are in the form of X.Y.Z, so at a change in X or |
| 10 |
Y. The .Z changes should be just bug-fixes. The sad thing is that, |
| 11 |
due to changes in the C++ library, it is commonly to recompile all C++ |
| 12 |
applications when a new version of gcc comes out. And even if it |
| 13 |
isn't strictly /necessary/, an emerge -e world is considered the safe |
| 14 |
way to handle a gcc upgrade. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
> I see the point in this. (AFAIK there is no way to break up "emerge -e |
| 17 |
> xy" into smaller pieces, something to do in several separated steps. |
| 18 |
|
| 19 |
Actually there is. You can find all packages not compiled with -Os |
| 20 |
and rebuild them with something like: |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
cd /var/db/pkg |
| 23 |
for pkg in */* ; do |
| 24 |
grep -v -- "-Os" $pkg/CFLAGS >/dev/null |
| 25 |
test $? -eq 0 && emerge --oneshot =$pkg |
| 26 |
done |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
> From your posting I conclude that it also won't do any harm to re-emerge |
| 29 |
> selected parts with new CFLAGS?) |
| 30 |
|
| 31 |
Correct. |
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
> Apart from this I have enough computer-related experience to know that I |
| 34 |
> simply should be happy with the |
| 35 |
> luks-encrypted/cpufreq'ed/hibernating/etc. gentoo-system I now have at |
| 36 |
> hand, instead of spending numerous hours to gain minimal speedups. |
| 37 |
|
| 38 |
Hrm, I also have the experience, but apparently not the good sense.... :-P |
| 39 |
|
| 40 |
-Richard |
| 41 |
-- |
| 42 |
gentoo-user@g.o mailing list |
Archives