[gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
This revision makes 2 changes... A) The removal of udev is now standard instead of optional. udev-181 and higher will be pulling in kmod, and anything else that kmod depends on. Removing udev will avoid unnecessary cruft on your machine. B) Splitting up step 3) into 3a) and 3b) for greater clarity as requested in user feedback. The usual warnings apply... * this is a beta * use a spare test machine * if you don't follow the instructions correctly, the result might be an unbootable linux * even if you do follow instructions, the result might be an unbootable linux 1) Set up your kernel to support and automount a devtmpfs filesystem at /dev * If you prefer to edit .config directly, set CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y * If you prefer make menuconfig, the route is as shown below. Note that the Autount devtmpfs... option won't appear until you enable Maintain a devtmpf... option. make menuconfig Device Drivers --- Generic Driver Options --- [*] Maintain a devtmpfs filesystem to mount at /dev [*] Automount devtmpfs at /dev, after the kernel mounted the rootfs Once you've made the changes, rebuild the kernel. 2) Set up for emerging busybox. busybox requires the mdev flag in this situation. The static flag is probably also a good idea. In file /etc/portage/package.use add the line sys-apps/busybox static mdev Now, emerge busybox 3 a) Create /sbin/linuxrc containing at least #!/bin/busybox ash mount -t proc proc /proc mount -t sysfs sysfs /sys exec /sbin/init This should be enough for most users. If you have an unusual setup, you may need additional stuff in there. Remember to chmod 744 /sbin/linuxrc to make it executable. In the bootloader append line, include init=/sbin/linuxrc. If you're using lilo remember to re-run lilo to implement the changes. If you're using another bootloader, make the equivalant initialization. 4) Remove udev from the services list, and replace it with mdev. Type the following 2 commands at the command line rc-update del udev sysinit rc-update add mdev sysinit 5) reboot to your new kernel. You're now running without using udev. 6) Remove udev as per the following instructions... * execute the following command at the commandline emerge --unmerge sys-fs/udev * In file /atc/portage/package.mask, append the line sys-fs/udev Create the file if it doesn't already exist. You now have a totally udev-free machine -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
On 2012-03-11 03:36, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of udev =181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot your system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr. Ok, I thank both you and Neil for this info. In hindsight I should have looked deeper before asking but now it's out there so other's wanting to know (on the gentoo-user list), knows... Best regards Peter K
Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
On March 11, 2012 at 5:09 AM Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: This revision makes 2 changes... A) The removal of udev is now standard instead of optional. udev-181 and higher will be pulling in kmod, and anything else that kmod depends on. Removing udev will avoid unnecessary cruft on your machine. B) Splitting up step 3) into 3a) and 3b) for greater clarity as requested in user feedback. The usual warnings apply... * this is a beta * use a spare test machine * if you don't follow the instructions correctly, the result might be an unbootable linux * even if you do follow instructions, the result might be an unbootable linux 1) Set up your kernel to support and automount a devtmpfs filesystem at /dev * If you prefer to edit .config directly, set CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y * If you prefer make menuconfig, the route is as shown below. Note that the Autount devtmpfs... option won't appear until you enable Maintain a devtmpf... option. make menuconfig Device Drivers --- Generic Driver Options --- [*] Maintain a devtmpfs filesystem to mount at /dev [*] Automount devtmpfs at /dev, after the kernel mounted the rootfs Once you've made the changes, rebuild the kernel. 2) Set up for emerging busybox. busybox requires the mdev flag in this situation. The static flag is probably also a good idea. In file /etc/portage/package.use add the line sys-apps/busybox static mdev Now, emerge busybox 3 a) Create /sbin/linuxrc containing at least #!/bin/busybox ash mount -t proc proc /proc mount -t sysfs sysfs /sys exec /sbin/init This should be enough for most users. If you have an unusual setup, you may need additional stuff in there. Remember to chmod 744 /sbin/linuxrc to make it executable. In the bootloader append line, include init=/sbin/linuxrc. If you're using lilo remember to re-run lilo to implement the changes. If you're using another bootloader, make the equivalant initialization. 4) Remove udev from the services list, and replace it with mdev. Type the following 2 commands at the command line rc-update del udev sysinit rc-update add mdev sysinit 5) reboot to your new kernel. You're now running without using udev. 6) Remove udev as per the following instructions... * execute the following command at the commandline emerge --unmerge sys-fs/udev * In file /atc/portage/package.mask, append the line sys-fs/udev Create the file if it doesn't already exist. You now have a totally udev-free machine -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org Having personally long considered Lennart Poettering a 'spawn of the devil' my question is ... is this your reaction to systemd? One minor typo to point out: /atc/portage/package.mask should be /etc/portage/package.mask I just joined this list last week, but might consider sacrificing some hardware to join your endeavor if you need more testers. Kindest regards, Bruce
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
Hi! I had some struggle with a separate /usr on top of LVM and the dracut thing. I noticed that udev was complaining at boot that it could not find some scripts. The usmount dracut module did not work for me because it could not find /usr. So what I did was to include the fstab-sys smodule in dracut: /etc/dracut.conf # Dracut modules to omit omit_dracutmodules+=usrmount # Dracut modules to add to the default add_dracutmodules+=fstab-sys Then I created /etc/fstab.sys with just the /usr partition /dev/disk/by-uuid/90d82b02-e6c2-4011-940e-783d12b0c4fe /usr ext4noatime 1 2 Dracut could only find the partition by using the uuid (use blkid to find it easily). The next step was to remove /usr from /etc/fstab to prevent /usr from being mounted twice (the boot process does not like it). The last obstacle is /etc/mtab. By the time /usr is mounted I believe / is mounted as read only, so mount cannot update /etc/mtab. The trivial solutions is to delete /etc/mtab and make it a symlink to /proc/mounts . In that case it is always up to date. Of course, YMMV. Be careful when changing things that can prevent your machine from booting and make sure you have a live CD at hand. Cheers, -- Jorge Martínez López jorg...@gmail.com http://www.jorgeml.net Google Talk / XMPP: jorg...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On 10 March 2012, at 20:56, András Csányi wrote: … I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu, and the email address is sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu. Unfortunately, gmail smtp always overwrite the sender email address. … Do you know any solution for this? Use a different SMTP server. I don't believe there's any alternative. Have you considered Postfix? Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On 11 March 2012 13:49, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote: On 10 March 2012, at 20:56, András Csányi wrote: … I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu, and the email address is sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu. Unfortunately, gmail smtp always overwrite the sender email address. … Do you know any solution for this? Use a different SMTP server. I don't believe there's any alternative. Have you considered Postfix? What do you mean when you say Postfix? If I use postfix and google smtp is the relay always happens the same. The sender will be overwritten. Thanks God, yahoo mail doesn't do this! Now, I use yahoo smtp. Unfortunately I can't use yahoo smtp as relay with postfix because there is an issue with STARTLS and a hack is needed. Yesterday I was to tired to reconfigure the whole. Mutt is able to use remote smtp so I can send emails. -- - - -- Csanyi Andras (Sayusi Ando) -- http://sayusi.hu -- http://facebook.com/andras.csanyi -- Trust in God and keep your gunpowder dry! - Cromwell
[gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On 10/03/12 22:56, András Csányi wrote: Dear All, I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu, and the email address is sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu. Unfortunately, gmail smtp always overwrite the sender email address. Doesn't the verification email always go to the From: address rather than the Sender: address? Doesn't make sense otherwise, since the address you want to subscribe to the list is the From: one, not the Sender: one.
Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
On Mar 11, 2012 6:30 PM, Daddy da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: On March 11, 2012 at 5:09 AM Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: This revision makes 2 changes... A) The removal of udev is now standard instead of optional. udev-181 and higher will be pulling in kmod, and anything else that kmod depends on. Removing udev will avoid unnecessary cruft on your machine. B) Splitting up step 3) into 3a) and 3b) for greater clarity as requested in user feedback. The usual warnings apply... * this is a beta * use a spare test machine * if you don't follow the instructions correctly, the result might be an unbootable linux * even if you do follow instructions, the result might be an unbootable linux 1) Set up your kernel to support and automount a devtmpfs filesystem at /dev * If you prefer to edit .config directly, set CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y * If you prefer make menuconfig, the route is as shown below. Note that the Autount devtmpfs... option won't appear until you enable Maintain a devtmpf... option. make menuconfig Device Drivers --- Generic Driver Options --- [*] Maintain a devtmpfs filesystem to mount at /dev [*] Automount devtmpfs at /dev, after the kernel mounted the rootfs Once you've made the changes, rebuild the kernel. 2) Set up for emerging busybox. busybox requires the mdev flag in this situation. The static flag is probably also a good idea. In file /etc/portage/package.use add the line sys-apps/busybox static mdev Now, emerge busybox 3 a) Create /sbin/linuxrc containing at least #!/bin/busybox ash mount -t proc proc /proc mount -t sysfs sysfs /sys exec /sbin/init This should be enough for most users. If you have an unusual setup, you may need additional stuff in there. Remember to chmod 744 /sbin/linuxrc to make it executable. In the bootloader append line, include init=/sbin/linuxrc. If you're using lilo remember to re-run lilo to implement the changes. If you're using another bootloader, make the equivalant initialization. 4) Remove udev from the services list, and replace it with mdev. Type the following 2 commands at the command line rc-update del udev sysinit rc-update add mdev sysinit 5) reboot to your new kernel. You're now running without using udev. 6) Remove udev as per the following instructions... * execute the following command at the commandline emerge --unmerge sys-fs/udev * In file /atc/portage/package.mask, append the line sys-fs/udev Create the file if it doesn't already exist. You now have a totally udev-free machine -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org Having personally long considered Lennart Poettering a 'spawn of the devil' my question is ... is this your reaction to systemd? One minor typo to point out: /atc/portage/package.mask should be /etc/portage/package.mask I just joined this list last week, but might consider sacrificing some hardware to join your endeavor if you need more testers. I'm one of the long-suffering beta-tester for Walt ;-) I've tested all his procedures (except this one), and up to now found no problems. One caveat: my tests are all on servers (test-dev-staging-production). We -- that is, Gentoo users who want to go udev-less -- will certainly appreciate feedback from desktop users. Rgds,
Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 07:27:05 -0400 (EDT) Daddy da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: On March 11, 2012 at 5:09 AM Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: This revision makes 2 changes... A) The removal of udev is now standard instead of optional. udev-181 and higher will be pulling in kmod, and anything else that kmod depends on. Removing udev will avoid unnecessary cruft on your machine. B) Splitting up step 3) into 3a) and 3b) for greater clarity as requested in user feedback. The usual warnings apply... * this is a beta * use a spare test machine * if you don't follow the instructions correctly, the result might be an unbootable linux * even if you do follow instructions, the result might be an unbootable linux 1) Set up your kernel to support and automount a devtmpfs filesystem at /dev * If you prefer to edit .config directly, set CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y * If you prefer make menuconfig, the route is as shown below. Note that the Autount devtmpfs... option won't appear until you enable Maintain a devtmpf... option. make menuconfig Device Drivers --- Generic Driver Options --- [*] Maintain a devtmpfs filesystem to mount at /dev [*] Automount devtmpfs at /dev, after the kernel mounted the rootfs Once you've made the changes, rebuild the kernel. 2) Set up for emerging busybox. busybox requires the mdev flag in this situation. The static flag is probably also a good idea. In file /etc/portage/package.use add the line sys-apps/busybox static mdev Now, emerge busybox 3 a) Create /sbin/linuxrc containing at least #!/bin/busybox ash mount -t proc proc /proc mount -t sysfs sysfs /sys exec /sbin/init This should be enough for most users. If you have an unusual setup, you may need additional stuff in there. Remember to chmod 744 /sbin/linuxrc to make it executable. In the bootloader append line, include init=/sbin/linuxrc. If you're using lilo remember to re-run lilo to implement the changes. If you're using another bootloader, make the equivalant initialization. 4) Remove udev from the services list, and replace it with mdev. Type the following 2 commands at the command line rc-update del udev sysinit rc-update add mdev sysinit 5) reboot to your new kernel. You're now running without using udev. 6) Remove udev as per the following instructions... * execute the following command at the commandline emerge --unmerge sys-fs/udev * In file /atc/portage/package.mask, append the line sys-fs/udev Create the file if it doesn't already exist. You now have a totally udev-free machine -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org Having personally long considered Lennart Poettering a 'spawn of the devil' my question is ... is this your reaction to systemd? No, it's his reaction to the fantastical amount of kitchen-sinking going on surrounding udev. Most specifically, it's the recent requirement foisted on the udev-using community to require either /usr to be part of / or to use an initramfs. Walter simply wants to show that mdev is a suitable replacement for udev in simple environments eg embedded, simple desktops without complex hotplug requirements, and servers. Canek will no doubt chip in about how this is the way things are going, it is inevitable, the boot sequence is becoming complex and various other rehashings of what's coming out of udev upstream. However, something needs to be pointed out in that regard. What udev upstream is saying is probably quite true, but only within the limits of the environment in which they work and udev is designed to handle - sophisticated desktops. The three cases I mentioned are perfectly valid use-cases, comprise a large percentage of the Linux installed base, should be catered to and have no need of the sophistication current udev aims to provide. As such, mdev is a good fit and we can add Walter to the long list of people before him who selflessly worked to make our software work better. One minor typo to point out: /atc/portage/package.mask should be /etc/portage/package.mask I just joined this list last week, but might consider sacrificing some hardware to join your endeavor if you need more testers. Welcome to the list, you'll soon get to know all the personalities here. We have at least one of everything - class clowns, old farts, newbies, voices of reason, influential devs and even the occasional fellow who knows what he's talking about. :-) -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
[gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On 2012-03-10, Andr??s Cs??nyi sayusi.a...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu, and the email address is sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu. Unfortunately, gmail smtp always overwrite the sender email address. Indeed it does. AFAICT, there's nothing you can do about it. If I would like to subscribe for a mailing list with this email address and the email is sent from my local machine the respond always comes to my gmail address which used to authenticate. That's how gmail works. It always forces the from address to be your gmail account. IIRC, there's supposed to be a way to set the reply-to address to a different address as long as that address is one of the one's you have authenticated. I have tried to set up my gmail account but doesn't matter what the setup is the sender always will be overwrite. Do you know any solution for this? I don't think there is a solution other than use a different SMTP server. -- Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On Mar 11, 2012 3:59 AM, András Csányi sayusi.a...@gmail.com wrote: Dear All, I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu, and the email address is sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu. Unfortunately, gmail smtp always overwrite the sender email address. If I would like to subscribe for a mailing list with this email address and the email is sent from my local machine the respond always comes to my gmail address which used to authenticate. I have tried to set up my gmail account but doesn't matter what the setup is the sender always will be overwrite. Do you know any solution for this? Thanks in advance! András See my email address? It's actually sent from Gmail. BUT, I have my own hosted website (with its own SMTP server). Without your own SMTP server, Gmail will always send your email as some...@gmail.com on behalf of some...@yourdomain.com. After you have your own publicly accessible SMTP server, configure Gmail to send email via your SMTP server, then make the alternate account as your default account. You can also configure your domain's SMTP server to not store your emails locally, but forward to your Gmail account. This way, everything will be handled through a single interface, i.e., Gmail's. Rgds,
[gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On 11/03/12 16:41, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2012-03-10, Andr??s Cs??nyisayusi.a...@gmail.com wrote: I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu, and the email address is sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu. Unfortunately, gmail smtp always overwrite the sender email address. Indeed it does. AFAICT, there's nothing you can do about it. If I would like to subscribe for a mailing list with this email address and the email is sent from my local machine the respond always comes to my gmail address which used to authenticate. That's how gmail works. It always forces the from address to be your gmail account. It doesn't. It works OK here. I think the OP means the Sender, not the From: address.
[gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On 11/03/12 16:49, Pandu Poluan wrote: On Mar 11, 2012 3:59 AM, András Csányi sayusi.a...@gmail.com mailto:sayusi.a...@gmail.com wrote: Dear All, I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu http://sayusi.hu, and the email address is sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu mailto:sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu. Unfortunately, gmail smtp always overwrite the sender email address. If I would like to subscribe for a mailing list with this email address and the email is sent from my local machine the respond always comes to my gmail address which used to authenticate. I have tried to set up my gmail account but doesn't matter what the setup is the sender always will be overwrite. Do you know any solution for this? Thanks in advance! András See my email address? It's actually sent from Gmail. BUT, I have my own hosted website (with its own SMTP server). Without your own SMTP server, Gmail will always send your email as some...@gmail.com mailto:some...@gmail.com on behalf of some...@yourdomain.com mailto:some...@yourdomain.com. That's also wrong. I use From: addresses that don't have any SMTP associated with them. GMail only touches the Sender: address, not the From: address.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On Mar 11, 2012 10:08 PM, Nikos Chantziaras rea...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/03/12 16:49, Pandu Poluan wrote: On Mar 11, 2012 3:59 AM, András Csányi sayusi.a...@gmail.com mailto:sayusi.a...@gmail.com wrote: Dear All, I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu http://sayusi.hu, and the email address is sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu mailto:sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu. Unfortunately, gmail smtp always overwrite the sender email address. If I would like to subscribe for a mailing list with this email address and the email is sent from my local machine the respond always comes to my gmail address which used to authenticate. I have tried to set up my gmail account but doesn't matter what the setup is the sender always will be overwrite. Do you know any solution for this? Thanks in advance! András See my email address? It's actually sent from Gmail. BUT, I have my own hosted website (with its own SMTP server). Without your own SMTP server, Gmail will always send your email as some...@gmail.com mailto:some...@gmail.com on behalf of some...@yourdomain.com mailto:some...@yourdomain.com. That's also wrong. I use From: addresses that don't have any SMTP associated with them. GMail only touches the Sender: address, not the From: address. Yes, header-wise, the From: is not changed. But, client-side, especially on Thunderbird and Outlook/Outlook Express, the *display* From: will look like that. Rgds,
[gentoo-user] how updating to gnome3 ?!
Hi people! I want to upgrade gnome 2.32 to gnome 3. First question, is it now officially supported by the gentoo team or should I keep my fingers away of it?! http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/gnome/howtos/gnome-3.2-upgrade.xml doesn't tell me a lot how to accomplish this task. Is there any official documentation telling me how to doit, unmasking, flags etc for any advise I would thank you. Tamer
[gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On 11/03/12 17:18, Pandu Poluan wrote: On Mar 11, 2012 10:08 PM, Nikos Chantziaras rea...@gmail.com mailto:rea...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/03/12 16:49, Pandu Poluan wrote: On Mar 11, 2012 3:59 AM, András Csányi sayusi.a...@gmail.com mailto:sayusi.a...@gmail.com mailto:sayusi.a...@gmail.com mailto:sayusi.a...@gmail.com wrote: Dear All, I would like to ask some help! I would like to use gmail smtp to send my email from my domain which is sayusi.hu http://sayusi.hu http://sayusi.hu, and the email address is sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu mailto:sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu mailto:sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu mailto:sayusi.a...@sayusi.hu. Unfortunately, gmail smtp always overwrite the sender email address. If I would like to subscribe for a mailing list with this email address and the email is sent from my local machine the respond always comes to my gmail address which used to authenticate. I have tried to set up my gmail account but doesn't matter what the setup is the sender always will be overwrite. Do you know any solution for this? Thanks in advance! András See my email address? It's actually sent from Gmail. BUT, I have my own hosted website (with its own SMTP server). Without your own SMTP server, Gmail will always send your email as some...@gmail.com mailto:some...@gmail.com mailto:some...@gmail.com mailto:some...@gmail.com on behalf of some...@yourdomain.com mailto:some...@yourdomain.com mailto:some...@yourdomain.com mailto:some...@yourdomain.com. That's also wrong. I use From: addresses that don't have any SMTP associated with them. GMail only touches the Sender: address, not the From: address. Yes, header-wise, the From: is not changed. But, client-side, especially on Thunderbird and Outlook/Outlook Express, the *display* From: will look like that. There is no display from. I use Thunderbird and it reports the from correctly (that is, it says the mail did not come from GMail.) All mail clients do that. They use the From: address. It's a standard specified in an RFC.
[gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On 2012-03-11, Nikos Chantziaras rea...@gmail.com wrote: There is no display from. I use Thunderbird and it reports the from correctly (that is, it says the mail did not come from GMail.) All mail clients do that. Outlook never used to. It always used to display the on behalf of stuff. They use the From: address. It's a standard specified in an RFC. Oh, well Microsoft has never violated an RFC, so I'm sure you're right. -- Grant
[gentoo-user] hard drive encryption
Hello, I have not looked at encryption before and find myself in a situation that I have to encrypt my hard drive. I keep /, /boot, and swap outside LVM, everything else is under LVM. I think all I need to do is to encrypt /home which is under LVM. I use reiserfs. I would appreciate suggestion and pointers on what it is practical and simple in order to accomplish this task with a minimum of downtime. Thanks, -- Valmor
Re: [gentoo-user] how updating to gnome3 ?!
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 17:01:41 +0100 Tamer Higazi th9...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi people! I want to upgrade gnome 2.32 to gnome 3. First question, is it now officially supported by the gentoo team or should I keep my fingers away of it?! http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/gnome/howtos/gnome-3.2-upgrade.xml doesn't tell me a lot how to accomplish this task. Is there any official documentation telling me how to doit, unmasking, flags etc for any advise I would thank you. What sort of information are you looking for? gnome-3 is marked unstable, so if you run ~x86 or ~amd64 just emerge -av gnome and deal with any breakage. This is generally how gentoo works for everything. What were you expecting in terms of documentation ? -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
[gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On 11/03/12 18:14, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2012-03-11, Nikos Chantziarasrea...@gmail.com wrote: There is no display from. I use Thunderbird and it reports the from correctly (that is, it says the mail did not come from GMail.) All mail clients do that. Outlook never used to. It always used to display the on behalf of stuff. They use the From: address. It's a standard specified in an RFC. Oh, well Microsoft has never violated an RFC, so I'm sure you're right. GMail does not generate an on behalf of header either. I just tested it. I've sent an email through GMail's SMTP. Here are the relevant headers of the email that arrived. my_other_address is what I used as From: Return-path: rea...@gmail.com Envelope-to: my_other_address Sender: Nikos Chantziaras rea...@gmail.com From: my_other_address The OP mentioned that the problem is that he wants to subscribe to a mailing list, but that list sends the verification mail to the Sender: address rather than the From: address. Which sounds very weird to me. If you want to subscribe the From: address to a list, why would they want to verify the Sender: address instead? Makes no sense.
[gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On 2012-03-11, Nikos Chantziaras rea...@gmail.com wrote: On 11/03/12 18:14, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2012-03-11, Nikos Chantziarasrea...@gmail.com wrote: There is no display from. I use Thunderbird and it reports the from correctly (that is, it says the mail did not come from GMail.) All mail clients do that. Outlook never used to. It always used to display the on behalf of stuff. They use the From: address. It's a standard specified in an RFC. Oh, well Microsoft has never violated an RFC, so I'm sure you're right. GMail does not generate an on behalf of header either. I just tested it. I've sent an email through GMail's SMTP. Here are the relevant headers of the email that arrived. my_other_address is what I used as From: Return-path: rea...@gmail.com Envelope-to: my_other_address Sender: Nikos Chantziaras rea...@gmail.com From: my_other_address Ah! Apparently gmail has fixed the sender problem. According to wikipedia, they now allow you to use somebody else's SMTP server: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gmail#On_behalf_of That's not what you're doing? If they have indeed fixed it so you can send mail using Google's SMTP server and have something other than your gmail address show up in the sender field, then it's time to celebrate. The OP mentioned that the problem is that he wants to subscribe to a mailing list, but that list sends the verification mail to the Sender: address rather than the From: address. Which sounds very weird to me. If you want to subscribe the From: address to a list, why would they want to verify the Sender: address instead? Makes no sense. Dunno. I didn't relly understand what the OP was saying. I was confirming (erroneously), the gmail would always put the gmail address in the sender header, which then triggered Outlook to display the on behalf of stuff. That issue has apparently been fixed. -- Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
2012/3/11 Jorge Martínez López jorg...@gmail.com: Hi! I had some struggle with a separate /usr on top of LVM and the dracut thing. I noticed that udev was complaining at boot that it could not find some scripts. The usmount dracut module did not work for me because it could not find /usr. So what I did was to include the fstab-sys smodule in dracut: /etc/dracut.conf # Dracut modules to omit omit_dracutmodules+=usrmount # Dracut modules to add to the default add_dracutmodules+=fstab-sys Then I created /etc/fstab.sys with just the /usr partition /dev/disk/by-uuid/90d82b02-e6c2-4011-940e-783d12b0c4fe /usr ext4 noatime 1 2 Dracut could only find the partition by using the uuid (use blkid to find it easily). The next step was to remove /usr from /etc/fstab to prevent /usr from being mounted twice (the boot process does not like it). Mmmh. Could you try to use LABEL= in /etc/fstab (not /etc/fstab), and see if that way it gets mounted, and only once? The udev developers recommend using either UUID or LABEL; and LABEL it's easier (and prettier) to set. The last obstacle is /etc/mtab. By the time /usr is mounted I believe / is mounted as read only, so mount cannot update /etc/mtab. The trivial solutions is to delete /etc/mtab and make it a symlink to /proc/mounts . In that case it is always up to date. I think the link is to /proc/self/mounts; /proc/mounts it's a link to it, actually. Of course, YMMV. Be careful when changing things that can prevent your machine from booting and make sure you have a live CD at hand. Good advice. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] hard drive encryption
Am 11.03.2012 16:38, schrieb Valmor de Almeida: Hello, I have not looked at encryption before and find myself in a situation that I have to encrypt my hard drive. I keep /, /boot, and swap outside LVM, everything else is under LVM. I think all I need to do is to encrypt /home which is under LVM. I use reiserfs. I would appreciate suggestion and pointers on what it is practical and simple in order to accomplish this task with a minimum of downtime. Thanks, -- Valmor Is it acceptable for you to have a commandline prompt for the password when booting? In that case you can use LUKS with the /etc/init.d/dmcrypt init script. /etc/conf.d/dmcrypt should contain some examples. As you want to encrypt an LVM volume, the lvm init script needs to be started before this. As I see it, there is no strict dependency between those two scripts. You can add this by adding this line to /etc/rc.conf: rc_dmcrypt_after=lvm For creating a LUKS-encrypted volume, look at http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/DM-Crypt You won't need most of what is written there; just section 9, Administering LUKS and the kernel config in section 2, Assumptions. Concerning downtime, I'm not aware of any solution that avoids copying the data over to the new volume. If downtime is absolutely critical, ask and we can work something out that minimizes the time. Regards, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] tracking IT work
Am 09.03.2012 14:37, schrieb Stefan Schmiedl: Am 08.03.2012 20:00, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger: oh, sorry, vi(m) here :-P I'm using a plain text file (ok |-separated values) for this and a single macro: imap localleaderm SPACE\| ESC=strftime(%Y-%m-%d %H:%M)CRpa¶ Then, in insert mode \m appends | now after the cursor, and you have just fixed the start or stop time for the entry. My work log looks like this: client | item | start | stop and once it's been run through my billing script, the billed items are tagged client | item | start | stop | billed interesting approach, thanks!
Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 07:27:05 -0400 (EDT) Daddy da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: On March 11, 2012 at 5:09 AM Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: This revision makes 2 changes... A) The removal of udev is now standard instead of optional. udev-181 and higher will be pulling in kmod, and anything else that kmod depends on. Removing udev will avoid unnecessary cruft on your machine. B) Splitting up step 3) into 3a) and 3b) for greater clarity as requested in user feedback. The usual warnings apply... * this is a beta * use a spare test machine * if you don't follow the instructions correctly, the result might be an unbootable linux * even if you do follow instructions, the result might be an unbootable linux 1) Set up your kernel to support and automount a devtmpfs filesystem at /dev * If you prefer to edit .config directly, set CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y * If you prefer make menuconfig, the route is as shown below. Note that the Autount devtmpfs... option won't appear until you enable Maintain a devtmpf... option. make menuconfig Device Drivers --- Generic Driver Options --- [*] Maintain a devtmpfs filesystem to mount at /dev [*] Automount devtmpfs at /dev, after the kernel mounted the rootfs Once you've made the changes, rebuild the kernel. 2) Set up for emerging busybox. busybox requires the mdev flag in this situation. The static flag is probably also a good idea. In file /etc/portage/package.use add the line sys-apps/busybox static mdev Now, emerge busybox 3 a) Create /sbin/linuxrc containing at least #!/bin/busybox ash mount -t proc proc /proc mount -t sysfs sysfs /sys exec /sbin/init This should be enough for most users. If you have an unusual setup, you may need additional stuff in there. Remember to chmod 744 /sbin/linuxrc to make it executable. In the bootloader append line, include init=/sbin/linuxrc. If you're using lilo remember to re-run lilo to implement the changes. If you're using another bootloader, make the equivalant initialization. 4) Remove udev from the services list, and replace it with mdev. Type the following 2 commands at the command line rc-update del udev sysinit rc-update add mdev sysinit 5) reboot to your new kernel. You're now running without using udev. 6) Remove udev as per the following instructions... * execute the following command at the commandline emerge --unmerge sys-fs/udev * In file /atc/portage/package.mask, append the line sys-fs/udev Create the file if it doesn't already exist. You now have a totally udev-free machine -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org Having personally long considered Lennart Poettering a 'spawn of the devil' my question is ... is this your reaction to systemd? No, it's his reaction to the fantastical amount of kitchen-sinking going on surrounding udev. Most specifically, it's the recent requirement foisted on the udev-using community to require either /usr to be part of / or to use an initramfs. Walter simply wants to show that mdev is a suitable replacement for udev in simple environments eg embedded, simple desktops without complex hotplug requirements, and servers. Canek will no doubt chip in about how this is the way things are going, it is inevitable, the boot sequence is becoming complex and various other rehashings of what's coming out of udev upstream. No, I will not ;) As I have said before, I admire a lot what Walter et al. are doing, and as I always will say, this is how our community works: people writing the code (as Walter is doing) are the ones that get things done. This is the correct (and only) way to address a problem (perceived or real) with the current status: write the code that does the thing the way you want it. Complaining and crying that you don't like the direction some part of the stack is taking is at best a waste of time, and at worst idiotic. Actually doing something about it (as Walter is doing) is the smart thing to do. I personally will not use Walt's work. Not in my desktop, laptop, nor in my servers or embedded systems (I don't know if my Media Center qualifies as embedded, if I'm truthful); they all run amazingly well with systemd. But that's my decision: if anybody else wants to go the mdev route, that's their absolute right. This is open source: code talks. If anyone with enough interest and capabilities wants to implement any feature (or anti feature) they want, they will. That's what Walter is doing, and I sincerely salute that effort. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] how updating to gnome3 ?!
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Tamer Higazi th9...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi people! I want to upgrade gnome 2.32 to gnome 3. First question, is it now officially supported by the gentoo team or should I keep my fingers away of it?! http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/desktop/gnome/howtos/gnome-3.2-upgrade.xml doesn't tell me a lot how to accomplish this task. Is there any official documentation telling me how to doit, unmasking, flags etc I don't think any part of the GNOME 3.x stack is masked anymore, but it is still unstable. GNOME 3 is completely supported in Gentoo: I'm running GNOME 3.2, and everything works without a hitch. But, if you are running stable, and you are not used to fiddle in /etc/portage to unmask or keyword packages, I would recommend to wait for it to be stabilized. I don't think it will take that much longer. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 07:27:05AM -0400, Daddy wrote Having personally long considered Lennart Poettering a 'spawn of the devil' my question is ... is this your reaction to systemd? It's my reaction to the Windows-isation and Firefox-isation of linux. So far I've managed to keep systemd and hal and dbus and pulseaudio off my machines. I agree with Linus Torvalds that linux is getting bloated and huge and scary... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/22/linus_torvalds_linux_bloated_huge/ One minor typo to point out: /atc/portage/package.mask should be /etc/portage/package.mask Thanks; fixed now. I just joined this list last week, but might consider sacrificing some hardware to join your endeavor if you need more testers. I have a couple of regular desktops here at home, and a desktop dedicted to my TV, plus a netbook, and a laptop. So far, I've run into only one situation where laziness on my part ends up requiring udev. The laptop has an ATI Radeon chip that requires emerging radeon-ucode. That ebuild simply dumps a bunch of binary blobs into a library folder. The kernel loads one of the binary blobs at bootup. Radeon-ucode has blobs for 2 or 3 dozen differnt Radeon GPU models. If I leave all the binary blobs in the library folder, the kernel needs udev to figure out which blob to load. But, if I leave only the correct blob for my GPU in the library folder (move/delete all the others), it loads properly without any help from udev. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
On March 11, 2012 at 10:17 AM Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 07:27:05 -0400 (EDT) Daddy da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: On March 11, 2012 at 5:09 AM Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: This revision makes 2 changes... A) The removal of udev is now standard instead of optional. udev-181 and higher will be pulling in kmod, and anything else that kmod depends on. Removing udev will avoid unnecessary cruft on your machine. B) Splitting up step 3) into 3a) and 3b) for greater clarity as requested in user feedback. The usual warnings apply... * this is a beta * use a spare test machine * if you don't follow the instructions correctly, the result might be an unbootable linux * even if you do follow instructions, the result might be an unbootable linux 1) Set up your kernel to support and automount a devtmpfs filesystem at /dev * If you prefer to edit .config directly, set CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y * If you prefer make menuconfig, the route is as shown below. Note that the Autount devtmpfs... option won't appear until you enable Maintain a devtmpf... option. make menuconfig Device Drivers --- Generic Driver Options --- [*] Maintain a devtmpfs filesystem to mount at /dev [*] Automount devtmpfs at /dev, after the kernel mounted the rootfs Once you've made the changes, rebuild the kernel. 2) Set up for emerging busybox. busybox requires the mdev flag in this situation. The static flag is probably also a good idea. In file /etc/portage/package.use add the line sys-apps/busybox static mdev Now, emerge busybox 3 a) Create /sbin/linuxrc containing at least #!/bin/busybox ash mount -t proc proc /proc mount -t sysfs sysfs /sys exec /sbin/init This should be enough for most users. If you have an unusual setup, you may need additional stuff in there. Remember to chmod 744 /sbin/linuxrc to make it executable. In the bootloader append line, include init=/sbin/linuxrc. If you're using lilo remember to re-run lilo to implement the changes. If you're using another bootloader, make the equivalant initialization. 4) Remove udev from the services list, and replace it with mdev. Type the following 2 commands at the command line rc-update del udev sysinit rc-update add mdev sysinit 5) reboot to your new kernel. You're now running without using udev. 6) Remove udev as per the following instructions... * execute the following command at the commandline emerge --unmerge sys-fs/udev * In file /atc/portage/package.mask, append the line sys-fs/udev Create the file if it doesn't already exist. You now have a totally udev-free machine -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org Having personally long considered Lennart Poettering a 'spawn of the devil' my question is ... is this your reaction to systemd? No, it's his reaction to the fantastical amount of kitchen-sinking going on surrounding udev. Most specifically, it's the recent requirement foisted on the udev-using community to require either /usr to be part of / or to use an initramfs. Walter simply wants to show that mdev is a suitable replacement for udev in simple environments eg embedded, simple desktops without complex hotplug requirements, and servers. Canek will no doubt chip in about how this is the way things are going, it is inevitable, the boot sequence is becoming complex and various other rehashings of what's coming out of udev upstream. However, something needs to be pointed out in that regard. What udev upstream is saying is probably quite true, but only within the limits of the environment in which they work and udev is designed to handle - sophisticated desktops. The three cases I mentioned are perfectly valid use-cases, comprise a large percentage of the Linux installed base, should be catered to and have no need of the sophistication current udev aims to provide. As such, mdev is a good fit and we can add Walter to the long list of people before him who selflessly worked to make our software work better. One minor typo to point out: /atc/portage/package.mask should be /etc/portage/package.mask I just joined this list last week, but might consider sacrificing some hardware to join your endeavor if you need more testers. Welcome to the list, you'll soon get to know all the personalities here. We have at least one of everything - class clowns, old farts, newbies, voices of reason, influential devs and even the occasional fellow who knows what he's talking about. :-) -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com First, my class is old fart. Though I'm always in IRC, mailing lists and forums are more my speed. story I built my first PC in
Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
On March 11, 2012 at 3:28 PM Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 07:27:05AM -0400, Daddy wrote Having personally long considered Lennart Poettering a 'spawn of the devil' my question is ... is this your reaction to systemd? It's my reaction to the Windows-isation and Firefox-isation of linux. So far I've managed to keep systemd and hal and dbus and pulseaudio off my machines. I agree with Linus Torvalds that linux is getting bloated and huge and scary... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/09/22/linus_torvalds_linux_bloated_huge/ We share the same opinions there. To me the Linux distros have shot their desktops in the foot; instead of getting _better_ than the competition, IMO they've actually gotten worse in the last 5 years. Will joyfully read that from Linus after my nap. (Probably did long ago and forgot it.) One minor typo to point out: /atc/portage/package.mask should be /etc/portage/package.mask Thanks; fixed now. Even when I can't offer code changes, typos are easy (having grown up in the newspaper and printing business). I just joined this list last week, but might consider sacrificing some hardware to join your endeavor if you need more testers. I have a couple of regular desktops here at home, and a desktop dedicted to my TV, plus a netbook, and a laptop. So far, I've run into only one situation where laziness on my part ends up requiring udev. The laptop has an ATI Radeon chip that requires emerging radeon-ucode. That ebuild simply dumps a bunch of binary blobs into a library folder. The kernel loads one of the binary blobs at bootup. Radeon-ucode has blobs for 2 or 3 dozen differnt Radeon GPU models. If I leave all the binary blobs in the library folder, the kernel needs udev to figure out which blob to load. But, if I leave only the correct blob for my GPU in the library folder (move/delete all the others), it loads properly without any help from udev. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org iamben in #gentoo on IRC has piqued my interest to build a HTPC. Friday I put a 60G SSD and a 1TB mechanical drive on a board, partitioned the SDD, and d/led stage3 and portage before stopping. That and the earlier mentioned test machine will be my builds for tomorrow. Actually the HTPC is a strange idea, since we don't watch or even own a TV, but it might be a way to sell some of this hardware on my shelf. Kindest regards, Bruce Hill -- sig to come after punching a hole in the LAN and starting mutt on the server
Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Daddy da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: First, my class is old fart. Though I'm always in IRC, mailing lists and forums are more my speed. [snip] Kindest regards, Bruce Hill Hi Bruce, You are cordially invited to join the Gentoo Old Timers Club [1] All the best :) David [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~neddyseagoon/docs/oldtimers.xml -- David Abbott (dabbott)
Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:37:26 -0400 (EDT) Daddy da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: We have spare parts so tomorrow I'll build a test machine. My Gentoo knowledge is quite limited, seeing as how we moved back after 9 years and had to start life over. But I can start by following this guide, and probably reading and learning about ebuilds. They're quite different from Slackware's build scripts, primarily due to dependency checking, etc. Once you've got the hang of building a Gentoo system from scratch, the best thing you can do is read all the man pages from portage and seeing how that compares to what's in simple ebuilds. ebuilds are quite straightforward, they all have a global section (my phrase) defining various constants, and code sections for fetching, unpacking, compiling, installing sources and the files to the live system. Quite simple in concept. The fun starts when ebuilds work fine and the dev's machine and get published, but don;t do quite the same thing on your machine :-) -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:10:14 -0400 David Abbott da...@pythontoo.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Daddy da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: First, my class is old fart. Though I'm always in IRC, mailing lists and forums are more my speed. [snip] Kindest regards, Bruce Hill Hi Bruce, You are cordially invited to join the Gentoo Old Timers Club [1] All the best :) David [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~neddyseagoon/docs/oldtimers.xml My mother swears blind I watched England win the World Cup but I don't remember (being only 1 year old at the time). I'm still going to call myself a members (point 5 applies) -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
[gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
On 03/11/2012 05:16 AM, Jorge Martínez López wrote: Hi! Hi Jorge. I had some struggle with a separate /usr on top of LVM I'm just curious why you use a separate /usr, and why you are willing to struggle to keep it that way. Several people have posted opinions here in recent months, but I don't recall that you are one of them. Disclaimer: I don't have a dog in this fight. I just want to understand the underlying principles. Thanks.
Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
Alan McKinnon wrote: On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 16:10:14 -0400 David Abbott da...@pythontoo.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Daddy da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: First, my class is old fart. Though I'm always in IRC, mailing lists and forums are more my speed. [snip] Kindest regards, Bruce Hill Hi Bruce, You are cordially invited to join the Gentoo Old Timers Club [1] All the best :) David [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~neddyseagoon/docs/oldtimers.xml My mother swears blind I watched England win the World Cup but I don't remember (being only 1 year old at the time). I'm still going to call myself a members (point 5 applies) Bruce, Aren't you a bit younger than me? If so, I'm a old fart too. ;-) [/Bruce] BTW folks, I have met Bruce, and family, in person and we have talked in various ways for years. We live about 75 miles apart. My lady friend ain't geeky so I can't stop by when I'm up that way, plus he moved on me again. Of course, I'm glad he moved from China and back here tho. Whew!!! Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
Correcting a typo pointed out in the earlier post today. This revision makes 2 changes... A) The removal of udev is now standard instead of optional. udev-181 and higher will be pulling in kmod, and anything else that kmod depends on. Removing udev will avoid unnecessary cruft on your machine. B) Splitting up step 3) into 3a) and 3b) for greater clarity as requested in user feedback. The usual warnings apply... * this is a beta * use a spare test machine * if you don't follow the instructions correctly, the result might be an unbootable linux * even if you do follow instructions, the result might be an unbootable linux 1) Set up your kernel to support and automount a devtmpfs filesystem at /dev * If you prefer to edit .config directly, set CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y * If you prefer make menuconfig, the route is as shown below. Note that the Autount devtmpfs... option won't appear until you enable Maintain a devtmpf... option. make menuconfig Device Drivers --- Generic Driver Options --- [*] Maintain a devtmpfs filesystem to mount at /dev [*] Automount devtmpfs at /dev, after the kernel mounted the rootfs Once you've made the changes, rebuild the kernel. 2) Set up for emerging busybox. busybox requires the mdev flag in this situation. The static flag is probably also a good idea. In file /etc/portage/package.use add the line sys-apps/busybox static mdev Now, emerge busybox 3 a) Create /sbin/linuxrc containing at least #!/bin/busybox ash mount -t proc proc /proc mount -t sysfs sysfs /sys exec /sbin/init This should be enough for most users. If you have an unusual setup, you may need additional stuff in there. Remember to chmod 744 /sbin/linuxrc to make it executable. In the bootloader append line, include init=/sbin/linuxrc. If you're using lilo remember to re-run lilo to implement the changes. If you're using another bootloader, make the equivalant initialization. 4) Remove udev from the services list, and replace it with mdev. Type the following 2 commands at the command line rc-update del udev sysinit rc-update add mdev sysinit 5) reboot to your new kernel. You're now running without using udev. 6) Remove udev as per the following instructions... * execute the following command at the commandline emerge --unmerge sys-fs/udev * In file /etc/portage/package.mask, append the line sys-fs/udev Create the file if it doesn't already exist. You now have a totally udev-free machine -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
[gentoo-user] How are Fn-F# ACPI events mapped?
Hi, I'm trying to figure out how my Asus laptop maps function key events. This is being driven by an emerge message telling me that the acpi4asus package is being obsoleted and removed in 30 days and replaced by an in-kernel driver. I've removed the package and rebuilt my kernels to use this driver, and for vanilla-sources-3.2.7 the results are similar as with the acpi4asus package. However, for vanilla-sources-3.2.9 the only key that is doing anything seems to be Fn-F1 which says 'button/sleep' (using acpi_listen) but actually just turns on the screen saver as best I can tell. Note that even with 3.2.7 most keys don't actually work, but at least they all produce acpi_listen events. The only ones that do work in 3.2.7 and earlier are: Fn-F1 - screen saver Fn-F5 - turns off screen but doesn't seem to generate an ACPI event in acpi_listen (may be hardware mapped) Fn-F11 - turn volume down Fn-F12 - turn volume up I haven't tested the external monitor one. The ones I really want to figure out are Fn-F3 F4 as they turn the keyboard lighting up and down. With 3.2.7 I had lighting, but with 3.2.9 I have no keyboard lighting at all so it will have hard to use in the dark. Before I call this a 3.2.9 regression I figured I should determine if I'm supposed to configure this stuff by hand, or maybe load some new machine specific package that sets up the mappings. Thanks in advance, Mark vanilla-sources-3.2.9 slinky events # acpi_listen button/sleep SLPB 0080 0003 button/sleep SLPB 0080 0004 vanilla-sources-3.2.7 slinky ~ # acpi_listen button/sleep SLPB 0080 0001 hotkey ATKD 005d hotkey ATKD 007e hotkey ATKD 00c5 hotkey ATKD 00c4 hotkey ATKD 002e hotkey ATKD 001a hotkey ATKD 0034 hotkey ATKD 0033 hotkey ATKD 0034 0001 hotkey ATKD 0033 0001 hotkey ATKD 0061 hotkey ATKD 006b hotkey ATKD 0032 hotkey ATKD 0032 0001 hotkey ATKD 0032 0002 hotkey ATKD 0031 hotkey ATKD 0031 0001 hotkey ATKD 0031 0002 hotkey ATKD 0030 hotkey ATKD 0030 0001 hotkey ATKD 0030 0002 hotkey ATKD 0030 0003
Re: [gentoo-user] Best file system for portage tree?
YoYo Siska writes: On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 03:35:05PM +, Neil Bothwick wrote: I use an ext2 filesystem for portage, it's still the fastest out there. Journals are unnecessary because its such a small filesystem, and if it does get damaged I can just reformat and sync again. Replaying a reiserfs journal in case of an unclean reboot also takes about the same time as an whole e2fsck, so I switched to ext2. There was no real need to make the switch, I just wanted to re-create this file system that has been synced very often now. I use an ext2 partition in a 500MB file image on most of my computers. I also did this in the past, on systems where I did not use LVM. Nowadays I prefer the latter. Its important to check the inode count on such small filesytem, as mke2fs' default inode ration for such size is 4096, which is too low for portage: Yes, happened to me more than once... mke2fs -f -b1024 -i2048 /usr/img_portage That's what I did. Well, without the container file. Thanks to all who replied! I learnt something, like so often when reading here. Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
On March 11, 2012 at 4:10 PM David Abbott da...@pythontoo.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 3:37 PM, Daddy da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: First, my class is old fart. Though I'm always in IRC, mailing lists and forums are more my speed. [snip] Kindest regards, Bruce Hill Hi Bruce, You are cordially invited to join the Gentoo Old Timers Club [1] All the best :) David [1] http://dev.gentoo.org/~neddyseagoon/docs/oldtimers.xml -- David Abbott (dabbott) Thanks, David. I remember you from LQ. I'm also usually found in ##Neddyseagoon on FreeNode. :-)}
Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
On March 11, 2012 at 4:27 PM Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:37:26 -0400 (EDT) Daddy da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: We have spare parts so tomorrow I'll build a test machine. My Gentoo knowledge is quite limited, seeing as how we moved back after 9 years and had to start life over. But I can start by following this guide, and probably reading and learning about ebuilds. They're quite different from Slackware's build scripts, primarily due to dependency checking, etc. Once you've got the hang of building a Gentoo system from scratch, the best thing you can do is read all the man pages from portage and seeing how that compares to what's in simple ebuilds. ebuilds are quite straightforward, they all have a global section (my phrase) defining various constants, and code sections for fetching, unpacking, compiling, installing sources and the files to the live system. Quite simple in concept. The fun starts when ebuilds work fine and the dev's machine and get published, but don;t do quite the same thing on your machine :-) -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com The ebuild in my local overlay that evolved from an official one has EAPI=2 But when I issue some.ebuild it has EAPI=3 on this box. And iirc another of my boxen has EAPI=4. Yes, much studying yet to be done.
Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:07:37 -0400 (EDT) Daddy da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: On March 11, 2012 at 4:27 PM Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:37:26 -0400 (EDT) Daddy da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: We have spare parts so tomorrow I'll build a test machine. My Gentoo knowledge is quite limited, seeing as how we moved back after 9 years and had to start life over. But I can start by following this guide, and probably reading and learning about ebuilds. They're quite different from Slackware's build scripts, primarily due to dependency checking, etc. Once you've got the hang of building a Gentoo system from scratch, the best thing you can do is read all the man pages from portage and seeing how that compares to what's in simple ebuilds. ebuilds are quite straightforward, they all have a global section (my phrase) defining various constants, and code sections for fetching, unpacking, compiling, installing sources and the files to the live system. Quite simple in concept. The fun starts when ebuilds work fine and the dev's machine and get published, but don;t do quite the same thing on your machine :-) -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com The ebuild in my local overlay that evolved from an official one has EAPI=2 But when I issue some.ebuild it has EAPI=3 on this box. And iirc another of my boxen has EAPI=4. Yes, much studying yet to be done. Possibly you forked package-1.0 and your ebuild is still at that version. The official meanwhile has moved on to versions package-1.1 and package-1.2; those will take preference over your local ebuild regardless of precedence order of overlays (i.e. version number always wins, repo is secondary) -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
On March 11, 2012 at 5:20 PM Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Bruce, Aren't you a bit younger than me? If so, I'm a old fart too. ;-) [/Bruce] BTW folks, I have met Bruce, and family, in person and we have talked in various ways for years. We live about 75 miles apart. My lady friend ain't geeky so I can't stop by when I'm up that way, plus he moved on me again. Of course, I'm glad he moved from China and back here tho. Whew!!! Dale In 13 days I turn 53 -- still younger than NeddySeagoon :-)}
Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5
Daddy wrote: On March 11, 2012 at 5:20 PM Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Bruce, Aren't you a bit younger than me? If so, I'm a old fart too. ;-) [/Bruce] BTW folks, I have met Bruce, and family, in person and we have talked in various ways for years. We live about 75 miles apart. My lady friend ain't geeky so I can't stop by when I'm up that way, plus he moved on me again. Of course, I'm glad he moved from China and back here tho. Whew!!! Dale In 13 days I turn 53 -- still younger than NeddySeagoon :-)} You are older than me then. ROFL Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
[gentoo-user] Can I do a one-time boot to non-default kernel in Lilo?
Not exactly your typical remote machine, but the principle is the same. I have a dedicated HTPC machine next to my 50 plasma, connected by 50 feet of ethernet cable to my computer den. I use the TV as a monitor when running NHL GameCenter Live. I have Lilo set up to dual boot between a production and an experimental kernel. The first (i.e. default) boot option is the production kernel. When I set up a new kernel, I try to always run it as experimental. Even if the kernel panics, I don'tG. I boot back into the production kernel, and try again. Once the experimental kernel has run for a couple of weeks without problems, I copy it over the production kernel. One problem... if I build a new kernel, is there a way to get the remote machine to boot to the non-default experimental kernel just once? Any future boots to default to production (unless its a restart from hibernate). -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
Re: [gentoo-user] Can I do a one-time boot to non-default kernel in Lilo?
On March 11, 2012 at 11:16 PM Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: Not exactly your typical remote machine, but the principle is the same. I have a dedicated HTPC machine next to my 50 plasma, connected by 50 feet of ethernet cable to my computer den. I use the TV as a monitor when running NHL GameCenter Live. I have Lilo set up to dual boot between a production and an experimental kernel. The first (i.e. default) boot option is the production kernel. When I set up a new kernel, I try to always run it as experimental. Even if the kernel panics, I don'tG. I boot back into the production kernel, and try again. Once the experimental kernel has run for a couple of weeks without problems, I copy it over the production kernel. One problem... if I build a new kernel, is there a way to get the remote machine to boot to the non-default experimental kernel just once? Any future boots to default to production (unless its a restart from hibernate). -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org Unless I misunderstand you, after you issue lilo to write to the MBR, then issue: lilo -R experimental where experimental is the name of the kernel image you want to boot. The R creates a one time command which it will use the next time you boot, then it will be erased. And give the kernel an append statement: append=panic=10 so that if the kernel does not boot, you get automatically rebooted back into the good kernel. -- Happy Penguin Computers`) 126 Fenco Drive( \ Tupelo, MS 38801^^ 662-269-2706; 662-491-8613 support at happypenguincomputers dot com http://www.happypenguincomputers.com
[gentoo-user]Can't went to the xfce desktop directly
Hello , everyone . I have install the xfce-meta followed the xfce handbook . But when i restart the computer . And the login manager(slim) appeared. I just enter my account and passwd . After that . the computer have become black with a mouse icon like x . And i should use Ctrl+Alt+F1 to went to the tty , then when i run the command: startxfce4 , it tell me the X was already running . I should kill the X first or change the display number to start the xfce . I'm wonder how did this happen ? Did it because of the connection between Xorg and xfce ? Can anyone help me? i'm new to gentoo and I have no idea how to deal with it ? Can i find any log to find something? -- 好好学习，天天向上！！！
Re: [gentoo-user]Can't went to the xfce desktop directly
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 12:26:40 +0800 赵佳晖 jiahui.tar...@gmail.com wrote: Hello , everyone . I have install the xfce-meta followed the xfce handbook . But when i restart the computer . And the login manager(slim) appeared. I just enter my account and passwd . After that . the computer have become black with a mouse icon like x . And i should use Ctrl+Alt+F1 to went to the tty , then when i run the command: startxfce4 , it tell me the X was already running . I should kill the X first or change the display number to start the xfce . I'm wonder how did this happen ? Did it because of the connection between Xorg and xfce ? Can anyone help me? i'm new to gentoo and I have no idea how to deal with it ? Can i find any log to find something? It sounds as though you are starting only X and not xfce. This is my logon_cmd from /etc/slim.conf login_cmd exec ck-launch-session dbus-launch --sh-syntax --exit-with-session /bin/bash -login ~/.xinitrc %session ~/.xsession-errors 21 And this is my ~/.xinitrc exec startxfce4 Everything is running great. If I am not mistaken that is all it will take to get it running. -- Willie Matthews matthews.wil...@gmail.com
