Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 19:21:05 -0700, walt wrote: On 10/11/2013 01:42 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: I don't like systemd, Sorry if my memory is failing (it surely is) but I don't recall any explanation from you describing your dissatisfaction with systemd. It was never germane to the conversation. I only mentioned it here to make it clear that I am not a systemd or Poettering apologist. I don't like the idea of such a complex and pervasive init process. Do one thing and do it well is the long-standing Unix mantra, and it's been long-standing for good reason. This is particularly applicable to the most critical process on the system, process 1. I'm also uncomfortable with the close ties between systemd and GNOME, not that have anything against the GNOME people but init should be independently controlled. Red Hat contribute more to the kernel than anyone else (12.5% IIRC) but they don't control its development. I have tried systemd on a minimal VM and it did boot very quickly, but that's not a real concern for me. The only system I reboot with any regularity is my laptop, and that boots equally quickly because it has an SSD. With belated apologies to my many kind Brit friends from 1974, I ask you to tell us WTF you dislike systemd, and use language that us Yanks can fscking unnerstand, got it, punk? OMG IT'S NOT AWESOME! -- Neil Bothwick New sig wanted good price paid. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
The 10/10/13, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: if something like sshd crashes, you either have a hardware problem or sshd is buggy. Either way, better not be pampered over with a silent service restart. So, restarting a service should not be silent (I think it isn't) and might need better alerts. Oh, don't the admin have the tools for this already (sendmail, motd, snmp, whatever)? I'm not pretending the current situation is perfect but if admins are tired to configure alerts on their own, it should not be that hard to improve and factorize efforts (at Gentoo at least, if not upstream). -- Nicolas Sebrecht
[gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 09:17:02PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 19:04:41 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote: I suppose that what I am about to say isn't really relevant, but it is unfortunate over the past year that people blamed udev specifically for this. It is true that it does things that don't work if /usr isn't mounted, but eudev does as well, since it is basically the same code. Who else is there to blame? We are continually being told that a separate /usr is broken, as though this were some unfortunate act of insert your deity here, much like an earthquake. This gets patronising really quickly. (Please note, I'm NOT blaming you here. I appreciate that you're as much victim as Dale or me or anyone else round here.) It's evolution. Linux has for years been moving in this direction, now it has reached the point where the Gentoo devs can no longer devote the increasing time needed to support what has now become an dge case. Yeah and that's just vague crap without content ;) No, this breaking of separate /usr was done by some specific project, some specific person, even, in a supreme display of incompetence, malice, or arrogance. How come this project and this person have managed to maintain such a low profile? There seems to have been some sort of conspiracy to do this breakage in secret, each member of the coven pushing the plot until the damage was irrevocable. Who was it? So which was it, one specific person or a coven of conspirators? This is open source, secret conspiracies don't really work well. If this really was such a bad move, do you really think the likes of Greg K-H would not have stepped in? Or is he a conspirator too? No he's just a bit naive: he wants to believe the best of people and did not realise quite how sneaky Poettering is. No doubt he still doesn't. But I'm sure he never foresaw some of their shenanighans, such as claiming their newly inserted breakage was the fault of device-drivers and everyone should switch to their funky new way of loading modules. No-one seemed to think what Torvalds said was incorrect, even if they disagreed with his tone. And yet that's exactly the same crap they pull in user-space, only they seem to think the kernel mentality of userspace is crazy is a howto methodology. -- #friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Fri, 11 Oct 2013 09:36:02 +0100, Steven J. Long wrote: It's evolution. Linux has for years been moving in this direction, now it has reached the point where the Gentoo devs can no longer devote the increasing time needed to support what has now become an dge case. Yeah and that's just vague crap without content ;) I bow to your superior expertise in that field :) So which was it, one specific person or a coven of conspirators? This is open source, secret conspiracies don't really work well. If this really was such a bad move, do you really think the likes of Greg K-H would not have stepped in? Or is he a conspirator too? No he's just a bit naive: he wants to believe the best of people and did not realise quite how sneaky Poettering is. No doubt he still doesn't. But I'm sure he never foresaw some of their shenanighans, such as claiming their newly inserted breakage was the fault of device-drivers and everyone should switch to their funky new way of loading modules. No-one seemed to think what Torvalds said was incorrect, even if they disagreed with his tone. I don't understand why people keep banging on about Poettering in this, previously finished, thread. The announcement was made by the OpenRC maintainer and applies equally to those running eudev as udev. That is, systems free of that individual's influence. Whatever anyone's opinion of the way he is taking things, and for the record I don't like systemd, this is a situation that arose without his help. -- Neil Bothwick Multitasking: Reading in the bathroom. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 10/11/2013 01:42 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: I don't like systemd, Sorry if my memory is failing (it surely is) but I don't recall any explanation from you describing your dissatisfaction with systemd. The three happiest months of my life were spent as a student in London in the summer of 1974, where I frequently heard the phrase I should have thought that you Only much later did I discover that such a benign phrase conveys the most severe form of British disapproval :( With belated apologies to my many kind Brit friends from 1974, I ask you to tell us WTF you dislike systemd, and use language that us Yanks can fscking unnerstand, got it, punk?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 10/11/2013 09:21 PM, walt wrote: On 10/11/2013 01:42 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: I don't like systemd, Sorry if my memory is failing (it surely is) but I don't recall any explanation from you describing your dissatisfaction with systemd. The three happiest months of my life were spent as a student in London in the summer of 1974, where I frequently heard the phrase I should have thought that you Only much later did I discover that such a benign phrase conveys the most severe form of British disapproval :( With belated apologies to my many kind Brit friends from 1974, I ask you to tell us WTF you dislike systemd, and use language that us Yanks can fscking unnerstand, got it, punk? What do his personal opinions regarding systemd have to do with separate / and /usr? It's just another one of many, many applications that migrated to /usr and added more inertia to de facto practice.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 05:24:39PM -0700, walt wrote: On 10/08/2013 09:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote: to provide service supervision, which is the main feature systemd offers By supervision do you mean restarting a service after it crashes, for example? Right. This is one of the more significant features that OpenRC doesn't have yet. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Am 10.10.2013 16:46, schrieb William Hubbs: On Wed, Oct 09, 2013 at 05:24:39PM -0700, walt wrote: On 10/08/2013 09:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote: to provide service supervision, which is the main feature systemd offers By supervision do you mean restarting a service after it crashes, for example? Right. This is one of the more significant features that OpenRC doesn't have yet. William why? if something like sshd crashes, you either have a hardware problem or sshd is buggy. Either way, better not be pampered over with a silent service restart. The rest is so visible (or audible - like fancontrol) that you know that there is a problem.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-29 2:55 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: I am the OpenRC author/maintainer and a member of base-system. I can tell you that we are not discussing forcing systemd on everyone in Gentoo Linux as a default init system. I can also tell you that I am not aware of the Gentoo systemd team discussing this. Even if they were, a distro-wide change like this would have to be brought before the Council. Ok, good enough for me until other evidence comes along to cast doubt as to the truthfulness or sincerity of your statement. Thanks William... Now to try to get up enough nerve to attempt to merge my /usr (currently on LVM partition) into my / (does have enough room, and will leave me with a 19GB / partition with about 5GB free). Anyone see a problem with that (only 5GB free on my / after the /usr merge)?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, Sep 29 2013, tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-09-29 2:55 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: I am the OpenRC author/maintainer and a member of base-system. I can tell you that we are not discussing forcing systemd on everyone in Gentoo Linux as a default init system. I can also tell you that I am not aware of the Gentoo systemd team discussing this. Even if they were, a distro-wide change like this would have to be brought before the Council. Ok, good enough for me until other evidence comes along to cast doubt as to the truthfulness or sincerity of your statement. Thanks William... Now to try to get up enough nerve to attempt to merge my /usr (currently on LVM partition) into my / (does have enough room, and will leave me with a 19GB / partition with about 5GB free). Anyone see a problem with that (only 5GB free on my / after the /usr merge)? I understand the need to get up nerve. That was the hardest part for me, and took by far, the most time. I did *not* have room in / for /usr but *did* have an online external disk on the machine with lots of room (Alan's what I should have done scheme). I could afford downtime so I did everything booted from an installation CD so that nothing would change. 1. Booted minimal installation CD 2. Copied my 5 lvs (/usr, /opt, /var, /tmp, /local) and my / to the external disk and called them old-root, old-usr, old-opt, old-var, old-tmp, old-local. 3. Repartitioned the internal disk to make root bigger. 4. Created the vg and pv (I have just one of each). 5. Created the 5 filesystems (root, /opt, /var, /tmp, /local), with the last 4 on LVM 6. Copied old-root to / and old-usr to /usr 7. Mounted the 4 lvs and copied old-opt to /opt, old-var to /var, ... Reboot It worked. Notes. 1. I had grub in the MBR so that didn't change 2. The root fs remained the same partition number (/dev/sda3), so didn't have to change grub. 3. In fact /dev/sda3 maintained the same starting location in the new partitioning scheme, but I don't think that was relevant. allan
[gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 10/08/2013 09:16 PM, William Hubbs wrote: to provide service supervision, which is the main feature systemd offers By supervision do you mean restarting a service after it crashes, for example? Or something else completely?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Am 08.10.2013 02:03, schrieb walt: On 09/29/2013 04:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: As much as I hate systemd My Alzheimer's prevents me from remembering your reasons for hating systemd. Would you *very* briefly refresh my memory, please? simple: one tool to do one job. text output to pipe into other tools. Small is better. systemd violates all of them. Also: dishonesty.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Tue, Oct 08, 2013 at 08:11:48PM +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: Am 08.10.2013 02:03, schrieb walt: On 09/29/2013 04:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: As much as I hate systemd My Alzheimer's prevents me from remembering your reasons for hating systemd. Would you *very* briefly refresh my memory, please? simple: one tool to do one job. text output to pipe into other tools. Small is better. I'm not a strong systemd hater or anything, but this is my concern about the way it is designed as well; process 1 is way too complex. There is some interest in s6 [1], which is now in ~arch on amd64 and x86. It seems to be a pretty simple design. We haven't written anything for it yet, but it may be able to be integrated into OpenRC to provide service supervision, which is the main feature systemd offers, in my opinion, which we do not have in our current OpenRC setup. William [1] http://www.skarnet.org/software/s6 signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
In linux.gentoo.user, James wrote: Gregory Shearman zekeyg at gmail.com writes: b) The important reason I need an initramfs is that I have my root filesystems on LVM partitions (except for my ARM servers). Hello Gregory, Please tell me, as much as you are confortable with, about your ARM servers I'm running 2 servers at the moment. They are very low power and they mainly serve my home network. One is a Marvell Sheevaplug (single core 1.2GHZ 512MB memory) and has been running reliably for many years. The other is a Texas Instruments Pandaboard (2 core Cortex A9 Processor - 1Gb memory) . I've only had the Panda since October last year and it is also a very reliable server (with added GUI HDMI benefits!). Running Gentoo? Running Embedded Gentoo? Which kernels? HDD ? File Systems? Configurations, Grub 2? LVM, RAID ? Both servers are running Gentoo Stable... therefore current kernels (for their architecture). Both have external HDD attached via USB. File systems: root filesystem is on an SDHC card (2nd partition). Other filesystems (except for the boot partition) are all on LVM. I have /usr/src, /usr/portage, /usr/portage/distfiles is a symlink to /var/www/localhost/gentoo/distfiles (another filesystem). I also have /var/tmp/portage on a separate filesystem and I also run a postgresql database server which also has its own partition on /var/lib/postgresql/version. Both servers have the same setup as I'm currently in the process of replacing the sheevaplug with the panda. Grub? There's no such thing on ARM machines. The kernel or uImage looks for the first partition on the configured root device (SDHC on my systems) the first partition MUST be VFAT (unfortunately) and it contains the u-boot bootloader and the kernel (uImage). Kernels are built the same way as x86 kernels except you do make uImage instead of make bzImage. LVM? All the above filesystems, except the root partition and the boot partition are LVM volumes. Filesystems are mostly Ext4 (very conventional). RAID? Nope. Typical usage? Print server, database server, backups, webserver - which includes serving gentoo portage and distfiles to other machines on the network (THTTPD is a great minimal web server). What install docs did you follow? Sheevaplug: http://dev.gentoo.org/~armin76/arm/sheevaplug/install.xml#install Pandaboard: http://dev.gentoo.org/~armin76/arm/pandaboard/install.xml It's easy. Any suggestions on setting up ARM servers, cluster, and such are most welcome. ARM servers aren't much different to other servers but you must realise that these are low powered devices (the ones I run anyway) and aren't really suited to large loads. They especially suit a small business or home hobbyist environment. Even so, compiling Gentoo, especially on the Panda is not a problem and doesn't take forever (except for gcc updates 8-)). I suppose you could cluster a number of these devices but I think it would be more efficient to use a more powerful server running servers as virtual machines. -- Regards, Gregory.
[gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Gregory Shearman zekeyg at gmail.com writes: Both servers are running Gentoo Stable... therefore current kernels (for their architecture). Both have external HDD attached via USB. Hey Greg, If you just reply to the thread, we can keep one continuous thread going in lieu of a new posting each time. Let's just look at the Panda board. I have a first rev panda to experiment with. So a HDD via USB 2.0? fast enough for a Postgrsql database? A bit more on the HDD setup (hardware) would be keen. Did you ever try to run this on a straight USB stick and not the performance difference? File systems: root filesystem is on an SDHC card (2nd partition). Other filesystems (except for the boot partition) are all on LVM. I have /usr/src, /usr/portage, /usr/portage/distfiles is a symlink to /var/www/localhost/gentoo/distfiles (another filesystem). I also have /var/tmp/portage on a separate filesystem and I also run a postgresql database server which also has its own partition on /var/lib/postgresql/≤version. Both servers have the same setup as I'm currently in the process of replacing the sheevaplug with the panda. Postgresql on a separate partition, nice idea. Do you aggresively manage the PG server or is it just a recreational (light duty) usage? Grub? There's no such thing on ARM machines. The kernel or uImage looks for the first partition on the configured root device (SDHC on my systems) the first partition MUST be VFAT (unfortunately) and it contains the u-boot bootloader and the kernel (uImage). https://wiki.linaro.org/LEG/Engineering/Grub2 https://wiki.linaro.org/LEG/Engineering/Kernel/ACPI/AcpiOnArndaleUefi Kernels are built the same way as x86 kernels except you do make uImage instead of make bzImage. You Compile the kernels on a x86 host or compile them directly on the Arm chip? Then you put new kernels on the SD and swap those out to test/use newer kernels on the Arm systems? LVM? All the above filesystems, except the root partition and the boot partition are LVM volumes. Filesystems are mostly Ext4 (very conventional). What, no ZFS.? Wait till Alan heards about this. Grub2 on ARM will allow many new file systems, and that is the key issue with robust Arm servers, right now, imho. Typical usage? Print server, database server, backups, webserver - which includes serving gentoo portage and distfiles to other machines on the network (THTTPD is a great minimal web server). Any suggestions on setting up ARM servers, cluster, and such are most welcome. ARM servers aren't much different to other servers but you must realise that these are low powered devices (the ones I run anyway) and aren't really suited to large loads. They especially suit a small business or home hobbyist environment. Even so, compiling Gentoo, especially on the Panda is not a problem and doesn't take forever (except for gcc updates ). What does your make.conf look like on the panda? I suppose you could cluster a number of these devices but I think it would be more efficient to use a more powerful server running servers as virtual machines. No BTRFS or CEPH? (just teasing, but seriously) http://armservers.com/tag/ceph/ http://www.inktank.com/calxeda/ I posted previously on some Arm (A15) based systems, you may want to look at for your next arm server, recently. Many have SATA 3 interfaces. If you look at the ARM installation (handbook) docs, it is need of a re_vamping. I'm certain that folks would appreciate your participation in the modernization of the ARM handbook, via the Gentoo wiki. The Gentoo wiki is your (ARM) friend I'm very happy, you are sharing your (ARM) gentoo experiences herein. James
[gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 09/29/2013 04:58 AM, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: As much as I hate systemd My Alzheimer's prevents me from remembering your reasons for hating systemd. Would you *very* briefly refresh my memory, please?
[gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Gregory Shearman zekeyg at gmail.com writes: b) The important reason I need an initramfs is that I have my root filesystems on LVM partitions (except for my ARM servers). Hello Gregory, Please tell me, as much as you are confortable with, about your ARM servers Running Gentoo? Running Embedded Gentoo? Which kernels? HDD ? File Systems? Configurations, Grub 2? LVM, RAID ? Typical usage? What install docs did you follow? Any suggestions on setting up ARM servers, cluster, and such are most welcome. etc etc etc. curiously, James
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Thu, 03 Oct 2013 07:48:59 +0200, jo...@antarean.org wrote: On 01/10/2013 20:48, Neil Bothwick wrote: I installed a VM a couple of weeks ago and I'm sure portage was still in /usr. It's easy enough to tell, unpack a stage 3 and see where the portage directory lives, but the handbook still refers to /usr/portage. You always grab the latest stage3? I generally make a copy of an exiating up-to-date system and use that. That works best as they all use NFS and set of links for portage. Not always, but this time I wanted a vanilla install to try out systemd. -- Neil Bothwick It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 02.10.2013 16:28, Alan McKinnon wrote: [ ... ] You should still move portage to var though. Consider it a local fix to a long-standing bug. Incidentally, do you know why the tree is in /usr? Because FreeBSD ports puts it there. Why did they do that? Because FreeBSD is not Linux; it is derived from SysV, which puts home directories and all manner of other things in /usr. I apologize but I always thought that it's Linux that derives from ATT SysV (1983), while FreeBSD derives from ... BSD (1978). How come then Linux uses SysV init and BSD does not? ;) As to ports placement in FreeBSD, I have never seen any reason to do it the other way, IMHO /var should not be polluted with huge amounts of data which is not runtime-related and may occupy tens of gigs (in case of OOo or LO compilation), rather what I always do (in FreeBSD and in Gentoo) is just put all ports/portage on a separate partition with performance-optimized settings (striping, noatime etc). And I'd really seriously object to putting portage under /var if my opinion were to be considered... I also don't like the approach of putting into /var stuff like databases and other important data. /var is system-related runtime stuff, and data should always be separate. This also helps keep /var small and neat and apply to it a different backup policy than to data and portage. It's as simple as that. -- Best wishes, Yuri K. Shatroff
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Am 03.10.2013 11:00, schrieb Yuri K. Shatroff: I apologize but I always thought that it's Linux that derives from ATT SysV (1983), while FreeBSD derives from ... BSD (1978). How come then Linux uses SysV init and BSD does not? ;) no, no and no.
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-10-01 2:48 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch installation. Why? While I'm not sure why it matters to you, it is because I have a policy that I never change the defaults for anything without a (good) reason. If ever there was a distro for people that didn't want to use defaults, Gentoo is it. True, but irrelevant to my question... Someone had to decide the defaults - so, what are they? Anyone? I installed a VM a couple of weeks ago and I'm sure portage was still in /usr. It's easy enough to tell, unpack a stage 3 and see where the portage directory lives, but the handbook still refers to /usr/portage. So you're saying Alan was wrong about /var being the new default... Alan?
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 08:04:16 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch installation. Why? While I'm not sure why it matters to you, Just curious. it is because I have a policy that I never change the defaults for anything without a (good) reason. That's reasonable, but I feel there's a good reason here - the default location sucks. I installed a VM a couple of weeks ago and I'm sure portage was still in /usr. It's easy enough to tell, unpack a stage 3 and see where the portage directory lives, but the handbook still refers to /usr/portage. So you're saying Alan was wrong about /var being the new default... Let's just say he appeared to misremember :) -- Neil Bothwick Some people are born mediocre, some people achieve mediocrity, and some people have mediocrity thrust upon them. - Joseph Heller, Catch-22 signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-10-01 7:41 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: /var makes sense to me, it's where I put the tree (but not packages or distfiles). Why not these?
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 02/10/2013 14:04, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-10-01 2:48 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch installation. Why? While I'm not sure why it matters to you, it is because I have a policy that I never change the defaults for anything without a (good) reason. If ever there was a distro for people that didn't want to use defaults, Gentoo is it. True, but irrelevant to my question... Someone had to decide the defaults - so, what are they? Anyone? I installed a VM a couple of weeks ago and I'm sure portage was still in /usr. It's easy enough to tell, unpack a stage 3 and see where the portage directory lives, but the handbook still refers to /usr/portage. So you're saying Alan was wrong about /var being the new default... Alan? Yes, I looks like I was wrong all along. You should still move portage to var though. Consider it a local fix to a long-standing bug. Incidentally, do you know why the tree is in /usr? Because FreeBSD ports puts it there. Why did they do that? Because FreeBSD is not Linux; it is derived from SysV, which puts home directories and all manner of other things in /usr. It's as simple as that. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 02/10/2013 14:12, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 08:04:16 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch installation. Why? While I'm not sure why it matters to you, Just curious. it is because I have a policy that I never change the defaults for anything without a (good) reason. That's reasonable, but I feel there's a good reason here - the default location sucks. I installed a VM a couple of weeks ago and I'm sure portage was still in /usr. It's easy enough to tell, unpack a stage 3 and see where the portage directory lives, but the handbook still refers to /usr/portage. So you're saying Alan was wrong about /var being the new default... Let's just say he appeared to misremember :) A spade is a spade, not a hand-powered earth moving implement. He was plain wrong :-) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-10-02 8:28 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I looks like I was wrong all along. I thought I was wrong once, but then discovered that I was mistaken... ;) You should still move portage to var though. Consider it a local fix to a long-standing bug. I'm still waiting to hear why Neil doesn't move packages and distfiles there... sounded like he had a good reason...
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 08:23:07 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: /var makes sense to me, it's where I put the tree (but not packages or distfiles). Why not these? Because they have no place in the portage tree. The portage tree contains thousands of small files, but remains largely the same size. On the other hand $DISTDIR and $PKGDIR contain files that are not controlled by portage and grow continually without manual intervention. I keep $DISTDIR on an NFS mount for the reason I gave earlier in this thread, to save downloading the files more than once. I have $PKGDIR on the same mount, which is also used for overlays. I would rather have that directory, which is only used for portage files, hit 100% when I'm not looking that /var or /usr. If I were running a single Gentoo machine, I'd probably put $DISTDIR in the logical place of /var/cache (that's where other package managers keep their downloads) and use eclean-dist to stop it overflowing, or put a quota on the directory. -- Neil Bothwick If Satan ever loses his hair, there'll be hell toupee. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 02/10/2013 14:53, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-10-02 8:28 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: Yes, I looks like I was wrong all along. I thought I was wrong once, but then discovered that I was mistaken... ;) You should still move portage to var though. Consider it a local fix to a long-standing bug. I'm still waiting to hear why Neil doesn't move packages and distfiles there... sounded like he had a good reason... He's English, and old(-ish) My money says he forgot. :-) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 17:47:14 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: I'm still waiting to hear why Neil doesn't move packages and distfiles there... sounded like he had a good reason... He's English, and old(-ish) My money says he forgot. Misremembered actually. In fact, I replied when I saw it, I sometimes go an hour without checking my email (but not often) -- Neil Bothwick How stupid are people? Send me £10 to find out. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-10-02 11:31 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: Because they have no place in the portage tree. The portage tree contains thousands of small files, but remains largely the same size. On the other hand $DISTDIR and $PKGDIR contain files that are not controlled by portage and grow continually without manual intervention. Ah... so you did move them from /usr, just not into /var/portage... Ok, thanks much guys... guess I'll go with Alans layout as it makes the most sense to me: /var/portage /var/distfiles /var/packages Thanks again...
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-10-02 2:24 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: Ok, thanks much guys... guess I'll go with Alans layout as it makes the most sense to me: /var/portage /var/distfiles /var/packages Actually, I think I like: /var/portage/tree /var/portage/distfiles /var/portage/packages better... :)
[gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 09/30/2013 06:22 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 12:01:27 +0200, Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote: mount /usr -o remount,ro mkdir /newusr rsync -a /usr/ /new/usr/ Comment out /usr line in /etc/fstab mv /usr /oldusr mv /newusr /usr reboot rmdir /oldusr What you do with the old partition is up to you. In this case the discussion was about /usr on LVM, so you just delete it and allocate the space elsewhere when needed. You can even leave out the step of creating a new directory and moving it later if you bind-mount you rootfs somewhere, e.g. /mnt/gentoo. Good point. You may want to add some parameters to the call to rsync, though (e.g. those that preserve permissions, xattrs (especially for SELinux or XT-PaX) and owner/group (should be -pogX), -a covers most if not all of those. possibly -x aswell (if you have other filesystems under /usr (e.g. a discrete FS for the portage tree). Another good point, one of those things you think of immediately after hitting Send :( Specifically, I would use -axAHX (-rlptgoD are implied by -a, but -HAX are not). - From rsync(1): - -aarchive mode; equals -rlptgoD (no -H,-A,-X) - -rrecurse into directories - -lcopy symlinks as symlinks - -ppreserve permissions - -tpreserve modification times - -gpreserve group - -opreserve owner - -Dpreserve device files and special files - -Hpreserve hard links - -Apreserve ACLs (implies -p) - -Xpreserve extended attributes - -xdon't cross filesystem boundaries - -- Jonathan Callen -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v2.0.21 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQIcBAEBCgAGBQJSTKwvAAoJELHSF2kinlg4w5kP+wXTGhMSgTFReacg44Ryn8bu bSvq3qZURGbGu5s8Q/Ejg42sZ/0fXdfDD57ZhSpVRWMZ/KZIETZAD2oCkktjr6Vj OELOhz5Pm+UswC201nl6K39PYMijdI+4Mho6QQVoMixa1NI5ZBF7pLBRi+RtJzOx ilEBPmMqE9jt1hdiHnvucq6YEOSANsLRz5rhqnae9BJurrgAMCBOtxvATZiP5YwD 6P8OyNy0UeKdYYrvzjmAjY9cmZ78r6rIekF1eDchGklIJfuj/mlwG8r0JlusSc34 q7OK4YHdDeNBbMESpuJjeZAYfUycUk90Ag5g+8vx9UqxxJj6FxeeVt3oaPi7sLgj j4HXS2d5FcH9ItO5SToWIccZHp+C0/3w1S7DOT0pNe1SaOMOwSBDpZTtLhseW1C8 VVr+G4wGrhQmmBXSePa8ICWJ7Xr8NM16km/h8JrHjtvUisV4AtOuQ0mzv0FGmjVG cgcDqtAjBD00YjVQPQ5VSxb8ZGBjFecMBPhZk2Q1Ea2uUTpb8RdeH0ZvVMXg8N0u g+otGVC56PecjLReYCWnHuM18+f5tKdTvUo+u0GG6epoe2icNi5BPjC9oQjLI6nd hdhfrAKzje5T0vAUZNMO6uYcuSL4zmB/T53Dkl1aIem5kV2I9SVt0ku3WsSCywD+ bNu/HzR0SlB4FyFvEEJl =ef8P -END PGP SIGNATURE-
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 01/10/2013 20:48, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch installation. Why? If ever there was a distro for people that didn't want to use defaults, Gentoo is it. Someone had to decide the defaults - so, what are they? Anyone? I installed a VM a couple of weeks ago and I'm sure portage was still in /usr. It's easy enough to tell, unpack a stage 3 and see where the portage directory lives, but the handbook still refers to /usr/portage. Please say it isn't so, otherwise I'm going to look like a right royal chump. Or maybe I just change it all on automatic these days and forget it do it. But it was definitely discussed on -dev at length. i could be wrong about the end result bashful -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com You always grab the latest stage3? I generally make a copy of an exiating up-to-date system and use that. That works best as they all use NFS and set of links for portage. -- Joost -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-30 3:14 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/09/2013 19:25, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: Alan wrote: Charles wrote: But... is /usr/portage the default/recommended location? If so, then I don't think I want to move it - I generally never change defaults unless there is a very good reason to do so. It's /var/portage for new installs. If you want it to be somewhere else, just move it and adjust make.conf really? so when I moved PORTDIR to /var/portage I was ahead of the rest? Wow... You were ahead of me for sure :-) So... if the change from /usr/portage to /var/portage was official, is there any (official) documentation on precisely how to move it? Hmmm more importantly, when did this change occur? Is it possibly tied to portage 2.2? The reason I ask is, I'm still on 2.1, and man portage still has references to: /usr/portage/sets /usr/portage/metadata /usr/portage/profiles /usr/share/portage/config and man make.conf still says: PKGDIR = [path] snip Defaults to /usr/portage/packages. and most importantly: PORTDIR = [path] snip Defaults to /usr/portage. So... are you quite certain that this default has in fact changed? I know that it is probably trivial, but I like to read official docs for things like this... Thanks again...
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 01/10/2013 14:35, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-30 3:14 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 30/09/2013 19:25, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: Alan wrote: Charles wrote: But... is /usr/portage the default/recommended location? If so, then I don't think I want to move it - I generally never change defaults unless there is a very good reason to do so. It's /var/portage for new installs. If you want it to be somewhere else, just move it and adjust make.conf really? so when I moved PORTDIR to /var/portage I was ahead of the rest? Wow... You were ahead of me for sure :-) So... if the change from /usr/portage to /var/portage was official, is there any (official) documentation on precisely how to move it? Hmmm more importantly, when did this change occur? Is it possibly tied to portage 2.2? The reason I ask is, I'm still on 2.1, and man portage still has references to: /usr/portage/sets /usr/portage/metadata /usr/portage/profiles /usr/share/portage/config and man make.conf still says: PKGDIR = [path] snip Defaults to /usr/portage/packages. and most importantly: PORTDIR = [path] snip Defaults to /usr/portage. So... are you quite certain that this default has in fact changed? Yes. The docs are out of date. I know that it is probably trivial, but I like to read official docs for things like this... It is trivial. All that it is, is a path to where some stuff is. That's all, nothing more. Change this in make.conf: PORTDIR=/var/portage DISTDIR=/var/distfiles PKGDIR=/var/packages move the directories to the new location and run any old emerge command of your choice. If you left something out, you'll get a message on the screen. You can have these directories any place you want and nothing breaks by moving them around. The only change is the shipped default. So there are loads of this you could worry about in IT, this ain't one of 'em -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 08:35:16 -0400
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-09-30 3:14 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/09/2013 19:25, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
Alan wrote:
Charles wrote:
But... is /usr/portage the default/recommended location? If so,
then I don't think I want to move it - I generally never change
defaults unless there is a very good reason to do so.
It's /var/portage for new installs. If you want it to be
somewhere else, just move it and adjust make.conf
really? so when I moved PORTDIR to /var/portage I was ahead of the
rest? Wow...
You were ahead of me for sure :-)
So... if the change from /usr/portage to /var/portage was official,
is there any (official) documentation on precisely how to move it?
Hmmm more importantly, when did this change occur? Is it possibly
tied to portage 2.2? The reason I ask is, I'm still on 2.1, and man
portage still has references to:
/usr/portage/sets
/usr/portage/metadata
/usr/portage/profiles
/usr/share/portage/config
and man make.conf still says:
PKGDIR = [path] snip
Defaults to /usr/portage/packages.
and most importantly:
PORTDIR = [path] snip
Defaults to /usr/portage.
So... are you quite certain that this default has in fact changed?
I know that it is probably trivial, but I like to read official docs
for things like this...
Thanks again...
Hi,
I haven't kept up with documentation but moving portage is
fairly straightforward.
Here's how I'd do it:
mkdir /var/portage
chown portage:portage /var/portage
rsync -aHx /usr/portage/ /var/portage/ #add flags if using ext attr.
edit /etc/make.conf
PORTDIR=/var/portage
DISTDIR=${PORTDIR}/distfiles
PKGDIR=${PORTDIR}/packages
edit /etc/portage/repos.conf/* accordingly
change default profile with eselect profile list
or manually link /etc/make.profile to the correct path
emerge --sync
when everything is working ok clean /usr/portage
Hope i was helpful,
netixen
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-10-01 8:46 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: I know that it is probably trivial, but I like to read official docs for things like this... It is trivial. All that it is, is a path to where some stuff is. That's all, nothing more. Ok, thanks... but (call me anal, because I am) I still think this deserves at least a tiny mention in the formal documentation somewhere, even if its just on a a wiki page or whatever. Also, obviously the man docs for portage and make.conf should be updated... Change this in make.conf: PORTDIR=/var/portage DISTDIR=/var/distfiles PKGDIR=/var/packages Hmmm... Currently, everything is in /usr/portage: /usr/portage /usr/portage/distfiles /usr/portage/packages But the new defaults are 3 separate directories as you specified above? Or was that a typo, and they should be: /var/portage /var/portage/distfiles /var/portage/packages ? Another question... Since these are the new defaults, how do new installs define them? Are they explicitly set in make.conf now? Or is it somewhere else more low-level - and if so, wouldn't it be better to change it there once I've moved everything and confirmed it is working properly? move the directories to the new location Is a cp -rp /usr/portage /var/portage (repeat for the others) sufficient? and run any old emerge command of your choice. If you left something out, you'll get a message on the screen. You can have these directories any place you want and nothing breaks by moving them around. The only change is the shipped default. So there are loads of this you could worry about in IT, this ain't one of 'em Heh... ok, thanks, but you see, I worry about *everything* (maybe that is one reason I rarely get bit badly doing things like this).
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 10/01/2013 08:35 AM, Tanstaafl wrote: So... if the change from /usr/portage to /var/portage was official, is there any (official) documentation on precisely how to move it? Hmmm more importantly, when did this change occur? Is it possibly tied to portage 2.2? The reason I ask is, I'm still on 2.1, and man portage still has references to: Everyone agrees it should go under /var somewhere, and that the distfiles shouldn't be in the tree, http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg54610.html but no one location was chosen IIRC.
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 01/10/2013 15:52, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-10-01 8:46 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: I know that it is probably trivial, but I like to read official docs for things like this... It is trivial. All that it is, is a path to where some stuff is. That's all, nothing more. Ok, thanks... but (call me anal, because I am) I still think this deserves at least a tiny mention in the formal documentation somewhere, even if its just on a a wiki page or whatever. Also, obviously the man docs for portage and make.conf should be updated... Err, yeah, that should have been done. But none of that fazes me anymore. You should see some of the docs I'm forced to use for professional carrier grade premium level support products Change this in make.conf: PORTDIR=/var/portage DISTDIR=/var/distfiles PKGDIR=/var/packages Hmmm... Currently, everything is in /usr/portage: /usr/portage /usr/portage/distfiles /usr/portage/packages But the new defaults are 3 separate directories as you specified above? Or was that a typo, and they should be: /var/portage /var/portage/distfiles /var/portage/packages No, I have them the way I posted. For years portage shipped with this really dumbass stupid notion of shoving local overlays, binpkgs and distfiles all in with the tree. Dumb, dumb, dumb. It makes using rsync needlessly difficult and you can't deal with the tree as a single directory unit without putting an exclusion in. So I split them up and rigged things so each category of thing is in it's own distinct directory tree. Like I said earlier, they are just paths and you can put them anywhere you like. You too can put yours anywhere it makes sense to you. ? Another question... Since these are the new defaults, how do new installs define them? Are they explicitly set in make.conf now? Or is it somewhere else more low-level - and if so, wouldn't it be better to change it there once I've moved everything and confirmed it is working properly? The default is in the portage code somewhere. I don't care where. What I do know is how to make mine something different, and that's what I did. Look, this is not hard. It's like having a photo app default to storing your photos in ~/.local/share/my-app/DCIM/data/local/photos/public/ and you take one look at this and decide that's for the birds. So you click View-Settings and see Photo Library location, make it ~/photos and promptly forget that the stupid default ever existed. This is exactly like that. move the directories to the new location Is a cp -rp /usr/portage /var/portage (repeat for the others) sufficient? and run any old emerge command of your choice. If you left something out, you'll get a message on the screen. You can have these directories any place you want and nothing breaks by moving them around. The only change is the shipped default. So there are loads of this you could worry about in IT, this ain't one of 'em Heh... ok, thanks, but you see, I worry about *everything* (maybe that is one reason I rarely get bit badly doing things like this). -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 09:52:47 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-10-01 8:46 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: I know that it is probably trivial, but I like to read official docs for things like this... It is trivial. All that it is, is a path to where some stuff is. That's all, nothing more. Ok, thanks... but (call me anal, because I am) I still think this deserves at least a tiny mention in the formal documentation somewhere, even if its just on a a wiki page or whatever. Also, obviously the man docs for portage and make.conf should be updated... man make.conf PORTDIR = [path] Defines the location of the Portage tree. This is the repository for all profile information as well as all ebuilds. If you change this, you must update your /etc/portage/make.profile symlink accordingly. That's it. he portage tree is just a directory full of files, all you need to tell portage is where to find it. mv /usr/portage /var/ Change PORTDIR in make.conf eselect profile list and set You can have these directories any place you want and nothing breaks by moving them around. The only change is the shipped default. So there are loads of this you could worry about in IT, this ain't one of 'em Heh... ok, thanks, but you see, I worry about *everything* (maybe that is one reason I rarely get bit badly doing things like this). What's the worst that can happen? Portage stops working until you move it back or correct PORTDIR. That's not system-critical, you can't break your system by moving a bunch of bash scripts that are never used unless you explicitly tell portage to do so. -- Neil Bothwick c:Press Enter to Exit signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 16:11:56 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: So I split them up and rigged things so each category of thing is in it's own distinct directory tree. Like I said earlier, they are just paths and you can put them anywhere you like. You too can put yours anywhere it makes sense to you. And if you have more that one Gentoo box on the network, it makes sense to have DISTDIR and a NFS share for all of them, so save downloading the same files multiple times. -- Neil Bothwick There are some micro-organisms that exhibit characteristics of both plants and animals. When exposed to light they undergo photosynthesis; and when the lights go out, they turn into animals. But then again, don't we all? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-10-01 10:14 AM, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote: On 10/01/2013 08:35 AM, Tanstaafl wrote: So... if the change from /usr/portage to /var/portage was official, is there any (official) documentation on precisely how to move it? Hmmm more importantly, when did this change occur? Is it possibly tied to portage 2.2? The reason I ask is, I'm still on 2.1, and man portage still has references to: Everyone agrees it should go under /var somewhere, and that the distfiles shouldn't be in the tree, http://www.mail-archive.com/gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org/msg54610.html but no one location was chosen IIRC. ? I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch installation. Someone had to decide the defaults - so, what are they? Anyone?
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch installation. Why? If ever there was a distro for people that didn't want to use defaults, Gentoo is it. Someone had to decide the defaults - so, what are they? Anyone? I installed a VM a couple of weeks ago and I'm sure portage was still in /usr. It's easy enough to tell, unpack a stage 3 and see where the portage directory lives, but the handbook still refers to /usr/portage. -- Neil Bothwick Is it possible to be totally partial? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 01/10/2013 20:48, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch installation. Why? If ever there was a distro for people that didn't want to use defaults, Gentoo is it. Someone had to decide the defaults - so, what are they? Anyone? I installed a VM a couple of weeks ago and I'm sure portage was still in /usr. It's easy enough to tell, unpack a stage 3 and see where the portage directory lives, but the handbook still refers to /usr/portage. Please say it isn't so, otherwise I'm going to look like a right royal chump. Or maybe I just change it all on automatic these days and forget it do it. But it was definitely discussed on -dev at length. i could be wrong about the end result bashful -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Tue, Oct 1, 2013 at 2:24 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 01/10/2013 20:48, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Tue, 01 Oct 2013 14:15:49 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: I'm interested in what the DEFAULTS are, ie, for a new/from scratch installation. Why? If ever there was a distro for people that didn't want to use defaults, Gentoo is it. Someone had to decide the defaults - so, what are they? Anyone? I installed a VM a couple of weeks ago and I'm sure portage was still in /usr. It's easy enough to tell, unpack a stage 3 and see where the portage directory lives, but the handbook still refers to /usr/portage. Please say it isn't so, otherwise I'm going to look like a right royal chump. Or maybe I just change it all on automatic these days and forget it do it. But it was definitely discussed on -dev at length. i could be wrong about the end result bashful Looks like it's still usr/portage here... http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=blob;f=pym/portage/repository/config.py;h=0d6edf4e3e6dcffb0758caf859a597a8f0996bc0;hb=HEAD#l615 and here http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/portage.git;a=blob;f=cnf/repos.conf;h=8c657daae3259e42e01ea05c689b74293b5224a7;hb=HEAD#l5 I don't see repos.conf in gx86 and I don't see PORTDIR in any gx86-provided make.defaults'es as of yesterday. So I guess it's still usr/portage. I do think I vaguely recall that discussion about /var too though... frankly, /var seems more sensible ... but maybe that's a can of worms I should not be opening in this thread :) -gmt
Re: PORTDIR default - changing PORTDIR variable - WAS Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Tue, 1 Oct 2013 15:51:01 -0700, Greg Turner wrote: I do think I vaguely recall that discussion about /var too though... frankly, /var seems more sensible ... but maybe that's a can of worms I should not be opening in this thread :) I think it was one of those discussion where every could agree that /usr was wrong but no one cold agree on where was right. /var makes sense to me, it's where I put the tree (but not packages or distfiles). -- Neil Bothwick I'm not closed minded, you're just wrong. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 30/09/2013 00:53, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-29 5:15 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: Those numbers are not likely to change much with time, with one exception: /usr/src That can get real big real quick if you don't clean up kernel sources often. Ideally, you'd make that a suitably sized LV and mount it seperately. Yeah, I always keep 2 or 3 known good kernels, and clean out the old stuff, so no worries there. The other space consumer is /usr/share with it's many documentation files. But those too tend to be stable once you have everything installed. 5G free out of 19G is ~75% space in use which is perfectly acceptable for this case. Regular monitoring of the state of your machines will tell you if space usage increases so you can investigate and deal with it timeously. I assume you long since moved portage and it's storage directories out of /usr into /var? Hmmm... No, I never did that myself... Wow... moria : Sun Sep 29, 18:19:01 : ~ # du -sh /usr/* 85M /usr/bin 131M/usr/include 0 /usr/lib 11M /usr/lib32 530M/usr/lib64 51M /usr/libexec 15M /usr/local 7.8G/usr/portage 21M /usr/sbin 509M/usr/share 3.9G/usr/src 0 /usr/tmp 7.0M/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu moria : Sun Sep 29, 18:26:30 : ~ # Apart from portage and src that all looks totally normal and unlikely to vary much over time. Is this the official gentoo way now? Will a new/fresh virgin install have /var/portage instead of /usr/portage? The new instaled default is to put all of portage on /var, whilst still supporting old installs on /usr. This is no big deal in code, as it's really just a string containing a base path I can eliminate almost 8GB by moving portage and its storage directories... Or move them onto a dedictaed LV. This is a case where a different mount point makes a lot of sense - we're all aware just how unique the tree is in terms of fs performance - thousands of small files mostly smaller than 2k in hundreds of directories. It's quite different to everything else on /usr or even /var. Same with distfiles, that too can move anywhere you want it to be, just adjust one setting in make.conf I don't recall seeing a news item about that... IIRC it wasn't a news item as such. Perhaps it was an elog from portage itself. But... is /usr/portage the default/recommended location? If so, then I don't think I want to move it - I generally never change defaults unless there is a very good reason to do so. It's /var/portage for new installs. If you want it to be somewhere else, just move it and adjust make.conf But, is there some official gentoo docs online explaining how to do this? Something more to think about... Also - is there any kind of maintenance I shoudl be doing on /usr/portage to clean old cruft out? Or does portage maintain it already. rsync takes care of all that. You have eclean to keep distfiles tidy binpkgs you need to clean up on your own, as portage has no way of knowing what you want to keep. And local overlays fall in the same category -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
»Q« wrote: On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:39:35 -0500 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: I think I'll update that Kubuntu disk right quick while I am thinking about it. Fall back plan just in case. ;-) Make sure you notify the Kubuntu mailing list of your contingency plans in case Kubuntu's init thingy gives you trouble. ;) Real simple, reinstall. It takes a very short time compared to Gentoo. I used to install Mandrake in about 30 minutes and that was a complete install on much slower hard drives and CD readers. I got that covered. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Am 30.09.2013 11:00, schrieb Alan McKinnon: On 30/09/2013 00:53, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-29 5:15 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: Those numbers are not likely to change much with time, with one exception: /usr/src That can get real big real quick if you don't clean up kernel sources often. Ideally, you'd make that a suitably sized LV and mount it seperately. Yeah, I always keep 2 or 3 known good kernels, and clean out the old stuff, so no worries there. The other space consumer is /usr/share with it's many documentation files. But those too tend to be stable once you have everything installed. 5G free out of 19G is ~75% space in use which is perfectly acceptable for this case. Regular monitoring of the state of your machines will tell you if space usage increases so you can investigate and deal with it timeously. I assume you long since moved portage and it's storage directories out of /usr into /var? Hmmm... No, I never did that myself... Wow... moria : Sun Sep 29, 18:19:01 : ~ # du -sh /usr/* 85M /usr/bin 131M/usr/include 0 /usr/lib 11M /usr/lib32 530M/usr/lib64 51M /usr/libexec 15M /usr/local 7.8G/usr/portage 21M /usr/sbin 509M/usr/share 3.9G/usr/src 0 /usr/tmp 7.0M/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu moria : Sun Sep 29, 18:26:30 : ~ # Apart from portage and src that all looks totally normal and unlikely to vary much over time. Is this the official gentoo way now? Will a new/fresh virgin install have /var/portage instead of /usr/portage? The new instaled default is to put all of portage on /var, whilst still supporting old installs on /usr. This is no big deal in code, as it's really just a string containing a base path I can eliminate almost 8GB by moving portage and its storage directories... Or move them onto a dedictaed LV. This is a case where a different mount point makes a lot of sense - we're all aware just how unique the tree is in terms of fs performance - thousands of small files mostly smaller than 2k in hundreds of directories. It's quite different to everything else on /usr or even /var. Same with distfiles, that too can move anywhere you want it to be, just adjust one setting in make.conf I don't recall seeing a news item about that... IIRC it wasn't a news item as such. Perhaps it was an elog from portage itself. But... is /usr/portage the default/recommended location? If so, then I don't think I want to move it - I generally never change defaults unless there is a very good reason to do so. It's /var/portage for new installs. If you want it to be somewhere else, just move it and adjust make.conf really? so when I moved PORTDIR to /var/portage I was ahead of the rest? Wow...
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 30/09/2013 19:25, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: But... is /usr/portage the default/recommended location? If so, then I don't think I want to move it - I generally never change defaults unless there is a very good reason to do so. It's /var/portage for new installs. If you want it to be somewhere else, just move it and adjust make.conf really? so when I moved PORTDIR to /var/portage I was ahead of the rest? Wow... You were ahead of me for sure :-) I clearly remember one day long long ago you ranted and raved about how a huge chunk of /usr was write-often... ... so I fiddled with mine to make it work on /var too and was very happy with it. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Monday 30 Sep 2013 20:14:44 Alan McKinnon wrote: On 30/09/2013 19:25, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: But... is /usr/portage the default/recommended location? If so, then I don't think I want to move it - I generally never change defaults unless there is a very good reason to do so. It's /var/portage for new installs. If you want it to be somewhere else, just move it and adjust make.conf really? so when I moved PORTDIR to /var/portage I was ahead of the rest? Wow... You were ahead of me for sure :-) I clearly remember one day long long ago you ranted and raved about how a huge chunk of /usr was write-often... ... so I fiddled with mine to make it work on /var too and was very happy with it. There's no reason to move /usr/portage to / It can stay in your LVM. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Mon, 30 Sep 2013 23:05:29 +0100, Mick wrote: really? so when I moved PORTDIR to /var/portage I was ahead of the rest? Wow... You were ahead of me for sure :-) I clearly remember one day long long ago you ranted and raved about how a huge chunk of /usr was write-often... ... so I fiddled with mine to make it work on /var too and was very happy with it. There's no reason to move /usr/portage to / It can stay in your LVM. This isn't about moving it to /, it's about moving it to /var, which is a far more logical location for the portage tree. /usr is for static system files, /var is for variable data. -- Neil Bothwick What's the difference between ignorance and apathy? I don't know and I don't care signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 12:36:43AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote The actual problem is better stated something like this: In the early stages of user-land setup (around the time when udev is getting it's act together), arbitrary code can run and that code can be in any arbitrary place, but there is no guarantee that that code is even accessible at the point when it is needed. The actual cause of this mess is the lack of standards on where to put stuff on Linux systems, and it forms a classic bootstrap problem. There has only ever been one way around that problem - define an exact entry point that is guaranteed to be in a specific state. For current userland this effectively means that everything that has traditionally been in bin, sbin and lib in / and /usr must be available as step 1. Technically, you could include /var/lib/ and maybe even /opt in there. but we can safely exclude those at this time as only a brain-dead moron would ever put init-critical code there. Separate /usr worked for many years, even with udev. The question I have is why is udev *NOW* monkeying around with a whole bunch of additional stuff before mounting partitions? If you have an NFS-mounted /usr, I can see needing to have network services running first. Ditto for /usr being in an LVM or encrypted partition, you need LVM and/or decryption running first. There is no excuse for anything else breaking a separate /usr. Then again, separate /usr isn't the first thing Kay Sievers has broken since he took over udev, and I wouldn't be surprised if he one day just happens to break openrc... https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303 From Linus Torvalds Date Tue, 2 Oct 2012 09:33:03 -0700 Subject Re: udev breakages - was: Re: Need of an .async_probe() type of callback at driver's core - Was: Re: [PATCH] [media] drxk: change it to use request_firmware_nowait() On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 6:03 AM, Mauro Carvalho Chehab mche...@redhat.com wrote: I basically tried a few different approaches, including deferred probe(), as you suggested, and request_firmware_async(), as Kay suggested. Stop this crazy. FIX UDEV ALREADY, DAMMIT. Who maintains udev these days? Is it Lennart/Kai, as part of systemd? Lennart/Kai, fix the udev regression already. Lennart was the one who brought up kernel ABI regressions at some conference, and if you now you have the *gall* to break udev in an incompatible manner that requires basically impossible kernel changes for the kernel to fix the udev interface, I don't know what to say. Two-faced lying weasel would be the most polite thing I could say. But it almost certainly will involve a lot of cursing. However, for 3.7 or 3.8, I think that the better is to revert changeset 177bc7dade38b5 and to stop with udev's insanity of requiring asynchronous firmware load during device driver initialization. If udev's developers are not willing to do that, we'll likely need to add something at the drivers core to trick udev for it to think that the modules got probed before the probe actually happens. The fact is, udev made new - and insane - rules that are simply *invalid*. Modern udev is broken, and needs to be fixed. I don't know where the problem started in udev, but the report I saw was that udev175 was fine, and udev182 was broken, and would deadlock if module_init() did a request_firmware(). That kind of nested behavior is absolutely *required* to work, in order to not cause idiotic problems for the kernel for no good reason. What kind of insane udev maintainership do we have? And can we fix it? -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-29 08:06, Walter Dnes wrote: What kind of insane udev maintainership do we have? And can we fix it? By starting from scratch and putting it in the kernel (which will stop people from being too creative as well, since Linus will not allow things to break so easily). The BSDs, MacOS and Plan 9 kernels can do it[1], why not Linux? Well, one can wish at least... :-) [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devfs#Implementations Best regards Peter K
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 02:06:34 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: for /usr being in an LVM or encrypted partition, you need LVM and/or decryption running first. Why would you want /usr encrypted but not /? There is nothing private in /usr, but /etc/ contains password files. I have used a separate usr in the past to do it the other way round, encrypted / but unencrypted /usr (to lower processor usage on a netbook) but that requires an initramfs anyway. -- Neil Bothwick Justify my text? I'm sorry but it has no excuse. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Am 29.09.2013 02:08, schrieb Alan McKinnon: On 29/09/2013 01:23, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: It *really* is that simple. If you have a better solution than my last two choices, then I am all ears. the correct and simple solution would be to deprecate /usr and move everything into / . I did consider that, but gave up on the idea as not workable. Sure, it would work great and did work very well for Android and MacOS, both controlled environments. But doing it gains you nothing really apart from a crap load of stuff cluttering up /, thinks like local, games and share. But hey, maybe we can go right back to the originsl and put /home where it started: /usr/people and a cluttered / is worse than a non-existant / and a cluttered /usr? Because we are just moving in that direction.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Am 29.09.2013 01:31, schrieb pk: On 2013-09-29 01:23, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: the correct and simple solution would be to deprecate /usr and move everything into / . Install Windows and be done with it, I say. Best regards Peter K . look at history, think and retry.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-29 12:59, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: look at history, think and retry. That's just what I did. Read and retry. Best regards Peter K
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Am 29.09.2013 17:24, schrieb pk: On 2013-09-29 12:59, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: look at history, think and retry. That's just what I did. Read and retry. Best regards Peter K . I did, your mail did not make any more sense at all.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: Am 29.09.2013 17:24, schrieb pk: On 2013-09-29 12:59, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: look at history, think and retry. That's just what I did. Read and retry. Best regards Peter K . I did, your mail did not make any more sense at all. That could be the problem then couldn't it? Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-29 18:36, Dale wrote: That could be the problem then couldn't it? Indeed. :-) Best regards Peter K
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-28 6:36 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: So this brings us back to the essential technical problem that still needs to be solved on your machines: /usr needs to be available (and not only for BT keyboards) at the earliest possible opportunity - this is a technical constraint. To guarantee that, you need to either merge /usr with /, or use an initramfs to guarantee that /usr is available before anything else happens in userland. It*really* is that simple. If you have a better solution than my last two choices, then I am all ears. Ok, and if this is all true, I can accept it. But... Technically, you could include /var/lib/ and maybe even /opt in there. but we can safely exclude those at this time as only a brain-dead moron would ever put init-critical code there. I also have /var on a separate (LVM) partition. What I'm AFRAID of, is that some 'brain-dead moron' will, sometime in the future, arbitrarily decide that having a separate /var will *also* require an initramfs because some *other* brain-dead moron (who happens to have enough clout to shove their garbage down our throats)... then what is next /home? It seems to me like the more likely case is that someone somewhere wants to require BOTH systemd AND an initramfs in ALL cases, and this is just the first step in that progression.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:55:49PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-28 6:36 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: So this brings us back to the essential technical problem that still needs to be solved on your machines: /usr needs to be available (and not only for BT keyboards) at the earliest possible opportunity - this is a technical constraint. To guarantee that, you need to either merge /usr with /, or use an initramfs to guarantee that /usr is available before anything else happens in userland. It*really* is that simple. If you have a better solution than my last two choices, then I am all ears. Ok, and if this is all true, I can accept it. Alan, this is a very good summary of the issues involved. Everyone on the list should go and read flameeyes' blog post then this summary. Tanstaaf, I am the OpenRC author/maintainer and a member of base-system. I can tell you that we are not discussing forcing systemd on everyone in Gentoo Linux as a default init system. I can also tell you that I am not aware of the Gentoo systemd team discussing this. Even if they were, a distro-wide change like this would have to be brought before the Council. William signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 29/09/2013 20:55, William Hubbs wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:55:49PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-28 6:36 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: So this brings us back to the essential technical problem that still needs to be solved on your machines: /usr needs to be available (and not only for BT keyboards) at the earliest possible opportunity - this is a technical constraint. To guarantee that, you need to either merge /usr with /, or use an initramfs to guarantee that /usr is available before anything else happens in userland. It*really* is that simple. If you have a better solution than my last two choices, then I am all ears. Ok, and if this is all true, I can accept it. Alan, this is a very good summary of the issues involved. Everyone on the list should go and read flameeyes' blog post then this summary. Thanks William. It really was an off-the cuff description done to answer a user's question. I'm glad to hear it communicated what I intended. Tanstaaf, I am the OpenRC author/maintainer and a member of base-system. I can tell you that we are not discussing forcing systemd on everyone in Gentoo Linux as a default init system. I can also tell you that I am not aware of the Gentoo systemd team discussing this. Even if they were, a distro-wide change like this would have to be brought before the Council. William -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Weird - I thought I replied to this a while ago (I know I started one), but it disappeared, and is not in my Sent folder and it never made it to the list... On 2013-09-29 2:55 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: I am the OpenRC author/maintainer and a member of base-system. I can tell you that we are not discussing forcing systemd on everyone in Gentoo Linux as a default init system. I can also tell you that I am not aware of the Gentoo systemd team discussing this. Even if they were, a distro-wide change like this would have to be brought before the Council. Thanks very much for this William. I will take you at your word and will stop worrying about the whole systemd thing (unless/until evidence warrants revisiting it)... So, now I just have to get up the nerve to attempt the merging of my LVM based /usr into my / so I don't have to worry about an initramfs. There are no technical reasons it shouldn't work - my / is 19G, with 18GB free right now. My /usr currently takes up 13GB, so merging should leave mw with 5GB free... Does anyone see an issue with a 19GB / with merged /usr and only 5GB free? Was I correct in my statement to Dale that there is nothing used by or stored in /usr that could consume that last 5GB and crash my server (ie, like a runaway log can fill up /var)? Thanks again...
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 29/09/2013 22:51, Tanstaafl wrote: Weird - I thought I replied to this a while ago (I know I started one), but it disappeared, and is not in my Sent folder and it never made it to the list... On 2013-09-29 2:55 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: I am the OpenRC author/maintainer and a member of base-system. I can tell you that we are not discussing forcing systemd on everyone in Gentoo Linux as a default init system. I can also tell you that I am not aware of the Gentoo systemd team discussing this. Even if they were, a distro-wide change like this would have to be brought before the Council. Thanks very much for this William. I will take you at your word and will stop worrying about the whole systemd thing (unless/until evidence warrants revisiting it)... So, now I just have to get up the nerve to attempt the merging of my LVM based /usr into my / so I don't have to worry about an initramfs. There are no technical reasons it shouldn't work - my / is 19G, with 18GB free right now. My /usr currently takes up 13GB, so merging should leave mw with 5GB free... Does anyone see an issue with a 19GB / with merged /usr and only 5GB free? Was I correct in my statement to Dale that there is nothing used by or stored in /usr that could consume that last 5GB and crash my server (ie, like a runaway log can fill up /var)? Thanks again... Correct on all counts. This laptop runs KDE, here's my breakdown: # du -sh /usr 13G /usr # du -sh /usr/* 12K /usr/INSTALL 104K/usr/Licenses_for_Third-Party_Components.txt 426M/usr/bin 12M /usr/gnu-classpath-0.98 460M/usr/include 0 /usr/lib 525M/usr/lib32 2.8G/usr/lib64 134M/usr/libexec 512K/usr/local 38M /usr/sbin 3.6G/usr/share 4.9G/usr/src 0 /usr/tmp 11M /usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu Those numbers are not likely to change much with time, with one exception: /usr/src That can get real big real quick if you don't clean up kernel sources often. Ideally, you'd make that a suitably sized LV and mount it seperately. The other space consumer is /usr/share with it's many documentation files. But those too tend to be stable once you have everything installed. 5G free out of 19G is ~75% space in use which is perfectly acceptable for this case. Regular monitoring of the state of your machines will tell you if space usage increases so you can investigate and deal with it timeously. I assume you long since moved portage and it's storage directories out of /usr into /var? -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-29 5:15 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: Those numbers are not likely to change much with time, with one exception: /usr/src That can get real big real quick if you don't clean up kernel sources often. Ideally, you'd make that a suitably sized LV and mount it seperately. Yeah, I always keep 2 or 3 known good kernels, and clean out the old stuff, so no worries there. The other space consumer is /usr/share with it's many documentation files. But those too tend to be stable once you have everything installed. 5G free out of 19G is ~75% space in use which is perfectly acceptable for this case. Regular monitoring of the state of your machines will tell you if space usage increases so you can investigate and deal with it timeously. I assume you long since moved portage and it's storage directories out of /usr into /var? Hmmm... No, I never did that myself... Wow... moria : Sun Sep 29, 18:19:01 : ~ # du -sh /usr/* 85M /usr/bin 131M/usr/include 0 /usr/lib 11M /usr/lib32 530M/usr/lib64 51M /usr/libexec 15M /usr/local 7.8G/usr/portage 21M /usr/sbin 509M/usr/share 3.9G/usr/src 0 /usr/tmp 7.0M/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu moria : Sun Sep 29, 18:26:30 : ~ # Is this the official gentoo way now? Will a new/fresh virgin install have /var/portage instead of /usr/portage? I can eliminate almost 8GB by moving portage and its storage directories... I don't recall seeing a news item about that... But... is /usr/portage the default/recommended location? If so, then I don't think I want to move it - I generally never change defaults unless there is a very good reason to do so. But, is there some official gentoo docs online explaining how to do this? Something more to think about... Also - is there any kind of maintenance I shoudl be doing on /usr/portage to clean old cruft out? Or does portage maintain it already. :)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Am 30.09.2013 00:53, schrieb Tanstaafl: On 2013-09-29 5:15 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: Those numbers are not likely to change much with time, with one exception: /usr/src That can get real big real quick if you don't clean up kernel sources often. Ideally, you'd make that a suitably sized LV and mount it seperately. Yeah, I always keep 2 or 3 known good kernels, and clean out the old stuff, so no worries there. The other space consumer is /usr/share with it's many documentation files. But those too tend to be stable once you have everything installed. 5G free out of 19G is ~75% space in use which is perfectly acceptable for this case. Regular monitoring of the state of your machines will tell you if space usage increases so you can investigate and deal with it timeously. I assume you long since moved portage and it's storage directories out of /usr into /var? Hmmm... No, I never did that myself... Wow... moria : Sun Sep 29, 18:19:01 : ~ # du -sh /usr/* 85M /usr/bin 131M/usr/include 0 /usr/lib 11M /usr/lib32 530M/usr/lib64 51M /usr/libexec 15M /usr/local 7.8G/usr/portage 21M /usr/sbin 509M/usr/share 3.9G/usr/src 0 /usr/tmp 7.0M/usr/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu moria : Sun Sep 29, 18:26:30 : ~ # Is this the official gentoo way now? Will a new/fresh virgin install have /var/portage instead of /usr/portage? I can eliminate almost 8GB by moving portage and its storage directories... I don't recall seeing a news item about that... But... is /usr/portage the default/recommended location? If so, then I don't think I want to move it - I generally never change defaults unless there is a very good reason to do so. But, is there some official gentoo docs online explaining how to do this? Something more to think about... Also - is there any kind of maintenance I shoudl be doing on /usr/portage to clean old cruft out? Or does portage maintain it already. :) df -h DateisystemGröße Benutzt Verf. Verw% Eingehängt auf /dev/root59G 33G 24G 58% / devtmpfs7,8G 0 7,8G0% /dev tmpfs 1,6G712K 1,6G1% /run shm 7,8G1,1M 7,8G1% /dev/shm cgroup_root 10M 0 10M0% /sys/fs/cgroup /dev/sda1 197M 17M 181M9% /boot/efi /dev/sde1 110G 82G 23G 79% /home/energyman tmpfs 1,0G3,4M 1021M1% /tmp zfstank/data3,6T1,9T 1,8T 52% /mnt/data zfstank/var 100G 16G 85G 16% /var zfstank 1,8T256K 1,8T1% /zfstank and I put PORTDIR into /var ages ago. I hate 'moving targets' like PORTDIR in a static place like /usr. 7,8G/var/portage 6,5G/var/packages but seriously, if seperate /usr is so important for you - running genkernel really IS easy...
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 09/29/2013 01:55 PM, William Hubbs wrote: On Sun, Sep 29, 2013 at 01:55:49PM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-09-28 6:36 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: So this brings us back to the essential technical problem that still needs to be solved on your machines: /usr needs to be available (and not only for BT keyboards) at the earliest possible opportunity - this is a technical constraint. To guarantee that, you need to either merge /usr with /, or use an initramfs to guarantee that /usr is available before anything else happens in userland. It*really* is that simple. If you have a better solution than my last two choices, then I am all ears. Ok, and if this is all true, I can accept it. Alan, this is a very good summary of the issues involved. Everyone on the list should go and read flameeyes' blog post then this summary. Tanstaaf, I am the OpenRC author/maintainer and a member of base-system. I can tell you that we are not discussing forcing systemd on everyone in Gentoo Linux as a default init system. I can also tell you that I am not aware of the Gentoo systemd team discussing this. Even if they were, a distro-wide change like this would have to be brought before the Council. William I understand Gentoo has a much more structured way of making decisions like systemd, but perhaps you aren't the best person to assuage fears. I say this not because of anything you do, but your position. Arch Linux used their sysvinit maintainer to calm fears of users before their switch to systemd. I'm not saying that you are trying to do this at all, but rather being OpenRC maintainer doesn't add much in the way of credibility of your stance. Everything else (the lack of discussion on it, the fact that the Council would have to vote on it) are much better logical support for systemd not being forced. I'm not sure if you knew about what happened with Arch, so I just figured I'd point it out. I and others who switched from Arch to Gentoo over the systemd debacle still remember the false promises (from the sysvinit maintainer) that systemd won't be forced, when it was. So one's position can't really be trusted, regardless of how much I and others appreciate the work that goes into OpenRC. No offense is intended, by the way. Just adding some context. I hope you understand. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 09:25:05 +0100 Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday 29 Sep 2013 06:29:37 Walter Dnes wrote: On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 06:09:40PM -0500, Dale wrote Most likely, I'll install Kubuntu to start. Then I may roam around and test other distros until I find one I like. Thing is, I already have a starting point. I'm already looking. http://forums.funtoo.org/viewtopic.php?id=2265 and they also dislike systemd. I think I could get to like it. See also http://bugs.funtoo.org/browse/FL-34 Very interesting! This looks as a logical way to put udev back in its userspace box and stop it breaking the OS, or did I understand it incorrectly? Funtoo is using mdev. drobbins plans to make make GNOME 3.8+ work without systemd/udev as well, but so far he's been mum about how.
[gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sun, 29 Sep 2013 10:39:35 -0500 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: I think I'll update that Kubuntu disk right quick while I am thinking about it. Fall back plan just in case. ;-) Make sure you notify the Kubuntu mailing list of your contingency plans in case Kubuntu's init thingy gives you trouble. ;)
[gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 28/09/13 01:33, Dale wrote: Bruce Hill wrote: mingdao@workstation ~ $ eselect news read 2013-09-27-initramfs-required Title Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs AuthorWilliam Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org Posted2013-09-27 Revision 1 Linux systems which have / and /usr on separate file systems but do not use an initramfs will not be supported starting on 01-Nov-2013. [...] I'm hoping that since I use eudev, I don't have to worry about this. If I do, this could get interesting, again. You do need to worry about this. Actually, you always had to worry about this. It's just that your specific configuration didn't blow up in a visible way. You might had problems already in the past, just not apparent ones. If you read the links posted in the announcement, you will see that the problem wasn't eudev or udev. It's all the other software on your system. eudev *cannot* fix that.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 11:43 PM, Nikos Chantziaras rea...@gmail.com wrote: On 28/09/13 01:33, Dale wrote: Bruce Hill wrote: mingdao@workstation ~ $ eselect news read 2013-09-27-initramfs-required Title Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs AuthorWilliam Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org Posted2013-09-27 Revision 1 Linux systems which have / and /usr on separate file systems but do not use an initramfs will not be supported starting on 01-Nov-2013. [...] I'm hoping that since I use eudev, I don't have to worry about this. If I do, this could get interesting, again. You do need to worry about this. Actually, you always had to worry about this. It's just that your specific configuration didn't blow up in a visible way. You might had problems already in the past, just not apparent ones. If you read the links posted in the announcement, you will see that the problem wasn't eudev or udev. It's all the other software on your system. eudev *cannot* fix that. As far as I read, the problem is with bluetooth keyboards? and some other devices and locales, which are minor for this decision of removing supportability. Especially for servers and for most of workstations. Most sane configuration can be supported with separate /. And of course there is the hidden systemd agenda, which is what I suspect had more impact. Regards, Alon Bar-Lev.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 28/09/2013 22:58, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: As far as I read, the problem is with bluetooth keyboards? and some other devices and locales, which are minor for this decision of removing supportability. Especially for servers and for most of workstations. Most sane configuration can be supported with separate /. And of course there is the hidden systemd agenda, which is what I suspect had more impact. No, the problem is not bluetooth keyboards per se. That just happens to be a convenient example of the kind of problem anticipated. There is a tendency to use it as the only example, which reinforces the idea that BT keyboards are problem to be solved. The actual problem is better stated something like this: In the early stages of user-land setup (around the time when udev is getting it's act together), arbitrary code can run and that code can be in any arbitrary place, but there is no guarantee that that code is even accessible at the point when it is needed. The actual cause of this mess is the lack of standards on where to put stuff on Linux systems, and it forms a classic bootstrap problem. There has only ever been one way around that problem - define an exact entry point that is guaranteed to be in a specific state. For current userland this effectively means that everything that has traditionally been in bin, sbin and lib in / and /usr must be available as step 1. Technically, you could include /var/lib/ and maybe even /opt in there. but we can safely exclude those at this time as only a brain-dead moron would ever put init-critical code there. It's a fact of history that Linux packager and package devs have never managed to make up their minds where to put stuff. Just have a look at coreutils binaries - why are 60% of them in /usr? It's coreutils! And core isn't in the name because of a whim. So you have two choices: enforce a decent separation so that the problem doesn't happen, or enforce that all binaries are in one place where we can call it the system. Every major OS out there does the latter, it's only Linux that tolerates this free for all wild wild west approach of stick anything anywhere and still expect it to work. Hint: it doesn't work. Duct-tape and bubblegum don't actually hold stuff together, no matter how much we try convince ourselves it does. This should actually have been done when MAKEDEV was phased out in favour of the now-defunct devfs, but it's never too late to fix design flaws that date back 30 years or more. So this brings us back to the essential technical problem that still needs to be solved on your machines: /usr needs to be available (and not only for BT keyboards) at the earliest possible opportunity - this is a technical constraint. To guarantee that, you need to either merge /usr with /, or use an initramfs to guarantee that /usr is available before anything else happens in userland. It *really* is that simple. If you have a better solution than my last two choices, then I am all ears. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Am 29.09.2013 00:36, schrieb Alan McKinnon: On 28/09/2013 22:58, Alon Bar-Lev wrote: As far as I read, the problem is with bluetooth keyboards? and some other devices and locales, which are minor for this decision of removing supportability. Especially for servers and for most of workstations. Most sane configuration can be supported with separate /. And of course there is the hidden systemd agenda, which is what I suspect had more impact. No, the problem is not bluetooth keyboards per se. That just happens to be a convenient example of the kind of problem anticipated. There is a tendency to use it as the only example, which reinforces the idea that BT keyboards are problem to be solved. The actual problem is better stated something like this: In the early stages of user-land setup (around the time when udev is getting it's act together), arbitrary code can run and that code can be in any arbitrary place, but there is no guarantee that that code is even accessible at the point when it is needed. The actual cause of this mess is the lack of standards on where to put stuff on Linux systems, and it forms a classic bootstrap problem. There has only ever been one way around that problem - define an exact entry point that is guaranteed to be in a specific state. For current userland this effectively means that everything that has traditionally been in bin, sbin and lib in / and /usr must be available as step 1. Technically, you could include /var/lib/ and maybe even /opt in there. but we can safely exclude those at this time as only a brain-dead moron would ever put init-critical code there. It's a fact of history that Linux packager and package devs have never managed to make up their minds where to put stuff. Just have a look at coreutils binaries - why are 60% of them in /usr? It's coreutils! And core isn't in the name because of a whim. So you have two choices: enforce a decent separation so that the problem doesn't happen, or enforce that all binaries are in one place where we can call it the system. Every major OS out there does the latter, it's only Linux that tolerates this free for all wild wild west approach of stick anything anywhere and still expect it to work. Hint: it doesn't work. Duct-tape and bubblegum don't actually hold stuff together, no matter how much we try convince ourselves it does. This should actually have been done when MAKEDEV was phased out in favour of the now-defunct devfs, but it's never too late to fix design flaws that date back 30 years or more. So this brings us back to the essential technical problem that still needs to be solved on your machines: /usr needs to be available (and not only for BT keyboards) at the earliest possible opportunity - this is a technical constraint. To guarantee that, you need to either merge /usr with /, or use an initramfs to guarantee that /usr is available before anything else happens in userland. It *really* is that simple. If you have a better solution than my last two choices, then I am all ears. the correct and simple solution would be to deprecate /usr and move everything into / .
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-29 01:23, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: the correct and simple solution would be to deprecate /usr and move everything into / . Install Windows and be done with it, I say. Best regards Peter K
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
pk wrote: On 2013-09-29 01:23, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: the correct and simple solution would be to deprecate /usr and move everything into / . Install Windows and be done with it, I say. Best regards Peter K Next, we'll have to have C: even tho we never had to have one before. ROFLMBO Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 29/09/2013 01:23, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: It *really* is that simple. If you have a better solution than my last two choices, then I am all ears. the correct and simple solution would be to deprecate /usr and move everything into / . I did consider that, but gave up on the idea as not workable. Sure, it would work great and did work very well for Android and MacOS, both controlled environments. But doing it gains you nothing really apart from a crap load of stuff cluttering up /, thinks like local, games and share. But hey, maybe we can go right back to the originsl and put /home where it started: /usr/people -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 29/09/2013 02:01, Dale wrote: pk wrote: On 2013-09-29 01:23, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: the correct and simple solution would be to deprecate /usr and move everything into / . Install Windows and be done with it, I say. Best regards Peter K Next, we'll have to have C: even tho we never had to have one before. ROFLMBO Dale :-) :-) You can have a C any time you want, all you need is a simple s#/#C#g -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 2013-09-29 02:01, Dale wrote: Next, we'll have to have C: even tho we never had to have one before. ROFLMBO I would hesitate to laugh because that's where Linux is heading... And Alan and other's are right in that it's not udevs problem per se; it's all the half-desktop services[1]/applications that requires access to the libs in /usr for some unknown reason. This will (eventually) affect any operating system (even FreeBSD) that want to run things like, say, Gnome. This is feature creep on steroids. I just wish there was this simple system that would look like this: boot loader - operating system - applications ...with a clear separation/well defined interfaces between them. Used to think Linux was a good compromise but not anymore... What you have now is something monstrous where application libs are part of the operating system. Hence the requirement of no separate /usr. At least if you run any of those things (like PAM - if some module require access to PKCS#11, Kerberos, Consolekit etc.). Personally I wouldn't touch them... In my opinion, this has gone way beyond what used to be called spaghetti code and into what I would like to call spaghetti system. [1] Used to be called daemons but now people have adopted the Windows name for it. Best regards Peter K
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sat, Sep 28, 2013 at 07:01:56PM -0500, Dale wrote: Next, we'll have to have C: even tho we never had to have one before. ROFLMBO Dale We already have it, just we don't have to CAPITALIZE c: mingdao@workstation ~ $ ls -l .wine/drive_c/ total 8 drwxr-xr-x 6 mingdao mingdao 107 May 16 08:46 Program Files -rw-r--r-- 1 mingdao mingdao 529 Nov 1 2012 teamviewer.html drwxr-xr-x 4 mingdao mingdao 33 Nov 1 2012 users drwxr-xr-x 14 mingdao mingdao 4096 Sep 20 11:41 windows But, seriously; our Linux desktop systems are so far behind Windows it really makes us look bad. We kick tail in the server market, but that's it. -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
