1 localhost

i know nothing abojut gcc optomizations or the core duo 2 arch, nod

is it correct?

yes, but you should add "null" as well as "null.world".

i usualy just copy and paste from the wiki in reguards to those flags i mean i understand the basics but i dont know that is inherited by noncona flag

kerframil, how so?

copying flags won help you much

append it to the other names that you've already defined.

http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-3602555.html read the developer post, he says =core2

^won't

i'm not intrested in ricing, they work, i dont complaign

kerframil, should stay 'null.localhost'? (yes, i'm stupid)

Anyone mind giving me an idea of which settings to pay most attention to when using 'make makeconfig' ?
'make menuconfig' *

check out the handbook it covers the basics to get up on your own kernel

The handbook says 'make sure such and such isn't moduel' but I cant find half the items on my menuconfig.
Does that mean the handbook is outta date?

device drivers for your disks and input devices are obviously the most essential, but.

basically there's only a few critical aspects to get t to boot, imho the most trouble is choosing the correct chipsets for ide/scsi
or stat
christ i cant type

in xorg.conf, does it matter where i add UseFastTLS "0"?

sata *

I'm in the sata boat

become friendly with lspci and google, and keep the live cd handy, your in for a fun ride of chrooting after you screwball it

haha

no. you need to define "null.world" and "null". I suggest you put these on an independent line because you're just going to confuse yourself otherwise (leave the localhost definition on its own line).

where and how can I file bugs in ebuilds? or can I just correct them?

i really dont think so, at all, you can put it anywhere, or atleast i put crap wherever i want to, with no issues

how stable is ~x86 at this moment?

as stable as it was ten moments ago
its less likely to be stable than x86
and thats all anyone can say

kerframil, ok ok

lol yes i am aware of that but is it safe enough for daily usage

sure
its not guaranteed to be unstable
its just less likely to be stable
depending on ones daily usage of course
if its mission critical daily usage perhaps not

It's actually not less likely to be stable

i've read it is not safe to mix both stable and unstable branches

if its a machine to check your email and watch porn on.. sure

It's more likely to contain broken ebuilds
and maybe more experimental soft

lol

therefore, its less likely to be as stable as stuff that has been tested more intensivly

MiKi, it's quite safe actually

problem is I want to ditch ubuntu for gentoo but looking at the repo i got scared

hydrogen, more intensively = it's 2 weeks older

no

(except for critical packages)
MiKi, why?

= its at least four weeks, and soemtimes months, older
and more used

most of it looks and sounds old

Yep.

e.g. kernel version

you can override it on a per-package basis
if you want

but that can break your system because of deps am i right?

that way you explicitly know what you are getting that is not"stable"
no, you will just need to unmask the deps as well

MiKi, 2.6.19 old? huh?

huh?
eh right this ubuntu laptop runs 2.6.20.16 0_o

the idea of running ~x86 scares me, i get enough problems running "stable", not to hate on gentoo.

MiKi, well, stable now has 2.6.20 if I'm not mistaken (stabilised lately)

i've started updating once every couple of months

okay… i am just looking for reasons to jump the bandwagon

g33sp0t, in my own experience, ~ is actually less problematic than stable

kerframil, i think that's correct now.. look:
127.0.0.1 null.world localhost
127.0.0.1 null