On 7 April 2013, at 07:00, Joseph wrote:
...
Are these new udev rules going across all Linux distros or this is something
specific to Gentoo?
I would assume across all distros.
Gentoo generally makes a policy of just packaging whatever upstream offers. In
fact, the origins of the ebuild
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 09:12:15 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
I didnt get hit either either, but (STRONG hint) ... I use eudev, so
dies Dale and I believe Walt uses mdev. Time for those in server
environments to jump ship?
Except the problems that udev is trying to avoid are more likely to be
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE,
Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means
no UNcommented lines. Comments are
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 03:06:30 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote:
Wha? I swear I was told that you could not reliably name the
iterfaces eth[0-n] using udev rules (which is what I've always done
without problems) because of race conditions. So I changed over to
net[0-n] on one machine, and was
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:34:03 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
Now I only had to figure out how to rename eth[0-9]+ to the custom
naming scheme when using mdev.
***UDEV*** has broken using eth[0-9]. mdev works just fine, thank
you.
udev has broken nothing, it is avoiding the breakage caused
Am Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:23:04 -0400
schrieb Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com:
On 04/06/2013 11:19 PM, Nick Khamis wrote:
Hello Michael,
Is it because you disabled udev's renaming entirely via the kernel
command-line parameter? Because you've done some magic in
/etc/udev/rules.d/?
Hello List,
What is the status of using mdev (instead the ever growing udev) together
with lvm2?
Reason for my question is that at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev it says
One beta tester reports getting close with lvm2, but it's not there yet..
Regards,
--
Dan Johansson, http://www.dmj.nu
On 06.04.2013 21:11, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Jarry wrote:
On 06-Apr-13 19:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
STOP SPREADING THIS FUD
It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people
who
blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news
announcement, who did not
Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we
should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked
away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related
package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine.
I reset the system and
Hi, Dan.
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 02:34:16PM +0200, Dan Johansson wrote:
Hello List,
What is the status of using mdev (instead the ever growing udev)
together with lvm2? Reason for my question is that at
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev it says One beta tester reports
getting close with
Manually bringing up eth0 using ifconfig got me up and running. It's
quite shaky though. net.eth0 does not work any more and of course
neither does sshd or any other service that requires net.eth*. Thanks
Michael.
If they're supposed to be configured via DHCP, try dhclient
$interface_name. If
On 04/07/2013 10:01 AM, Nick Khamis wrote:
Manually bringing up eth0 using ifconfig got me up and running. It's
quite shaky though. net.eth0 does not work any more and of course
neither does sshd or any other service that requires net.eth*. Thanks
Michael.
If they're supposed to be
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:38:23 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we
should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked
away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related
package, which was odd since
I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and
potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and
gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare
There are 4500 people coming into work tomorrow morning, and this
machine also happens to be our LDAP
Installing wpa_supplicant got the network scripts working again. Not
sure why. Does anyone know why we need wpa_supplication now?
On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and
potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry
Are you using 802.1x or wireless on that machine? If not, I can't think
of a reason you'd need it, outside of it being a hard dependency of some
other package.
On 04/07/2013 10:22 AM, Nick Khamis wrote:
Installing wpa_supplicant got the network scripts working again. Not
sure why. Does
No... I'm stumped. I really don't want it in there either... I will
attempt removing it once finished updating the system.
N.
On 4/7/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you using 802.1x or wireless on that machine? If not, I can't think
of a reason you'd need it, outside of it being a
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 10:20:02 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and
potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and
gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare
You should do udev first, that way if it breaks
On Apr 7, 2013 5:59 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:34:03 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote:
Now I only had to figure out how to rename eth[0-9]+ to the custom
naming scheme when using mdev.
***UDEV*** has broken using eth[0-9]. mdev works just fine, thank
On Apr 7, 2013 3:56 PM, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
On 7 April 2013, at 07:00, Joseph wrote:
...
Are these new udev rules going across all Linux distros or this is
something specific to Gentoo?
I would assume across all distros.
Gentoo generally makes a policy of just
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 22:26:52 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:
udev has broken nothing, it is avoiding the breakage caused by a
fundamentally flawed renaming procedure. Or does mdev have some magic
for for renaming eth0 to eth1 while eth1 already exists?
Broken or not is totally depending on
On Sunday 07 April 2013 13.47:55 Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Hi, Dan.
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 02:34:16PM +0200, Dan Johansson wrote:
Hello List,
What is the status of using mdev (instead the ever growing udev)
together with lvm2? Reason for my question is that at
You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum
amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a pessimist...
PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on this list.
Makes sense and I apologize for the top posts. Have everything up to
date with udev in the
On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE,
Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 17:00:24 Nick Khamis wrote:
You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum
amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a pessimist...
PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on this list.
Makes sense and I apologize for the
On 4/7/13, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 17:00:24 Nick Khamis wrote:
You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum
amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a
pessimist...
PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on
On 07-Apr-13 18:03, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE,
Well... even I
On 04/07/13 22:35, Pandu Poluan wrote:
[snip]
AFAICT, on-board NICs have sequential MAC Adresses, with the one
labeled Port 1 has the smallest MAC Address. So far, *all* Linux
distros I've used on a server will reliably name Port X as
eth$((X-1)). So it's never a puzzle as to which
On 2013-04-07 12:11 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
if there is a /dev entry in your /etc/fstab, then it must have
devtmpfs as its fs type. Most installations would not have such an
entry in /etc/fstab - but better check to be safe.
I've heard this many times, but can anyone explain
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 17:37:00 Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-04-07 12:11 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
if there is a /dev entry in your /etc/fstab, then it must have
devtmpfs as its fs type. Most installations would not have such an
entry in /etc/fstab - but better check to be safe.
On 2013-04-07, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING
On 2013-04-07 1:00 PM, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so parts of the news item are not to be taken literally, and other
parts are. Perhaps it would be wise to mark the sections so we can
tell the difference? ;)
Context is everything.
You can't equate
Remove the
On 2013-04-07 12:18 PM, Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On 07-Apr-13 18:03, Tanstaafl wrote:
Every sysadmin knows (or should know) that a config file full of nothing
but comments isn't going to do *anything* other than provide whatever
defaults the program is designed to use in such a case.
On 2013-04-07 9:38 AM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we
should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked
away.
Well, hopefully you learned a valuable lesson. I cannot even *fathom*
the *idea* of doing a
After psyching myself and everyone else for the udev 200 update, it
failed on compile phase! We are using hardened server, and error
message (which I am transferring over manually) is:
The specific snippet of code:
die econf failed
This thing is not going easy
N.
On
Am 07.04.2013 16:32, schrieb Nick Khamis:
No... I'm stumped. I really don't want it in there either... I will
attempt removing it once finished updating the system.
N.
On 4/7/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you using 802.1x or wireless on that machine? If not, I can't think
I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news:
1. tempfs in kernel
2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d
3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel
4) check fstab for the /tmp
And it changed!
This is the pits dude...
N.
On 4/7/13, Michael Hampicke gentoo-u...@hadt.biz wrote:
Am
On 2013-04-07 1:48 PM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news:
1. tempfs in kernel
2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d
3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel
4) check fstab for the /tmp
And it changed!
WHAT changed???
Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0
and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as
modules.
N
On 4/7/13, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-04-07 1:48 PM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
I just did got udev updated. Did
Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth?
N
On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0
and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as
modules.
N
On 4/7/13, Tanstaafl
For those that have an error compiling udev 200:
# emerge -1 XML-Parser
# perl-cleaner --all
There was not mention of this in the news. Nor will the package pull
them in as a
dependency.
N.
On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth?
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 18:48:02 Nick Khamis wrote:
I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news:
1. tempfs in kernel
I guess you're talking about: CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y
2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d
That's OK.
3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel
Good.
4) check fstab
Am 07.04.2013 20:08, schrieb Nick Khamis:
For those that have an error compiling udev 200:
# emerge -1 XML-Parser
# perl-cleaner --all
There was not mention of this in the news. Nor will the package pull
them in as a
dependency.
N.
On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
Is
I went into the kernel, rebuilt it with no changes (network driver was
already built as a module), rebooted and nothing changed. Option 2
worked ok.
As for the x86 machines, they were also updated blindly (94 packages
udev 200) included... 70-presistent file in rules.d and no problems.
eth0 was
Oooops, I meant option 3.1:
3.1 Create a new empty file:
touch /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules
and reboot. The kernel will rename the interfaces hopefully as they were
before.
N.
On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
I went into the kernel, rebuilt it with no changes
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 19:48:13 Nick Khamis wrote:
Oooops, I meant option 3.1:
3.1 Create a new empty file:
touch /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules
and reboot. The kernel will rename the interfaces hopefully as they were
before.
N.
On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com
I am getting confused with 'perl-core/Version-Requirements' which emerge --
depclean wants to unmerge, eix does not show as installed and emerge -C is
happy to uninstall ...
Why is this?
==
# emerge --depclean -a
Calculating
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:25:50AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-04-05 4:11 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote:
Just dealing with one server and my Linux router, they've been updated to
sys-fs/udev-200 and are both still
On 2013-04-07 4:09 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:25:50AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-04-05 4:11 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote:
Do you have your network interface drivers built into the kernel or are
they modules?
I'm very interested
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 14:04:35 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth?
No, it's like reading the news item. Either symlink the file mentioned
to /dev/null or add the kernel boot option it recommends. The default is
the new behaviour, as you should expect.
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:14:36 +0100, Mick wrote:
Rebuild your kernel with the drivers for the NICs as modules. The
kernel *should* rename them to what they were before. I can't vouch
for this, but NICs which are not built in here were not renamed by udev.
Where does this come from? Udev
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 12:03:21 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
But not actually empty. If you are correct, and I suspect you are,
then the news item is poorly worded. No effective content is not the
same as no content at all.
Oh, I agree that it was poorly worded, I was just pointing out that it
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:16:45 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
If /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is an empty file or a
symlink to /dev/null,
The first can obviously be taken quite literally, while the second just
might actually require a tiny bit of thought - ie, 'hmmm, wonder if
they
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 02:04:35PM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth?
No, it isn't. There are several ways to name your interfaces. They are
discussed on the freedesktop.org wiki page linked in the news item.
William
pgp6UzYmzHCN8.pgp
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 21:25:48 Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:14:36 +0100, Mick wrote:
Rebuild your kernel with the drivers for the NICs as modules. The
kernel *should* rename them to what they were before. I can't vouch
for this, but NICs which are not built in here were not
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 22:20:51 +0100, Mick wrote:
Where does this come from? Udev renames the interfaces when it
initialises them, what difference does it make where it loads the
driver code from? I am seeing consistent behaviour across machines
with drivers built in and as modules.
I
I'm getting an error re-compiling gcc-4.5.4
o _dim_i16.o _dim_r4.o _dim_r8.o _dim_r10.o _dim_r16.o _atan2_r4.o _atan2_r8.o _atan2_r10.o _atan2_r16.o _mod_i4.o _mod_i8.o _mod_i16.o _mod_r4.o _mod_r8.o _mod_r10.o
_mod_r16.o misc_specifics.o dprod_r8.o f2c_specifics.o
libtool: link:
On Apr 7, 2013 8:13 AM, William Kenworthy bi...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On 07/04/13 01:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
'Evening, Alan.
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 06:36:07PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 06/04/2013 17:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the
I have been having several issues with libraries on my system and have been
attempting to use revdep-rebuild to resolve them but have been having some
issues.
I have been able to resolve many issues by re-emerging mesa and manualy
listing the packages RR wants to emerge but i have now just Folks
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote:
Hi, Dan.
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 02:34:16PM +0200, Dan Johansson wrote:
Hello List,
What is the status of using mdev (instead the ever growing udev)
together with lvm2? Reason for my question is that at
https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev it says One beta
On 7 April 2013, at 16:35, Pandu Poluan wrote:
On Apr 7, 2013 3:56 PM, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote:
AIUI the motive for these changes are so that you can unpack an
enterprise-type server, the ones with two NICs on the motherboard, and
always know which NIC is which. You
On 8 April 2013, at 03:49, Andrew Hoffman wrote:
I have been having several issues with libraries on my system and have been
attempting to use revdep-rebuild to resolve them but have been having some
issues.
...
Build log of folks:
http://bpaste.net/show/89761/
Revdep-Rebuild output:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 10:30:10AM -0600, Joseph wrote
In my opinion this new udev-200 naming port is a big screw-up; I
wouldn't be surprised if few months down the road we will go back
to old naming because of misunderstandings.
Some time ago, after udevd was subsumed into the systemd
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 09:49:57PM -0500, Andrew Hoffman wrote
I have also rebuilt telepathy-glib debus-glib and gio with no change
in folks. gee does not appear to be a package.
I tried...
USE=vala vapigen introspection emerge -pv folks
on my system. It gives...
These are the packages
64 matches
Mail list logo
