On 06-07-18 16:44, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
On 07/06/2018 01:20 AM, Frans de Boer wrote:
On 07/05/2018 11:56 PM, Bruce Dubbs wrote:
On 07/05/2018 02:48 PM, Frans de Boer wrote:
On 06/30/2018 01:29 PM, Hazel Russman wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 01:25:29 -0400
Michael Shell <li...@michaelshell.org> wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 16:06:00 +0800
Xi Ruoyao <r...@stu.xidian.edu.cn> wrote:
Now I only use "initrd" directive to update CPU microcode and fix
the
buggy ACPI DSDT of my laptop (another sad story).
.........
And as there now seems to be several people who suffer with the
ACPI DSDT driver bug, you guys should make sure upstream is aware
of the problem, if they aren't already.
...........
Cheers,
Mike
--
I did a git bisect on my system, but I couldn't make much sense of
the result. The commit it finally settled on didn't seem to have
anything to with acpi.
[quote]
Bisecting: 2 revisions left to test after this (roughly 1 step)
[9af9b94068fb1ea3206a700fc222075966fbef14] x86/cpu/AMD: Handle SME
reduction in physical address size
Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 1 step)
[33c2b803edd13487518a2c7d5002d84d7e9c878f] x86/mm: Remove
phys_to_virt() usage in ioremap()
Bisecting: 0 revisions left to test after this (roughly 0 steps)
[7744ccdbc16f0ac4adae21b3678af93775b3a386] x86/mm: Add Secure
Memory Encryption (SME) support
[unquote]
I sent the result to the kernel acpi development list but never got
an answer. If someone else on this list wants to try, I can send
him my complete bisect logs.
--
Hazel
This quite frustrating. After recompiling, following the book to the
letter, I still get a frozen LFS system.
One thing I do note however is that the freezing always occurs after
systemd has detected that it is on a virtual machine. A number of
error messages is send, but due to ratelimiting I can't see them
because they are suppressed.
I had even rebuild everything with systemd-232, and that worked as
before. But after 232, things started to behave strange. Now way to
debug systemd, whatever I do....
Help?
I don't mean to be pedantic, but I really don't think you would run
into these types of problems using System V. Why not try that?
-- Bruce
Hi Bruce,
With System V there is - of course - no problem. The thing is that
systemd - if it runs well - is somewhat easier to use because of the
use of .service files.
I'll have to disagree that service files are easier. What I do agree
with is that they are more consistent among distros. The boot scripts
for System V are really quite easy to read and, if needed, write.
I also noticed that some packages are only shipping
.service(.in) files and have abandon the use of sysVinit files.
Then they are abandoning those distros that do not use systemd such as
the BSDs and Devuan. But those distros can easily add their own boot
scripts. I'll note that all the BLFS packages that need boot scripts
have them,
Combined with the fact that most distributions have embraced systemd
as their primary or only init system let me believe that we are stuck
with this piece of ever growing mutation. And as LFS is a teaching
ground, it should - however reluctant - incorporated this too.
As a teaching tool, NOT using systemd is essential. There is far too
much done by systemd in an opaque manner that System V demonstrates and,
if desired,implemented in custom ways.
Also, the goal is that someone fire-up their basic hardware with a LFS
born OS, but for testing or use in VM's development is nowadays mostly
within the VM realm.
When I teach LFS in class, I always have the students use real HW, There
are too many things that VMs hide,
-- Bruce
Bruce,
I agree that VM's hide some issues and I do understand you position
about systemd. Although I disagree to some level. After all, should we
learn people how to crackup a (very) old car or the new generally
available way using some sort of key. Just focusing only on System V is
precisely what industries mean when they talk about "they are not being
taught the modern technics.".
Remember the days past, the discussion of having systemd included in the
LFS book? Eventual it was included. Now the next "new" thing maybe?
Why not using VM's when one can continue developing without having to
reboot into an incomplete system environment. Also, if one has multiple
systems to spare, bare metal can be a way. If not, VM's are a welcome
solution.
So, I think that I am chasing the wrong ghost and have a talk with the
systemd developers instead. Despite the lack of interest for using VM's,
I shall share any positive result with the LFS list.
Regards, Frans.
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/lfs-support
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Do not top post on this list.
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style
