phew, it was scared moment..

user · 2006-05-29 11:11:14

sudo pacman -Suyf

latest arch install binutils, glibc-2.4! But problem happened,
my gcc (4.2) was replaced by gcc-4.1.1 from arch.
also my kernel-header replaced by one from arch..

so i did cp the latest linux kernel header(2.6.17-rc5) into /usr/include
and bootstrap gcc-4.2 again, and many hours wasted..

any way my gcc-4.2 works again yay!!

tomk · 2006-05-29 12:22:30

user wrote:

my gcc (4.2) was replaced by gcc-4.1.1 from arch.
also my kernel-header replaced by one from arch..

Uh-uh - really annoying when pacman does what it is supposed to do, isn't it?

user wrote:

many hours wasted

If only there was something you could read to help you avoid these problems.....

Bralkein · 2006-05-29 14:25:14

Well, it sounds like he learnt his lesson, so you probably don't need to get all Slashdot on his ass

brain0 · 2006-05-29 16:33:57

This only happens if you just copy some files somewhere instead of packaging your apps properly. Your stupidity, your fault, your problem.

McQueen · 2006-05-29 17:11:00

Is there any reason this user is getting the crap beat out of them when they said nothing to blame anyone, including Arch; but are simply relating an experience? I see no reason to be so abrasive toward them based on what they have posted.

Cerebral · 2006-05-29 17:24:29

Hm, I'm prone to agree with McQueen; lotta hostility in this thread guys; whyfor?

tomk · 2006-05-29 17:57:59

No hostility from me, but I'll admit to sarcasm. My less-than-tactful point was that if someone insists on installing non-standard versions of crucial system software, the least that they could do is make full use of pacman's functionality to prevent their local versions being overwritten.

Feel free to criticise my tone, if you must, but it's a valid point IMO.

Cerebral · 2006-05-29 18:29:26

tomk wrote:

Feel free to criticise my tone, if you must, but it's a valid point IMO.

Fair enough. I criticize your tone! *points finger in blaming manner*

Just kiddin' around - yeah, I suppose that is a valid point to stress to people.

brain0 · 2006-05-29 20:02:36

McQueen wrote:

Is there any reason this user is getting the crap beat out of them when they said nothing to blame anyone, including Arch; but are simply relating an experience? I see no reason to be so abrasive toward them based on what they have posted.

No there is not. No one beats the crap out of anyone by the way, we are simply stating facts.

On the other hand, what does it look like if a new user wants to use Arch. He will check out the forums to see if there are any common problems, look at this thread and think "I won't be able to customize Arch" and go turn away. I will certainly not allow such statements to scare away a user for whom Arch would have been perfect.

profoX · 2006-05-29 21:21:37

From what I've gathered,
most people are very friendly in the arch community.
Besides, everyone has their bad days every now and then..

Noone is being attacked in this thread. Sure, some people could make their posts alot friendlier, but they don't have to. And you shouldn't care. Some people just say what they want to say, and do it in a sarcastic manner. It's just the way they are.

McQueen · 2006-05-29 21:54:40

My thinking would also be that a person could check out Arch by reading in the forums as mentioned, and then see where they might be referred to by their own stupidity and fault in a future post. I won't argue that these may be the facts on occasion (I include myself in this group), or that this type of speech is prevalent in many places, but it also does less to edify a community than some other means. I just think that points can be made without referring to someone's degree of stupidity.

user · 2006-05-29 23:00:44

tomk wrote:

user wrote:
my gcc (4.2) was replaced by gcc-4.1.1 from arch.
also my kernel-header replaced by one from arch..
1. Uh-uh - really annoying when pacman does what it is supposed to do, isn't it?
user wrote:
many hours wasted
2. If only there was something you could read to help you avoid these problems.....

1> No. I just omit to use pacman -Rk {gcc,kernel-header}.

2> nothing helped me, ALL MY OWN[TM] 8)
and FYI, the wasted hours include the valueable programming experience.

PS: ooh i love this guy, i am big fan!! =>

T-Dawg · 2006-05-30 00:14:31

flame war, pointless thread, locking.

Arch Linux

#1 2006-05-29 11:11:14

phew, it was scared moment..

#2 2006-05-29 12:22:30

Re: phew, it was scared moment..

#3 2006-05-29 14:25:14

Re: phew, it was scared moment..

#4 2006-05-29 16:33:57

Re: phew, it was scared moment..

#5 2006-05-29 17:11:00

Re: phew, it was scared moment..

#6 2006-05-29 17:24:29

Re: phew, it was scared moment..

#7 2006-05-29 17:57:59

Re: phew, it was scared moment..

#8 2006-05-29 18:29:26

Re: phew, it was scared moment..

#9 2006-05-29 20:02:36

Re: phew, it was scared moment..

#10 2006-05-29 21:21:37

Re: phew, it was scared moment..

#11 2006-05-29 21:54:40

Re: phew, it was scared moment..

#12 2006-05-29 23:00:44

Re: phew, it was scared moment..

#13 2006-05-30 00:14:31

Re: phew, it was scared moment..

Board footer