Re: [gentoo-user] --depclean wants to remove much of java. Is this safe?
110910 Allan Gottlieb wrote: I converted two machines from icedtea (java6) to oracle-jdk-bin (java7). I did in effect emerge --depclean icedtea icedtea-web =virtual/jdk-1.6.0 =virtual/jdk-1.6.0 On one machine portage now claims that I basically don't need java (see the output of --depclean below). Can this be right? dev-java/ant-nodeps selected: 1.8.1 protected: none omitted: none *** remainder snipped *** I recently removed Java from my system: all I seem to have lost is direct access to the help files in LibreOffice, which have a fully adequate PDF substitute. You can check each package in your list with 'emerge -cpv pkg' see what it says requires it: if they only support one another, you can fairly safely remove them all. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
[gentoo-user] Gentoo counter?
I've just read about the 'new' Linux Counter from a slashdot article, and I wonder: is there a 'Gentoo Counter' that tracks (voluntarily, of course) the number of active Gentoo systems in the world? Rgds,
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:16:48 +1000
Paul Colquhoun paul...@andor.dropbear.id.au wrote:
I've had a look at the stuff at those links, and some of what they
link to in turn, and had a bit of a think about it.
Looking at initramfs as a modern Linux replacement for the
bootable / partition of traditional Unix systems does make some
sense, even though I think it could be made simpler.
Fot those opposed to initramfs, would you also object to /boot being
1) a manditory seperate partition
2) required to be ext2 (or one of a *very* short list)
3) having /boot/{bin,sbin,lib} containing local copies of the
absolute minimum boot requirements (i.e. initramfs in a real fs)
For my part, I don't object to any of those. The Unix boot system is
generic enough that one should be able to build whatever one wants.
Only a very few things are required:
the kernel must be accessible to the bootloader
the root partition must be accessible to the kernel
init must be available early
everything else is optional
How the distro (or user) makes this happen should be up to them, not up
to udev. I understand that udev opens up all manner of
future possibilities and these could be very useful. But I do object
to a single package breaking all the foundation assumptions, especially
when the package is now being used in ways not originally envisaged.
udev is a dynamic device node controller. It is not a hotplug framework
and should not be dictating how the rest of the stack must be arranged.
--
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On 9/10/2011 5:28 PM, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Sat, 10 Sep 2011 12:19:10 -0400 Michael Molmike...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 12:09 PM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Mick wrote: From my understanding, the dev is not listening. That is another thing that bothers me. When devs stop listening to users, that causes a problem. Remember hal? How many people complained early From what I read, he's listening, he just isn't being swayed by the argument. From his perspective, udev doesn't support a split /,/usr because of the arbitrarily complex udev rules. This is causing users to fill their bug queue with errors when needed binaries are unavailable at boot, and thus their hardware doesn't work. Apparently he has concluded that the number of people who require a separate /usr partition but cannot use an initramfs is smaller than the number of people who need udev to have access to all of /usr. Unfortunately it appears that he's taking a pretty extreme approach to solving the problem that will actually *break* the systems of that second group, which I don't quite understand the reasoning behind. As I understand it, nothing of udev itself is in /usr, but instead packages and scripts which plug themselves into udev to be triggered by various events. Perhaps the real solution is to circumvent udev and get those other packages and scripts to not put hotplug-active files under /usr. That's my understanding too, and I agree with your conclusions. The distros can easily (give enough man-power) deal with this too - they simply have to modify their rpms/debs/pkgs/ebuilds to install specific identified things to / instead of /usr. They *already* do this for packages that natively install to peculiar locations. It would make perfect sense to me for the udev maintainer to simply declare a split /,/usr not supported and let us deal with the issues. The problem, if I'm reading correctly, is that he's taken things one step further and decided to move udev *itself* back into /usr. Even still, I would think that a Gentoo patchset to revert the paths back to /lib would be a feasible workaround to this mess. --Mike
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Sep 11, 2011 3:25 PM, Mike Edenfield kut...@kutulu.org wrote: It would make perfect sense to me for the udev maintainer to simply declare a split /,/usr not supported and let us deal with the issues. The problem, if I'm reading correctly, is that he's taken things one step further and decided to move udev *itself* back into /usr. 100% agree! Even still, I would think that a Gentoo patchset to revert the paths back to /lib would be a feasible workaround to this mess. --Mike Yes, please! And I'm sure there will be no shortage of testers among Gentoo users. Heck, I hereby volunteer myself to be a tester if Gentoo devs go forth with patching udev. (I have several VMs on VMware ESX and XenServer where I can test an initr*-free and separated-/usr environ) Rgds,
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Saturday 10 September 2011 23:35:56 Alex Schuster wrote: Alan McKinnon writes: And they are both grammar Nazis. And I thought that was Peter Humphrey... or are all of you the same person? Who can tell. First among equals? And seventh on the list! She is not in the least surprised you get them confused. If Neil ever confesses to owning and riding motorcycles, she thinks she might get them mixed up herself. So I wonder what Neil will write about this. He seems to be lying low. -- Rgds Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On 2011-09-10 18:09, Dale wrote: From my understanding, the dev is not listening. That is another thing that bothers me. When devs stop listening to users, that causes a AFAIU he doesn't listen to people not running RHEL/Fedora (or any of the big binary distros). For a binary distro, that most likely already are using an initrd thingie, this works fine. In my mind it also makes it more difficult to support your own kernel (patches etc.) under these binary distros making you more dependent on the distro supplier. If you want control of what goes into your machine then this works less well... Now if you were a _big_ customer of RHEL that wanted to keep udev working like it currently does I think you might have some more leverage (i.e. if the developer refuses to keep things working, then someone at Red Hat would probably step in at the benefit of their customer and do the right thing(tm)). Best regards Peter K
[gentoo-user] Where has my sound gone?
Hello List, I was getting fed up with the bloat and maintenance headaches with my setup, which used the kde desktop profile and emerge kde-meta. So I formatted the root partition and installed from scratch. This time I kept the standard profile and only emerged the packages I wanted. I kept the kernel config (2.6.39-r3), so all the modules should be present as before. I have ALSA_CARDS=hda-intel in make.conf. But I have no sound! KDE tells me the hardware doesn't work, and alsaconf says it can't detect any PCI hardware. Lspci -k shows snd-hda-intel module loaded though, so I can't see what's missing. Any clues, anyone? -- Rgds Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
[gentoo-user] X keyboard model insists of being pc104
Hi,
when doing a
setxkbmap -v -query
I get:
Trying to build keymap using the following components:
keycodes: evdev+aliases(qwerty)
types: complete
compat: complete
symbols:pc+us(altgr-intl)+inet(evdev)+capslock(none)
geometry: pc(pc104)
xkb_keymap {
xkb_keycodes { include evdev+aliases(qwerty) };
xkb_types { include complete };
xkb_compat{ include complete };
xkb_symbols { include pc+us(altgr-intl)+inet(evdev)+capslock(none)
};
xkb_geometry { include pc(pc104) };
};
beside other things, my keyboard is recognized as pc104 keyboard.
This is not true :) -- it is definetly a pc101 one (IBM Model M
US-Ansi).
I copied /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/10-evdev.conf to
/etc/X11/xorg-conf.d/99-evdev.conf and edited it
to this one:
Section InputClass
Identifier evdev keyboard catchall
MatchIsKeyboard on
MatchDevicePath /dev/input/event*
Driver evdev
Option XKbModel pc101
Option xkb_layout us
Option XkbLayout us
Option XKbVariant altgr-intl
EndSection
The relevant part of xorg.conf says:
Section InputClass
Identifier IBM MODEL M
Driver evdev
Option XkbModel evdev
Option XkbLayout us
Option XkbVariant altgr-intl
Option XkbOptions caps:none
MatchIsKeyboard on
EndSection
there is no ~/.xmodmap or ~/.Xmodmap at $HOME...
The keyboard works so far as I can tell, but xkeycaps
reports wrong keys.
What part of my Linux box is thinking a Model M has
104 keys?
How can I get rid of those additional three keys? ;-)
Best regards,
mcc
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
Keith Dart writes:
=== On Sun, 09/11, Alex Schuster wrote: ===
Interesting. What are the advantages?
Mainly that it's simpler, as a bootloader should be. However it does
have some nice features, such as making nice looking, interactive
menus. You can also edit the config file by hand, if you need to, and
it's all contained on the boot partition.
The biggest problem with grub 2 is it adds a dependency on having your
main root partition already mounted in order to configure it. That may
not be available. Also, when you learn extlinux then you know syslinux,
isolinux, and pxelinux already which helps when configuring boot
loaders for those other media.
Thanks for the explanation. I like to learn, knowing how to use them
might come handy some time.
I already installed syslinux recently, I think that was necessary for the
installation of systemrescuecd on USB. Which failed, after using the
installer, the stick was still empty. No idea what went wrong, I did not
dig further into this, I was too busy then.
What I like most about Grub is the interactive shell. And that I don't
have to run a command like I had to do with Lilo after installing a
new kernel.
If you need a shell, boot a minimal kernel and shell from a ramdisk. No
good reason to bloat a bootloader with that.
I still like how I could make Grub boot a system even when I did not know
on which partition it was. This happened a couple of times, like when I
had multiple hard drives that changed their order. Tab completion or the
find command were good to have then.
And about the bloat... 450 K being used for Grub in /boot is okay for me.
Which could probably be reduced further down to ~115K when removing
stage2{.old,_eltorito} and support for other file systems than ext2.
Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
Paul Colquhoun writes:
Looking at initramfs as a modern Linux replacement for the
bootable / partition of traditional Unix systems does make some
sense, even though I think it could be made simpler.
Fot those opposed to initramfs, would you also object to /boot being
1) a manditory seperate partition
2) required to be ext2 (or one of a *very* short list)
3) having /boot/{bin,sbin,lib} containing local copies of the absolute
minimum boot requirements (i.e. initramfs in a real fs)
I had this on one machine. I used the stuff that Dirk Heinrich offered
[*] (he simply calls it initfs), and it sort of worked, but I also got
some errors. Anyway, I always wondered why this is not the standard way.
Sure, having a single intr{d,amfs} file is convenient, but every time I
want to have a look into it, I have to google the cpio syntax in order to
extract stuff. While, with an initfs, you simply see everything as plain
files in the /boot partition.
Wonko
[*] http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org/msg88055.html
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo counter?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:52:53 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote about [gentoo-user] Gentoo counter?: I've just read about the 'new' Linux Counter from a slashdot article, and I wonder: is there a 'Gentoo Counter' that tracks (voluntarily, of course) the number of active Gentoo systems in the world? Why not just look at Linux Counter and see how many run Gentoo? The Linux Counter collects the distro information, so there is no need for a separate counter for each distro. [BTW, can you ditch the HTML please? This is an Internet mailing list, and it has long been considered poor Netiquette to use HTML messages. Plain text is perfectly adequate to convey information, and is much lighter to transport and render.] -- Regards, Dave [RLU #314465] == dwn...@ntlworld.com (David W Noon) == signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo counter?
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com wrote: [BTW, can you ditch the HTML please? This is an Internet mailing list, and it has long been considered poor Netiquette to use HTML messages. Plain text is perfectly adequate to convey information, and is much lighter to transport and render.] Can't you just configure your mail client to discard the HTML part in the multipart message? -- :wq
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo counter?
On Sunday, September 11, 2011, David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com wrote: On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:52:53 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote about [gentoo-user] Gentoo counter?: I've just read about the 'new' Linux Counter from a slashdot article, and I wonder: is there a 'Gentoo Counter' that tracks (voluntarily, of course) the number of active Gentoo systems in the world? Why not just look at Linux Counter and see how many run Gentoo? The Linux Counter collects the distro information, so there is no need for a separate counter for each distro. [BTW, can you ditch the HTML please? This is an Internet mailing list, and it has long been considered poor Netiquette to use HTML messages. Plain text is perfectly adequate to convey information, and is much lighter to transport and render.] -- Regards, Dave [RLU #314465] Eh? Sorry about the HTML bits; Android's Gmail client doesn't seem to be configurable about that. Currently I'm typing this reply using Gmail webmail via Dolphin; does it still have the HTML part? Rgds, -- FdS Pandu E Poluan * ~ IT Optimizer ~** * • LOPSA Member #15248 • Blog : http://pepoluan.tumblr.com • Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo counter?
On 11 September 2011 14:43, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote: Eh? Sorry about the HTML bits; Android's Gmail client doesn't seem to be configurable about that. Android client is not able to handle plain/text emails. :( -- - - -- Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando) -- http://sayusi.hu -- http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi -- Trust in God and keep your gunpowder dry! - Cromwell
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?
On Tuesday 06 September 2011 23:53:16 Neil Bothwick wrote: Ninety-Ninety Rule Of Project Schedules - The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent of the time. Where I worked we used to say the first 50% of the project takes the first 90% of the time, and the other50% of the project takes the other 90% of the time. -- Rgds Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo counter?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:50:25 +0200 András Csányi sayusi.a...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 September 2011 14:43, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote: Eh? Sorry about the HTML bits; Android's Gmail client doesn't seem to be configurable about that. Android client is not able to handle plain/text emails. :( It's also almost impossible to NOT top-post with these mobile clients. I'm surprised Pandu managed it. K9Mail on Android is a fine substitute, it behaves more like the regular clients we are all used to. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:55:08 +0100 Peter Humphrey pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote: On Tuesday 06 September 2011 23:53:16 Neil Bothwick wrote: Ninety-Ninety Rule Of Project Schedules - The first ninety percent of the task takes ninety percent of the time, and the last ten percent takes the other ninety percent of the time. Where I worked we used to say the first 50% of the project takes the first 90% of the time, and the other50% of the project takes the other 90% of the time. Our rule of thumb for estimated schedules is to get the worst possible estimate for how long it will take. Then multiply by pi -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo counter?
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 19:50, András Csányi sayusi.a...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 September 2011 14:43, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote: Eh? Sorry about the HTML bits; Android's Gmail client doesn't seem to be configurable about that. Android client is not able to handle plain/text emails. :( -- - - -- Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando) -- http://sayusi.hu -- http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi -- Trust in God and keep your gunpowder dry! - Cromwell Yeah, found that out with a bit of Google-fu. Now I'm typing from my PC using the full-bore Gmail. No more HTML bits, I hope. But this means I practically can't reply to this list when I'm on the road: *) Gmail Java Mobile client (on my E72) can post in plaintext, but only as a top-post. *) Gmail Android client (on my Samsung Galaxy Ace) can bottom-post, but also sends an HTML part. *) Gmail webmail client -- when accessed via Dolphin -- also sends an HTML part. (Just saw my reply sent using Dolphin) *) K9 Mail *can* send plaintext messages, but it can't install itself on the SD card, so I have to delete it (my Sammy's internal memory is a measly 158 MB; I'd rather not install anything not abso-effin-lutely essential into the internal memory) So, I'm in a bit of quandary now. Oh well. Rgds, -- FdS Pandu E Poluan ~ IT Optimizer ~ • LOPSA Member #15248 • Blog : http://pepoluan.tumblr.com • Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo counter?
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 20:05, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 14:50:25 +0200 András Csányi sayusi.a...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 September 2011 14:43, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote: Eh? Sorry about the HTML bits; Android's Gmail client doesn't seem to be configurable about that. Android client is not able to handle plain/text emails. :( It's also almost impossible to NOT top-post with these mobile clients. I'm surprised Pandu managed it. The Gmail Android client (at least the one on the Sammy GalAce) is capable of bottom-posting. Of course I have to spend some time to scroll down, but it's doable. Albeit somewhat annoying. K9Mail on Android is a fine substitute, it behaves more like the regular clients we are all used to. I miss the threaded view, though :-( Rgds, -- FdS Pandu E Poluan ~ IT Optimizer ~ • LOPSA Member #15248 • Blog : http://pepoluan.tumblr.com • Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan
Re: [gentoo-user] /var/db gone: possible opportunity to switch profile
On Saturday 10 September 2011 23:37:21 Alex Schuster wrote:
And to go amd64 :) See it as an opportunity to do this. For me, the
biggest advantage compared to x86 was that I could use more memory. Apart
from that, there were not so many differences.
I have this in my make.conf. The cpu is core2 i5:
CFLAGS=-O2 -march=core2 -pipe
CHOST=x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
CXXFLAGS=${CFLAGS}
--
Rgds
Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?
On Sunday 11 September 2011 14:06:58 Alan McKinnon wrote: Our rule of thumb for estimated schedules is to get the worst possible estimate for how long it will take. Then multiply by pi On one large project (200 man-years) we found the factor was 2.3. But by the time we had enough data to calculate it, the project was so far behind that it got cancelled. -- Rgds Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo counter?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:08:17 +0700 Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote: On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 19:50, András Csányi sayusi.a...@gmail.com wrote: On 11 September 2011 14:43, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote: Eh? Sorry about the HTML bits; Android's Gmail client doesn't seem to be configurable about that. Android client is not able to handle plain/text emails. :( -- - - -- Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando) -- http://sayusi.hu -- http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi -- Trust in God and keep your gunpowder dry! - Cromwell Yeah, found that out with a bit of Google-fu. Now I'm typing from my PC using the full-bore Gmail. No more HTML bits, I hope. But this means I practically can't reply to this list when I'm on the road: *) Gmail Java Mobile client (on my E72) can post in plaintext, but only as a top-post. *) Gmail Android client (on my Samsung Galaxy Ace) can bottom-post, but also sends an HTML part. *) Gmail webmail client -- when accessed via Dolphin -- also sends an HTML part. (Just saw my reply sent using Dolphin) *) K9 Mail *can* send plaintext messages, but it can't install itself on the SD card, so I have to delete it (my Sammy's internal memory is a measly 158 MB; I'd rather not install anything not abso-effin-lutely essential into the internal memory) So, I'm in a bit of quandary now. Folks here are quite understanding about phone mail apps. It was rough at first but once everyone got it that you have little choice Best is to put a short note in your sig saying you can't avoid HTML top-posted gmail on Android. People learn to deal with it. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo counter?
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 01:30:12PM +0100, David W Noon wrote: On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:52:53 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote about [BTW, can you ditch the HTML please? This is an Internet mailing list, and it has long been considered poor Netiquette to use HTML messages. Plain text is perfectly adequate to convey information, and is much lighter to transport and render.] Yes, just think of the space it will soon be taking on the / partition or the initramfs. ;-) -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo counter?
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 21:20, Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 01:30:12PM +0100, David W Noon wrote: On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 13:52:53 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote about [BTW, can you ditch the HTML please? This is an Internet mailing list, and it has long been considered poor Netiquette to use HTML messages. Plain text is perfectly adequate to convey information, and is much lighter to transport and render.] Yes, just think of the space it will soon be taking on the / partition or the initramfs. ;-) LOL Well, if udev is so powerful as to the handler for all events, why not have it strip out incoming HTML parts also ;-) (And if udev's dev even considering to *think* on that, I swear I'll fly to wherever he lives and throttles him). ((It's a joke, people :-P )) Rgds, -- FdS Pandu E Poluan ~ IT Optimizer ~ • LOPSA Member #15248 • Blog : http://pepoluan.tumblr.com • Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan
[SOLVED] Re: [gentoo-user] Thunderbird addons is now full of gunk....
On 09/05/11 17:13, Sebastian Beßler wrote: Am 05.09.2011 18:25, schrieb Andrew Lowe: Plenty of tips on the web on how to install it, but I want to uninstall it. Rebuild without lightning and crypt USE-Flags, then run emerge --depclean to get rid off the now unneded libs and packages. That should be it Greetings Sebastian Beßler Done and fixed :) Thanks for the info. Andrew
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo counter?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:35:40 -0400, Michael Mol wrote about Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo counter?: On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 8:30 AM, David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com wrote: [BTW, can you ditch the HTML please? This is an Internet mailing list, and it has long been considered poor Netiquette to use HTML messages. Plain text is perfectly adequate to convey information, and is much lighter to transport and render.] Can't you just configure your mail client to discard the HTML part in the multipart message? I can, but not all messages have a plain text part. ... :-( Moreover, that does not reduce the additional bandwidth required compared with plain text messages. -- Regards, Dave [RLU #314465] *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* dwn...@ntlworld.com (David W Noon) *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
Paul Colquhoun wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:24:06 PM pk wrote:
On 2011-09-09 10:53, Dale wrote:
Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse it
Yes Dale, you have my permission! And while you're at it, slap him from
me too! ;-)
It _may_ be this guy that's responsible for this crap:
http://linuxplumbersconf.org/ocw/users/58
Also:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/16994
I've had a look at the stuff at those links, and some of what they link to in
turn, and had a bit of a think about it.
Looking at initramfs as a modern Linux replacement for the bootable /
partition of traditional Unix systems does make some sense, even though I
think it could be made simpler.
Fot those opposed to initramfs, would you also object to /boot being
1) a manditory seperate partition
2) required to be ext2 (or one of a *very* short list)
3) having /boot/{bin,sbin,lib} containing local copies of the absolute
minimum boot requirements (i.e. initramfs in a real fs)
On the other hand, most of the problem seems to stem from software packages
hooking into the early boot via udev rules, and not beiong careful where they
put the executables and libraries that they reference.
Is udev (as it currently stands) really the best place for them to hook into?
Could udev be split into 2 passes, early-boot udev that only does system stuff
(like mount filesystems out of /etc/fstab, setup keyboards video), and late-
boot udev where other applications can put in any hooks they like, since the
full system would then be available.
The late-boot udev may need to do a full rescan of everything that early-boot
udev found, but didn't have the rules for yet, but I'm sure that the 2 passes
could talk to each other and sort that out fairly simply.
Or possibly just add a whole new service to use just for hooking software
packages into system events. Although this would probably end upneeding to be
a udev clone anyway.
I always have /boot on a separate partition and it is always ext2. So,
that is done. I also have a 200Mb /boot partition. It sometimes gets
about half full but I could just clean out old kernels more often. I
could always make /boot larger too.
Dale
:-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Sunday 11 Sep 2011 19:56:48 Dale wrote:
Paul Colquhoun wrote:
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 07:24:06 PM pk wrote:
On 2011-09-09 10:53, Dale wrote:
Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse
it
Yes Dale, you have my permission! And while you're at it, slap him from
me too! ;-)
It _may_ be this guy that's responsible for this crap:
http://linuxplumbersconf.org/ocw/users/58
Also:
http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/16994
I've had a look at the stuff at those links, and some of what they link
to in turn, and had a bit of a think about it.
Looking at initramfs as a modern Linux replacement for the bootable /
partition of traditional Unix systems does make some sense, even though
I think it could be made simpler.
Fot those opposed to initramfs, would you also object to /boot being
1) a manditory seperate partition
2) required to be ext2 (or one of a *very* short list)
3) having /boot/{bin,sbin,lib} containing local copies of the absolute
minimum boot requirements (i.e. initramfs in a real fs)
On the other hand, most of the problem seems to stem from software
packages hooking into the early boot via udev rules, and not beiong
careful where they put the executables and libraries that they
reference.
Is udev (as it currently stands) really the best place for them to hook
into?
Could udev be split into 2 passes, early-boot udev that only does system
stuff (like mount filesystems out of /etc/fstab, setup keyboards
video), and late- boot udev where other applications can put in any
hooks they like, since the full system would then be available.
The late-boot udev may need to do a full rescan of everything that
early-boot udev found, but didn't have the rules for yet, but I'm sure
that the 2 passes could talk to each other and sort that out fairly
simply.
Or possibly just add a whole new service to use just for hooking software
packages into system events. Although this would probably end upneeding
to be a udev clone anyway.
I always have /boot on a separate partition and it is always ext2. So,
that is done. I also have a 200Mb /boot partition. It sometimes gets
about half full but I could just clean out old kernels more often. I
could always make /boot larger too.
It seems that I'm gonna have fun with a 35M /boot soon (and no LVM of course).
;-)
--
Regards,
Mick
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 15:06:58 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: Our rule of thumb for estimated schedules is to get the worst possible estimate for how long it will take. Then multiply by pi To how many places? -- Neil Bothwick It's not who you know; it's whom you know. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo counter?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 20:11:27 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote: K9Mail on Android is a fine substitute, it behaves more like the regular clients we are all used to. I miss the threaded view, though :-( I would say this is the single greatest failing of K9Mail. Having started using it on a tablet/netbook, which is much more realistic for email, the deficiencies of some of the Android software are really starting to show. -- Neil Bothwick I've got a Mickey Mouse PC with a Goofy operating system. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Filesystem with lowest CPU load, acceptable emerge performance, and stable?
It all comes down to what do you want to prioritize here. If you want minimal downtimes in case that there's a power source failure of any kind, then you probably want ext4 which will give you the fastest fsck times. Or, you might want to check into sqashfs on a flash drive for your rootfs and use whatever else for writable parts (/tmp,/var/log/, etc.), and update only when strictly necessary (GLSAs can probably help you there). After all, as someone else said above, this machine just needs to do one thing, and do it well. If you plan to make stage4/5/6 or whatever the trend is nowadays to name it, you don't even need portage or a toolchain in that box, and having it will only be a security risk since some rootkits comes in the form of a kernel module that needs to be compiled for your specific kernel and architecture (eliminating the kernel sources and the compiler you sort that out from the very root). In any case, the cpu won't be a limiting factor or a bottleneck, whatever your definitive choice shall be. -- Jesús Guerrero Botella
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
Mick wrote: On Sunday 11 Sep 2011 19:56:48 Dale wrote: I always have /boot on a separate partition and it is always ext2. So, that is done. I also have a 200Mb /boot partition. It sometimes gets about half full but I could just clean out old kernels more often. I could always make /boot larger too. It seems that I'm gonna have fun with a 35M /boot soon (and no LVM of course). ;-) I'm doing some thinking and reading. I'm either going to go back to a rpm based thing and let something besides me deal with the init* stuff or stick around and dive into this init* crap and add LVM on top. /boot would be the only thing not on LVM. This makes me nervous as heck tho. I have read where if something goes wrong, you can lose everything. I'm hoping I can make mine simple enough that I can manage any problems even if I can get no outside help. From what I have read, usually it's when you can't figure out how to fix it that you lose everything. I'm just not sure which I want to do right now. I may put my spare drive to work here pretty soon tho. Either another distro or playing with the init* and LVM stuff. sighs Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What is up with the libreoffice ebuild?
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 21:17:20 +0100 Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 15:06:58 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: Our rule of thumb for estimated schedules is to get the worst possible estimate for how long it will take. Then multiply by pi To how many places? As many as fit in your calculator (special answer just to confuse the project managers) :-) -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 16:07:23 -0500, Dale wrote about Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot: Mick wrote: On Sunday 11 Sep 2011 19:56:48 Dale wrote: I always have /boot on a separate partition and it is always ext2. So, that is done. I also have a 200Mb /boot partition. It sometimes gets about half full but I could just clean out old kernels more often. I could always make /boot larger too. It seems that I'm gonna have fun with a 35M /boot soon (and no LVM of course). ;-) I'm doing some thinking and reading. I'm either going to go back to a rpm based thing and let something besides me deal with the init* stuff IMO, better to use Debian or Slackware. I went through RPM Hell back in the days when I ran S.u.S.E. (complete with full-stops in the name) and I will never go back. or stick around and dive into this init* crap and add LVM on top. Watch this space. You might read something to your advantage in the next few days. /boot would be the only thing not on LVM. Well, /boot cannot be on LVM, as the BIOS does not know about logical volumes. This makes me nervous as heck tho. I have read where if something goes wrong, you can lose everything. It's no worse than a normal partitioning system, just more flexible. [Of course, that also means that it is more flexible for you to destroy your DASD farm yourself.] I'm hoping I can make mine simple enough that I can manage any problems even if I can get no outside help. From what I have read, usually it's when you can't figure out how to fix it that you lose everything. Same as partitions: just keep backups. I have some scripts that generate LVM rebuild scripts. These scan the current logical volumes and generate lvcreate commands into a script that can rebuild your LVM set-up in seconds. You (or anybody else) are welcome to a copy if you wish. After that, back up the contents using tar, dar, cpio or whatever your favourite archiving tool happens to be. -- Regards, Dave [RLU #314465] *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* dwn...@ntlworld.com (David W Noon) *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
David W Noon wrote: On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 16:07:23 -0500, Dale wrote about Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot: Mick wrote: On Sunday 11 Sep 2011 19:56:48 Dale wrote: I always have /boot on a separate partition and it is always ext2. So, that is done. I also have a 200Mb /boot partition. It sometimes gets about half full but I could just clean out old kernels more often. I could always make /boot larger too. It seems that I'm gonna have fun with a 35M /boot soon (and no LVM of course). ;-) I'm doing some thinking and reading. I'm either going to go back to a rpm based thing and let something besides me deal with the init* stuff IMO, better to use Debian or Slackware. I went through RPM Hell back in the days when I ran S.u.S.E. (complete with full-stops in the name) and I will never go back. If I decide to switch, I'll do like I did before Gentoo. Just read and see what best suites my needs. I do hate the RPM stuff tho. The updates for Mandrake was a nightmare. or stick around and dive into this init* crap and add LVM on top. Watch this space. You might read something to your advantage in the next few days. O_O Both eyes wide open and watching. I'm hoping to get new glasses in the next few days. My post count may go up then. lol I may be a turbo charged chatter box. ROFL /boot would be the only thing not on LVM. Well, /boot cannot be on LVM, as the BIOS does not know about logical volumes. I knew there was a reason I had to do that. Sometimes I know something but not the reason behind it. This makes me nervous as heck tho. I have read where if something goes wrong, you can lose everything. It's no worse than a normal partitioning system, just more flexible. [Of course, that also means that it is more flexible for you to destroy your DASD farm yourself.] When I was reading about problems with LVM, I think it was mostly a lack of experience in the repair process. Basically, something went wrong, typed in the wrong command and it got messy from there. It wasn't LVM itself but the clueless geek in the chair. That may be me before to long. :/ I'm hoping I can make mine simple enough that I can manage any problems even if I can get no outside help. From what I have read, usually it's when you can't figure out how to fix it that you lose everything. Same as partitions: just keep backups. I have some scripts that generate LVM rebuild scripts. These scan the current logical volumes and generate lvcreate commands into a script that can rebuild your LVM set-up in seconds. You (or anybody else) are welcome to a copy if you wish. After that, back up the contents using tar, dar, cpio or whatever your favourite archiving tool happens to be. I generally backup my /etc and world file on a USB stick. I also have a backup of my scripts in /root somewhere around here. I don't have enough space to backup everything tho. Before DSL came along, I could backup to DVD-RWs from time to time but not now. DSL is addictive. lol I'm hoping to find a 2 or 3Tb drive one day. I can have a partition for back up and some data too. If I get a faster DSL package, I may need two of those drives. Looking forward to the new info you are working on. Dale :-) :-)
[gentoo-user] Re: Where has my sound gone?
On 09/11/2011 03:17 AM, Peter Humphrey wrote: Hello List, I was getting fed up with the bloat and maintenance headaches with my setup, which used the kde desktop profile and emerge kde-meta. So I formatted the root partition and installed from scratch. This time I kept the standard profile and only emerged the packages I wanted. I kept the kernel config (2.6.39-r3), so all the modules should be present as before. I have ALSA_CARDS=hda-intel in make.conf. But I have no sound! KDE tells me the hardware doesn't work, and alsaconf says it can't detect any PCI hardware. Lspci -k shows snd-hda-intel module loaded though, so I can't see what's missing. Does alsa-info give any useful messages? How about dmesg or syslog? Did you keep any of the useflags from your old make.conf?
Re: [gentoo-user] Where has my sound gone?
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:17:17AM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote But I have no sound! KDE tells me the hardware doesn't work, and alsaconf says it can't detect any PCI hardware. Lspci -k shows snd-hda-intel module loaded though, so I can't see what's missing. Any clues, anyone? When I go into make menuconfig Device Drivers --- * Sound card support --- * Advanced Linux Sound Architecture --- [*] PCI sound devices --- * Intel HD Audio --- I get a list of sub modules. Here's what I've selected... --- Intel HD Audio [*] Build hwdep interface for HD-audio driver [ ] Allow dynamic codec reconfiguration (EXPERIMENTAL) [ ] Support digital beep via input layer [ ] Support jack plugging notification via input layer [ ] Support initialization patch loading for HD-audio [*] Build Realtek HD-audio codec support [*] Build Analog Device HD-audio codec support [ ] Build IDT/Sigmatel HD-audio codec support [*] Build VIA HD-audio codec support [ ] Build HDMI/DisplayPort HD-audio codec support [ ] Build Cirrus Logic codec support [ ] Build Conexant HD-audio codec support [ ] Build Creative CA0110-IBG codec support [ ] Build C-Media HD-audio codec support [ ] Build Silicon Labs 3054 HD-modem codec support [*] Enable generic HD-audio codec parser [ ] Aggressive power-saving on HD-audio Your selections will depend on your card. Can you post the output for your sound card from lspci -v? If you have an HDMI output, you may see 2 audio stanzas in lspci -v. List them both just to be sure. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
[gentoo-user] Re: X keyboard model insists of being pc104
On 09/11/2011 04:29 AM, meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote: ... I copied /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/10-evdev.conf to /etc/X11/xorg-conf.d/99-evdev.conf and edited it The relevant part of xorg.conf says: ... I may be misreading your post (of course :) but my first thought is that you have three different files trying to configure one keyboard: 1. 10-evdev.conf 2. 99-evdev.conf 3. xorg.conf Am I wrong about this?
[gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?
Hi, All Is it possible to have /var in a separate partition, mounted during boot? Or do the boot process need it to read/write to it? I have found that mounting local file systems is one of the very first tasks on rc boot. Thanks Francisco
Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?
Yes. Man fstab. On Sep 11, 2011 7:19 PM, Francisco Ares fra...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, All Is it possible to have /var in a separate partition, mounted during boot? Or do the boot process need it to read/write to it? I have found that mounting local file systems is one of the very first tasks on rc boot. Thanks Francisco
Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: Yes. Man fstab. On Sep 11, 2011 7:19 PM, Francisco Ares fra...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, All Is it possible to have /var in a separate partition, mounted during boot? Or do the boot process need it to read/write to it? I have found that mounting local file systems is one of the very first tasks on rc boot. Thanks Francisco Thank you!
Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?
Francisco Ares writes: Is it possible to have /var in a separate partition, mounted during boot? This is very common. The advantage is that a process filling up the /var directory (which is bad) will not fill the root partition (which would be worse). But this might change - the upcoming change in udev might require either an initramfs, or /usr being on the root partition. And I read that the same might be true for /var. Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?
Francisco Ares wrote: Hi, All Is it possible to have /var in a separate partition, mounted during boot? Or do the boot process need it to read/write to it? I have found that mounting local file systems is one of the very first tasks on rc boot. Thanks Francisco I think I saw it mentioned on -dev that some time shortly /usr and /var will be needed on / or you will need the init* thingy to boot. That's was my understanding of this mess. So, if you are about to do a install that needs /var on its own partition, I would ask a dev to see how you should plan. I could have misunderstood but I'm pretty sure it's coming. It may also depend on what you are going to be running too. I mention because no need doing it one way now and having to fix it later. That sucks! That said, I have /var on its own partition and mine boots fine, although I haven't rebooted in a week or so. I don't think the change has happened yet but is coming. I may have a different answer in a month or so. ;-) Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?
Thank you! And I have found it as a partitioning example on the docs, with /var on its own partition ( http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?full=1#book_part1_chap4 ) Francisco On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 11:54 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Francisco Ares wrote: Hi, All Is it possible to have /var in a separate partition, mounted during boot? Or do the boot process need it to read/write to it? I have found that mounting local file systems is one of the very first tasks on rc boot. Thanks Francisco I think I saw it mentioned on -dev that some time shortly /usr and /var will be needed on / or you will need the init* thingy to boot. That's was my understanding of this mess. So, if you are about to do a install that needs /var on its own partition, I would ask a dev to see how you should plan. I could have misunderstood but I'm pretty sure it's coming. It may also depend on what you are going to be running too. I mention because no need doing it one way now and having to fix it later. That sucks! That said, I have /var on its own partition and mine boots fine, although I haven't rebooted in a week or so. I don't think the change has happened yet but is coming. I may have a different answer in a month or so. ;-) Dale :-) :-) -- If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw
Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?
Francisco Ares wrote: Thank you! And I have found it as a partitioning example on the docs, with /var on its own partition (http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?full=1#book_part1_chap4) Francisco That could be changing tho. It is documented that way now but the change is coming. Whether it will affect your setup or not is not known at the moment. Basically, the changes that are coming are not in the docs yet. That is a work in progress. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?
On Sunday, September 11 at 18:54 (-0500), Dale said: I think I saw it mentioned on -dev that some time shortly /usr and /var will be needed on / or you will need the init* thingy to boot. That's was my understanding of this mess. So, if you are about to do a install that needs /var on its own partition, I would ask a dev to see how you should plan. I could have misunderstood but I'm pretty sure it's coming. It may also depend on what you are going to be running too. I mention because no need doing it one way now and having to fix it later. That sucks! That said, I have /var on its own partition and mine boots fine, although I haven't rebooted in a week or so. I don't think the change has happened yet but is coming. I may have a different answer in a month or so. ;-) Dale Hmm, that doesn't smell right to me. What I think you may have heard is about /run. systemd and some other things are preferring to move /var/run to /run. The reason being is that /var does not have to be on the root fs. sysdemd needs /run early (before mounting filesystems) so the idea was to put /var/run on the rootfs, thus /run. I don't think /usr should or ever will be required to be on the rootfs. That's just dumb. The reason we have /bin /sbin, etc. is so that /usr need not be on the rootfs. It doesn't make sense to change that well known/established notion. See also the FHS.
Re: [gentoo-user] [off-topic] - can /var be placed in a separate partition?
Albert W. Hopkins wrote: On Sunday, September 11 at 18:54 (-0500), Dale said: I think I saw it mentioned on -dev that some time shortly /usr and /var will be needed on / or you will need the init* thingy to boot. That's was my understanding of this mess. So, if you are about to do a install that needs /var on its own partition, I would ask a dev to see how you should plan. I could have misunderstood but I'm pretty sure it's coming. It may also depend on what you are going to be running too. I mention because no need doing it one way now and having to fix it later. That sucks! That said, I have /var on its own partition and mine boots fine, although I haven't rebooted in a week or so. I don't think the change has happened yet but is coming. I may have a different answer in a month or so. ;-) Dale Hmm, that doesn't smell right to me. What I think you may have heard is about /run. systemd and some other things are preferring to move /var/run to /run. The reason being is that /var does not have to be on the root fs. sysdemd needs /run early (before mounting filesystems) so the idea was to put /var/run on the rootfs, thus /run. I don't think /usr should or ever will be required to be on the rootfs. That's just dumb. The reason we have /bin /sbin, etc. is so that /usr need not be on the rootfs. It doesn't make sense to change that well known/established notion. See also the FHS. Have you been here the last week or so? We have been discussing this change for that long. I got the info from -dev. Alex posted the same so I guess I was reading it right. I agree it is dumb but that doesn't appear to sway the devs a bit. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Sun, Sep 11, 2011 at 4:46 PM, David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com wrote: On Sun, 11 Sep 2011 16:07:23 -0500, Dale wrote about Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot: Mick wrote: On Sunday 11 Sep 2011 19:56:48 Dale wrote: I always have /boot on a separate partition and it is always ext2. So, that is done. I also have a 200Mb /boot partition. It sometimes gets about half full but I could just clean out old kernels more often. I could always make /boot larger too. It seems that I'm gonna have fun with a 35M /boot soon (and no LVM of course). ;-) I'm doing some thinking and reading. I'm either going to go back to a rpm based thing and let something besides me deal with the init* stuff IMO, better to use Debian or Slackware. I went through RPM Hell back in the days when I ran S.u.S.E. (complete with full-stops in the name) and I will never go back. or stick around and dive into this init* crap and add LVM on top. Watch this space. You might read something to your advantage in the next few days. /boot would be the only thing not on LVM. Well, /boot cannot be on LVM, as the BIOS does not know about logical volumes. This makes me nervous as heck tho. I have read where if something goes wrong, you can lose everything. It's no worse than a normal partitioning system, just more flexible. [Of course, that also means that it is more flexible for you to destroy your DASD farm yourself.] I'm hoping I can make mine simple enough that I can manage any problems even if I can get no outside help. From what I have read, usually it's when you can't figure out how to fix it that you lose everything. Same as partitions: just keep backups. I have some scripts that generate LVM rebuild scripts. These scan the current logical volumes and generate lvcreate commands into a script that can rebuild your LVM set-up in seconds. You (or anybody else) are welcome to a copy if you wish. I am interested in the backup scripts to help improve my backup/restore system. After that, back up the contents using tar, dar, cpio or whatever your favourite archiving tool happens to be. -- Regards, Dave [RLU #314465] *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* dwn...@ntlworld.com (David W Noon) *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* -- No trees were harmed in the sending of this message. However, a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced.
[gentoo-user] RootFS not umounting at shutdown?
Ever since I have updated my system on 20th September, my rootfs (/dev/sda2) isn't umounted (remounted ro) on shutdown, due to which I see recover messages by kernel at boot (before init starts up). What's going wrong? I added the rc-service named root to the sysinit runlevel, but it seems nothing happened. -- Nilesh Govindarajan http://nileshgr.com
Re: [gentoo-user] RootFS not umounting at shutdown?
On Monday, September 12 at 07:23 (+0530), Nilesh Govindarajan said: Ever since I have updated my system on 20th September, my rootfs (/dev/sda2) isn't umounted (remounted ro) on shutdown, due to which I see recover messages by kernel at boot (before init starts up). What's going wrong? I added the rc-service named root to the sysinit runlevel, but it seems nothing happened. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=381783
Re: [gentoo-user] RootFS not umounting at shutdown?
Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: Ever since I have updated my system on 20th September, my rootfs (/dev/sda2) isn't umounted (remounted ro) on shutdown, due to which I see recover messages by kernel at boot (before init starts up). What's going wrong? I added the rc-service named root to the sysinit runlevel, but it seems nothing happened. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=381783 There you go. Look at the bottom posts and you can see what version has the fix. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] RootFS not umounting at shutdown?
On Mon 12 Sep 2011 07:32:25 AM IST, Dale wrote: Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: Ever since I have updated my system on 20th September, my rootfs (/dev/sda2) isn't umounted (remounted ro) on shutdown, due to which I see recover messages by kernel at boot (before init starts up). What's going wrong? I added the rc-service named root to the sysinit runlevel, but it seems nothing happened. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=381783 There you go. Look at the bottom posts and you can see what version has the fix. Dale :-) :-) There it goes. Thanks for the link. Updated to openrc 0.9.3-r1, let's see if it does the job or not. :-) -- -- Nilesh Govindarajan http://nileshgr.com
Re: [gentoo-user] RootFS not umounting at shutdown?
Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: On Mon 12 Sep 2011 07:32:25 AM IST, Dale wrote: Nilesh Govindarajan wrote: Ever since I have updated my system on 20th September, my rootfs (/dev/sda2) isn't umounted (remounted ro) on shutdown, due to which I see recover messages by kernel at boot (before init starts up). What's going wrong? I added the rc-service named root to the sysinit runlevel, but it seems nothing happened. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=381783 There you go. Look at the bottom posts and you can see what version has the fix. Dale :-) :-) There it goes. Thanks for the link. Updated to openrc 0.9.3-r1, let's see if it does the job or not. :-) If not, let them know on the bug too. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: X keyboard model insists of being pc104
walt w41...@gmail.com [11-09-12 04:34]: On 09/11/2011 04:29 AM, meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote: ... I copied /etc/X11/xorg.conf.d/10-evdev.conf to /etc/X11/xorg-conf.d/99-evdev.conf and edited it The relevant part of xorg.conf says: ... I may be misreading your post (of course :) but my first thought is that you have three different files trying to configure one keyboard: 1. 10-evdev.conf 2. 99-evdev.conf 3. xorg.conf Am I wrong about this? No, you are right! I inserted 99-evdev.conf, because 10-evdev.conf will be overwritten when updateing, because it was automagically installed. xorg.conf does the main configuration like setting altgr-intl. It was also the first place where I tried to set pc101 -- but it was ignored. So I tried to talk to evdev (see above) -- but without success. How can I proceed? Best regards mcc
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Where has my sound gone?
On Sunday 11 September 2011 23:31:18 walt wrote: Does alsa-info give any useful messages? An encyclopaedia-full of info, among which I see No sound servers found. How about dmesg or syslog? Dmsg shows the hardware being set up OK; syslog nothing. Did you keep any of the useflags from your old make.conf? No; that was the point, or part of it. I decided to remove all USE flags except hardware ones, then add back in any that turned out to be needed. Looks like you've spotted the one I need - thanks. I don't know why I didn't think of that - so easy with hindsight. I've added USE=alsa and I'm remerging world now. Let's hope I'll be able to listen to my favourite BBC Radio 3 soon! -- Rgds Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
Re: [gentoo-user] --depclean wants to remove much of java. Is this safe?
On Sun, Sep 11 2011, Philip Webb wrote: 110910 Allan Gottlieb wrote: I converted two machines from icedtea (java6) to oracle-jdk-bin (java7). I did in effect emerge --depclean icedtea icedtea-web =virtual/jdk-1.6.0 =virtual/jdk-1.6.0 On one machine portage now claims that I basically don't need java (see the output of --depclean below). Can this be right? dev-java/ant-nodeps selected: 1.8.1 protected: none omitted: none *** remainder snipped *** I recently removed Java from my system: all I seem to have lost is direct access to the help files in LibreOffice, which have a fully adequate PDF substitute. You can check each package in your list with 'emerge -cpv pkg' see what it says requires it: if they only support one another, you can fairly safely remove them all. Thanks. I did the check and then let depclean remove them. allan
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Where has my sound gone?
On Monday 12 September 2011 04:41:53 I wrote: I've added USE=alsa and I'm remerging world now. Let's hope I'll be able to listen to my favourite BBC Radio 3 soon! Now playing happily, though the BBC do still insist on Flash. Thanks for your help. So simple... -- Rgds Peter Linux Counter 5290, 1994-04-23
