[gentoo-user] Gentoo Live 11.0
Anybody tested out the new liveDVD-11.0? It's always nice to burn a copy and visit your local computer/laptop store and testdrive both; imho http://news.softpedia.com/news/Gentoo-Linux-11-0-Has-Been-Released-188578.shtml or http://www.gentoo.org/ Anybody get a brief explanation or summary between the hybrid and the multilib versions? I read this, but it did not turn on the light as to when to use which version (profile?) multilib vs hybrid: http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-amd64-faq.xml#difference I guess I just really looking for some discussion/experience on multilib versus hybrid... as mention in the www.gentoo.org announcement. For example, there is a version of the live11.0 called Hybrid and the other Multilib; not exactly; eselect does not mention the word hybrid. So is Hybrid a profile or just some random liveDVD different from the multilib liveDVD choice? livedvd-amd64-multilib-11.0.iso livedvd-x86-amd64-32ul-11.0.iso Any experiences installing off the new liveDVD would be of keen interest to me. James
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo Live 11.0
On Mon, Mar 14, 2011 at 9:19 AM, James wirel...@tampabay.rr.com wrote: Anybody get a brief explanation or summary between the hybrid and the multilib versions? Hybrid runs on either 32-bit or 64-bit hardware. MultilLib requires 64-bit hardware. HTH, Mark
[gentoo-user] devfs is obsolete?
As per the http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/devfs-guide.xml and http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/udev-guide.xml I recompiled my kernel with pts support, installed udev, and used rc-update to remove devfs from sysinit. Everything seems to work fine, except that I can't create xterms. If I start up devfs, xterm creation is fine. FWICT, devfs mounts /dev/pts , so how do we mount /dev/pts in a post devfs world? TIA
[gentoo-user] Simplify finding the package?
Hi list, sorry for the nondescript title. Let me described what happened. I ran `emerge --update --deep world' over the weekend which updated app-text/poppler: Sat Mar 12 22:00:46 2011 app-text/poppler-0.16.3 Today I found out that a whole bunch of packages got broken, and so I ran `revdep-rebuild -p'. To my surprise, revdep-rebuild wants to downgrade to app-text/poppler-0.14.5. That's odd, I thought. So I ran `emerge --pretend --oneshot --verbose --tree' against the list of packages produced by revdep-rebuild, and it displays near the bottom that poppler-0.14.5 is a dependency of luatex-0.65 which is a dependency of texlive-core-2010-r1. Okay. So I thought that one of those two packages have an explicit dependency on a lower version of poppler. And I thought I want to file a bug about that. Digging into the ebuilds for luatex and texlive, I can't find any reason why they would require poppler-0.14.5, and not 0.16.3. So after puzzling about it for 20 minutes, I did the stupid thing, and tried `emerge --oneshot --pretend luatex texlive-core' and lo-and-behold, the poppler dependency does not appear! Then combing through the list of packages one-by-one, I finally found (on the second-to-last package that I tried) that the culprit is in fact python-poppler. Now, two questions: (a) Should this be considered a bug in portage? The presented information from `emerge --pretend --tree' is misleading to which package is actually causing the downgrade request. (b) Is there a way to have found that python-poppler was the culprit without running `emerge --pretend' on each of the list of 16 packages? Thanks, W -- Willie W. Wong ww...@math.princeton.edu Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitae involvente fluxiones invenire et vice versa ~~~ I. Newton
Re: [gentoo-user] Simplify finding the package?
On Monday 14 March 2011 17:14:25 Willie Wong wrote: Hi list, sorry for the nondescript title. Let me described what happened. I ran `emerge --update --deep world' over the weekend which updated app-text/poppler: Sat Mar 12 22:00:46 2011 app-text/poppler-0.16.3 Today I found out that a whole bunch of packages got broken, and so I ran `revdep-rebuild -p'. To my surprise, revdep-rebuild wants to downgrade to app-text/poppler-0.14.5. That's odd, I thought. So I ran `emerge --pretend --oneshot --verbose --tree' against the list of packages produced by revdep-rebuild, and it displays near the bottom that poppler-0.14.5 is a dependency of luatex-0.65 which is a dependency of texlive-core-2010-r1. Okay. So I thought that one of those two packages have an explicit dependency on a lower version of poppler. And I thought I want to file a bug about that. Digging into the ebuilds for luatex and texlive, I can't find any reason why they would require poppler-0.14.5, and not 0.16.3. So after puzzling about it for 20 minutes, I did the stupid thing, and tried `emerge --oneshot --pretend luatex texlive-core' and lo-and-behold, the poppler dependency does not appear! Then combing through the list of packages one-by-one, I finally found (on the second-to-last package that I tried) that the culprit is in fact python-poppler. Now, two questions: (a) Should this be considered a bug in portage? The presented information from `emerge --pretend --tree' is misleading to which package is actually causing the downgrade request. I don't think this is a bug in any meaningful sense of the word. It's a side- effect of having a large dependency graph: Many packages depend on poppler, so the dev has several choices: a. print the first one found. Due to the way such things (searching data trees in memory) work, this will usually be a different one each time the command is run b. print the last one found. This is a) upside-down with the same problem c. Print a random one found. Well, it is an option, but doh ;-) d. Print the whole damn lot. This has the especially nasty side effect of producing vast amounts of output with even vaster amounts of bug reports and, believe it or not, vaster numbers of pissed off users e. Determine (later) the actual version that will be installed then go back to the data tree, modify it in place, then print the output. e) sounds wonderful. I suggest you try implement it. You will rapidly discover why it is seldom implemented. Conclusion: This shit is hard. It's a marvellous way to make the most people the most unhappy in the shortest possible time. (b) Is there a way to have found that python-poppler was the culprit without running `emerge --pretend' on each of the list of 16 packages? Perhaps emerge -e -t -p luatex texlive-core ? p.s. What I wrote looks tongue-in-cheek. It isn't really. I have very similar issues with code I admin and maintain, with similar results. I too decided to take the lazy route out and try be right most of the time and screw it when it isn't perfect. -- alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
[gentoo-user] Re: devfs is obsolete?
On 03/14/2011 10:57 AM, 7v5w7go9ub0o wrote: As per thehttp://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/devfs-guide.xml and http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/udev-guide.xml I recompiled my kernel with pts support, installed udev, and used rc-update to remove devfs from sysinit. Everything seems to work fine, except that I can't create xterms. If I start up devfs, xterm creation is fine. FWICT, devfs mounts /dev/pts , so how do we mount /dev/pts in a post devfs world? I just deleted several paragraphs of fatherly advice from this reply after I noticed /lib/rc/init.d/started/devfs on my machine :-/ I soon discovered that /etc/init.d/devfs belongs to the sys-apps/openrc package, which is not obsolete the way devfs is obsolete. This is what I have: #eselect rc list sysinit Init scripts to be started by runlevel sysinit devfs dmesg udev Thanks for asking the question -- I just learned something :)
[gentoo-user] terrible performance with btrfs on LVM2 using a WD 2TB green drive
I have recently added a WD 2TB green drive to two systems and am finding terrible performance with btrfs on an LVM using these drives. I just saw on the mythtv list about the sector size problem these drives have where they have poor performance unless you can map the partitions onto certain sector boundaries. My problem is that LVM2 is not supported in parted which is the recommended tool to deal with this. How can I map an lvm with 4 or more disks, only one of which is a WD Green drive and containing multiple reiserfs and btrfs file systems for best performance. As these drives look useful in a data centre because of their power savings, I presume someone must have solved this already! I suspect I only need to map the individual PE to a particular start sector on each drive, not btrfs, but then there is stripe/block sizes to consider as well ... WD also are recommending 1mb sector boundaries for best performance - I can see a reinstall coming up :) Is there an application that can analyze a disk for settings and automatically list the best/recommended settings? This should be scriptable anyway so I may end up going this way if someone hasn't gone there first. Yesterday, a backup using dirvish that used to take 3-5 minutes to a reiserfs partition on lvm on an older disk took nearly 19 minutes to the same server, same lvm but on a btrfs partition on the new WD drive the lvm was extended onto. Delete performance is even worse :( BillK
