Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Tom H]

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Rich Freeman  wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Peter Humphrey  
> wrote:
>>
>> Well, according to eix, there's only 4.4.19 between 4.1.30 and 4.7.2.
>
> Those are just the versions packaged for Gentoo.
>
> kernel.org has 4.4.19 as the only non-EOL version in-between, and it
> is longterm (I think 4.7 is too, but it isn't marked as such yet).

4.9:

https://plus.google.com/+gregkroahhartman/posts/DjCWwSo7kqY

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[J. Roeleveld]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 09:30:27 AM Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 Aug 2016 09:25:32 J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > Strange, I just resynced:
> > 
> > # eix gentoo-sources
> > [?] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources
> > 
> >  Available versions:
> --->8
> 
> >  (4.4.6) 4.4.6^bs{tbz2}
> >  (4.4.19) ~4.4.19^bs
> >  (4.7.2) ~4.7.2^bs
> 
> Same here today, not using git. Looks like it's been put back. Thanks Joost.

Using git, it didn't actually disappear...
Tried a few times in last few days. 

--
Joost

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday 23 Aug 2016 09:25:32 J. Roeleveld wrote:

> Strange, I just resynced:
> 
> # eix gentoo-sources
> [?] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources
>  Available versions:
--->8
>  (4.4.6) 4.4.6^bs{tbz2}
>  (4.4.19) ~4.4.19^bs
>  (4.7.2) ~4.7.2^bs

Same here today, not using git. Looks like it's been put back. Thanks Joost.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[J. Roeleveld]

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 10:12:59 AM Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Hello list,
> 
> After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of gentoo-sources
> have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the server chain? I get the
> same with UK and US sync servers.

Strange, I just resynced:

# eix gentoo-sources
 
[?] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources
 Available versions:  
 (3.4.112) ~3.4.112^bs
 (3.4.) **3.4.^bs
 (3.10.95) 3.10.95^bs
 (3.10.101) ~3.10.101^bs
 (3.10.102) ~3.10.102^bs
 (3.12.52-r1) 3.12.52-r1^bs
 (3.12.60) ~3.12.60^bs
 (3.12.61) ~3.12.61^bs
 (3.12.62) ~3.12.62^bs
 (3.12.) **3.12.^bs
 (3.14.58-r1) 3.14.58-r1^bs
 (3.14.73) ~3.14.73^bs
 (3.14.74) ~3.14.74^bs
 (3.14.75) ~3.14.75^bs
 (3.14.76) ~3.14.76^bs
 (3.14.77) ~3.14.77^bs
 (3.18.25-r1) 3.18.25-r1^bs
 (3.18.36) ~3.18.36^bs
 (3.18.38) ~3.18.38^bs
 (3.18.39) ~3.18.39^bs
 (3.18.40) ~3.18.40^bs
 (4.1.15-r1) 4.1.15-r1^bs{tbz2}
 (4.1.27) ~4.1.27^bs
 (4.1.29) ~4.1.29^bs
 (4.1.30) ~4.1.30^bs
 (4.4.6) 4.4.6^bs{tbz2}
 (4.4.19) ~4.4.19^bs
 (4.7.2) ~4.7.2^bs

--
Joost

PS. I use "git" to sync.

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Peter.

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 02:23:25PM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Monday 22 Aug 2016 11:19:07 Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:12:59AM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of
> > > gentoo-sources have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the
> > > server chain? I get the same with UK and US sync servers.

> > I restrict myself (mostly) to stable releases, and there hasn't been one
> > for gentoo-sources for a very long time.

> Indeed, I've found the same on my stable systems.

> > The latest stable kernel I see (with $ eshowkw gentoo-sources) is 4.1.15-
> > r1, although 4.4.6 was stable and available at one stage  :-(.

> My x86 box is still running 4.4.6 because I don't want to plunge all the way 
> back to 4.1.45-r1. This box needs to be ~amd64 to get the latest NVMe and 
> amdgpu drivers.

I never did get around to configuring and building 4.4.6.  Maybe I
should.  But my box is now pushing 7 years old and seems built like a
tank (albeit one that needed a new power supply after just over a year).

I'm hoping that when the time comes, I'll still be able to buy a
motherboard that will allow Gentoo to be installed on it.  I can't see
myself doing that any time soon.  The only real reason to get a more
powerful machine would be to be able to build libreoffice in a sensible
amount of time.  If that were a priority, I could just upgrade to 16 GB
RAM and build LO in a ramdisk.

> -- 
> Rgds
> Peter

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Peter Humphrey]

Hello Alan,

On Monday 22 Aug 2016 11:19:07 Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:12:59AM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of
> > gentoo-sources have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the
> > server chain? I get the same with UK and US sync servers.
> 
> I restrict myself (mostly) to stable releases, and there hasn't been one
> for gentoo-sources for a very long time.

Indeed, I've found the same on my stable systems.

> The latest stable kernel I see (with $ eshowkw gentoo-sources) is 4.1.15-
> r1, although 4.4.6 was stable and available at one stage  :-(.

My x86 box is still running 4.4.6 because I don't want to plunge all the way 
back to 4.1.45-r1. This box needs to be ~amd64 to get the latest NVMe and 
amdgpu drivers.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Peter.

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:12:59AM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Hello list,

> After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of gentoo-sources 
> have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the server chain? I get the 
> same with UK and US sync servers.

I restrict myself (mostly) to stable releases, and there hasn't been one
for gentoo-sources for a very long time.  The latest stable kernel I see
(with $ eshowkw gentoo-sources) is 4.1.15-r1, although 4.4.6 was stable
and available at one stage  :-(.

> -- 
> Rgds
> Peter

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Sunday 21 Aug 2016 10:50:55 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Peter Humphrey  
wrote:
> > On Sunday 21 Aug 2016 07:28:17 Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> ... there is nothing wrong with having some internal QA on kernel
> >> releases.  4.1 had a nasty memory leak a release or two ago that was
> >> killing my system after only an hour or two uptime.  They took over a
> >> week to stabilize the fix as well (though a patch was out fairly
> >> quickly). So, I'm not in nearly the rush to update kernels as I used
> >> to be> 
> > I've formed the impression that a good many kernel updates are mainly
> > just to incorporate code for new devices, so I don't rush into it
> > normally either. However, this box does have some hardware that's not
> > yet a year old, so I do keep this one up to date.
> 
> The 3rd decimal almost never has code for new devices.  It is intended
> to be 100% bugfixes.  So, you generally don't want to be too far
> behind on that.
> 
> >> (granted, unless you read all the lists it is easy to miss this sort of
> >> thing).
> > 
> > Do you recommend any in particular for this? Gentoo-dev, perhaps?
> 
> Nope.  That memory leak was on lkml I think.  Only reason I spotted it
> was that I searched for it after getting bitten by it.  I doubt I'd
> have even noticed the thread but for looking for it.  I do tend to
> search the btrfs lists before switching between series, because that
> is the thing I figure is most likely to break.
> 
> Honestly, kernel QA could be better in some ways.  When some crippling
> bug comes along they don't always rush to release fixes, and they
> don't have any way to communicate with end-users.  They just assume
> that distros are paying attention to that sort of thing.  And most
> probably are (probably including Gentoo, but I'm not running a Gentoo
> kernel since the Gentoo kernels aren't really going to be optimized
> for btrfs stability).
> 
> >> I ended up bailing on gentoo-sources all the same.  Not that there was
> >> really anything wrong with it, but since I'm running btrfs and they've
> >> had a history of nasty regressions that tend to show up MONTHS later
> >> I've been a lot more picky about my kernel updates.  I'm currently
> >> tracking 4.1.  I might think about moving to 4.4 in a little while.
> > 
> > Well, according to eix, there's only 4.4.19 between 4.1.30 and 4.7.2.
> 
> Those are just the versions packaged for Gentoo.
> kernel.org has 4.4.19 as the only non-EOL version in-between, and it
> is longterm (I think 4.7 is too, but it isn't marked as such yet).
> 
> > Sound policy, I'm sure. How does an ordinary mortal know which versions
> > are here for the long term?
> 
> kernel.org
> 
> The Gentoo team will not let down ordinary users.  If you're using
> semi-experimental features then you're best off keeping a close eye on
> upstream no matter what distro you use.

OK. Thanks for your advice, Rich, as always. Also to Alarig.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Peter Humphrey  wrote:
> On Sunday 21 Aug 2016 07:28:17 Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> ... there is nothing wrong with having some internal QA on kernel
>> releases.  4.1 had a nasty memory leak a release or two ago that was
>> killing my system after only an hour or two uptime.  They took over a
>> week to stabilize the fix as well (though a patch was out fairly quickly).
>> So, I'm not in nearly the rush to update kernels as I used to be
>
> I've formed the impression that a good many kernel updates are mainly just
> to incorporate code for new devices, so I don't rush into it normally
> either. However, this box does have some hardware that's not yet a year old,
> so I do keep this one up to date.

The 3rd decimal almost never has code for new devices.  It is intended
to be 100% bugfixes.  So, you generally don't want to be too far
behind on that.

>
>> (granted, unless you read all the lists it is easy to miss this sort of
>> thing).
>
> Do you recommend any in particular for this? Gentoo-dev, perhaps?

Nope.  That memory leak was on lkml I think.  Only reason I spotted it
was that I searched for it after getting bitten by it.  I doubt I'd
have even noticed the thread but for looking for it.  I do tend to
search the btrfs lists before switching between series, because that
is the thing I figure is most likely to break.

Honestly, kernel QA could be better in some ways.  When some crippling
bug comes along they don't always rush to release fixes, and they
don't have any way to communicate with end-users.  They just assume
that distros are paying attention to that sort of thing.  And most
probably are (probably including Gentoo, but I'm not running a Gentoo
kernel since the Gentoo kernels aren't really going to be optimized
for btrfs stability).

>
>> I ended up bailing on gentoo-sources all the same.  Not that there was
>> really anything wrong with it, but since I'm running btrfs and they've
>> had a history of nasty regressions that tend to show up MONTHS later
>> I've been a lot more picky about my kernel updates.  I'm currently
>> tracking 4.1.  I might think about moving to 4.4 in a little while.
>
> Well, according to eix, there's only 4.4.19 between 4.1.30 and 4.7.2.

Those are just the versions packaged for Gentoo.
kernel.org has 4.4.19 as the only non-EOL version in-between, and it
is longterm (I think 4.7 is too, but it isn't marked as such yet).

>
> Sound policy, I'm sure. How does an ordinary mortal know which versions are
> here for the long term?
>

kernel.org

The Gentoo team will not let down ordinary users.  If you're using
semi-experimental features then you're best off keeping a close eye on
upstream no matter what distro you use.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Alarig Le Lay]

On Sun Aug 21 15:23:42 2016, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Sound policy, I'm sure. How does an ordinary mortal know which versions are 
> here for the long term?

It’s referenced on https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html

-- 
alarig


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Sunday 21 Aug 2016 07:28:17 Rich Freeman wrote:

> ... there is nothing wrong with having some internal QA on kernel
> releases.  4.1 had a nasty memory leak a release or two ago that was
> killing my system after only an hour or two uptime.  They took over a
> week to stabilize the fix as well (though a patch was out fairly quickly).
> So, I'm not in nearly the rush to update kernels as I used to be

I've formed the impression that a good many kernel updates are mainly just 
to incorporate code for new devices, so I don't rush into it normally 
either. However, this box does have some hardware that's not yet a year old, 
so I do keep this one up to date.

> (granted, unless you read all the lists it is easy to miss this sort of
> thing).

Do you recommend any in particular for this? Gentoo-dev, perhaps?

--->8

> I ended up bailing on gentoo-sources all the same.  Not that there was
> really anything wrong with it, but since I'm running btrfs and they've
> had a history of nasty regressions that tend to show up MONTHS later
> I've been a lot more picky about my kernel updates.  I'm currently
> tracking 4.1.  I might think about moving to 4.4 in a little while.

Well, according to eix, there's only 4.4.19 between 4.1.30 and 4.7.2.

> I tend to stay on the next-to-most-recent longterm not long after a new
> longterm is announced.  That tends to give them enough time to work
> out the bugs.  Plus, I spend a lot less time playing with
> configuration options this way (they don't change within a minor
> version).

Sound policy, I'm sure. How does an ordinary mortal know which versions are 
here for the long term?

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Peter Humphrey  wrote:
> On Sunday 21 Aug 2016 05:55:06 Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Peter Humphrey 
> wrote:
>> > After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of
>> > gentoo-sources have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the
>> > server chain? I get the same with UK and US sync servers.
>>
>> No idea, but upstream is up to 4.4.19, and 4.6.7 (which is now EOL).
>> So, those are pretty old versions.  I see 4.4.19 in the Gentoo repo,
>> and 4.7.2 (which is probably where 4.6 users should be moving to).
>
> Yes, this ~amd64 box is now at 4.7.2, but I have an amd64 and two x86
> systems and they both want to downgrade to 4.1.15-r1, which eix shows as the
> latest stable version.
>
> I thought 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 were both pretty stable; was I wrong?
>

I'm sure they both work.  However, upstream has released numerous
fixes since 4.4.6, and they will not be releasing security/bug/etc
fixes for 4.6.x.

As long as there are no critical issues there is no issue with not
being completely up-to-date with the kernel's stable releases, and I'm
sure the Gentoo kernel team is tracking these sorts of issues.
However, it isn't a surprise that they dropped 4.6.  If they
downgraded 4.1 I suspect that was a mistake somewhere along the ways -
I could see them upgrading it to something more recent.

And there is nothing wrong with having some internal QA on kernel
releases.  4.1 had a nasty memory leak a release or two ago that was
killing my system after only an hour or two uptime.  They took over a
week to stabilize the fix as well (though a patch was out fairly
quickly).  So, I'm not in nearly the rush to update kernels as I used
to be (granted, unless you read all the lists it is easy to miss this
sort of thing).  I really wish the kernel had separate
announce/discussion/patch lists.  It is really annoying that there is
no way to get official notices up upstream updates without subscribing
to lkml and such.  Is Linux the only FOSS project that has never heard
of -announce lists?

I ended up bailing on gentoo-sources all the same.  Not that there was
really anything wrong with it, but since I'm running btrfs and they've
had a history of nasty regressions that tend to show up MONTHS later
I've been a lot more picky about my kernel updates.  I'm currently
tracking 4.1.  I might think about moving to 4.4 in a little while.  I
tend to stay on the next-to-most-recent longterm not long after a new
longterm is announced.  That tends to give them enough time to work
out the bugs.  Plus, I spend a lot less time playing with
configuration options this way (they don't change within a minor
version).

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Alarig Le Lay]

On Sun Aug 21 10:12:59 2016, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Hello list,
> 
> After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of gentoo-sources 
> have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the server chain? I get the 
> same with UK and US sync servers.

I use webrsync and I’m also seeing this.

Trying to retrieve 20160820 snapshot from 
ftp://ftp.free.fr/mirrors/ftp.gentoo.org ...

[?]   == sys-kernel/gentoo-sources (4.4.6(4.4.6)@28/05/2016;
3.10.95(3.10.95)^bs 3.12.52-r1(3.12.52-r1)^bs 3.14.58-r1(3.14.58-r1)^bs 
3.18.25-r1(3.18.25-r1)^bs 4.1.15-r1(4.1.15-r1)^bs 4.4.6(4.4.6)^bs ->
3.10.95(3.10.95)^bs 3.12.52-r1(3.12.52-r1)^bs 3.14.58-r1(3.14.58-r1)^bs 
3.18.25-r1(3.18.25-r1)^bs 4.1.15-r1(4.1.15-r1)^bs)
Full sources including the Gentoo patchset for the 4.7 kernel tree

[ebuild  NS] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-4.1.15-r1:4.1.15-r1::gentoo 
[4.4.6:4.4.6::gentoo] USE="symlink -build -experimental -kdbus" 81 531 KiB

-- 
alarig


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Sunday 21 Aug 2016 05:55:06 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Peter Humphrey  
wrote:
> > After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of
> > gentoo-sources have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the
> > server chain? I get the same with UK and US sync servers.
> 
> No idea, but upstream is up to 4.4.19, and 4.6.7 (which is now EOL).
> So, those are pretty old versions.  I see 4.4.19 in the Gentoo repo,
> and 4.7.2 (which is probably where 4.6 users should be moving to).

Yes, this ~amd64 box is now at 4.7.2, but I have an amd64 and two x86 
systems and they both want to downgrade to 4.1.15-r1, which eix shows as the 
latest stable version.

I thought 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 were both pretty stable; was I wrong?

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Peter Humphrey  wrote:
>
> After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of gentoo-sources
> have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the server chain? I get the
> same with UK and US sync servers.
>

No idea, but upstream is up to 4.4.19, and 4.6.7 (which is now EOL).
So, those are pretty old versions.  I see 4.4.19 in the Gentoo repo,
and 4.7.2 (which is probably where 4.6 users should be moving to).

-- 
Rich