| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kasumi_Ninja
Veteran
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1825
Location: The Netherlands
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:51 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| batistuta wrote: | | Aniruddha wrote: | Now that is not true. In Gentoo a package enters stable after one month have been passed without bugreport being filed. If you compare Gentoo with Ubuntu7.10/openSUSE10.3/Mandriva2008/Debian4.0/Slackware12.0/PCLinuxOS2007/Sabayon3.4/SimplyMepis7.0/Foresight1.4
you'll see that Gentoo has the same (or more up to date packages) for: kernel/glibc/kde etc. Only Fedora uses more recent packages.
|
Mmhh... I'll take your word for now since I haven't used x86 for more than two years. But my motivation to go to ~arch when I did was because of how outdated x86 was. KDE 3.5 had been out for more than 6 months, and stable was still using 3.4. Emule was a veeeery old version and more unstable than the "unstable" version. Gcc upgrades took eternities. I can't even count how many packages were simply not in x86 and in the end I had to make my package.keywords very large, with the known dependency issues. Maintaining my package.keywords didn't make sense anymore, it was way too big. And I'm not blaming Gentoo for this, it is not the goal of x86. |
Please don't take my word for it:
http://packages.gentoo.org/category/kde-base
http://packages.gentoo.org/category/sys-kernel
I see that the kernel has recently been upgraded to 2.6.23-r3 making it more bleeding edge than aforementioned distro's
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RazielFMX
l33t
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 835
Location: NY, USA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| batistuta wrote: | | Aniruddha wrote: | Now that is not true. In Gentoo a package enters stable after one month have been passed without bugreport being filed. If you compare Gentoo with Ubuntu7.10/openSUSE10.3/Mandriva2008/Debian4.0/Slackware12.0/PCLinuxOS2007/Sabayon3.4/SimplyMepis7.0/Foresight1.4
you'll see that Gentoo has the same (or more up to date packages) for: kernel/glibc/kde etc. Only Fedora uses more recent packages.
|
Mmhh... I'll take your word for now since I haven't used x86 for more than two years. But my motivation to go to ~arch when I did was because of how outdated x86 was. KDE 3.5 had been out for more than 6 months, and stable was still using 3.4. Emule was a veeeery old version and more unstable than the "unstable" version. Gcc upgrades took eternities. I can't even count how many packages were simply not in x86 and in the end I had to make my package.keywords very large, with the known dependency issues. Maintaining my package.keywords didn't make sense anymore, it was way too big. And I'm not blaming Gentoo for this, it is not the goal of x86.
So I wanna underline that this is not a complain: lots of people want something stable, and x86 was very stable, but in my opinion it was very outdated. ~arch is up-to-date, but lately breaks constantly (at least on my system). So were does that leave users like me? Does unstable mean the apps, or the build process? We don't mind an "unstable" apps, in terms of programs being a bit buggy due to being bleeding edge, but we want a system that compiles. That is, that we can at least install these unstable programs.
And in my opinion, Gentoo has forgotten about us  |
I never would run pure ~x86, but what I like about Gentoo is I can, on a package by package basis, unmask packages that I want to be on the bleeding edge, and leaving those I want 'stable', as stable. Granted by /etc/portage/package.keywords file is large, I have never ever had a problem with a build. I have had problems with buggy software, and even MASK some software (like i810 video drivers, 1.7.4 is the only one that doesnt lock my system up), this approach has worked great for me, and maybe might work for you.
_________________
I am not anti-systemd; I am pro-choice. If being the latter makes you feel that I am the former, then so be it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lonrot_m
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 274
Location: Mexico
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 1:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
i actually for a couple of days to opensuse because supposedly the iwlwifi driver was working with them, but that was A LIE!!! i didnt work for me out of the box, then i was able to fix it but my X configuration died in the process, that was way to wierd since i didnt even touch any xorg, then i got completely pissed and return to gentoo ^^.
The reason i chose opensuse was yast, it has a lot of packages on it and it has good UI configuration utilities.
_________________
The only fool bigger than the person who knows it all is the person who argues with him. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthGoingZax
Apprentice
Joined: 03 Dec 2002
Posts: 189
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with what a prior user said : I like gentoo becuase I know it. The installation puts you in touch with all the various system componants and config files. BUT, when I was first installing on my new laptop, only Ubuntu would fully run on it, and I had to use a Ubuntu live disk to install Gentoo because of the then new ipw3945 problems. Getting that to wonk on Gentoo took aeons. Now kernel upgrades scare me, even though ipw3945 is getting easier and easier to handle.
The biggest thing lately is the libexpat problem. I have done many many revdep-rebuild cycles, and there are still packages which won't build, and I don't want to spend the rest of my life emerging and emerging to fix my package tree, so I am sore tempted to leave Gentoo; and with Kde4 soon to arrive, the thought of spending days comiling instead of days writing my own software is frustrating.
The thing is, I want at least an 686 system, and the debian-based distros are only 386, but I love command-line package management. If only there were a good gentoo-ish binary distribution out there..... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tylerwylie
Guru
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 458
Location: /US/Georgia/Atlanta
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| lonrot_m wrote: | i actually for a couple of days to opensuse because supposedly the iwlwifi driver was working with them, but that was A LIE!!! i didnt work for me out of the box, then i was able to fix it but my X configuration died in the process, that was way to wierd since i didnt even touch any xorg, then i got completely pissed and return to gentoo ^^.
The reason i chose opensuse was yast, it has a lot of packages on it and it has good UI configuration utilities. |
IWL works fine in fedora 8 for me on my 4965abgn  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kasumi_Ninja
Veteran
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1825
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 9:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NorthGoingZax wrote: | I agree with what a prior user said : I like gentoo becuase I know it. The installation puts you in touch with all the various system componants and config files. BUT, when I was first installing on my new laptop, only Ubuntu would fully run on it, and I had to use a Ubuntu live disk to install Gentoo because of the then new ipw3945 problems. Getting that to wonk on Gentoo took aeons. Now kernel upgrades scare me, even though ipw3945 is getting easier and easier to handle.
The biggest thing lately is the libexpat problem. I have done many many revdep-rebuild cycles, and there are still packages which won't build, and I don't want to spend the rest of my life emerging and emerging to fix my package tree, so I am sore tempted to leave Gentoo; and with Kde4 soon to arrive, the thought of spending days comiling instead of days writing my own software is frustrating.
The thing is, I want at least an 686 system, and the debian-based distros are only 386, but I love command-line package management. If only there were a good gentoo-ish binary distribution out there..... |
Maybe you should try Arch. About libexpat have you searched bugzilla for a solution?
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
batistuta
Veteran
Joined: 29 Jul 2005
Posts: 1384
Location: Aachen
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Aniruddha, thanks for the links. I might try x86 in the near future and I'm glad to know that this has changed since two years ago. At that time, believe me, x86 was very outdated (about 6 months behind based on my feelings).
As for libxpat, I that hit me hard as well. And nothing (bugzilla, forums, etc) had the answer. The issues were so many that I didn't find feasible submitting bugs and asking in the forums. I know this was a bit too comfortable, but believe me, I didn't have the time for that. I'm sure x86 would have prevented a lot of that hassle. But it was too late, and that's when I've switched to Arch. I love Arch, but I do miss Gentoo though and both have pros and cons. I just wish Arch got as many packages as Gentoo, or that Gentoo got binaries  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kasumi_Ninja
Veteran
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1825
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 10:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| batistuta wrote: | Aniruddha, thanks for the links. I might try x86 in the near future and I'm glad to know that this has changed since two years ago. At that time, believe me, x86 was very outdated (about 6 months behind based on my feelings).
As for libxpat, I that hit me hard as well. And nothing (bugzilla, forums, etc) had the answer. The issues were so many that I didn't find feasible submitting bugs and asking in the forums. I know this was a bit too comfortable, but believe me, I didn't have the time for that. I'm sure x86 would have prevented a lot of that hassle. But it was too late, and that's when I've switched to Arch. I love Arch, but I do miss Gentoo though and both have pros and cons. I just wish Arch got as many packages as Gentoo, or that Gentoo got binaries |
Glad I could help  . If you're looking for a shortcut to install Gentoo you can try my Stage 4 project. I am also working on providing binaries. Unfortunately the main obstacle is no md5/sha5sum verification possibilities for binaries.
P.S.
Off course I believe you, I only started using Gentoo two years ago therefor don't know much about the period before that 
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
chynnasmith
n00b
Joined: 05 Dec 2007
Posts: 3
Location: United States
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 11:58 am Post subject: Why FreeBSD? |
|
|
Good point. I would recommend FreeBSD. It is an extremely fast UNIX-like operating system mostly for the Intel chip and its clones. In many ways, FreeBSD has always been the operating system that GNU/Linux-based operating systems should have been. It runs on out-of-date Intel machines and 64-bit AMD chips, and it serves terabytes of files a day on some of the largest file servers on earth.
It is possible to describe FreeBSD as a network administrator's operating system: It's fast, SMP-capable, and well integrated with a large number of networking tools. However, FreeBSD is just as slick and fast when run on laptops, when running office applications, and when running mail clients and databases. Its installation routines are simple enough for a Microsoft Windows power user to be comfortable with. It also has a lot to offer to Linux users, simply because in binary-compatible mode, applications native to Linux run without changes. FreeBSD is extremely scalable and runs most applications written for Linux or BSD flavors. Don't assume that FreeBSD is a Swiss army knife among free operating systems, though: It's neither as secure as OpenBSD nor as scalable as a future Open Solaris version can be safely thought to be. But it competes with any operating system -- commercial or free -- on the Intel chip and, in many cases, provides a more stable and scalable platform than any of its nearest competitors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kernelOfTruth
Watchman
Joined: 20 Dec 2005
Posts: 6111
Location: Vienna, Austria; Germany; hello world :)
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 12:28 pm Post subject: Re: Why FreeBSD? |
|
|
| chynnasmith wrote: | Good point. I would recommend FreeBSD. It is an extremely fast UNIX-like operating system mostly for the Intel chip and its clones. In many ways, FreeBSD has always been the operating system that GNU/Linux-based operating systems should have been. It runs on out-of-date Intel machines and 64-bit AMD chips, and it serves terabytes of files a day on some of the largest file servers on earth.
It is possible to describe FreeBSD as a network administrator's operating system: It's fast, SMP-capable, and well integrated with a large number of networking tools. However, FreeBSD is just as slick and fast when run on laptops, when running office applications, and when running mail clients and databases. Its installation routines are simple enough for a Microsoft Windows power user to be comfortable with. It also has a lot to offer to Linux users, simply because in binary-compatible mode, applications native to Linux run without changes. FreeBSD is extremely scalable and runs most applications written for Linux or BSD flavors. Don't assume that FreeBSD is a Swiss army knife among free operating systems, though: It's neither as secure as OpenBSD nor as scalable as a future Open Solaris version can be safely thought to be. But it competes with any operating system -- commercial or free -- on the Intel chip and, in many cases, provides a more stable and scalable platform than any of its nearest competitors. |
++
unfortunately its only downside - which prevented me from using it - was its lack of necessary drivers
_________________
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/ZFS-for-SystemRescueCD/tree/ZFS-for-SysRescCD-4.9.0
https://github.com/kernelOfTruth/pulseaudio-equalizer-ladspa
Hardcore Gentoo Linux user since 2004 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| batistuta wrote: | | As for libxpat, I that hit me hard as well. And nothing (bugzilla, forums, etc) had the answer. The issues were so many that I didn't find feasible submitting bugs and asking in the forums. I know this was a bit too comfortable, but believe me, I didn't have the time for that. I'm sure x86 would have prevented a lot of that hassle. But it was too late, and that's when I've switched to Arch. I love Arch, but I do miss Gentoo though and both have pros and cons. I just wish Arch got as many packages as Gentoo, or that Gentoo got binaries :roll: |
I've done several binary installs using:
PORTAGE_BINHOST="http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/default-linux/<arch>"
PKGDIR="/path/to/store"
..in make.conf; http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/html/ is the browse page.
Portage binhost handling is being updated (it was a bit awkward especially over the web, since it would check every package in the list.) In the meantime, update handles them pretty nicely (-g or -G flag with the above in make.conf; it does a custom download/check and then uses emerge -k or skips the package if not available.) You can set binHost=1 or binOnly=1 in /etc/update to use it on every run. I've installed several chroots like that (I was testing automated revdep for expat etc) and there was no problem; I haven't done it on a real machine yet so as ever YMMV. It's a quick way to try an install though since there's no compile time at all; it's really weird watching gentoo stuff install that fast ;D
From this post:
PORTAGE_BINHOST="http://dev.gentooexperimental.org/binpkg/i686-stable" is another good one (there's an amd64 one as well, and unstable variants), with more desktop stuff. With all of these, though, there's a timelag between stuff hitting the tree, it hitting mirrors (which happens even if you're not using a binhost) and packages actually being compiled correctly and available.
Really it's up to users to set up their own binhosts; portage just gives you the tools to do it. If you do use these, consider donating some money to help the people who provide the binhosts, or they'll get shut down if they use too much resource. For gentoo, it's solar who runs it: I'm sure any help can just go to Gentoo itself, and for gentooexperimental, it's bonsaikitten who you can find in #gentoo-chat on irc.freenode.org. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kasumi_Ninja
Veteran
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1825
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2007 3:56 pm Post subject: Re: Why FreeBSD? |
|
|
| chynnasmith wrote: | Good point. I would recommend FreeBSD. It is an extremely fast UNIX-like operating system mostly for the Intel chip and its clones. In many ways, FreeBSD has always been the operating system that GNU/Linux-based operating systems should have been. It runs on out-of-date Intel machines and 64-bit AMD chips, and it serves terabytes of files a day on some of the largest file servers on earth.
It is possible to describe FreeBSD as a network administrator's operating system: It's fast, SMP-capable, and well integrated with a large number of networking tools. However, FreeBSD is just as slick and fast when run on laptops, when running office applications, and when running mail clients and databases. Its installation routines are simple enough for a Microsoft Windows power user to be comfortable with. It also has a lot to offer to Linux users, simply because in binary-compatible mode, applications native to Linux run without changes. FreeBSD is extremely scalable and runs most applications written for Linux or BSD flavors. Don't assume that FreeBSD is a Swiss army knife among free operating systems, though: It's neither as secure as OpenBSD nor as scalable as a future Open Solaris version can be safely thought to be. But it competes with any operating system -- commercial or free -- on the Intel chip and, in many cases, provides a more stable and scalable platform than any of its nearest competitors. |
This sounds far to optimistic to me. In my opinion FreebSD isn't ready for the desktop. And I would never use it for a server, because of the awkward update path. Ports feels dated in comparison with Portage. It's for a reason Linux Format awarded FreeBSD this year only 6 out of 10 points. In comparison Debian got also a 6, Mandriva 7, openSUSE & Ubuntu 8 and Gentoo Linux 9.
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthGoingZax
Apprentice
Joined: 03 Dec 2002
Posts: 189
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 1:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: |
I've done several binary installs using:
PORTAGE_BINHOST="http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/default-linux/<arch>"
PKGDIR="/path/to/store"
..in make.conf; http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/html/ is the browse page.
Portage binhost handling is being updated (it was a bit awkward especially over the web, since it would check every package in the list.) In the meantime, update handles them pretty nicely (-g or -G flag with the above in make.conf; it does a custom download/check and then uses emerge -k or skips the package if not available.) You can set binHost=1 or binOnly=1 in /etc/update to use it on every run. I've installed several chroots like that (I was testing automated revdep for expat etc) and there was no problem; I haven't done it on a real machine yet so as ever YMMV. It's a quick way to try an install though since there's no compile time at all; it's really weird watching gentoo stuff install that fast ;D
From this post:
PORTAGE_BINHOST="http://dev.gentooexperimental.org/binpkg/i686-stable" is another good one (there's an amd64 one as well, and unstable variants), with more desktop stuff. With all of these, though, there's a timelag between stuff hitting the tree, it hitting mirrors (which happens even if you're not using a binhost) and packages actually being compiled correctly and available.
Really it's up to users to set up their own binhosts; portage just gives you the tools to do it. If you do use these, consider donating some money to help the people who provide the binhosts, or they'll get shut down if they use too much resource. For gentoo, it's solar who runs it: I'm sure any help can just go to Gentoo itself, and for gentooexperimental, it's bonsaikitten who you can find in #gentoo-chat on irc.freenode.org. |
Thanks for the tips, I will definitely look at tinderbox, that might be the ticket. I have wondered why someone doesn't set up a bin repository, so that a group who use common cflags and use flags can download a binpack if it is available, or compile it and upload it if it isn't - which would spread the compilation load around a little.
Anyway, my desktop was little used, and real real old for packages, so I just installed openSuse over if, and I loved how easily the printer set-up went. I could go for some of that sort of lazy sometimes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RazielFMX
l33t
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 835
Location: NY, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NorthGoingZax wrote: | I agree with what a prior user said : I like gentoo becuase I know it. The installation puts you in touch with all the various system componants and config files. BUT, when I was first installing on my new laptop, only Ubuntu would fully run on it, and I had to use a Ubuntu live disk to install Gentoo because of the then new ipw3945 problems. Getting that to wonk on Gentoo took aeons. Now kernel upgrades scare me, even though ipw3945 is getting easier and easier to handle.
The biggest thing lately is the libexpat problem. I have done many many revdep-rebuild cycles, and there are still packages which won't build, and I don't want to spend the rest of my life emerging and emerging to fix my package tree, so I am sore tempted to leave Gentoo; and with Kde4 soon to arrive, the thought of spending days comiling instead of days writing my own software is frustrating.
The thing is, I want at least an 686 system, and the debian-based distros are only 386, but I love command-line package management. If only there were a good gentoo-ish binary distribution out there..... |
I'm fairly certain the most recent Ubuntu is 586 or 686, since my coworker couldnt install it on his older laptop and had to get an older version of ubuntu. And you can use apt of the command line if that's your fancy. Personally, I love Gentoo on my laptop (4 year old laptop, handles the compiles well), so long as I remember to max the fan speeds for long compiles, like gnome upgrades. I am sad that open office is binary (no way I was compiling software that on my pretty powerful desktop was a 5 hour build. Who knows how long it'd take on my little 1.4 pentium4M), but other than that, I dont use any binary packages.
_________________
I am not anti-systemd; I am pro-choice. If being the latter makes you feel that I am the former, then so be it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthGoingZax
Apprentice
Joined: 03 Dec 2002
Posts: 189
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 06, 2007 3:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ubuntu is debian-based, and Debian only offers i386 or amd_64. From what I've heard, they do make a few arch-specific pakages, such as kernels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
allen
n00b
Joined: 08 Dec 2002
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NorthGoingZax wrote: | | Ubuntu is debian-based, and Debian only offers i386 or amd_64. From what I've heard, they do make a few arch-specific pakages, such as kernels. |
I don't think that's quite right. The Debian ports page lists the following releases other than i386 and amd64:
Motorola 68k (m68k)
Sun SPARC (sparc)
Alpha (alpha)
Motorola/IBM PowerPC (powerpc)
ARM (arm)
MIPS CPUs (mips and mipsel)
HP PA-RISC (hppa)
IA-64 (ia64)
S/390 (s390)
I myself run the ARM version of the latest stable Debian (etch) on a Linksys NSLU2 ("slug") NAS device. This is a full port with thousands of packages.
_________________
John Allen
Bofferdange, Luxembourg
allen@vo.lu
http://www.homepages.lu/allen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hardyb
n00b
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Austin, TX, US
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Aniruddha wrote: |
Maybe you should try Arch. About libexpat have you searched bugzilla for a solution? |
Uh, I had the libexpat.so.0 problem, all I did was make a sym-link to libexpat.so.1 (which, I notice, is linked to libexpat.so.1.5.2) and everything went right back to normal.
Maybe that's not the 'right' way to fix the problem, but it stopped the error messages and everything works like gangbusters, so it's sure as hell right from where I'm sitting.
--Hardy
_________________
Captain of the [slick] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RazielFMX
l33t
Joined: 23 Apr 2005
Posts: 835
Location: NY, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hardyb wrote: | | Aniruddha wrote: |
Maybe you should try Arch. About libexpat have you searched bugzilla for a solution? |
Uh, I had the libexpat.so.0 problem, all I did was make a sym-link to libexpat.so.1 (which, I notice, is linked to libexpat.so.1.5.2) and everything went right back to normal.
Maybe that's not the 'right' way to fix the problem, but it stopped the error messages and everything works like gangbusters, so it's sure as hell right from where I'm sitting.
--Hardy |
There was a very useful doc on this, all you had to do was oneshot expat and run revdep-rebuild -X a few times.
_________________
I am not anti-systemd; I am pro-choice. If being the latter makes you feel that I am the former, then so be it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
d2_racing
Bodhisattva
Joined: 25 Apr 2005
Posts: 13047
Location: Ste-Foy,Canada
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthGoingZax
Apprentice
Joined: 03 Dec 2002
Posts: 189
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RazielFMX wrote: | | hardyb wrote: | | Aniruddha wrote: |
Maybe you should try Arch. About libexpat have you searched bugzilla for a solution? |
Uh, I had the libexpat.so.0 problem, all I did was make a sym-link to libexpat.so.1 (which, I notice, is linked to libexpat.so.1.5.2) and everything went right back to normal.
Maybe that's not the 'right' way to fix the problem, but it stopped the error messages and everything works like gangbusters, so it's sure as hell right from where I'm sitting.
--Hardy |
There was a very useful doc on this, all you had to do was oneshot expat and run revdep-rebuild -X a few times. |
Gee, thanks everbody for raising my Gentoo frustrations. Yes, I read lots on the forums on my problem, and yes, I have run revdep-rebuild nearly every week, or the last several weeks, but it still does not find any problems, and still I have libexpat.so.1 linkage errors. Yeah, I could do the simlink, but I am against it. It ought be worked out by now. Really, livexpat-2 should have been had masked, but I'm sure the devs didn't realize that problems with it would be this persistant. A binary upgrade path may have been very usefull in this situation. Then again, maybe it wouldn't have.
Now that I think of it, perhaps I should have downgraded back to libexpat-1.*. That may have saved a lot of headaches. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hardyb
n00b
Joined: 18 Jun 2005
Posts: 29
Location: Austin, TX, US
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So you refuse to fix the problem and demand someone fix it for you.
Brilliant. You are a true man of the times.
--Hardy
_________________
Captain of the [slick] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
allen
n00b
Joined: 08 Dec 2002
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NorthGoingZax wrote: | | The thing is, I want at least an 686 system, and the debian-based distros are only 386, but I love command-line package management. If only there were a good gentoo-ish binary distribution out there..... |
I think my earlier comment on debian missed the point of what you were saying here. As I understand it, you are making a distinction between different versions of the i86 architecture. But surely the point here is that for any distribution - even one which is normally installed from precompiled binaries - one can always compile one's own kernel for i386, i486, i586, i686 or any other variant.
I'm a long-time user of Gentoo, my main server has been running on Gentoo since around 2002 and philosophically I like the idea of compiling everything. But last year I was playing around with ideas for a new server and I did a trial installation of Ubuntu. I then downloaded the latest kernel sources and compiled my own kernel using the classic approach. There's nothing intrinsically difficult about combining the fast and easy basic installation of a binary distribution with the d-i-y compilation of the kernel and selected applications. For example, for exim I've always downloaded and compiled it myself.
For the definitive version of my new server I'll probably go with Debian Etch, so far I've found it marginally easier to work with than Ubuntu - this is for a console-based server-type installation, on Mini-ITX hardware (I've done recent Debian installations on an old Compaq laptop and on a Linksys NSLU2, and it worked fine in both cases, whereas Ubuntu did not work on the old laptop).
_________________
John Allen
Bofferdange, Luxembourg
allen@vo.lu
http://www.homepages.lu/allen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kasumi_Ninja
Veteran
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1825
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 09, 2007 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| allen wrote: | | NorthGoingZax wrote: | | The thing is, I want at least an 686 system, and the debian-based distros are only 386, but I love command-line package management. If only there were a good gentoo-ish binary distribution out there..... |
I think my earlier comment on debian missed the point of what you were saying here. As I understand it, you are making a distinction between different versions of the i86 architecture. But surely the point here is that for any distribution - even one which is normally installed from precompiled binaries - one can always compile one's own kernel for i386, i486, i586, i686 or any other variant.
I'm a long-time user of Gentoo, my main server has been running on Gentoo since around 2002 and philosophically I like the idea of compiling everything. But last year I was playing around with ideas for a new server and I did a trial installation of Ubuntu. I then downloaded the latest kernel sources and compiled my own kernel using the classic approach. There's nothing intrinsically difficult about combining the fast and easy basic installation of a binary distribution with the d-i-y compilation of the kernel and selected applications. For example, for exim I've always downloaded and compiled it myself.
For the definitive version of my new server I'll probably go with Debian Etch, so far I've found it marginally easier to work with than Ubuntu - this is for a console-based server-type installation, on Mini-ITX hardware (I've done recent Debian installations on an old Compaq laptop and on a Linksys NSLU2, and it worked fine in both cases, whereas Ubuntu did not work on the old laptop). |
Let us know ho well you fare. The last time I put Debian stable on a server it wasn't a success.
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NorthGoingZax
Apprentice
Joined: 03 Dec 2002
Posts: 189
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 4:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| hardyb wrote: | So you refuse to fix the problem and demand someone fix it for you.
Brilliant. You are a true man of the times.
--Hardy |
I didn't demand anything of anyone. I said that I don't like the simlink fix, it seems to be a band-aid with some potential long-term issues. If you're happy with it, fine. I'm not. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kasumi_Ninja
Veteran
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 1825
Location: The Netherlands
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 10, 2007 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NorthGoingZax wrote: | | hardyb wrote: | So you refuse to fix the problem and demand someone fix it for you.
Brilliant. You are a true man of the times.
--Hardy |
I didn't demand anything of anyone. I said that I don't like the simlink fix, it seems to be a band-aid with some potential long-term issues. If you're happy with it, fine. I'm not. |
Apparently there were multiple solutions available which can be easily applied. And yes with Gentoo you are responsible for administrating you system. If you don't like that the only viable Linux alternative is to buy Suse Desktop / Redhat for around 400 euro's and stick with the supported packages (around 3000).
And bt blaming the devs you show you don't understand the essence of the (Gentoo) community:
_________________
Please add [solved] to the initial post's subject line if you feel your problem is resolved. Help answer the unanswered |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Gentoo Chat
