View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
intenso Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 27 Aug 2004 Posts: 89 Location: Germany, Bavaria
|
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 5:12 pm Post subject: Using 2005.0 profile right from the beginning |
|
|
Hi!
I'm about to install Gentoo on my new amd64 box using this guide https://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-t-189250-highlight-method.html
Since I would like to have an 'uptodate' system I decided to use the 2005.0 profile right from the beginning. So, when do I have to run the commands described in the update guide when I am using the install method above?
Looking forward to responses,
intenso |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gcrew Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 Posts: 82 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
|
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's a rather intense guide. It's very similar to the Gentoo Handbook, but adds a few extra steps.
I'm not sure if you realize that Gentoo releases are not like most distribution releases because you can upgrade to the most uptodate "release" with just a couple commands. Check out this link for a quick explanation.
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/faq.xml#upgrade
My understanding of the 2005.0 release is that it adds a whole bunch of graphical utilities to do some of the steps that always had to be done by hand. The previous release installation CDs always probed for modules then just brought you to a prompt where you would type all the commands from that guide above. You can actually install Gentoo using any CD or existing installation. (Just make sure you're using a 64 bit kernel.) I set up my AMD64 server just a couple weeks ago by using a RedHat install CD. (I accidentally downloaded the 32 bit Gentoo CD instead of the 64 bit.)
I haven't seen the new CD, but my guess is it brings you to a Graphical frontend to install everything. This probably makes it easier for newbies, but I'm sure you can still do everything by hand by just getting to a prompt.
Hope that helps.
Geoff |
|
Back to top |
|
|
andrew_j_w Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2003 Posts: 534 Location: York, UK
|
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
gcrew wrote: | My understanding of the 2005.0 release is that it adds a whole bunch of graphical utilities to do some of the steps that always had to be done by hand. |
The 2005.0 profile for AMD64 users actually is a major upgrade, there is a big reorganisation for how the 32-bit emulation libraries are handled. In regards to the OP's question, I'm afraid I don't know. I would have though that if you make sure your profile symlink is pointing to the 2005.0 profile before you start the bootstrap.sh script that would be enough, I'm still running 2004.3 here though so I don't know for sure.
HTH,
Andrew |
|
Back to top |
|
|
intenso Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 27 Aug 2004 Posts: 89 Location: Germany, Bavaria
|
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi!
gcrew wrote: | That's a rather intense guide. It's very similar to the Gentoo Handbook, but adds a few extra steps.
I'm not sure if you realize that Gentoo releases are not like most distribution releases because you can upgrade to the most uptodate "release" with just a couple commands. Check out this link for a quick explanation.
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/faq.xml#upgrade
|
Yes, I know, it's not the first installation of Gentoo I am doing, but since there are quite a few changes in the new 2005.0 profile (multilib, gcc, etc.) I thought it would be easier to use it straight from the beginning without having to change from 2004.3. to 2005.0 afterwards.
Quote: |
I haven't seen the new CD, but my guess is it brings you to a Graphical frontend to install everything. This probably makes it easier for newbies, but I'm sure you can still do everything by hand by just getting to a prompt.
|
It's no wonder that you haven't seen it yet - the 2005.0 LiveCD is not published so far and in fact, I am not talking about the LiveCD, but about the profile
Cu, intenso |
|
Back to top |
|
|
gcrew Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 22 Feb 2005 Posts: 82 Location: Poughkeepsie, NY
|
Posted: Mon Feb 28, 2005 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
(And the teacher becomes the student...)
I guess I made a couple wrong assumptions.
Is there a 2005.0 profile page I can check out to see if there's something I should do? The documentation I see doesn't mention 2005.0, but it seems you know something I don't know.
Geoff |
|
Back to top |
|
|
herbie Guru
Joined: 09 Oct 2002 Posts: 319 Location: London UK
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
VValdo Guru
Joined: 08 Jan 2005 Posts: 395
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
herbie wrote: | http://amd64.gentoo.org/2005.0-upgrade-amd64.xml |
So I've seen this page for about a month now. As someone new to Gentoo, will this page one day go into "it's released" mode and we'll then have to follow the instructions? Or will a regular ole emerge sync/update take us up to 2005.0? Or is there some other upgrade mechanism for when 2005.0 is greenlit as a full-on release?
Also, is there a target release date for 2005.0 or is it kind of a "when it's done" sort of thing?
I haven't gone through the major 200x.y profile upgrade changes before, so if someone could kind of detail how it will proceed, I'm sure I'm not the only one interested...
W |
|
Back to top |
|
|
ShadowHawkBV Guru
Joined: 27 Mar 2004 Posts: 352
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
If it's like the 1.4 to 200*-1 upgrade, it will require a bit of manual labour to accomplish. It's not a "normal" upgrade like going from 2004-2 to 2004-3 was. However it's far from being as difficult as upgrading from Win 98 to Win XP. Or even upgrading from SuSE8.2 to SuSE 9.1.
Then again, I could be totally wrong, and one of the wonderful developers could create a script that flawlessly and effortlessly does it via a simple emerge -uDv world. _________________ This space for rent... Well maybe to give away.. Heck.. i'll pay you to take it.
Lost Linux Neophyte
Intel i7-1065G7
Intel i7-8565U
Intel Atom Cherry Trail
AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955
Pure 64bit frustration |
|
Back to top |
|
|
andrewd18 Guru
Joined: 11 Apr 2004 Posts: 364 Location: Wisconsin, USA
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is 2005.0 "stable" yet? I mean, I heard some people were havin' probs with AMD64, and moving from 2004.3 to 2005.0. Would I be able to do it without any major stability issues?
~~ Andrew D.
linuxnoob@wi.rr.com _________________ Keep Your Toolchain Stable! - emwrap.sh
There's no place like ::1 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
intenso Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 27 Aug 2004 Posts: 89 Location: Germany, Bavaria
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi!
andrewd18 wrote: | Is 2005.0 "stable" yet? I mean, I heard some people were havin' probs with AMD64, and moving from 2004.3 to 2005.0. Would I be able to do it without any major stability issues?
|
Well, I don't know for sure but quite a lot of updated without having any major problems. Moreover by using amd64 you should be used to use masked software, so just give it a try
But to go back to the former question: Does anybody know to use the 2005.0 profile right from the beginning, i.e. if you want to install a completely new system or is it easier to change afterwards?
I would really be pleased if somebody could tell me - I want to install Gentoo on my new amd64 box
Regards,
intenso |
|
Back to top |
|
|
zigzag2 n00b
Joined: 16 Nov 2004 Posts: 16 Location: No(r)way
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pajarico Guru
Joined: 01 May 2004 Posts: 493 Location: Madrid, España.
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's not stable, but i have just upgraded and everything seems to work just fine.
Something i don't understand is that 2005.0 should change (among other things) the place for the libs and emul libraries. Those changes are oriented AFAIK to compile 32 bit binaries on demand, right?
But how do i force to compile in 32 bits?
_________________ Gentoo: the only software worth paying that is free. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
herbie Guru
Joined: 09 Oct 2002 Posts: 319 Location: London UK
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Pajarico wrote: | Something i don't understand is that 2005.0 should change (among other things) the place for the libs and emul libraries. Those changes are oriented AFAIK to compile 32 bit binaries on demand, right? |
I think thats the long term plan yes. For now only 32bit glibc is compiled natively all other libs are still provided by the emul-linux-x86-* packages. /lib32 and /usr/lib32 now contain your natively compiled 32bit libs whilst your binary emul-linux-x86-* packages install libs in /emul/linux/x86/lib (under 2004.* /usr/lib32 was a symlink to /emul/linux/x86/lib). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pajarico Guru
Joined: 01 May 2004 Posts: 493 Location: Madrid, España.
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, that clears some doubts. But even when 2005* is ready how will i tell gcc to build in 32 bit? Like a 32 bit wine or 32 bit mplayer (for windows codecs)?
_________________ Gentoo: the only software worth paying that is free. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
herbie Guru
Joined: 09 Oct 2002 Posts: 319 Location: London UK
|
Posted: Tue Mar 01, 2005 4:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The gcc flag you need is -m32. To do it with portage, ebuilds will have to be written specifically. The trick is to set ABI="x86" in the ebuild and portage handles the rest. See the grub ebuild as an example or bug 82758 for an example of a wine ebuild that compiles 32bit wine using multilib (only works with 2005.0 profile). |
|
Back to top |
|
|
VValdo Guru
Joined: 08 Jan 2005 Posts: 395
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
intenso wrote: | Moreover by using amd64 you should be used to use masked software, so just give it a try |
Believe it or not, I'm using AMD64 stable primarily. Some stuff is ~amd64, but for the most part i've been pretty conservative.
That said, I've done some informal polling on irc and you're right, most people just run unstable. Is this really safe, fairly safe, or kinda risky? Anyone wanna share their experiences over "amd64" vs "~amd64" (btw-- yes this is totally offtopic, so if a new thread is warrented, I'll repost this under a fresh topic)?
W |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shuiend n00b
Joined: 31 Oct 2004 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
Does anyone have a link to where I could get a stage tarball that uses the 2005.0 portage tree? All the mirrors have a folder for it but no ne have the stages which I need. I plan on doing a straight install using 2005.0 because my 2004.3 had alot of problems and I could not just upgrade to the 2005.0 profile. I allready formatted my linux partition and that has messed up grub so all I have to use on this comp is my nice minimal live cd. Links makes this whole forum experince very interesting. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Shapemaker n00b
Joined: 22 Aug 2004 Posts: 64 Location: Finland
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
shuiend wrote: | Does anyone have a link to where I could get a stage tarball that uses the 2005.0 portage tree? All the mirrors have a folder for it but no ne have the stages which I need. I plan on doing a straight install using 2005.0 because my 2004.3 had alot of problems and I could not just upgrade to the 2005.0 profile. I allready formatted my linux partition and that has messed up grub so all I have to use on this comp is my nice minimal live cd. Links makes this whole forum experince very interesting. |
Be thankful that you can browse and post here with the LiveCD
I would want to see someone do the same with Windows install CD
Seriously, I'm doing a new install myself currently. Firstly I opted for doing it with the 2004.3 amd64 LiveCD, but had to finally do the base install in a chroot environment inside SuSE 9.2 Pro, since the LiveCD would not enable my BroadCom Tigon3 -based motherboard nic whatever I did. Now I am happily booted in the new install and compiling stuff. _________________ "Intellectual Property" should be an affront to anyone capable of independent thought. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jean-michel Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 30 May 2002 Posts: 142 Location: Somewhere East of the Atlantic
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 12:31 pm Post subject: so far I'm chocking on the gcc build |
|
|
Well, I've been trying to do a 2005.0 stage1 install off of a 2004.3 stage1 tarball (since no 2005.0 stage1 seems to exist for amd64, not even an experimental one). What I've tried thus far is
Code: |
rm /etc/make.profile
ln -s /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/amd64/2005.0 /etc/make.profile
emerge -v --oneshot '>=emul-linux-x86-glibc-2.3.4.20041102'
rm /lib32 /usr/lib32
mkdir /lib32 /usr/lib32
cp /emul/linux/x86/lib32/libsandbox.so /lib32
cp /emul/linux/x86/usr/lib32/libc.so /usr/lib32
cp /emul/linux/x86/usr/lib32/libpthread.so /usr/lib32
cp /emul/linux/x86/usr/lib32/*crt*.o /usr/lib32
env-update
emerge -v --oneshot baselayout
|
modifying bootstrap.sh to >=use linux-headers-2.6.0 rather than >=linux26-headers-2.6.0 and unmasking linux-headers-2.6.8.1-r4, then running
Code: |
bootstrap.sh
emerge unmerge emul-linux-x86-glibc
emerge system
|
and continue on with a normal stage1 install.
It doesn't work. gcc won't build, and in fact dies unable to find /lib32/libc.so.6. It appears that, at present, there is no way to do a clean 2005.0 install without a pre-existing 2005.0 stage1 tarball. This is in contrast to 2004.3, which can be built from a 2004.2 stage1 tarball.
I suppose one might try running bootstrap.sh against the 2004.3 profile and seeing if the necessary files are created in /lib32 before "rebootstrapping" against the 2005.0 profile, but I'm not sure that would work either. Hopefully one of the devs will step forward with a step-by-step method for bootstrapping a 2005.0 system from a 2003.4 stage1 tarball with a minimum of fuss ... probably involving a stage1 2004.3 build through "emerge system" before switching profiles. That is what I'm going to try next. _________________ The Struggle for the Future of Human Evolution Begins: Autonomy the SciFi Series! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Pajarico Guru
Joined: 01 May 2004 Posts: 493 Location: Madrid, España.
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 1:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: | It doesn't work. gcc won't build, and in fact dies unable to find /lib32/libc.so.6. |
That's because in 2005.0 the location of 32 bit compatibility libraries has changed. Maybe you can emerge gcc disabling the 32 bit stuff (i don't know if it can be done).
_________________ Gentoo: the only software worth paying that is free. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
intenso Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 27 Aug 2004 Posts: 89 Location: Germany, Bavaria
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:12 pm Post subject: Re: so far I'm chocking on the gcc build |
|
|
Hi!
jean-michel wrote: |
I suppose one might try running bootstrap.sh against the 2004.3 profile and seeing if the necessary files are created in /lib32 before "rebootstrapping" against the 2005.0 profile, but I'm not sure that would work either. Hopefully one of the devs will step forward with a step-by-step method for bootstrapping a 2005.0 system from a 2003.4 stage1 tarball with a minimum of fuss ... probably involving a stage1 2004.3 build through "emerge system" before switching profiles. That is what I'm going to try next. |
Thanks for your constructive post! You have saved me a lot of time and worries Well, since there is no possibility to use the 2005.0 profile right from the beginning so far, I think I will have to wait for the release of 2005.0.
Does anybody know when this will be? I didn't read anything about it the last GWNs...
Bye, intenso |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jean-michel Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 30 May 2002 Posts: 142 Location: Somewhere East of the Atlantic
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:22 pm Post subject: update: bootstrapping a 2005.0 system worked! |
|
|
OK, my system is still building, but it looks like it's working and is far enough along I think it is safe to post this. Here is what I did to bootstrap a stage1 2005.0 profile from a 2004.3 stage1 tarball (x86_64, multilib, udev, NPTL system):
1. do the usual install per the Gentoo handbook, up through untarring the stage1 tarball and entering the chrooted environment.
2. emerge sync
3. configure /etc/make.conf per the "upgrade from 2004.3 to 2005.0" instructions. Here is my 'emerge info' as a reference to something that worked (I use local mirrors, but they are up to date with the main portage tree as of 3/1/2005).
Code: | Portage 2.0.51-r15 (default-linux/amd64/2005.0, gcc-3.4.3-20050110, glibc-2.3.4.20050125-r0, 2.6.10-gentoo-r7 x86_64)
=================================================================
System uname: 2.6.10-gentoo-r7 x86_64 AMD Opteron(tm) Processor 246
Gentoo Base System version 1.4.16
Python: dev-lang/python-2.3.4-r1 [2.3.4 (#1, Mar 2 2005, 16:46:00)]
distcc 2.18.3 x86_64-pc-linux-gnu (protocols 1 and 2) (default port 3632) [disabled]
dev-lang/python: 2.3.4-r1
sys-devel/autoconf: 2.13, 2.59-r6
sys-devel/automake: 1.5, 1.9.4, 1.6.3, 1.7.9-r1, 1.4_p6, 1.8.5-r3
sys-devel/binutils: 2.15.92.0.2-r1
sys-devel/libtool: 1.5.10-r4
virtual/os-headers: 2.6.8.1-r4
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="2005-spring amd64"
AUTOCLEAN="yes"
CFLAGS="-O2 -march=opteron -pipe -fweb -frename-registers -ftracer"
CHOST="x86_64-pc-linux-gnu"
CONFIG_PROTECT="/etc /usr/kde/2/share/config /usr/kde/3.3/env /usr/kde/3.3/share/config /usr/kde/3.3/shutdown /usr/kde/3/share/config /usr/lib/X11/xkb /usr/lib/mozilla/defaults/pref /usr/share/config /var/qmail/control"
CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK="/etc/gconf /etc/terminfo /etc/env.d"
CXXFLAGS="-O2 -march=opteron -pipe -fweb -frename-registers -ftracer"
DISTDIR="/usr/portage/distfiles"
FEATURES="autoaddcvs autoconfig ccache distlocks notitles sandbox"
GENTOO_MIRRORS="http://10.3.0.12/gentoo http://gentoo.oregonstate.edu/ http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/distributions/gentoo"
MAKEOPTS="-j2"
PKGDIR="/usr/portage/packages"
PORTAGE_TMPDIR="/var/tmp"
PORTDIR="/usr/portage"
SYNC="rsync://10.3.0.12/2005-spring-mar"
USE="amd64 X aalib acpi alsa apache2 arts avi berkdb bindist bitmap-fonts blender-game cjk crypt cups dga dv dvd dvdr encode esd exif f77 fam fortran freetds gif gphoto2 gpm graphviz gtk imap imlib innodb insecure-drivers ipv6 jabber java jp2 jpeg kde lcms libg++ lzw lzw-tiff mikmod mime mng mozilla mozirc mpeg ncursesnetwork nls nptl odbc oggvorbis ooo-kde opengl oss pam pda pdflib perl png povray python quicktime radeon readline sdl slp spell ssl tcltk tcpd theora tiff truetype truetype-fonts type1-fonts usb userlocales xinerama xml xml2 xmms xpm xrandr xv xvid zlib video_cards_radeon"
Unset: ASFLAGS, CBUILD, CTARGET, LANG, LC_ALL, LDFLAGS, PORTDIR_OVERLAY |
4. Preemptively fix any compiler configuration issues (this may not be necessary, but it has been needed in the past):
Code: | gcc-config -l
gcc-config 2
env-update
source /etc/profile
gcc-config 1
env-update
source /etc/profile
|
5. modify bootstrap.sh ("../testing/scripts/bootstrap.sh" is old, "scripts/bootstrap.sh" is the modified 2005.0 version you want, so this patch IS correct even if the filenames appear deceptive)
Code: | --- ../testing/scripts/bootstrap.sh 2005-02-03 13:13:21.000000000 -0600
+++ scripts/bootstrap.sh 2005-03-01 15:51:58.000000000 -0600
@@ -186,17 +186,17 @@
case "${opt}" in
nls) myGETTEXT="gettext";;
nptl)
- if [[ -z $(portageq best_visible / '>=sys-kernel/linux26-headers-2.6.0') ]] ; then
- eerror "You need to have >=sys-kernel/linux26-headers-2.6.0 unmasked!"
- eerror "Please edit the latest >=sys-kernel/linux26-headers-2.6.0 package,"
+ if [[ -z $(portageq best_visible / '>=sys-kernel/linux-headers-2.6.0') ]] ; then
+ eerror "You need to have >=sys-kernel/linux-headers-2.6.0 unmasked!"
+ eerror "Please edit the latest >=sys-kernel/linux-headers-2.6.0 package,"
eerror "and add your ARCH to KEYWORDS."
echo
cleanup 1
fi
- if [[ -n $(portageq best_version / sys-kernel/linux-headers) ]] ; then
- emerge -C sys-kernel/linux-headers
- emerge --nodeps --oneshot sys-kernel/linux26-headers
- fi
+# if [[ -n $(portageq best_version / sys-kernel/linux-headers) ]] ; then
+# emerge -C sys-kernel/linux-headers
+# emerge --nodeps --oneshot sys-kernel/linux26-headers
+# fi
USE_NPTL=1
;;
esac
@@ -225,7 +225,7 @@
# Do we really have no 2.4.x nptl kernels in portage?
if [[ ${USE_NPTL} = "1" ]] ; then
- myOS_HEADERS="$(portageq best_visible / '>=sys-kernel/linux26-headers-2.6.0')"
+ myOS_HEADERS="$(portageq best_visible / '>=sys-kernel/linux-headers-2.6.0')"
[[ -n ${myOS_HEADERS} ]] && myOS_HEADERS=">=${myOS_HEADERS}"
fi
[[ -z ${myOS_HEADERS} ]] && myOS_HEADERS="virtual/os-headers"
|
6. unmask linux-headers-2.6.8.1.-r4
Code: | echo "sys-kernel/linux-headers" >> /etc/portage/package.unmask
echo "sys-kernel/linux-headers" >> /etc/portage/package.keywords
|
7. bootstrap a stage3 system
Code: | emerge --oneshot --nodeps gcc-config
emerge -C linux-headers
emerge linux-headers
emerge --oneshot --nodeps gcc-config ## second pass
emerge --oneshot '>=emul-linux-x86-glibc-2.3.4.20041102'
/usr/portage/scripts/bootstrap.sh
|
8. install 2004.3 system
9. now essentially follow the manual "upgrade" process to go from a 2004.3 to 2005.0 system (we've already taken care of gcc-config):
Code: | emerge --oneshot '>=sys-apps/portage-2.0.51-r9'
emerge --oneshot '>=sys-devel/distcc-2.18.3-r1'
emerge -C linux26-headers ## just in case
emerge --oneshot '>=linux-headers-2.6.8.1-r4' ## just in case
emerge --oneshot '>=emul-linux-x86-glibc-2.3.4.20041102'
rm /lib32 /usr/lib32
mkdir /lib32 /usr/lib32
cp /emul/linux/x86/lib32/libsandbox.so /lib32
cp /emul/linux/x86/usr/lib32/libc.so /usr/lib32
cp /emul/linux/x86/usr/lib32/libpthread.so /usr/lib32
cp /emul/linux/x86/usr/lib32/*crt*.o /usr/lib32
env-update
source /etc/profile
emerge baselayout
rm /etc/make.profile
ln -s /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/amd64/2005.0 /etc/make.profile
emerge --oneshot '>=sys-libs/glibc-2.3.4.20041102'
emerge -C emul-linux-x86-glibc
emerge -uv system
|
10. continue installation per the handbook once again (installing static-grub, sshd, logger, cron daemon, mailer, xorg-x11, kde, etc.). I am currently well into this step, having installed xorg-x11 and compiling assorted GUI apps as I type this.
Best of luck!
Jean. _________________ The Struggle for the Future of Human Evolution Begins: Autonomy the SciFi Series!
Last edited by jean-michel on Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:57 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
Back to top |
|
|
nianderson Guru
Joined: 06 May 2003 Posts: 369 Location: Lawrence, KS
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
great thanks for posting that i was just planning on waiting for 2005.0 to release. now i might as well give it a shot |
|
Back to top |
|
|
jean-michel Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 30 May 2002 Posts: 142 Location: Somewhere East of the Atlantic
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:03 pm Post subject: caveate |
|
|
NOTE that the AMD64 USE flag and ACCEPT_KEYWORDS is added by portage and shouldn't be in your /etc/make.conf. Also note that 2005-spring refers to an internal release of some in-house software, so your ACCEPT_KEYWORDS should remain commented out or set to "amd64."
My versions of the core toolchain are as follows:
Code: | sys-kernel/linux-headers-2.6.8.1-r4
sys-apps/baselayout-1.9.4-r7
sys-devel/libtool-1.5.10-r4
sys-libs/glibc-2.3.4.20050125
sys-libs/libstdc++-v3-3.3.4
sys-devel/gcc-3.4.3.20050110
sys-fs/udev-054
sys-kernel/gentoo-dev-sources-2.6.10-r7
|
_________________ The Struggle for the Future of Human Evolution Begins: Autonomy the SciFi Series! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
shuiend n00b
Joined: 31 Oct 2004 Posts: 12
|
Posted: Wed Mar 02, 2005 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok. I got everything up untill Grub. I cannot for the life of me to get grub to install. I did a stage2 install just so everyone knows. Emerge grug failed. I then tried emerge grub-static and that worked. But when I run "grub" and setup (hd0) it gives me an error about /boot/grub/stage1 dosent exist. How do I fix this? I would like to be into this system by tonight and it seems this si the only thing keeping it form working. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|