[CLUE-Tech] Gentoo build questions

[Collins Richey]

On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 17:47:19 -0700, Nate Duehr <nate at natetech.com> wrote:
> Well sports fans,
> 
> I've spent about a week trying to figure out how to Stage I a Via
> C3-based mini-itx board.  Keep running across little issues, but slowly
> working them out.
> 
> They're all related to my choice to use ACCEPT_KEYWORDS="~x86" even
> during the bootstrap.

Not a good idea (tm) at bootstrap time. Complete stage 1 and 2 with
"x86", then switch over to "~x86". Since you haven't taken that
approach, you have learned that there are some speed bumps <grin>.
Using "~x86" at bootstrap time means that you have just declared
yourself as a test laboratory for an environment that may never have
been tested by any developer. You're out of bounds, and there are lots
of "fun" possibilities.

> 
> My question for the Gentoo fans is... do you find that "~86" is pretty
> stable, unstable, or ...?

I've run "~x86" for 9+ months with very few problems, actually fewer
than in the previous 2 years with "x86." Most of the problems are
simply ebuilds that won't work and that (usually) get fixed a few days
later. Back in February, mplayer and it's plug-in developed an
aversion to glibc/nptl, and it took several versions before mplayer
became stable again.

All in all: pretty stable.

OTOH, if you've got a slow cpu or you're dependant on KDE/QT or GNOME,
you will get frequent intermediate upgrades of KDE/QT and GNOME before
a stable release, and the intermediate upgrades are definitely not
stable. I use XFCE, but I keep KDE and GNOME un the system for a once
in a blue moon use, so I just let those churn for hours on end while
I'm having fun with something else.

Just be sure you understand the terminology. First developers
experiment with a new release, then the release is marked "~x86" which
means ready for testing (not necessarily but potentially unstable).
After a certain number of weeks with no major bug reports (perhaps
additional releases as bugs are fixed), the new release is promulgated
to "x86". Read "~arch" and "arch", since there are more architectures
than just x86. Unlike debian, a package may be "x86" but still "~arch"
or even still in development on another architecture. As you might
expect, x86 is no guarantee that the package will be 100% stable. No
one on gentoo is doing the sort of in depth testing on all
architectures that debian does and that results in debian packages
being somewhat ancient before being deemed stable.

All in all: expect a lot more compiles (and churn) with "~x86."
 
> 
> I understand it's *supposed* to be somewhat unstable, but the types of
> things I'm running across are really childish... like the build scripts
> for stuff in "emerge system" calling autoconf 1.8 directly instead of
> just "autoconf", so they break unless you emerge autoconf 1.8
> specifically into the system first.

I've never encountered this. Typically, all appropriate versions of
autoconf/automake should be merged. They are "slotted," i.e. multiple
versions can coexist. I have the following, and none of my ebuilds are
failing. But then I'm long ago past the bootstrap stage.

autoconf-2.13
autoconf-2.59-r6
autoconf-wrapper-1
automake-1.4_p6
automake-1.5
automake-1.6.3
automake-1.7.9
automake-1.8.5-r2
automake-1.9.3
automake-wrapper-1

> 
> Some of the comments on forums.gentoo.org are complaining that this is
> becoming far too common in Gentoo releases.  Any thoughts on that?
> 

I've hit almost no problems with automake/autoconf, but there have
been some major screwups (not by gentoo) with libtool based installs.
And, of course, that's what "~x86" is for, testing to see if anything
breaks. If you're determined to run "~x86", I recommend the following
approach when an ebuild breaks:

 1. check bugzilla, maybe it's already reported/fixed
 2. Wait 2 daysemerge sync again
 3. Try the failing ebuild again
 4. If it's still broken, open a bugzilla (check for dupes first)

You'll be surprised how many broken ebuilds are fixed after 2 days.

> Just some discussion-fodder.
> 
> Next, does anyone know the proper -march settings for a Via C3 CPU? 

Nary a clue.

> Finally -- I've seen a few sites that recommend using "-Os" to optimize
> for size on this processor, but I really don't understand the purpose.
> Any compiler gurus want to tackle that one?  I'm just curious is all.

I would forget about this, I did some experimentation with this and
got no improvement, not only that, I think it caused some instability.
Some ebuilds specificly strip out "-Os". I just use "-O2
-fomit-frame-pointer" for everything.

> 
> So far, now that I've "sussed out the problems" as one of my Aussie
> friends would say, the emerge's are going well now.  I'm ultimately
> planning on playing with Asterisk on this box...
> 

g'day mates!

-- 
 Collins