From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Oct 29 23:19:30 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3803E10656A5 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:19:30 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from henry.olyer@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ew0-f218.google.com (mail-ew0-f218.google.com [209.85.219.218]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9180F8FC28 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:19:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: by ewy18 with SMTP id 18so2261107ewy.43 for ; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:19:28 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:in-reply-to:references :date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=7etaAzhht2t2g7n+x1duEs1Hn3KoM6wDY/1WDKHEBAc=; b=sifrPxG3nlQg4BvhV9VfKAzXt582NgSDKbFB5Y3pk9fqQNUcs1GiyX99TnMky90PbJ hJmjZv9qPQjFN0tUtrRfH4iYic1utC/DLfjuwDARcF9RcwFf9EFFnUUL5Wp5HWF+58n5 qcY7uEH59c3btbQui823cCRFnMYMPFmKqCF3M= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=Oi/28Mdx3HaXF/FJrd+bxaXSSWXQbwxInszSc/KTys2kSCdEgCpTDAVOa0pGCS1mZN aRHy8rZ3noFeUc60ebIjubhXhgoG6HlFcuVkZQ7L50jnwLKG/wKwp+UJSTCSPW4R94mY csPmy+GcLvPs/ameeGC8y7RUp+5rBdxSZbtH4= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.210.7.24 with SMTP id 24mr29889ebg.48.1256858368566; Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:19:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <200910292250.n9TMoM3f027744@mp.cs.niu.edu> References: <200910292250.n9TMoM3f027744@mp.cs.niu.edu> Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:19:28 -0400 Message-ID: <1d7089c40910291619y27045d23pae9ba9d98db9f086@mail.gmail.com> From: Henry Olyer To: Scott Bennett Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: bf1783@googlemail.com, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: lang/gcc43 and lang/gcc44 installation procedures broken after updates X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 29 Oct 2009 23:19:30 -0000 Look, keep claiming that it's working if you like, but I've been backing up another machine and making notes -- so that when I do my reinstall of 7.2, I don't have to come back here again, asking for help that's already been given. My point is: gcc44 doesn't work. It is broken and I suspect it's going to stay broken. Only a fresh install *might* fix the problem. I know these systems are very complex, I don't want to criticize anyone -- I'm very impressed that the FreeBSD community works as well as it does; And after all, this is the first time I've encountered problems this serious, and I used to write compilers, so I know that you guys have done a terrific job. But let's move on; gcc44 doesn't work, it's not going to, and we need to focus on a repair strategy. Is it to simply to do a fresh install? I've been backing up, I'll do this if I have to... On Thu, Oct 29, 2009 at 6:50 PM, Scott Bennett wrote: > On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 20:07:09 +0000 "b. f." > wrote: > >On 10/29/09, Scott Bennett wrote: > >> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 09:19:08 +0000 "b. f." > >> wrote: > >>>On 10/28/09, Scott Bennett wrote: > >>>> On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 11:28:51 +0000 "b. f." < > bf1783@googlemail.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>>Scott Bennet wrote: > > > >>>MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER?= `${SYSCTL} -n kern.smp.cpus` > >>>_MAKE_JOBS= -j${MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER} > >> > >> I figured it must do something of the sort. The CPU is an old 3.4 > GHz > >> P4 Prescott, so it has two logical processors, so MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER gets > set > >> to 2. Given the handbook recommendations and my own observations, it > seems > >> to me that the above method should actually multiply the value of > >> kern.smp.cpus by at least 2.5 for best performance. For CPUs on > separate > >> cores, 3 is the recommended multiplier, but where HTT logical CPUs are > >> involved a multiplier somewhat lower than that is in order. On the > Prescott > >> chips, 2.5 seems to work very well, so when I set MAKEFLAGS myself, I > set > >> it to 5, which is 2.5 * kern.smp.scpus. > >> > > > >That seems a bit ambitious. In any event, It would be better to do > > Perhaps it is, but my own experience with it shows 6 to be too high > and > 4 to be a bit low. 5 seems to work pretty well with very little CPU idle > time. > > >this via the variable MAKE_JOBS_NUMBER, which was created for this > >purpose and can be overridden by the user, rather than by using > >MAKEFLAGS, which may cause all sorts of problems, among them ignoring > >the setting of MAKE_JOBS_UNSAFE. > > When installing/updating ports, I always "unsetenv MAKEFLAGS" before > starting, so there should be no problem. It just means that some ports > jobs probably take slightly longer to complete. > > > >>> > >>>> I guess I will just have to add "-x gcc\*" to the > >>>> "portmaster -x perl\*5.8.9\* -a" runs from now on, which is now > possible > >>>> thanks to Doug Barton's portmaster enhancement that allows multiple > "-x" > >>>> arguments, and do lang/gcc* updates by the old-fashioned method that > >>>> worked > >>>> in this case. I'm not sure what to do if a situation arises like this > >>>> for > >>>> a port that has many dependencies that would typically be better > managed > >>>> by > >>>> portmaster or portupgrade, however. > >>> > >>>You don't have to do it on the command line -- you can add the port to > >>>HOLD_PKGS in pkgtools.conf with portupgrade, or use a > >> > >> I haven't been using portupgrade much lately. portmaster seems to > >> be the recommended tool, and it's certainly a lot faster than > portupgrade, > > > >portmaster is more lightweight, but has fewer features. I roll my own. > > > From just the few months I've been using portmaster, it seems to make > fewer mistakes than portupgrade, though. The problem is in trying to keep > in mind that the mistakes that it does make are ones it makes quite > frequently. > >> > >> > >>>/var/db/pkg/*/+IGNOREME as described in portmaster(8). It's a bit of > >> > >> Yes, but that method doesn't work for perl, and IIRC, it doesn't > >> work for lang/gcc?? either. The -x method does, however. > >> > > > >It seems to work for me with lang/perl5.10. What experience have you > >had that suggests that it doesn't work with these ports? > > > I upgraded from lang/perl5.8 to lang/perl5.10 a few months ago. The > thread should be in the freebsd-ports@ archives. portmaster would prompt > about the +IGNOREME file, accept the reply of "n" or just hitting enter > to take the default of "n", continue on a while, and then begin to rebuild > perl-5.8.9 anyway. > -x works more reliably than +IGNOREME, but the two together cover more > situations, so that's what I do now for the really tough cases like perl. > A problem until a month or two ago was that portmaster would only accept a > single -x argument. Doug Barton enhanced it to accept many a couple of > months ago, so portmaster is a considerably better tool now than it was > before. He has recently posted a request on freebsd-announce for funding > to support a major rewrite/enhancement project for portmaster. If enough > money can be raised, he plans to drop his other income-producing activities > long enough to get the project done, which might reduce the frequency of > roadblocks we encounter in dealing with the ports subsystem of FreeBSD. > > > Scott Bennett, Comm. ASMELG, CFIAG > ********************************************************************** > * Internet: bennett at cs.niu.edu * > *--------------------------------------------------------------------* > * "A well regulated and disciplined militia, is at all times a good * > * objection to the introduction of that bane of all free governments * > * -- a standing army." * > * -- Gov. John Hancock, New York Journal, 28 January 1790 * > ********************************************************************** > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" >