date:20120328

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 13:17:56 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote:

 Check out the email from William Kenworth in this mailing list; he's
 having trouble with initramfs being a blackbox.
 
 As a (mostly) server guy, I much prefer using a whitebox.

It's not a blackbox, unlike a kernel or any other binary, it is a simple
cpio archive that you can unpack and inspect. If you want total control,
build your own, it is not rocket science.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If a book about failures doesn't sell, is it a success?


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 23:32:22 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

 We're going to be stuck with some issues anyway, no matter how we cope
 with things.  At the moment, I've got my /usr on RAID1, which I think
 doubles up the speed things load at.

Use 0.90 metadata and you can put / on RAID1 too.

 (It's on LVM2 too, but that's by
 the way.) I really don't want a fragile initramfs.  Sooner or later, I'd
 put some slight glitch into it and the result would be a dead PC.
 Either that or I'll be scared stiff of touching it, which isn't how a
 Gentoo user is supposed to be.

An initramfs doesn't really need any maintenance, it does a couple of
simple tasks, basically mounting stuff, and then exits. Once working
there's no reason to change it. Even if you do and break things, it's
exactly the same as the situation with a broken kernel update, you just
boot with the previous one (that's one reason I leave the initramfs
inside the kernel, a working kernel will always work without any reliance
on other files).


-- 
Neil Bothwick

We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:47:06 -0500, Dale wrote:

  Why not post the details of it? All an initramfs is is an init script
  and a few binaries. Extract the init script, the initramfs file is a
  plain cpio archive, and post it here.  
 
 I did post it a week or so ago in another thread. 

The init script? I didn't see it, which thread?

 Yea, I know all that.  They are breaking one thing to fix something else
 so that they don't have to deal with fixing what they broke.  I got that
 a long time ago.  ;-)

I'm coming round to the point of view that the breakage predates udev by
many years. The whole idea of having four directories for binaries and
two for libraries is an inelegance that I have come to accept over the
years but only because it is the way we have always done it


-- 
Neil Bothwick

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 on usenet and in e-mail?


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Getting better logging for genkernel/initramfs stage

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:17:36 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:

 Is it possible to get an initramfs from genkernel to log its messages
 somewhere as well as the console? - I am getting a failure to mount /usr
 and from the few seconds the error message is on the the screen I cant
 see why as the parameters it prints look good, so I am looking for  a
 way to go back and examine it in slow time.

I add set -x to the start of the init script and sleep commands at
various points so I can see exactly what is going on.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Stop tagline theft! Copyright your tagline (c)


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought

2012-03-28 Thread Canek Peláez Valdés

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:51 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
 On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:47:06 -0500, Dale wrote:

  Why not post the details of it? All an initramfs is is an init script
  and a few binaries. Extract the init script, the initramfs file is a
  plain cpio archive, and post it here.

 I did post it a week or so ago in another thread.

 The init script? I didn't see it, which thread?

 Yea, I know all that.  They are breaking one thing to fix something else
 so that they don't have to deal with fixing what they broke.  I got that
 a long time ago.  ;-)

 I'm coming round to the point of view that the breakage predates udev by
 many years. The whole idea of having four directories for binaries and
 two for libraries is an inelegance that I have come to accept over the
 years but only because it is the way we have always done it

http://lists.busybox.net/pipermail/busybox/2010-December/074114.html

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought

On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:50:04 -0500, Dale wrote:

 So throw out my plans and just do it their way?  In that case, I may as
 well use Fedora since it sort of started there.  Maybe that is what they
 wanted and planned.

According to Greg K-H, who I tend to trust, this did not come from Red
Hat. It's just that a couple of the devs are employed by them. Others are
not.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

...Advert for restaurant:
  Exotic foods for all occasions. Police balls a speciality.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Getting better logging for genkernel/initramfs stage

2012-03-28 Thread William Kenworthy

On Wed, 2012-03-28 at 08:54 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
 On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 12:17:36 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote:
 
  Is it possible to get an initramfs from genkernel to log its messages
  somewhere as well as the console? - I am getting a failure to mount /usr
  and from the few seconds the error message is on the the screen I cant
  see why as the parameters it prints look good, so I am looking for  a
  way to go back and examine it in slow time.
 
 I add set -x to the start of the init script and sleep commands at
 various points so I can see exactly what is going on.
 
 

Thanks, sleep was what it ( and I could do with some too!) needed! - I
should have thought of that :(

Had a typo from previous debugging efforts for another problem in the
genkernel initramfs scripts.

Now the only errors are /tmp and sometimes /var (both on lvm) are still
busy so the lvm wont stop on shutdown - minor I think.

BillK

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING latest lvm2 breaks systems with older udev

2012-03-28 Thread Stefan G. Weichinger

Am 27.03.2012 22:53, schrieb Allan Gottlieb:
 My system wouldn't fully boot this morning after updating lvm (~amd64).
 
 Fortunately a mount -a followed by
emerge -1 lvm2-previous version
 
 has be back in business (with the new lvm2 masked).
 
 I subsequently found the bug below.

Thanks for the pointer, I had the same issue here.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?

2012-03-28 Thread Alan Mackenzie

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:55:20AM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
  On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 11:48:19PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
   On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 21:24:22 +
   Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote:

That is precisely what the question was NOT about.  The idea was
to copy (not move) booting software to /sbin instead of an
initramfs - the exact same programs, modulo noise - to have the
SW in /sbin necessary to mount /usr.

   Two words:

   shared libraries

   Copying binaries is not enough. You have to find and copy every
   shared library those binaries use. Plus all the data and other
   files they might need.

   This is non-trivial.

  silently screams.  It's equally non-trivial for initramfs, yet
  nobody seems to be raising this objection for that.

  Why is nobody else on this thread willing to take up its main point,
  the exact equivalence between the known, ugly, initramfs solution and
  the as yet half-baked idea of putting the same binaries into /sbin?


 Read my other mail and pay attention to the difference between
 transient and persistent.

In my proposed solution, the executables in /sbin would only exist until
/usr had been mounted and the runtime PATH set up.  After the unification
of /usr, /sbin won't even exist (apart from in schemes like mine).

 initramfs is an elegant engineering solution (albeit over-engineered
 for our specific case of being Gentoo users).

Maybe, maybe not.  It couples the various bits of booting more tighly
together.  I look at Allan Gottlieb's bug WARNING latest lvm2 breaks
systems with older udev, and note that he recovered, essentially, by
mounting non-/ partitions by hand and going back to an old lvm2 version.
I had a similar problem when I was first trying out Walter's mdev
solution, which I also recovered by mounting by hand.

I look forward with foreboding to the time when such recovery will not be
possible.  Only a legacy Gentoo system or a recovery CD will help then.
I think it highly probable that can't boot bugs will continue to happen
occasionally.  I'd like to carry on having a bootable skeleton system for
when this happens.

 Your questions are about an extremely ill-advised action that has no
 sound basis. It copies stuff around to make one very specific thing
 work but with zero consideration for what it will do to everything
 else. That is bad, bad engineering.

I don't think that's a fair summary.

 If you want all this stuff in /, then do it correctly and modify the
 ebuilds to put the originals there (and troubleshoot the fallout from
 other faulty hard-coded stuffs). This is a lot of work, but it is sound.

I doubt that would work, for the reasons you give.

I feel I've been needlessly slammed, all for articulating an interesting
idea.

 -- 
 Alan McKinnnon
 alan.mckin...@gmail.com

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

[gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?

I've been getting the following Ping-ponging of fltk for maybe a
couple weeks now.

What I mean is that I have x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1:2 installed and
slotted.

When I emerge -avD --changed-use world it wants to slot install
x11-libs/fltk-1.3.0-r1

x11-libs/fltk is in world.

However after having both slots installed and emerge --depclean wants to
remove x11-libs/fltk-1.3.0-r1.

Then the next time I emerge world it wants to put it back, etc etc etc

Is there something screwy with the slotting?

Or have I broken my system?

Thanks,

Todd

Re: [gentoo-user] problem with e2fsck and the pre mount of /usr

2012-03-28 Thread Jorge Martínez López

Hi!

I let Dracut mount /usr and I do not mount it again at boot. In order
to do so I have added the noauto option in /etc/fstab:

/dev/mapper/vg-usr  /usrext4noauto,noatime  
1 2

Use with caution.

Greetings,
-- 
Jorge Martínez López jorg...@gmail.com http://www.jorgeml.net
      Google Talk / XMPP: jorg...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:01:32 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

  Read my other mail and pay attention to the difference between
  transient and persistent.  
 
 In my proposed solution, the executables in /sbin would only exist until
 /usr had been mounted and the runtime PATH set up.  After the
 unification of /usr, /sbin won't even exist (apart from in schemes like
 mine).

What happens to files that are installed to /bin, /sbin or /lib by
default? Where do kernel modules go?

 I look forward with foreboding to the time when such recovery will not
 be possible.  Only a legacy Gentoo system or a recovery CD will help
 then. I think it highly probable that can't boot bugs will continue
 to happen occasionally.  I'd like to carry on having a bootable
 skeleton system for when this happens.

When an initramfs fails to boot, it drops you to a busybox shell,
although I also have a SystemRescueCD ISO in /boot for such situations.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Top Oxymorons Number 12: Plastic glasses


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:15:19 -0400, Todd Goodman wrote:

 x11-libs/fltk is in world.

Why?

 Or have I broken my system?

Probably. There is rarely a good reason for having libraries in world.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Do you reply to our surveys.?
[X]Never [ ]Always [ ]Sometimes


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?

* Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk [120328 11:06]:
 On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:15:19 -0400, Todd Goodman wrote:
 
  x11-libs/fltk is in world.
 
 Why?

Don't know.  Probably forgot the -1 at some point or needed it for some
software outside of Gentoo.

 
  Or have I broken my system?
 
 Probably. There is rarely a good reason for having libraries in world.

Fine, but it hardly seems that it's broken just because there's a
library in world?

 
 
 -- 
 Neil Bothwick
 
 Do you reply to our surveys.?
 [X]Never [ ]Always [ ]Sometimes

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:58:00 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?:

 On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:15:19 -0400, Todd Goodman wrote:
[snip]
  Or have I broken my system?
 
 Probably. There is rarely a good reason for having libraries in world.

For us programmers it is often essential that we have one or more
library packages in world, since we might be using that library (or
those libraries) in projects we are developing.

The question I think Todd Goodman is trying to ask is why a package in
world should be a candidate for depclean.
-- 
Regards,

Dave  [RLU #314465]
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
dwn...@ntlworld.com (David W Noon)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought

2012-03-28 Thread Allan Gottlieb

On Tue, Mar 27 2012, Alan McKinnon wrote:

 All you need is a decent amount of free disk space as you will shuffle
 things around just like in that 15 pieces game.

This sounds encouraging.  My disk is less than half full so space is not
an issue.

 Assuming / is the first (or second) partition on a disk:

Question. For me, / is actually /dev/sda5 (sda4 is the extended
partition, the three in front are one dell's special, and two for
windows, the latter only used when contacting dell for diagnostics).
But I think this difference is not material.

 Measure how much data is on the file system.
 Measure how much data is on the /usr file system.

Right

 Move partitions after / on the disk out of the way creating enough free
 space to contain current / and /usr.

Question.  /dev/sda7 is LVM and that is used for /usr, /local, et al.
How do I move an LVM partition?  I could make plain partitions and just
copy /usr, /opt, et al., each to a separate partition.  Is that the way?

 Enlarge / partition, enlarge the file system on it, copy contents
 of /usr there.

/ is ext3, which I believe can be extended live.  Or do you recommend
using a gentoo install CD (or equivalent)?

 Arrange the rest of your disk the way you want it (either with or
 without LVM, both are easy enough to do).
 Move the rest of your data back to it's final destination.
 Delete any last remnants of the old /usr partition.

This part seems straight forward and not scary since I still would have
the newly created and copied /usr, /opt, et al. partitions in case
something goes wrong.

So the result would be

/ (including /usr) on one partition (not LVM)
/local, /opt et al.,  each as separate LVs on my recreated LVM partition

I believe this is one of the configurations others have adopted, which I
consider a plus.  The other favored configuration is to keep the current
partition scheme and use an initramfs via genkernel, dracut, or Neil's
in kernel config soln.

I would suspect there are second order improvements such as moving
/usr/portage and /usr/src to LVM with symlinks left behind in /usr, but
I am now just concerned to see if I have the basic plan correct.
Have I?

thanks,
allan

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Todd Goodman t...@bonedaddy.net wrote:
 * Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk [120328 11:06]:
 On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:15:19 -0400, Todd Goodman wrote:

  x11-libs/fltk is in world.

 Why?

 Don't know.  Probably forgot the -1 at some point or needed it for some
 software outside of Gentoo.


  Or have I broken my system?

 Probably. There is rarely a good reason for having libraries in world.

 Fine, but it hardly seems that it's broken just because there's a
 library in world?

Remove it from world, and try an emerge -p --depclean.

Having the library in world ties you to a particular name for that
library, among (potentially) other things. That could conceivably lead
to ping-ponging if an update moves it away from some piece of that
original description, and than another update notices that it's
missing.



-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?

* David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com [120328 11:22]:
 On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:58:00 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re:
 [gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?:
 
  On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:15:19 -0400, Todd Goodman wrote:
 [snip]
   Or have I broken my system?
  
  Probably. There is rarely a good reason for having libraries in world.
 
 For us programmers it is often essential that we have one or more
 library packages in world, since we might be using that library (or
 those libraries) in projects we are developing.
 
 The question I think Todd Goodman is trying to ask is why a package in
 world should be a candidate for depclean.
 -- 
 Regards,
 
 Dave  [RLU #314465]

Yes, exactly.

And more specifically, if the two versions of fltk are slotted it makes
me even more surprised that portage wants to depclean the 1.3.0 version.

Thanks,

Todd

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM, Todd Goodman t...@bonedaddy.net wrote:
 * David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com [120328 11:22]:
 On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 15:58:00 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re:
 [gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?:

  On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:15:19 -0400, Todd Goodman wrote:
 [snip]
   Or have I broken my system?
 
  Probably. There is rarely a good reason for having libraries in world.

 For us programmers it is often essential that we have one or more
 library packages in world, since we might be using that library (or
 those libraries) in projects we are developing.

 The question I think Todd Goodman is trying to ask is why a package in
 world should be a candidate for depclean.
 --
 Regards,

 Dave  [RLU #314465]

 Yes, exactly.

 And more specifically, if the two versions of fltk are slotted it makes
 me even more surprised that portage wants to depclean the 1.3.0 version.

If nothing is indicating a specific dependency on that version, it
makes sense for portage to only maintain one copy of the library on
the system at one time.

If you specifically want that version kept, you can add the version
number you want kept to your world file, I think. Not sure.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?

* Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com [120328 11:28]:
 On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Todd Goodman t...@bonedaddy.net wrote:
  * Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk [120328 11:06]:
  On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 10:15:19 -0400, Todd Goodman wrote:
 
   x11-libs/fltk is in world.
 
  Why?
 
  Don't know.  Probably forgot the -1 at some point or needed it for some
  software outside of Gentoo.
 
 
   Or have I broken my system?
 
  Probably. There is rarely a good reason for having libraries in world.
 
  Fine, but it hardly seems that it's broken just because there's a
  library in world?
 
 Remove it from world, and try an emerge -p --depclean.

No offense, but I wasn't really asking how to remove packages
from my system if I need both slots for some reason.

It wants to then depclean both versions (no surprise there.)

 
 Having the library in world ties you to a particular name for that
 library, among (potentially) other things. That could conceivably lead
 to ping-ponging if an update moves it away from some piece of that
 original description, and than another update notices that it's
 missing.

Yes, of course if the ebuild names change then it's a possible problem.
The same for an ebuild for a package that isn't a library.

It still seems broken for emerge to want to install both versions in
slots and then turn around and remove one of them immediately
afterwards.

Todd

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:14:55 -0400, Todd Goodman wrote:

   Or have I broken my system?  
  
  Probably. There is rarely a good reason for having libraries in
  world.  
 
 Fine, but it hardly seems that it's broken just because there's a
 library in world?

Something is depending on a particular slotted version but world has an
unslotted atom, which will pull in the highest slot. It does seem that it
is broken, but removing it from world and depcleaning will tell for sure.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I just bought a microwave fireplace... You can spend an evening in
front of it in only eight minutes...


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:17:06 +0100, David W Noon wrote:

  Probably. There is rarely a good reason for having libraries in
  world.  
 
 For us programmers it is often essential that we have one or more
 library packages in world, since we might be using that library (or
 those libraries) in projects we are developing.

Which is exactly what I was thinking of when I wrote rarely and not
never. It is also the case if you are installing some out of tree
software that has dependencies in the tree, but I prefer to handle that
by creating a set as I can then unmerge the set if I remove the
software, instead of trying to remember wheat I added to world and why.

 The question I think Todd Goodman is trying to ask is why a package in
 world should be a candidate for depclean.

Because the other slot satisfies the requirements of world, which
contains an unslotted version. But then --update always tries to
installed the newest suitable version. In other words, his system is
broken.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

I can't walk on water, but I can stagger on alcohol.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:39:55 -0400, Todd Goodman wrote:

 And more specifically, if the two versions of fltk are slotted it makes
 me even more surprised that portage wants to depclean the 1.3.0 version.

It can't depclean the other version, because that slot is specifically
depended on.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Rainbows are just to look at, not to really understand.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought

2012-03-28 Thread Alex Schuster

Allan Gottlieb writes:

 On Tue, Mar 27 2012, Alan McKinnon wrote:

  Move partitions after / on the disk out of the way creating enough
  free space to contain current / and /usr.
 
 Question.  /dev/sda7 is LVM and that is used for /usr, /local, et al.
 How do I move an LVM partition?  I could make plain partitions and just
 copy /usr, /opt, et al., each to a separate partition.  Is that the way?

So you have free space after /dev/sda7? Just create some more partitions,
use pvcreate to make them physical volumes, then vgextend to add them to
your LVM. Then use pvmirror to move stuff over.
Assuming you create two more partitions /dev/sda8 and /dev/sda9:
pvcreate /dev/sda[89]
vgextend myvg /dev/sda[89]
pvmove /dev/sda7
vgreduce myvg /dev/sda7

When I use LVM, I always use many small partitions for it, instead of one
large one. This gives more flexibility in case on needs to enlarge a
standard partition, or to add such a partition in case something else has
to be installed alongside Gentoo. pvmove then allows to free a partition.

  Enlarge / partition, enlarge the file system on it, copy contents
  of /usr there.
 
 / is ext3, which I believe can be extended live.  Or do you recommend
 using a gentoo install CD (or equivalent)?

ext3 can be enlargend while in use, but your partition can not. You can
enlarge the root partition after the contents of /dev/sda7 have been
moved, using [c]fdisk or whatever tool you like, but you need to reboot
for the kernel to see the new size. That would be no problem with root on
LVM, but then you also need an initramfs :)
BTW, I just had this problem when installing Ubuntu desktop on a big
server. For the first time in my life, I simply let the installer decide
about partitioning. What could possibly go wrong, it's a 73G drive, a
single root partition would do, user data is mounted via NFS. But that
night at home I got an email that the root FS was full after installing
some packages. The installer created a 5G partition only, and 68G of swap,
probably because the machine has 64G of RAM. The Ubuntu installer does
not know of LVM, so I had to manually reboot the machine the next day.

  Arrange the rest of your disk the way you want it (either with or
  without LVM, both are easy enough to do).
  Move the rest of your data back to it's final destination.
  Delete any last remnants of the old /usr partition.
 
 This part seems straight forward and not scary since I still would have
 the newly created and copied /usr, /opt, et al. partitions in case
 something goes wrong.

pvmove seems to be considered safe. Just reboot after enlarging the root
partition, then use resize2fs /dev/sda5 to make the FS larger. Then
copy /usr over:
mount -o bind / /mnt
mount -o remount,ro /usr
cp -a /usr/* /mnt/
The bind moun t makes the root FS appear in a 2nd place, without /usr
being populated by the content of your /usr partition.
Don't forget to remove /usr from /etc/fstab.

 I believe this is one of the configurations others have adopted, which I
 consider a plus.  The other favored configuration is to keep the current
 partition scheme and use an initramfs via genkernel, dracut, or Neil's
 in kernel config soln.

That's how I do it, but that's mainly because my whole system is
encrypted. BTW, this does not seem to be supported at this moment, at
least not with genkernel, there is no option to mount an encrypted /usr.
So I just created another LVM, unencrypted, and copied my /usr there.
Encrypting /usr does not make too much sense anyway. I also have the
problem now that I see an error while booting because /usr cannot be
fscked, but I will care about this later.

 I would suspect there are second order improvements such as moving
 /usr/portage and /usr/src to LVM with symlinks left behind in /usr, but
 I am now just concerned to see if I have the basic plan correct.
 Have I?

Sort of.
I also have portage stuff on another partition (well, on two, the tree
has its tiny extra partition), using /var/portage. I don't use symlinks,
but changed the portage paths in /etc/make.conf, and
re-created /etc/make.profile.

Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:00:43 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?:

 On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 16:17:06 +0100, David W Noon wrote:
[snip]
  The question I think Todd Goodman is trying to ask is why a package
  in world should be a candidate for depclean.
 
 Because the other slot satisfies the requirements of world, which
 contains an unslotted version. But then --update always tries to
 installed the newest suitable version. In other words, his system is
 broken.

In that case, the source of the breakage is almost certainly Portage.

If a slotted package is in the world file without a slot specification,
Portage should really take that to mean all installed slots are
required rather than any slot will do -- or, worse still, ignore the
world entry and fall back to package dependencies.
-- 
Regards,

Dave  [RLU #314465]
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
dwn...@ntlworld.com (David W Noon)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?

2012-03-28 Thread Alan Mackenzie

Hi, Neil.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 03:56:36PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
 On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:01:32 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

   Read my other mail and pay attention to the difference between
   transient and persistent.  

  In my proposed solution, the executables in /sbin would only exist until
  /usr had been mounted and the runtime PATH set up.  After the
  unification of /usr, /sbin won't even exist (apart from in schemes like
  mine).

 What happens to files that are installed to /bin, /sbin or /lib by
 default?

Aren't they getting shoved into /usr?  I thought that was the whole point
of the excercise.

 Where do kernel modules go?

I hadn't actually thought of that - I've never built a kernel with
modules enabled.  Where do kernel modules go?  Won't they be going into
/usr somewhere?

Incidentally, dracut says it won't work on a kernel without modules.  I
don't know if it's true or not.

  I look forward with foreboding to the time when such recovery will not
  be possible.  Only a legacy Gentoo system or a recovery CD will help
  then. I think it highly probable that can't boot bugs will continue
  to happen occasionally.  I'd like to carry on having a bootable
  skeleton system for when this happens.

 When an initramfs fails to boot, it drops you to a busybox shell, ...

You know, that cheers me up a lot.

 ...although I also have a SystemRescueCD ISO in /boot for such
 situations.

I suppose I could do with that, too.  And I should learn how to use it.

 -- 
 Neil Bothwick

 Top Oxymorons Number 12: Plastic glasses

I wear spectacular glasses.

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

RE: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?

 From: Canek Peláez Valdés [mailto:can...@gmail.com]


 I agree with most of what you say; however, I believe you are mistaken
 about the static nature of the binaries in the initramfs created by dracut. I
 use dracut with the whole bang (plymouth, systemd, udev, you name it), and
 I don't have *any* of my packages compiled with static-libs. Even more, my
 system right now runs everything with -static-libs. I like to think (and,
 unless I missed something, that's in fact the truth) that my initramfs is
 actually more or less in sync with my running system, and I update it a lot,
 since it's trivial to do so with dracut.

You're right, it wasn't plymouth, it was gensplash and crypt that wanted me to 
add static-libs. It was a USE-flag dependency so I could not proceed with the 
dracut install until I rebuilt those other packages.

plymouth just needed wanted USE=libkms  on libdrm.

RE: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?

From: Pandu Poluan [mailto:pa...@poluan.info] 
 On Mar 28, 2012 11:27 AM, Mike Edenfield kut...@kutulu.org wrote:

 Well, for one, the initramfs solution is not generally considered ugly
 except by a select vocal few who object to it on vague, unarticulated
 grounds.

 Check out the email from William Kenworth in this mailing list; he's having 
 trouble with initramfs being a blackbox.

I don't see how you can really call initramfs a 'black box; it's certainly as 
open, or moreso, as the kernel, or grub, or /sbin/init; it's just a 
mini-filesystem with its own init:

apollo kutulu # lsinitrd /boot/initramfs-3.2.7-hardened-apollo-0.img  
/boot/initramfs-3.2.7-hardened-apollo-0.img: 2.6M


drwxr-xr-x  15 root root0 Mar 28 13:32 .
drwxr-xr-x   2 root root0 Mar 28 13:32 dev
drwxr-xr-x   2 root root0 Mar 28 13:32 root
drwxr-xr-x   2 root root0 Mar 28 13:32 bin
-rws--x--x   1 root root   105584 Feb 28 17:46 bin/mount
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root root26536 Feb 28 17:46 bin/dmesg
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root root30696 Feb 21 17:12 bin/uname
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root root34776 Feb 21 17:12 bin/chroot
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root root   137624 Mar 27 13:14 bin/dash
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root root71640 Feb 21 17:12 bin/stty
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root root30680 Feb 21 17:12 bin/basename
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root root34776 Feb 21 17:12 bin/mknod
lrwxrwxrwx   1 root root4 Mar 28 13:32 bin/sh - dash
.
.
.
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root root14176 Feb 28 17:46 sbin/switch_root
-rwxr-xr-x   1 root root12622 Feb 15 12:05 init
drwxr-xr-x   2 root root0 Mar 28 13:32 tmp
drwxr-xr-x   2 root root0 Mar 28 13:32 proc
drwxr-xr-x   5 root root0 Mar 28 13:32 lib64

RE: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?

 From: Alan Mackenzie [mailto:a...@muc.de]

 Incidentally, dracut says it won't work on a kernel without modules.  I
don't
 know if it's true or not.

dracut wants you to have loadable module /support/ in your kernel so it can
scan for modules needed by the rootfs. The kernel-module support in dracut
is just another module; you could omit that module and I believe dracut will
carry on fine. Of course, if you have nothing compiled as a module then your
initramfs just won't have any modules built into it either way.

--Mike

[gentoo-user] garmin gps gentoo

2012-03-28 Thread James

Hello,

So I've been googling about GPS systems and interfacing
to a linux system. In portage it looks like all I 
will need to use the usb with the garmin nuvi 1490
is gpsd and gpsdrive?

It shows up via lsusb.

Any discussion or other software recommendations is most
welcome.


James

Re: [gentoo-user] garmin gps gentoo

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:58 PM, James wirel...@tampabay.rr.com wrote:
 Hello,

 So I've been googling about GPS systems and interfacing
 to a linux system. In portage it looks like all I
 will need to use the usb with the garmin nuvi 1490
 is gpsd and gpsdrive?

 It shows up via lsusb.

 Any discussion or other software recommendations is most
 welcome.

There is no better than gpsd. Install that first, and read its
manpage. It's designed to have as few hooks and knobs as possible, and
should Just Work. At worst, you may need to install a udev so that
gpsd notices when your device is plugged in. xspeed is a good testing
utility to verify you have gpsd running properly.

#gpsd on irc.freenode.net is probably not a bad place to query, if you
run into problems specific to gpsd.

I've used gpsdrive on Ubuntu, and it works OK, I guess...I ran into a
lot of bugs, but that was a few years ago. I spent far more time with
kismet, but that serves a different role...

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING latest lvm2 breaks systems with older udev

2012-03-28 Thread Stefan G. Weichinger

Am 28.03.2012 12:24, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger:
 Am 27.03.2012 22:53, schrieb Allan Gottlieb:
 My system wouldn't fully boot this morning after updating lvm (~amd64).

 Fortunately a mount -a followed by
emerge -1 lvm2-previous version

 has be back in business (with the new lvm2 masked).

 I subsequently found the bug below.
 
 Thanks for the pointer, I had the same issue here.

addition: it wasn't exactly the same, as I had udev-182 already.

RE: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought

 From: Neil Bothwick [mailto:n...@digimed.co.uk]


 On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:50:04 -0500, Dale wrote:
 
  So throw out my plans and just do it their way?  In that case, I may
  as well use Fedora since it sort of started there.  Maybe that is what
  they wanted and planned.
 
 According to Greg K-H, who I tend to trust, this did not come from Red
Hat.
 It's just that a couple of the devs are employed by them. Others are not.

I was particularly interested to find out that Solaris started merging / and
/usr 15 years ago, so in reality, the true UNIX way that Linux is
following has long since been abandoned by UNIX :)

--Mike

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING latest lvm2 breaks systems with older udev

2012-03-28 Thread Alex Schuster

Stefan G. Weichinger writes:

 Am 28.03.2012 12:24, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger:
  Am 27.03.2012 22:53, schrieb Allan Gottlieb:
  My system wouldn't fully boot this morning after updating lvm (~amd64).
  
  Fortunately a mount -a followed by
  
 emerge -1 lvm2-previous version
  
  has be back in business (with the new lvm2 masked).

Yikes.

  I subsequently found the bug below.

Thanks for being so kind of doing so!

  Thanks for the pointer, I had the same issue here.
 
 addition: it wasn't exactly the same, as I had udev-182 already.

I read the mail, but somehow I completely forgot to downgrade. But I did not 
run into this problem. I'm running udev-182 already, and I am using 
genkernel's initramfs.

Wonko

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING latest lvm2 breaks systems with older udev

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org wrote:
 Stefan G. Weichinger writes:

 Am 28.03.2012 12:24, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger:
  Am 27.03.2012 22:53, schrieb Allan Gottlieb:
  My system wouldn't fully boot this morning after updating lvm (~amd64).
 
  Fortunately a mount -a followed by
 
     emerge -1 lvm2-previous version
 
  has be back in business (with the new lvm2 masked).

 Yikes.

  I subsequently found the bug below.

 Thanks for being so kind of doing so!

Just to note, it was Pandu who filed that report. Allan *found* the bug report.

Just pointing it out because I've seen two people misattribute it now.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING latest lvm2 breaks systems with older udev

2012-03-28 Thread Alex Schuster

I just wrote:

 Stefan G. Weichinger writes:
 
   I subsequently found the bug below.
 
 Thanks for being so kind of doing so!

Whoops, I misread 'found' for 'filed'. But anyway, thanks for the
information :)

Wonko

[gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?

2012-03-28 Thread che

Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com writes:

 I offer you two choices:

 a. Move a few commands into an initramfs, truly only the ones you
 really do need, or
 b. Move 7G of files onto / (i.e. everything) and lose any benefit you
 (and everyone else with different ideas to you) may want by having a
 separate /usr. Oh, and you get to deal with finding the hardcoded paths
 and fixing the code yourself.

 Those are your choices. Pick one.

In that case I pick a. It's not a big deal.

I don't have anything against initrd, and use it on several places. It's
useful for many things including enabling / on raid or lvm.

But I also see the usefulnes of having / on a real partition, and being
able to start a kernel with init=/bin/bash when I have screwed something
up, which I tend to do quite often, :)

-- 
 Christer

[gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?

2012-03-28 Thread che

Mike Edenfield kut...@kutulu.org writes:

 Yes , of course it's /possible/, it's just not /practical/.

Perhaps, but still?
I don't se how that is less practical than collecting them to a ramdisk?

Just do exactly the same steps up to the cpio | gzip -part

I do agree with most of what you say

 Most Linux users, by a vast but very silent majority, are plenty happy to
 put / and /usr on one partition, wipe their hands on their pants, and move
 on with life. Thus, the people developing and packaging those required boot
 packages can leave them right where they are, and everything works.

I agree with that.

 Some
 Linux users have reasons (largely legitimate ones) why this is not a valid
 option. Those users have three choices

 * Move the required packages away from their default installation locations
 on their machines, as you're suggestion, and fix the order of your boot
 scripts to mount /usr earlier than anything that needs it.
 * Install (or develop) alternative versions of the tools that do not have
 the same boot-time requirements, thus allowing you to ignore the whole mess.
 This is what Walt and his mdev team are making happen.
 * Use an initramfs to do whatever specific thing your machine(s) need to do
 to make the rest of the software work out-of-the-box.

 So, it's not a matter of one choice working and one not. It's a matter of
 one choice being much lower maintenance for the people donating their time
 to produce the software in the first place.

Yes, that is a very valid point.

 If someone (maybe you) were to
 figure out the actual steps needed to mount /usr early in the boot, without
 and initramfs, without swapping out udev for busybox or whatever, I'm sure a
 lot of people would be interested in seeing how that's done.  There's a
 possibility that it turns out to be way easier than anyone thought, and that
 supporting a split /usr becomes no big deal. In practice, I'm going to
 guess that it turns out to be a way bigger maintenance nightmare (and
 probably more fragile) than:

 root # emerge dracut
 root # dracut -H

That's probably the way I'll proceed when I update udev later. But I'll
wait a while longer before doing that.

I'll going to miss the posibility of starting a kernel with only
init=/bin/bash for rescue purposes. But it's not a big deal.


 And probably won't be something that the developers or package maintainers
 are going to commit to supporting.

 --Mike

Thanks Mike.

This is my migration-plan

Today I have two disks with both three partitions

sda1 /--  sdb1  reserve-root. Regulary rsynced from sda1
sda2 swap --  sdb2  swap
sda3 lvm  --  sdb3  lvm

sda3 and sdb3 is combined to the volume-group vg0, and I have all my
other filesystems in vg0.

I'm planing to create a vg0/root and copy the contents of / to that, and
later remove everything but /boot from the old /

How does that sound?

--
 Christer

Re: [gentoo-user] ppp-gentoo woes cont'd [SOLVED-sorta]

2012-03-28 Thread Maxim Wexler


 with ppp connections you are not using a dhcp client, pppd gets the
 nameserver ip addressess as part of the connection negotiation (if
 peerdns is set) and the aforemetioned script in
 /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/40-dns.sh writes those to /etc/resolv.conf

This is at the top of /etc/resolv.conf
# Generated by dhcpcd
# /etc/resolv.conf.head can replace this line
# /etc/resolv.conf.tail can replace this line

But according to /var/log/messages:

Mar 28 13:24:01 lumby pppd[16825]: primary   DNS address 75.153.176.1
Mar 28 13:24:01 lumby pppd[16825]: secondary DNS address 75.153.176.9

But whatever is in resolv.conf is overwritten with blanks AFTER I
connect. Which creates this odd situation where I can ping numbers,
ie, 8.8.8.8 but not com, net, org etc.

Once I connect I have to echo the DNS addresses into resolv.conf
before I can reach anything.

Also, I notice whenever I set up a route to my router those numbers
get wiped. Is that the default behavio(u)r?. NB, I have nothing in the
way of services other than ppp configured at all. Maybe later after I
sort it all out I'll rig up something automatic.

Thanks for everybody's hlp

MW

ps:  according to /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/40-dns.sh:

---

#!/bin/sh

# Handle resolv.conf generation when usepeerdns pppd option is being used.
# Used parameters and environment variables:
# $1 - interface name (e.g. ppp0)
# $USEPEERDNS - set if user specified usepeerdns
# $DNS1 and $DNS2 - DNS servers reported by peer

if [ $USEPEERDNS ]; then

if [ -x /sbin/resolvconf ]; then
{
echo # Generated by ppp for $1
[ -n $DNS1 ]  echo nameserver $DNS1
[ -n $DNS2 ]  echo nameserver $DNS2
} | /sbin/resolvconf -a $1
else
# add the server supplied DNS entries to /etc/resolv.conf
# (taken from debian's usepeerdns)

# follow any symlink to find the real file
REALRESOLVCONF=$(readlink -f /etc/resolv.conf)

if [ $REALRESOLVCONF != /etc/ppp/resolv.conf ]; then

# merge the new nameservers with the other options from 
the old configuration
{
grep --invert-match '^nameserver[[:space:]]' 
$REALRESOLVCONF
cat /etc/ppp/resolv.conf
}  $REALRESOLVCONF.tmp

# backup the old configuration and install the new one
cp -dpP $REALRESOLVCONF $REALRESOLVCONF.pppd-backup
mv $REALRESOLVCONF.tmp $REALRESOLVCONF

# correct permissions
chmod 0644 /etc/resolv.conf
chown root:root /etc/resolv.conf
fi
fi

fi



the software is aware of two resolv.confs, one under /etc/, one under
/etc/ppp. /etc/ppp/resolv.conf is correctly filled in, but the other
is wiped. Can anyone see why?

MW

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?

2012-03-28 Thread Maxim Wexler

On 3/28/12, Todd Goodman t...@bonedaddy.net wrote:
 I've been getting the following Ping-ponging of fltk for maybe a
 couple weeks now.

 What I mean is that I have x11-libs/fltk-2.0_pre6970-r1:2 installed and
 slotted.

 When I emerge -avD --changed-use world it wants to slot install
 x11-libs/fltk-1.3.0-r1

 x11-libs/fltk is in world.

 However after having both slots installed and emerge --depclean wants to
 remove x11-libs/fltk-1.3.0-r1.

 Then the next time I emerge world it wants to put it back, etc etc etc

 Is there something screwy with the slotting?

 Or have I broken my system?

 Thanks,

 Todd


Same here. I asked in #gentoo but got no reply.

Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone Else Ping-Ponging with fltk?

2012-03-28 Thread Maxim Wexler


 Because the other slot satisfies the requirements of world, which
 contains an unslotted version. But then --update always tries to
 installed the newest suitable version. In other words, his system is
 broken.


 --
 Neil Bothwick


Then my system must be broken too. emerge -uND world made a new slot
for 130. Then just deleted it with depcllean. But I did run
revdep-rebuild twice and everything is  consistent.

MW

Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought

2012-03-28 Thread Simon


 Then
 copy /usr over:
mount -o bind / /mnt
mount -o remount,ro /usr
cp -a /usr/* /mnt/
 The bind moun t makes the root FS appear in a 2nd place, without /usr
 being populated by the content of your /usr partition.
 Don't forget to remove /usr from /etc/fstab.


I can recommend using rsync instead of cp.  Main advantage is rsync can be
stopped (ie. killed) mid-way and resumed later.  No big deal, but if your
/usr is as large as mine, you might like this!  If transfering very large
files, instead of restarting the large file from scratch, using the
--append option will write the partial data in the destination file.  If
killed and resumed, rsync will find the dst file is smaller than it should
and will continue from where it left.  If the data is absolutely crictical
important, you can also use the -c option to force rsync to do a checksum
of the files to compare, it will recopy anything that's not right.  I
normally use a -c check if I used --append and had to kill it (because I'm
paranoid AND patient).  Although I have seen zero cases where the -c found
errors.

Note the slashes at end of directories mean something with rsync, in my
example below, it means make usr and mnt identical, having rsync /usr /mnt/
means copy usr into /mnt/ (giving /mnt/usr/).

So cp -a /usr/* /mnt/ becomes:
rsync -ah --progress /usr/ /mnt/

Enjoy!

Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 11:20:25 -0400
Allan Gottlieb gottl...@nyu.edu wrote:

 On Tue, Mar 27 2012, Alan McKinnon wrote:
 
  All you need is a decent amount of free disk space as you will
  shuffle things around just like in that 15 pieces game.
 
 This sounds encouraging.  My disk is less than half full so space is
 not an issue.
 
  Assuming / is the first (or second) partition on a disk:
 
 Question. For me, / is actually /dev/sda5 (sda4 is the extended
 partition, the three in front are one dell's special, and two for
 windows, the latter only used when contacting dell for diagnostics).
 But I think this difference is not material.
 
  Measure how much data is on the file system.
  Measure how much data is on the /usr file system.
 
 Right
 
  Move partitions after / on the disk out of the way creating enough
  free space to contain current / and /usr.
 
 Question.  /dev/sda7 is LVM and that is used for /usr, /local, et al.
 How do I move an LVM partition?  I could make plain partitions and
 just copy /usr, /opt, et al., each to a separate partition.  Is that
 the way?
 
  Enlarge / partition, enlarge the file system on it, copy contents
  of /usr there.
 
 / is ext3, which I believe can be extended live.  Or do you recommend
 using a gentoo install CD (or equivalent)?
 
  Arrange the rest of your disk the way you want it (either with or
  without LVM, both are easy enough to do).
  Move the rest of your data back to it's final destination.
  Delete any last remnants of the old /usr partition.
 
 This part seems straight forward and not scary since I still would
 have the newly created and copied /usr, /opt, et al. partitions in
 case something goes wrong.
 
 So the result would be
 
 / (including /usr) on one partition (not LVM)
 /local, /opt et al.,  each as separate LVs on my recreated LVM
 partition
 
 I believe this is one of the configurations others have adopted,
 which I consider a plus.  The other favored configuration is to keep
 the current partition scheme and use an initramfs via genkernel,
 dracut, or Neil's in kernel config soln.
 
 I would suspect there are second order improvements such as moving
 /usr/portage and /usr/src to LVM with symlinks left behind in /usr,
 but I am now just concerned to see if I have the basic plan correct.
 Have I?

What you describe sounds ok, but I'd still hesitate to give a definite
answer without a little more data.

If you send over the output of 

df -h
du -shx for each partition you have
fdisk -l
pvdisplay
vgdisplay
lvdisplay

I'll be happy to go over the numbers and offer an opinion.

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 08:51:23 +0100
Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:

 On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:47:06 -0500, Dale wrote:
 
   Why not post the details of it? All an initramfs is is an init
   script and a few binaries. Extract the init script, the initramfs
   file is a plain cpio archive, and post it here.  
  
  I did post it a week or so ago in another thread. 
 
 The init script? I didn't see it, which thread?
 
  Yea, I know all that.  They are breaking one thing to fix something
  else so that they don't have to deal with fixing what they broke.
  I got that a long time ago.  ;-)
 
 I'm coming round to the point of view that the breakage predates udev
 by many years. The whole idea of having four directories for binaries
 and two for libraries is an inelegance that I have come to accept
 over the years but only because it is the way we have always done it

four and two?  You're the lucky one.

I have six and three minimally on every server, plus however many the
proprietary fellows felt like sticking in /opt


-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:20:23 +0100
David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com wrote:

 On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:28:17 -0500, Dale wrote about Re: [gentoo-user]
 InitRAMFS - boot expert sought:
 
  Alan McKinnon wrote:
 [snip]
  Everything you fear about udev instantly ceases to exist and is no
  longer a problem. Sorted.
 
 And /var ??

What about /var?

The thread is about initramfs and putting /usr onto the / volume to get
around early-boot prolems.

Surely you do not need the content of /var during early boot?


-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 17:07:33 +, Alan Mackenzie wrote:

  What happens to files that are installed to /bin, /sbin or /lib by
  default?
 
 Aren't they getting shoved into /usr?  I thought that was the whole
 point of the excercise.

That /may/ happen at some time, but not now, so we need a solution that
supports the current mish-mash of /*/*bin directories.

  Where do kernel modules go?
 
 I hadn't actually thought of that - I've never built a kernel with
 modules enabled.  Where do kernel modules go?  Won't they be going into
 /usr somewhere?

How will you mount /usr if it needs a module? This is the sort of chicken
and egg situation that an initramfs can avoid, by making sure everything
the boot process needs is available.

  When an initramfs fails to boot, it drops you to a busybox shell, ...
 
 You know, that cheers me up a lot.
 
  ...although I also have a SystemRescueCD ISO in /boot for such
  situations.
 
 I suppose I could do with that, too.  And I should learn how to use it.

Since someone has already asked about this off-list, the method is
described on sysrescd.org and involves a GRUB menu entry like

echo Adding: System Rescue CD
menuentry System Rescue CD {
   set sysresiso=/systemrescuecd-x86-2.5.1.iso
   loopback loop $sysresiso
   linux (loop)/isolinux/rescue64 rootpass=whatever setkmap=uk 
isoloop=$sysresiso
   initrd (loop)/isolinux/initram.igz
}


-- 
Neil Bothwick

IMPORTANT: The entire physical universe, including this message, may
one day collapse back into an infinitesimally small space. Should
another universe subsequently re-emerge, the existence of this message
in that universe cannot be guaranteed.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought

2012-03-28 Thread pk

On 2012-03-28 20:29, Mike Edenfield wrote:

 I was particularly interested to find out that Solaris started merging / and
 /usr 15 years ago, so in reality, the true UNIX way that Linux is
 following has long since been abandoned by UNIX :)

Yep, next up is transitioning to a more modern handling of device naming
(starts with c:). I certainly hope they can persuade all the other UNIX
vendors in this, one true way(tm)! And certainly the *BSD must be forced
to follow suit... Come to think of it, why not scrap all operating
systems except the one and only Lord of the OS? :-|

The true UNIX way is that there is no true UNIX way... Solaris is no
more UNIX than AIX or HP-UX or even BSD (which Solaris is based on).
There's only a poor way of doing things and a good way of doing things
(guess which way I think Linux is going). There's a lot of talk like so:
I think this therefore it must be the best way. _Noone_ has
rationalised _why_ this change has to happen except: Oh, my bluetooth
keyboard doesn't work during boot, therefore everyone has to suffer or
a modern desktop requires this (without explaining why a modern
desktop requires could be considered hand waving - for the record, I
consider my desktop quite modern with the exception of whistles and
bells but I wouldn't want to force going without on anyone).
All this talk about different directories is a matter of taste; there
is no technical reason (shared libraries aside) that some tools should
be in a directory (named after whatever); it's just a matter of
organisation and I happen to be on the side which thinks the FHS
rationalisation for /bin, /sbin, /lib is a neat one. Others thinks the
neatest solution is to put everything into one directory (whatever that
may be) and that's fine too, if there was a choice...

As for what Neil Bothwick said:
According to Greg K-H, who I tend to trust, this did not come from Red
Hat. It's just that a couple of the devs are employed by them. Others
are not.

Redhat are in control (maintaining or main contributor) of a whole lot
of core software:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Red_Hat_contributions#Upstream_Focus

So maybe it's in their (Redhats) best interest to only support their way
of doing things? Or it may be that the devs themselves are so tight
that they are working in this direction on their own accord. Or maybe
it's all coincidental... But the facts remain and that is that the Linux
landscape are changing dramatically (for the worse from my point of view).

This is only speculation of course but I see the software (systemd,
udev, avahi, dbus, glib, gtk+, pulseaudio etc.) Redhat support/maintain
interlinking with each other, creating ever growing dependencies (not
very UNIXy in my opinion); I wouldn't be surprised if, in a few years,
the (abomination) Gnome desktop system would be a hard dependency for
running a Linux system...
Or maybe Oracle (Solaris) is behind all this with their Gnome derived
JDS? Oh, the gnomes are out to get me! ;-)

A little bit more on topic perhaps: An initrd is a redundancy in my
point of view; a hassle that is needed by binary distributions with
modules for everything from the moon to the sun. It's yet another step
that is needed to restore what once was without gaining _anything_ for
it... (I don't use modules for devices that should be available during
boot).

Best regards

Peter K

Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:40:27 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought:

 On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:20:23 +0100
 David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com wrote:
 
  On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:28:17 -0500, Dale wrote about Re:
  [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought:
  
   Alan McKinnon wrote:
  [snip]
   Everything you fear about udev instantly ceases to exist and is
   no longer a problem. Sorted.
  
  And /var ??
 
 What about /var?
 
 The thread is about initramfs and putting /usr onto the / volume to
 get around early-boot prolems.
 
 Surely you do not need the content of /var during early boot?

With the pending changes to udev scripts, you could well need /var --
and anything else -- before udev starts.  So it is in the same category
as /usr.
-- 
Regards,

Dave  [RLU #314465]
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
dwn...@ntlworld.com (David W Noon)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:01:24 +0100
David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com wrote:

 On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:40:27 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote about Re:
 [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought:
 
  On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 01:20:23 +0100
  David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com wrote:
  
   On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 17:28:17 -0500, Dale wrote about Re:
   [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought:
   
Alan McKinnon wrote:
   [snip]
Everything you fear about udev instantly ceases to exist and is
no longer a problem. Sorted.
   
   And /var ??
  
  What about /var?
  
  The thread is about initramfs and putting /usr onto the / volume to
  get around early-boot prolems.
  
  Surely you do not need the content of /var during early boot?
 
 With the pending changes to udev scripts, you could well need /var --
 and anything else -- before udev starts.  So it is in the same
 category as /usr.

Maybe, maybe not.

However, no-one apart from you is even suggesting such a thing. For my
part I'm going to ignore that possibility and concentrate on those
things that are being seriously suggested.



-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?

2012-03-28 Thread Peter Humphrey

On Wednesday 28 March 2012 22:47:09 Neil Bothwick wrote:

 Since someone has already asked about this off-list, the method is
 described on sysrescd.org and involves a GRUB menu entry like
 
 echo Adding: System Rescue CD
 menuentry System Rescue CD {
set sysresiso=/systemrescuecd-x86-2.5.1.iso
loopback loop $sysresiso
linux (loop)/isolinux/rescue64 rootpass=whatever setkmap=uk
 isoloop=$sysresiso initrd (loop)/isolinux/initram.igz
 }

Am I right in thinking that this only works with GRUB-2, not the legacy 
GRUB? I'm not ready yet to go to the next generation of GRUB.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought

On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:26:40 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote about Re:
[gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought:

 On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:01:24 +0100
 David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com wrote:
[snip]
  With the pending changes to udev scripts, you could well need /var
  -- and anything else -- before udev starts.  So it is in the same
  category as /usr.
 
 Maybe, maybe not.
 
 However, no-one apart from you is even suggesting such a thing. For my
 part I'm going to ignore that possibility and concentrate on those
 things that are being seriously suggested.

The Gentoo developers have been discussing just that.  The reason is
that many of the daemons that can be started by udev scripts require
work files on /var, so we could well need /var mounted too.
-- 
Regards,

Dave  [RLU #314465]
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
dwn...@ntlworld.com (David W Noon)
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:58:23 +0200, pk wrote:

 organisation and I happen to be on the side which thinks the FHS
 rationalisation for /bin, /sbin, /lib is a neat one. Others thinks the
 neatest solution is to put everything into one directory (whatever that
 may be) and that's fine too, if there was a choice...

I'm in favour of /bin and /lib, and I see the pros and cons of /sbin and
am not too bothered about how that is done. But having two (or more) of
each of these is an artificial mess that is a solution to a problem that
ceased to exist decades ago.

 As for what Neil Bothwick said:
 According to Greg K-H, who I tend to trust, this did not come from Red
 Hat. It's just that a couple of the devs are employed by them. Others
 are not.  
 
 Redhat are in control (maintaining or main contributor) of a whole lot
 of core software:
 https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Red_Hat_contributions#Upstream_Focus

 So maybe it's in their (Redhats) best interest to only support their way
 of doing things? Or it may be that the devs themselves are so tight
 that they are working in this direction on their own accord. Or maybe
 it's all coincidental... 

Red Hat employ devs working on many aspects of Linux, and we should be
grateful for this (or do you prefer the Ubuntu approach of taking with
little giving back?). One of the reasons Greg K-H left SUSE to work for
the Linux Foundation was so that he could be completely
distro-independent. AFAIK he has never worked for Red Hat.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

PCMCIA: People Can't Memorize Computer Industry Acronyms


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?

On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:45:40 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

  echo Adding: System Rescue CD
  menuentry System Rescue CD {
 set sysresiso=/systemrescuecd-x86-2.5.1.iso
 loopback loop $sysresiso
 linux (loop)/isolinux/rescue64 rootpass=whatever setkmap=uk
  isoloop=$sysresiso initrd (loop)/isolinux/initram.igz
  }  
 
 Am I right in thinking that this only works with GRUB-2, not the legacy 
 GRUB?

AFAIK, yes.

 I'm not ready yet to go to the next generation of GRUB.

There's little point in change fore change's sake. When I install a new
system I use GRUB2, but those that were set up with GRUB1 will continue
to use it until I have a good reason to change - even though the change
is quite trivial.

For new systems, it is a lot easier  - emerge grub and run grub2-mkconfig
and you have a bootable system. If you want to fart around with menu
files (as I generally do) you can play with them after the system has
booted the first time.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Loose bits sink chips.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING latest lvm2 breaks systems with older udev

2012-03-28 Thread Pandu Poluan

On Mar 29, 2012 1:42 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org
wrote:
  Stefan G. Weichinger writes:
 
  Am 28.03.2012 12:24, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger:
   Am 27.03.2012 22:53, schrieb Allan Gottlieb:
   My system wouldn't fully boot this morning after updating lvm
(~amd64).
  
   Fortunately a mount -a followed by
  
  emerge -1 lvm2-previous version
  
   has be back in business (with the new lvm2 masked).
 
  Yikes.
 
   I subsequently found the bug below.
 
  Thanks for being so kind of doing so!

 Just to note, it was Pandu who filed that report. Allan *found* the bug
report.


Me??

Uh, the bug was filed by Paweł Rumian, not me...

 Just pointing it out because I've seen two people misattribute it now.


And you, too :-D

Rgds,

Re: [gentoo-user] ppp-gentoo woes cont'd [SOLVED-sorta]

2012-03-28 Thread Joshua Murphy

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 4:05 PM, Maxim Wexler maxim.wex...@gmail.com wrote:

with ppp connections you are not using a dhcp client, pppd gets the
nameserver ip addressess as part of the connection negotiation (if
peerdns is set) and the aforemetioned script in
/etc/ppp/ip-up.d/40-dns.sh writes those to /etc/resolv.conf

This is at the top of /etc/resolv.conf
# Generated by dhcpcd
# /etc/resolv.conf.head can replace this line
# /etc/resolv.conf.tail can replace this line

But according to /var/log/messages:

Mar 28 13:24:01 lumby pppd[16825]: primary DNS address 75.153.176.1
Mar 28 13:24:01 lumby pppd[16825]: secondary DNS address 75.153.176.9

But whatever is in resolv.conf is overwritten with blanks AFTER I
connect. Which creates this odd situation where I can ping numbers,
ie, 8.8.8.8 but not com, net, org etc.

Once I connect I have to echo the DNS addresses into resolv.conf
before I can reach anything.

Also, I notice whenever I set up a route to my router those numbers
get wiped. Is that the default behavio(u)r?. NB, I have nothing in the
way of services other than ppp configured at all. Maybe later after I
sort it all out I'll rig up something automatic.

Thanks for everybody's hlp

ps: according to /etc/ppp/ip-up.d/40-dns.sh:

---

#!/bin/sh

# Handle resolv.conf generation when usepeerdns pppd option is being used.
# Used parameters and environment variables:
# $1 - interface name (e.g. ppp0)
# $USEPEERDNS - set if user specified usepeerdns
# $DNS1 and $DNS2 - DNS servers reported by peer

if [ $USEPEERDNS ]; then

if [ -x /sbin/resolvconf ]; then
{
echo # Generated by ppp for $1
[ -n $DNS1 ] echo nameserver $DNS1
[ -n $DNS2 ] echo nameserver $DNS2
} | /sbin/resolvconf -a $1
else
# add the server supplied DNS entries to /etc/resolv.conf
# (taken from debian's usepeerdns)

# follow any symlink to find the real file
REALRESOLVCONF=$(readlink -f /etc/resolv.conf)

if [ $REALRESOLVCONF != /etc/ppp/resolv.conf ]; then

# merge the new nameservers with the other options
from the old configuration
{
grep --invert-match '^nameserver[[:space:]]'
$REALRESOLVCONF
cat /etc/ppp/resolv.conf
} $REALRESOLVCONF.tmp

# backup the old configuration and install the new one
cp -dpP $REALRESOLVCONF $REALRESOLVCONF.pppd-backup
mv $REALRESOLVCONF.tmp $REALRESOLVCONF

# correct permissions
chmod 0644 /etc/resolv.conf
chown root:root /etc/resolv.conf
fi
fi

the software is aware of two resolv.confs, one under /etc/, one under
/etc/ppp. /etc/ppp/resolv.conf is correctly filled in, but the other
is wiped. Can anyone see why?

If I recall, this was my guess as the real problem you were running
into. As for what's making the last change to /etc/resolv.conf...
aside from kernel-level auditing, there's nothing I'm aware of that
can tell you. Since /etc/ppp/resolv.conf is correct but
/etc/resolv.conf isn't, one of three things is happening:

a) 40-dns.sh is running, making the changes it needs to, and they're
being promptly overwritten by something else... unlikely and
excessively hard to diagnose,
b) 40-dns.sh is running but isn't actually updating /etc/resolv.conf
properly... it looks fine, matches the default I have here (which
works on my pppoe setup at least), but could happen if one of the
assumptions it makes is wrong (or if, say, if [ $USEPEERDNS ]; is
coming up false), or...
c) 40-dns.sh is not even running, meaning /etc/resolv.conf never gets
updated by pppd... this would have been my first guess, except for the
fact that /etc/ppp/ip-up just outright sources all *.sh in
/etc/ppp/ip-up.d/ so... shouldn't be that (and I saved myself from
looking a bit silly, checking that beforehand).

The first step to tracking it down would probably be stepping through
that script and comparing it to your situation. Does
/etc/resolv.conf.pppd-backup exist? If so, it *is* at least making
changes to the original. I recall usepeerdns is set, so is
/sbin/resolvconf an existing, executable, file? If not, and since they
differ, I suspect it's failing somewhere in merging them. You might
add some echo calls writing out to a file in /tmp to 40-dns.sh so you
can track what, if anything, it does (and what values it's using in
the process).

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?

Alan Mackenzie wrote:

 Incidentally, dracut says it won't work on a kernel without modules.  I
 don't know if it's true or not.
 

Oh really?  I don't use modules and I am the one having issues with not
being able to su to root from a user.  I wonder if that is related
somehow.  o_O

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] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?

2012-03-28 Thread Canek Peláez Valdés

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:53 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
 Alan Mackenzie wrote:

 Incidentally, dracut says it won't work on a kernel without modules.  I
 don't know if it's true or not.


 Oh really?  I don't use modules and I am the one having issues with not
 being able to su to root from a user.  I wonder if that is related
 somehow.  o_O

I don't use modules either (except scsi_wait_scan.ko; you cannot get
rid of that one), I use dracut, and I can su just fine.

Dale, can you please post the dracut comand you used to create your
initramfs? Also, the DRACUT_MODULES you have defined, and the contents
of /etc/dracut.conf?

Not being able to su sounds incredible weird.

Regards.
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?

Neil Bothwick wrote:

 It's not a blackbox, unlike a kernel or any other binary, it is a simple
 cpio archive that you can unpack and inspect. If you want total control,
 build your own, it is not rocket science.
 
 


cough cough  You sure about that?  I have tried building one, then
building it inside the kernel then using dracut.  Still got issues.  If
not rocket science, what other degree does a person need?  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

Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Mike Edenfield kut...@kutulu.org wrote:
 From: Neil Bothwick [mailto:n...@digimed.co.uk]


 On Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:50:04 -0500, Dale wrote:

  So throw out my plans and just do it their way?  In that case, I may
  as well use Fedora since it sort of started there.  Maybe that is what
  they wanted and planned.

 According to Greg K-H, who I tend to trust, this did not come from Red
 Hat.
 It's just that a couple of the devs are employed by them. Others are not.

 I was particularly interested to find out that Solaris started merging / and
 /usr 15 years ago, so in reality, the true UNIX way that Linux is
 following has long since been abandoned by UNIX :)

There is so much BS being spewed around this topic, I'm genuinely
disgusted. It's enough to lead me to suspect that Linux, as a
platform, is *dying*. Given that Linux has been my primary platform
for most of my life, that bothers me no small amount.


The true UNIX way is about KISS philosophy. Keep it Simple, Stupid.
Keep things small, well-defined and modular. Break things into
components, keep the components small and relatively well-defined. A
*system* can be complex, but as long as it's well-organized,
sufficiently large pieces of it may be grokked independently of
others.

Some packages eschewed that philosophy. Rather than say fix your
crap, the udev developers threw their hands in the air and said we
don't care; it's the responsibility of the distro maintainer to make
sure that thinks are in shape before we get launched. Except that the
only kind of distro for which it'd work reliably would be distros
which don't have a rolling release behavior; the maintaners can get
everything organized for a release, and then set things in stone.
Gentoo, Arch, Debian/testing and Mint/Debian are in for a bumpy ride,
for as long as this crap lasts. Well, either that, or understanding
initramfs, symbol versioning and dynamic linking is going to become a
more important a skill than shell scripting. All aid tools will break
at one time or another, and we'll be have to learn how to fix them, or
give up operating configurations that our own experience have taught
us were the best for our circumstances.

-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought

David W Noon wrote:
 On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 00:26:40 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote about Re:
 [gentoo-user] InitRAMFS - boot expert sought:
 
 On Wed, 28 Mar 2012 23:01:24 +0100
 David W Noon dwn...@ntlworld.com wrote:
 [snip]
 With the pending changes to udev scripts, you could well need /var
 -- and anything else -- before udev starts.  So it is in the same
 category as /usr.

 Maybe, maybe not.

 However, no-one apart from you is even suggesting such a thing. For my
 part I'm going to ignore that possibility and concentrate on those
 things that are being seriously suggested.
 
 The Gentoo developers have been discussing just that.  The reason is
 that many of the daemons that can be started by udev scripts require
 work files on /var, so we could well need /var mounted too.


Yep.  I notice my LVM starts twice.  It fails the first time because it
can't find files in /var then tries again later on after everything is
mounted, except the LVM stuff of course.  So, this is most likely coming
and is one reason I am considering different options.

This is also another reason I want to get some sort of init thingy
working.  I already have /var on its own regular partition but also want
/usr and /var on LVM.  Right now, that could cause a problem since LVM
looks to have issues coming up without /var being mounted.

Luckily for me, I only have a data partition that contains video files
on LVM.  It has nothing to do with the OS itself.

That is one reason this is causing me concerns.  It's not just what is
already getting screwed up but also what is about to get screwed up that
makes it even worse.

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] WARNING latest lvm2 breaks systems with older udev

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:

 On Mar 29, 2012 1:42 AM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org
 wrote:
  Stefan G. Weichinger writes:
 
  Am 28.03.2012 12:24, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger:
   Am 27.03.2012 22:53, schrieb Allan Gottlieb:
   My system wouldn't fully boot this morning after updating lvm
   (~amd64).
  
   Fortunately a mount -a followed by
  
      emerge -1 lvm2-previous version
  
   has be back in business (with the new lvm2 masked).
 
  Yikes.
 
   I subsequently found the bug below.
 
  Thanks for being so kind of doing so!

 Just to note, it was Pandu who filed that report. Allan *found* the bug
 report.


 Me??

 Uh, the bug was filed by Paweł Rumian, not me...

 Just pointing it out because I've seen two people misattribute it now.


 And you, too :-D

LOL.

Thanks. :)


-- 
:wq

Re: [gentoo-user] WARNING latest lvm2 breaks systems with older udev

2012-03-28 Thread Allan Gottlieb

On Wed, Mar 28 2012, Michael Mol wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:29 PM, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org wrote:
 Stefan G. Weichinger writes:

 Am 28.03.2012 12:24, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger:
  Am 27.03.2012 22:53, schrieb Allan Gottlieb:
  My system wouldn't fully boot this morning after updating lvm (~amd64).
 
  Fortunately a mount -a followed by
 
     emerge -1 lvm2-previous version
 
  has be back in business (with the new lvm2 masked).

 Yikes.

  I subsequently found the bug below.

 Thanks for being so kind of doing so!

 Just to note, it was Pandu who filed that report. Allan *found* the bug 
 report.

 Just pointing it out because I've seen two people misattribute it now.

I believe it was Paweł Rumian who actually filed the bug.  After the
mount -a put me back in business (and my heart rate went back to normal)
I went to file a bug, saw Rumian's there, and posted to gentoo-user to
save others from the encountering the problem.

Anyway, I am glad to have helped disseminate the information.  It is
nice to occasionally be a source of help rather than always a sink.

allan

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: After /usr conflation: why not copy booting software to /sbin rather than initramfs?