| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
geekguy
n00b
Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 22
|
 Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 3:18 am Post subject: Which make.profile? |
 |
|
From the gentoo handbook:
| Code: |
# ls -FGg /etc/make.profile
lrwxrwxrwx 1 48 Apr 8 18:51 /etc/make.profile -> ../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2006.0/
|
My result:
| Code: |
(chroot) livecd / # ls -FGg /etc/make.profile
lrwxrwxrwx 1 49 May 9 01:41 /etc/make.profile -> ../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/no-nptl/
|
Should I stick with MY default or change it to 2006.0? What's the difference? Perhaps I'm not looking in the right places but I can't find anything that desribes profiles in detail...
Thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
loki99
Advocate
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 2056
Location: Vienna, €urope
|
| Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 5:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
Under chapter 6b (Choosing the Right Profile) it is explained quite well, imo.
| Quote: | Some users may wish to install a system based on the older Linux 2.4 profile. If you have good reason to do this, then you should first check that an additional profile exists. On x86, we can do this with the following command:
Code Listing 8: Finding out if an additional profile exists
# ls -d /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/no-nptl/2.4
/usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/no-nptl/2.4
The above example shows that the additional 2.4 profile exists (i.e. it didn't complain about missing file or directory). It is recommended that you stay with the default,... |
So unless you need to run kernel-2.4, you should switch your profile. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geekguy
n00b
Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 6:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/no-nptl/ and /usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/no-nptl/2.4 are different profiles as far as I can tell. Yes, the handbook tells you what profiles ARE but doesn't provide any detail on the differences between 2006.0 and no-nptl. I just wanted to know what the differences were, and perhaps why my default was different. I've changed it over to 2006.0 because afaik you need nptl for some stuff? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
swooshOnLn
l33t
Joined: 28 Feb 2006
Posts: 741
Location: Charlotte, North Carolina
|
| Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
same thing here, my default was not the 2006 profile (which one would assume would be the default). However, it seems that depending on when I install gentoo, sometimes it shows teh 2006 profile, and others it shows the x86/no-nptl
_________________
"WARNING: you may LOL"
This is my font size, color, and signature. It will change to whatever I pick. How cool is that?
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loki99
Advocate
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 2056
Location: Vienna, €urope
|
| Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 8:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
Just take a look at the files in those profiles, to tell the difference (I'm not at home, so I cannot check). The most obvious difference is "no-nptl", so you can choose either (NPTL is not a necessity!), but I'd strongly recommend the NPTL profile, since it speeds things up quite a bit.
I do not know, why the both of you had a different default profile. What tarball/install media did you use? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
geekguy
n00b
Joined: 17 Dec 2004
Posts: 22
|
| Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| loki99 wrote: | | I do not know, why the both of you had a different default profile. What tarball/install media did you use? |
2006.0 Minimal Install CD
Stage 3 i686 tarball |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
loki99
Advocate
Joined: 10 Oct 2003
Posts: 2056
Location: Vienna, €urope
|
| Posted: Tue May 09, 2006 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
Beats me!
My Stage-3-i686 tarball points to the default profile, as described in the handbook.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Installing Gentoo
