Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 08:39:41PM +, Neil Bothwick wrote You are only considering the case of /usr being on a plain hard disk partition, what if it in on an LVM volume, or encrypted (or both) of mounted over the network? All of these require something to be run before they can be mounted, and if that cannot be run until udev has started, we have been painted into a corner. I agree that there will always be a small number of corner-cases where an initr* is required. What annoys me, and probably a lot of other people, is the-dog-in-the-manger attitude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_in_the_Manger where some people seem to say If my weirdo, corner-case system can't boot a separate /usr without an initr* then, by-golly, I'll see to it that *NOBODY* can boot a separate /usr without an initr*. This is misleading in two ways. 1) You're talking as if having a functionally merged /usr and / system (i.e., many programs needed by the sysad to fix a non-booting system are in /usr, and programs in /usr will break if /usr is not in sync with /) is a weirdo corner case. It is NOT. It is very likely how the vast majority of Linux systems on the planet work. Separate /usr is itself the weirdo corner case. It was in fact a weirdo corner case since day 1. 2) You're talking as if Lennart or whoever is breaking into your systems and actively preventing you from customizing it to boot a separate /usr. If this is the case you _really_ need to change your ssh keys, they wiped that vulnerability a couple years ago. Nobody's preventing you from building a custom system that cleanly separates / and /usr. But hey, don't pretend that even Gentoo does it correctly. Besides the equery tests in this thread, I've never personally confirmed that any other distro does - and Fedora cleanly admits that they don't.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 16:06:27 +0800 Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 9:27 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 08:39:41PM +, Neil Bothwick wrote You are only considering the case of /usr being on a plain hard disk partition, what if it in on an LVM volume, or encrypted (or both) of mounted over the network? All of these require something to be run before they can be mounted, and if that cannot be run until udev has started, we have been painted into a corner. I agree that there will always be a small number of corner-cases where an initr* is required. What annoys me, and probably a lot of other people, is the-dog-in-the-manger attitude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_in_the_Manger where some people seem to say If my weirdo, corner-case system can't boot a separate /usr without an initr* then, by-golly, I'll see to it that *NOBODY* can boot a separate /usr without an initr*. This is misleading in two ways. 1) You're talking as if having a functionally merged /usr and / system (i.e., many programs needed by the sysad to fix a non-booting system are in /usr, and programs in /usr will break if /usr is not in sync with /) is a weirdo corner case. It is NOT. It is very likely how the vast majority of Linux systems on the planet work. Separate /usr is itself the weirdo corner case. It was in fact a weirdo corner case since day 1. 2) You're talking as if Lennart or whoever is breaking into your systems and actively preventing you from customizing it to boot a separate /usr. If this is the case you _really_ need to change your ssh keys, they wiped that vulnerability a couple years ago. Nobody's preventing you from building a custom system that cleanly separates / and /usr. But hey, don't pretend that even Gentoo does it correctly. Besides the equery tests in this thread, I've never personally confirmed that any other distro does - and Fedora cleanly admits that they don't. The ultimate weird corner case is having a separate / and /usr so the either of these two thing can happen: a. there's enough $STUFF in / to fix large-scale errors b. there's enough $STUFF in / to mount /usr ro over NFS (as in for a terminal server) a. is fixed by just using what all sysadmins use anyway - a proper rescue disk built for that specific purposes (instead of trying to get half a system to do it for you) b. is resolved by mounting /, not /usr. It's a terminal server, so the only thing not under full user control is ~. There is no point in having half the system local and the rest of it remote, just mount everything remotely. And if it's a terminal server, it will have a real sysadmin, someone who can maintain the code needed to get NFS up at boot time. If the mount of / breaks, the solution is a. Are there any other cases, apart from emotional attachment based on inertia, where a separate / and /usr are desirable? As I see it, there is only the system, and it is an atomic unit. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
[gentoo-user] Re: Questions about optimal mplayer settings
On 2012-12-19, Dale wrote: Bruce Hill wrote: On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:05:14PM -0600, Dale wrote: [...] Here is two links if you want to try my weird way of doing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XITHbsUUlYI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2Innx3puNI I use downloadhelper to grab those then play them locally. Both of those are available in 1080p tho. Should warm up something. ;-) Dale Rather than downloadhelper and a web browser, try: mingdao@workstation ~/test $ youtube-dl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XITHbsUUlYI [youtube] Setting language [youtube] XITHbsUUlYI: Downloading video webpage [youtube] XITHbsUUlYI: Downloading video info webpage [youtube] XITHbsUUlYI: Extracting video information [download] Destination: XITHbsUUlYI.mp4 [download] 30.5% of 107.04M at1.43M/s ETA 00:52 Some videos are available in different resolutions. Some have as many as 6 or 8 different ones. With downloadhelper, you can pick which one you want. I'm not sure if youtube-dl does or not. Also, I download videos from lots of sites. I don't actually use youtube a lot. youtube-dl supports all the available formats, it just defaults to the best quality one of the available for the chosen video. The -f parameter takes as an argument the format number, see the list from Wikipedia, http://enwp.org/YouTube#Quality_and_codecs youtube-dl is also not youtube-specific. -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
[gentoo-user] Re: Questions about optimal mplayer settings
On 2012-12-19, Florian Philipp wrote: Am 19.12.2012 00:20, schrieb Walter Dnes: 1) In the past couple of days I finally figured out what I was doing wrong with hardware acceleration (causing lack thereof) with an onboard Intel GPU in my HTPC machine. I've applied the same fix to my desktop. mplayer now has 5 video output modes that actually show a picture... xv X11/Xv This doesn't use any GPU features. Good compatibility but otherwise not recommended. I thought the X Video extensions were where the hardware acceleration for video acceleration was actually supposed to be implemented (not that, in some drivers, said acceleration is actually implemented...). My bets would be xv and gl, with gl being possibly better for some drivers, but hey, I may be wrong about xv. It also seems that I don't have vdpau enabled right now (I wonder if that enables generic acceleration frameworks for cards other than nVidia). (AMD GPU with open drivers here.) -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Questions about optimal mplayer settings
Nuno J. Silva wrote: On 2012-12-19, Dale wrote: Bruce Hill wrote: On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:05:14PM -0600, Dale wrote: [...] Here is two links if you want to try my weird way of doing this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XITHbsUUlYI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2Innx3puNI I use downloadhelper to grab those then play them locally. Both of those are available in 1080p tho. Should warm up something. ;-) Dale Rather than downloadhelper and a web browser, try: mingdao@workstation ~/test $ youtube-dl http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XITHbsUUlYI [youtube] Setting language [youtube] XITHbsUUlYI: Downloading video webpage [youtube] XITHbsUUlYI: Downloading video info webpage [youtube] XITHbsUUlYI: Extracting video information [download] Destination: XITHbsUUlYI.mp4 [download] 30.5% of 107.04M at1.43M/s ETA 00:52 Some videos are available in different resolutions. Some have as many as 6 or 8 different ones. With downloadhelper, you can pick which one you want. I'm not sure if youtube-dl does or not. Also, I download videos from lots of sites. I don't actually use youtube a lot. youtube-dl supports all the available formats, it just defaults to the best quality one of the available for the chosen video. The -f parameter takes as an argument the format number, see the list from Wikipedia, http://enwp.org/YouTube#Quality_and_codecs youtube-dl is also not youtube-specific. Nice to know it lets you pick a specific one but I still like downloadhelper. I don't use commandline for much other than updating and few other things that are command line only. I use Seamonkey for my web browser. It works and kind of got used to it this way. With downloadhelper, I just click, tell it where to store the video and off it goes. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Alan McKinnon wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:03:25 +0200 nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: On 2012-12-23, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:22:24 +0200 nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: On 2012-12-18, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Tue, 18 Dec 2012 09:08:53 -0500 Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: This sentence summarizes my understanding of your post nicely: Now, why is /usr special? It's because it contains executable code the system might require while launching. Now there are only two approaches that could solve that problem: 1. Avoid it entirely 2. Deal with it using any of a variety of bootstrap techniques #1 is handled by policy, whereby any code the system might require while launching is not in /usr. #2 already has a solution, it's called an init*. Other solutions exist but none are as elegant as a throwaway temporary filesystem in RAM. What about just mounting /usr as soon as the system boots? Please read the thread next time. The topic under discussion is solutions to the problem of not being able to do exactly that. Then I suppose you can surely explain in a nutshell why can't init scripts simply do that? It is trivially easy to create a circular loop whereby code required to mount /usr now resides on /usr. Which is the entire thrust of this whole thread. When I reboot, I get a lot of errors about /var being empty, since it is not mounted yet. It appears it wants /var as well as /usr early on in the boot process. It boots regardless of the errors tho. For the record Nuno, I have / and /boot on regular partitions. I have everything else, /home, /usr, /var and /usr/portage on LVM partitions. Until recently, I NEVER needed a init thingy and had zero errors while booting. Once this 'needing /usr on /' started a few months ago, I was told I would need one to boot. The claim being it was broken all the time but odd that it worked for the last 9 years with no problem, might add, I only been using Linux for the last 9 years but it also would have worked before that. So, Nuno, everything was fine until they started moving things to a place where it shouldn't be. Now, we have people working on eudev which will replace udev and allow us to boot with a separate /usr and no init thingy either. Basically, putting it back like it was, for many years I might add. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
[gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On 2012-12-24, Dale wrote: Alan McKinnon wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:03:25 +0200 nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: On 2012-12-23, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:22:24 +0200 nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: [...] What about just mounting /usr as soon as the system boots? Please read the thread next time. The topic under discussion is solutions to the problem of not being able to do exactly that. Then I suppose you can surely explain in a nutshell why can't init scripts simply do that? It is trivially easy to create a circular loop whereby code required to mount /usr now resides on /usr. Which is the entire thrust of this whole thread. When I reboot, I get a lot of errors about /var being empty, since it is not mounted yet. It appears it wants /var as well as /usr early on in the boot process. It boots regardless of the errors tho. For the record Nuno, I have / and /boot on regular partitions. I have everything else, /home, /usr, /var and /usr/portage on LVM partitions. Until recently, I NEVER needed a init thingy and had zero errors while booting. Once this 'needing /usr on /' started a few months ago, I was told I would need one to boot. The claim being it was broken all the time but odd that it worked for the last 9 years with no problem, might add, I only been using Linux for the last 9 years but it also would have worked before that. In your case, does it actually fail without an initrd now? It's just that I see lots of people saying it doesn't work or it will silently fail, that's why I asked the question, I was looking for actual examples of how can this go wrong (other than just because the init scripts don't try to mount /usr before starting udev). Also, how does an initrd help solving the chicken-and-the-egg problem for a missing /usr? I suppose the LVM drivers create additional device files that are only created once udevd is up and running in order to process these events? (With the case of a regular partition being no problem just because linux apparently offers hardcoded files for some partitions in the first ATA controllers.) So, Nuno, everything was fine until they started moving things to a place where it shouldn't be. Now, we have people working on eudev which will replace udev and allow us to boot with a separate /usr and no init thingy either. Basically, putting it back like it was, for many years I might add. -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
[gentoo-user] Re: ALSA mixer as a capture device with Intel HDA cards
On 2012-12-23, »Q« wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 01:59:50 +0200 nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: Hello, Today, I got a bit curious, and wanted to get some sound from a computer which does not have any speakers at the moment. Mostly for fun, I thought about using arecord and then listening to the file. I decided to have a look around the mixer, with no luck. I remember alsamixer showing an option to use the PCM mixer as a capture device, but this was with other, older cards (possibly an ESS Maestro or a Creative Enqsonic). Now, for this Intel HDA card, I don't see an option to select the card's own output as the input stream. From what I see, I'd simply assume this means the new card does not have support for this in the hardware mixer, but I wonder whether I'm missing something obvious. The card is listed, in lspci, as Audio device: NVIDIA Corporation MCP72XE/MCP72P/MCP78U/MCP78S High Definition Audio (rev a1) And alsamixer lists it as Card: HDA NVidia Chip: Realtek ALC887 Any hints? I have exactly same question/problem, but with Realtek ALC275, not on an nVidia card. As far as I can tell, I only have one capture option in alsamixer, and toggling it on only captures sound picked up by the microphone. Here's my output of amixer: http://remarqs.net/misc/amixer.txt And a screenshot of alsamixer's capture settings: http://remarqs.net/misc/alsamixer-capture.png Very similar to my desktop -- I have *two* capture settings, but I suppose that's because the card has two microphone inputs (front and rear) along with line in, and they probably wanted to allow capture from more than one source at the same time. So, other than another capture option and an option to pick the source, it seems to be the same. I'll see if I can get an older PCI card to try this with, and see if it gives me the capture option I want. -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Nuno J. Silva wrote: On 2012-12-24, Dale wrote: Alan McKinnon wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:03:25 +0200 nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: On 2012-12-23, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:22:24 +0200 nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: [...] What about just mounting /usr as soon as the system boots? Please read the thread next time. The topic under discussion is solutions to the problem of not being able to do exactly that. Then I suppose you can surely explain in a nutshell why can't init scripts simply do that? It is trivially easy to create a circular loop whereby code required to mount /usr now resides on /usr. Which is the entire thrust of this whole thread. When I reboot, I get a lot of errors about /var being empty, since it is not mounted yet. It appears it wants /var as well as /usr early on in the boot process. It boots regardless of the errors tho. For the record Nuno, I have / and /boot on regular partitions. I have everything else, /home, /usr, /var and /usr/portage on LVM partitions. Until recently, I NEVER needed a init thingy and had zero errors while booting. Once this 'needing /usr on /' started a few months ago, I was told I would need one to boot. The claim being it was broken all the time but odd that it worked for the last 9 years with no problem, might add, I only been using Linux for the last 9 years but it also would have worked before that. In your case, does it actually fail without an initrd now? It's just that I see lots of people saying it doesn't work or it will silently fail, that's why I asked the question, I was looking for actual examples of how can this go wrong (other than just because the init scripts don't try to mount /usr before starting udev). Also, how does an initrd help solving the chicken-and-the-egg problem for a missing /usr? I suppose the LVM drivers create additional device files that are only created once udevd is up and running in order to process these events? (With the case of a regular partition being no problem just because linux apparently offers hardcoded files for some partitions in the first ATA controllers.) Well, so far I have stuck with the udev that works without a init thingy. I do have a init thingy for when the udev that requires it is marked stable. The devs are keeping the udev that requires /usr on / masked and/or keyworded until everyone is ready. That was until eudev was announced. Now they are also waiting on eudev to get stable so people can switch to it. I plan to switch too. The problem is this from my understanding. For decades, any commands or config files needed to boot Linux had to be in /bin, /sbin, /etc, and/or /lib. Those directories were what was needed to boot and anything needed to boot a system should be installed into one or more of those directories. Then someone came up with the idea of putting things into /usr instead. When they did that, it broke things. To me, this change makes as much sense as putting the mount command is /usr/bin but that is where some want Linux to go. I have read where some want to basically move about everything to /usr but not sure how much traction that is getting. Basically, something that has worked for decades is declared to be broken all that time and if it wasn't broken, we are going to break it. From my understanding, if I upgrade my system to the later version of udev and bypass the init system, my system will not boot. I have not tested the theory but that is what people have been saying. Not only is my /usr separate but it is on LVM partitons too. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
[gentoo-user] Re: Questions about optimal mplayer settings
On Wed, Dec 19, 2012 at 03:38:15PM +0100, Florian Philipp wrote: Am 19.12.2012 00:20, schrieb Walter Dnes: 1) In the past couple of days I finally figured out what I was doing wrong with hardware acceleration (causing lack thereof) with an onboard Intel GPU in my HTPC machine. I've applied the same fix to my desktop. mplayer now has 5 video output modes that actually show a picture... xv X11/Xv This doesn't use any GPU features. Good compatibility but otherwise not recommended. gl_nosw OpenGL no software rendering Same as gl just that it fails when you have driver issues that prevent it from using the GPU. More like a debugging tool. x11 X11 ( XImage/Shm ) Practically outdated. gl OpenGL Recommended. Should work okay without further tuning but offers a lot of them. Just play around. gl2 X11 (OpenGL) - multiple textures version Unmaintained. Use gl. Which one has the best playback ability? Is there a test program or a torture test video file I can use for testing? 2) When I start up mplayer, the diagnostics include... MMX2 supported but disabled There is no mmx2 in the USE flags or in /proc/cpuinfo That should be USE=mmxext. No clue what's its name in cpuinfo but since you are running something newer than a P3 it should be a safe bet. PS: Have to tried mplayer2? It's mostly compatible but offers no mencoder support but you can install mplayer to get that. It has better threading support and some other minor improvements. Regards, Florian Philipp Which mplayer are you talking about? Your USE flags and info don't match my portage: mingdao@workstation ~ $ emerge -pv mplayer These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild N ] media-plugins/live-2012.01.07 0 kB [ebuild N ] app-arch/unrar-4.2.3 0 kB [ebuild N ] media-libs/libdca-0.0.5-r2 USE=-debug -oss -static-libs 0 kB [ebuild N ] media-libs/xvid-1.3.2 USE=threads -examples -pic 0 kB [ebuild N ] dev-libs/libcdio-0.83 USE=cxx -cddb -minimal -static-libs 0 kB [ebuild N ] media-libs/libdv-1.0.0-r2 USE=sdl -debug -static-libs -xv 0 kB [ebuild N ] x11-libs/libXScrnSaver-1.2.2 USE=-static-libs 0 kB [ebuild N ] media-libs/libtheora-1.1.1 USE=encode -doc -examples -static-libs 0 kB [ebuild N ] media-libs/speex-1.2_rc1 USE=sse -ogg -static-libs 0 kB [ebuild N ] media-video/mplayer-1.1-r1 USE=3dnow 3dnowext X a52 alsa cdio dts dv dvd dvdnav enca encode faad iconv jpeg jpeg2k libass live mmx mmxext mp3 network opengl osdmenu png quicktime rar real rtc sdl shm speex sse sse2 theora toolame tremor truetype twolame unicode vorbis x264 xscreensaver xv xvid -aalib (-altivec) (-aqua) -bidi -bindist -bl -bluray -bs2b -cddb -cdparanoia -cpudetection -debug -dga -directfb -doc -dvb -dxr3 -faac -fbcon -ftp -ggi -gif -gsm -ipv6 -jack -joystick -ladspa -libcaca -libmpeg2 -lirc -lzo -mad -md5sum -mng -nas -nut -openal -oss -pnm -pulseaudio -pvr -radio -rtmp -samba -ssse3 -tga -v4l -vdpau (-vidix) (-win32codecs) -xanim -xinerama -xvmc -zoran VIDEO_CARDS=-mga -s3virge -tdfx 0 kB Total: 10 packages (10 new), Size of downloads: 0 kB mingdao@workstation ~ $ grep mmx /proc/cpuinfo flags : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush mmx fxsr sse sse2 ht syscall nx mmxext fxsr_opt pdpe1gb rdtscp lm 3dnowext 3dnow constant_tsc rep_good nopl nonstop_tsc extd_apicid aperfmperf pni monitor cx16 popcnt lahf_lm cmp_legacy svm extapic cr8_legacy abm sse4a misalignsse 3dnowprefetch osvw ibs skinit wdt cpb hw_pstate npt lbrv svm_lock nrip_save pausefilter -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] 3.7.1 SATA errors
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 11:23:35AM -0800, fe...@crowfix.com wrote: snip, whack, d200d, cough, spit Puhleeeze don't put such long stuff in an email. Have you heard of attachments? pastebins? Your dropbox postings lost me after reading: Please enable browser-cookies to use the Dropbox website. -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
[gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On 2012-12-24, Dale wrote: Nuno J. Silva wrote: On 2012-12-24, Dale wrote: Alan McKinnon wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:03:25 +0200 nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: On 2012-12-23, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:22:24 +0200 nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: [...] What about just mounting /usr as soon as the system boots? Please read the thread next time. The topic under discussion is solutions to the problem of not being able to do exactly that. Then I suppose you can surely explain in a nutshell why can't init scripts simply do that? It is trivially easy to create a circular loop whereby code required to mount /usr now resides on /usr. Which is the entire thrust of this whole thread. When I reboot, I get a lot of errors about /var being empty, since it is not mounted yet. It appears it wants /var as well as /usr early on in the boot process. It boots regardless of the errors tho. For the record Nuno, I have / and /boot on regular partitions. I have everything else, /home, /usr, /var and /usr/portage on LVM partitions. Until recently, I NEVER needed a init thingy and had zero errors while booting. Once this 'needing /usr on /' started a few months ago, I was told I would need one to boot. The claim being it was broken all the time but odd that it worked for the last 9 years with no problem, might add, I only been using Linux for the last 9 years but it also would have worked before that. In your case, does it actually fail without an initrd now? It's just that I see lots of people saying it doesn't work or it will silently fail, that's why I asked the question, I was looking for actual examples of how can this go wrong (other than just because the init scripts don't try to mount /usr before starting udev). Also, how does an initrd help solving the chicken-and-the-egg problem for a missing /usr? I suppose the LVM drivers create additional device files that are only created once udevd is up and running in order to process these events? (With the case of a regular partition being no problem just because linux apparently offers hardcoded files for some partitions in the first ATA controllers.) Well, so far I have stuck with the udev that works without a init thingy. I do have a init thingy for when the udev that requires it is marked stable. The devs are keeping the udev that requires /usr on / masked and/or keyworded until everyone is ready. That was until eudev was announced. Now they are also waiting on eudev to get stable so people can switch to it. I plan to switch too. The problem is this from my understanding. For decades, any commands or config files needed to boot Linux had to be in /bin, /sbin, /etc, and/or /lib. Those directories were what was needed to boot and anything needed to boot a system should be installed into one or more of those directories. Then someone came up with the idea of putting things into /usr instead. When they did that, it broke things. To me, this change makes as much sense as putting the mount command is /usr/bin but that is where some want Linux to go. I have read where some want to basically move about everything to /usr but not sure how much traction that is getting. From my understanding, the problem with udev was that the rules used to process events may require stuff from /usr. Which is OK, as I think the rules may even end up executing random executables. And the sole problem with this is that udev will not wait, it will simply fail in a silent way when applying rules that require stuff from /usr. Now, also, from my understanding, this was already the case for some time (maybe even years?). And that's why I've asked for more details. So, if the udev you use is OK with no initrd, what is in the new udev that actually requires the initrd? Meanwhile, I found https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=446372, which would explain why, all of a sudden, there is a bigger problem. Now, I wonder how is this solved with an initrd, by copying udevd there? If so, why don't we simply install udevd under (or copy its stuff to) / instead of using /usr as $PREFIX? Basically, something that has worked for decades is declared to be broken all that time and if it wasn't broken, we are going to break it. ... yeah... the thing here is that I'm just trying to separate the upstream comments on separate /usr is broken from the actual thing that breaks the boot process. So far, even the stuff from freedesktop I've read stating that separate /usr is broken do not seem to mention that udevd is moving to /usr. From my understanding, if I upgrade my system to the later version of udev and bypass the init system, my system will not boot. I have not tested the theory but that is what people have been saying. Not only is my /usr separate but it is on LVM partitons too. Your problem would be LVM (if that's an issue at all, as I said I don't know LVM), you'd not
[gentoo-user] Ram Problem!
Hello! I am trying to install gentoo on an old armada m700. The specs that I think is relevant for this problem is the clocking speed of the cpu and the ram. It got 223mhz of clocking speed and 116mb ram. I have added 512mb of swap since I knew the ram was going to be a problem. The command I issue is: emerge gentoo-sources and the output of the command is this: http://bpaste.net/raw/66293/ The only thing I can really read from the error message is that it runs out of ram. This surprises me because all it is really doing is moving the kernel sources into place? I asked around in #gentoo on irc.freenode.net and someone adviced me to turn of MAKEOPTS=-j2 and -pipe, but this doesn't fix it. The possible work around I have thought of is just getting the vanilla kernel from kernel.org, but the gentoo wiki advise against it, since gentoo-sources is a patched kernel. This is my first post to a mailing list, so I hope it is not to bad! :D With best regards, - TheRedMood
Re: [gentoo-user] Ram Problem!
There is absolutely no reason why you can't use the vanilla kernel. Go right ahead. On Dec 24, 2012 10:08 AM, Teodor Spæren teodor.s...@hotmail.com wrote: Hello! I am trying to install gentoo on an old armada m700. The specs that I think is relevant for this problem is the clocking speed of the cpu and the ram. It got 223mhz of clocking speed and 116mb ram. I have added 512mb of swap since I knew the ram was going to be a problem. The command I issue is: emerge gentoo-sources and the output of the command is this: http://bpaste.net/raw/66293/ The only thing I can really read from the error message is that it runs out of ram. This surprises me because all it is really doing is moving the kernel sources into place? I asked around in #gentoo on irc.freenode.netand someone adviced me to turn of MAKEOPTS=-j2 and -pipe, but this doesn't fix it. The possible work around I have thought of is just getting the vanilla kernel from kernel.org, but the gentoo wiki advise against it, since gentoo-sources is a patched kernel. This is my first post to a mailing list, so I hope it is not to bad! :D With best regards, - TheRedMood
Re: [Bulk] Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
It was in fact a weirdo corner case since day 1. Right, a weirdo corner case that is part of best practice and the default suggestion on debian stable used on many many servers and for good reason. -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) ___
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Are there any other cases, apart from emotional attachment based on inertia, where a separate / and /usr are desirable? As I see it, there is only the system, and it is an atomic unit. You should really read the thread before posting. -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) ___
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
You are only considering the case of /usr being on a plain hard disk partition, what if it in on an LVM volume, or encrypted (or both) of mounted over the network? All of these require something to be run before they can be mounted, and if that cannot be run until udev has started, we have been painted into a corner. I agree that there will always be a small number of corner-cases where an initr* is required. What annoys me, and probably a lot of other people, is the-dog-in-the-manger attitude http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dog_in_the_Manger where some people seem to say If my weirdo, corner-case system can't boot a separate /usr without an initr* then, by-golly, I'll see to it that *NOBODY* can boot a separate /usr without an initr* Maybe they should swap names with eudev being for obviously functional corner cases aka early udev and the current eudev becoming udev by default as being most correct for most cases. Arguably all cases for a well designed system. -- ___ 'Write programs that do one thing and do it well. Write programs to work together. Write programs to handle text streams, because that is a universal interface' (Doug McIlroy) ___
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Nuno J. Silva nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt wrote: On 2012-12-24, Dale wrote: [snip] Well, so far I have stuck with the udev that works without a init thingy. I do have a init thingy for when the udev that requires it is marked stable. The devs are keeping the udev that requires /usr on / masked and/or keyworded until everyone is ready. That was until eudev was announced. Now they are also waiting on eudev to get stable so people can switch to it. I plan to switch too. The problem is this from my understanding. For decades, any commands or config files needed to boot Linux had to be in /bin, /sbin, /etc, and/or /lib. Those directories were what was needed to boot and anything needed to boot a system should be installed into one or more of those directories. Then someone came up with the idea of putting things into /usr instead. When they did that, it broke things. To me, this change makes as much sense as putting the mount command is /usr/bin but that is where some want Linux to go. I have read where some want to basically move about everything to /usr but not sure how much traction that is getting. From my understanding, the problem with udev was that the rules used to process events may require stuff from /usr. Which is OK, as I think the rules may even end up executing random executables. And the sole problem with this is that udev will not wait, it will simply fail in a silent way when applying rules that require stuff from /usr. Now, also, from my understanding, this was already the case for some time (maybe even years?). And that's why I've asked for more details. So, if the udev you use is OK with no initrd, what is in the new udev that actually requires the initrd? Meanwhile, I found https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=446372, which would explain why, all of a sudden, there is a bigger problem. You found the answer to your own question. Now, I wonder how is this solved with an initrd, by copying udevd there? If so, why don't we simply install udevd under (or copy its stuff to) / instead of using /usr as $PREFIX? An initr* solves the problem by copying all tools necessary to reliably mount /usr to a temporary filesystem loaded at boot (and then discarded). As a solution, this 'works'. Opinions differ strongly on: * The weight of the burden it places on system administrators * The weight of reliability and security concerns which can arise from ** Increased maintenance complexity ** Having separate copies of tools ** Complications arising from maintaining multiple kernel versions on a system, and their corresponding supporting initr* tools. * The elegance of the solution Basically, something that has worked for decades is declared to be broken all that time and if it wasn't broken, we are going to break it. ... yeah... the thing here is that I'm just trying to separate the upstream comments on separate /usr is broken from the actual thing that breaks the boot process. So far, even the stuff from freedesktop I've read stating that separate /usr is broken do not seem to mention that udevd is moving to /usr. Based on one or two emails on the -dev list (I'm really not sure; that list has been flying lately, and it's difficult for me to keep up right now), this may have been an individual action taken by the gentoo maintainer of udevd based on upstreams declaration that they don't give a flying frell about separate /usr contexts, and expect those scenarios to become more and more difficult. If that's the case, I can understand the maintainer's action; upstream mailing lists would let things break over time and respond to reports with we don't support that configuration. The maintainer, not being superhuman, brought the problem to the foreground by putting udevd in a place such that the breakage is more up-front, concentrated and easier for him to mark reports as WONTFIX. The eudevd fork is intended to give people whose separate /usr configurations would fall under WONTFIX territory in udev a place to go. While there are certain to that cases where separate /usr without an initr* is fundamentally impossible, there's still a large number of cases where it ought to work, and more where its failure is the result of software bugs (either in code or in design). From my understanding, if I upgrade my system to the later version of udev and bypass the init system, my system will not boot. I have not tested the theory but that is what people have been saying. Not only is my /usr separate but it is on LVM partitons too. Your problem would be LVM (if that's an issue at all, as I said I don't know LVM), you'd not need udevd to mount /usr if it were a regular partition. you wouldn't have this problem if you did *something else* is a terrible response. There are very good reasons to use LVM. There are good (IMO, at least) reasons to avoid using an initr* on Gentoo. (Those reasons are sprinkled through the
[gentoo-user] Re: Ram Problem!
On 2012-12-24, Teodor Spæren wrote: Hello! I am trying to install gentoo on an old armada m700. The specs that I think is relevant for this problem is the clocking speed of the cpu and the ram. It got 223mhz of clocking speed and 116mb ram. I have added 512mb of swap since I knew the ram was going to be a problem. The command I issue is: emerge gentoo-sources and the output of the command is this: http://bpaste.net/raw/66293/ The only thing I can really read from the error message is that it runs out of ram. This surprises me because all it is really doing is moving the kernel sources into place? I asked around in #gentoo on irc.freenode.net and someone adviced me to turn of MAKEOPTS=-j2 and -pipe, but this doesn't fix it. No surprise here, from what I can see, what's happening is that *emerge* is running out of memory, it's not a compilation, so -pipe or MAKEOPTS won't make any difference here. Are you, by any chance, running anything else on the machine, or maybe you forgot to enable the swap? Even then, unless emerge has changed a lot in the last few years, I doubt you need that much memory to have emerge copy files to /. But check the output of free -m or something like that to check whether 1) there's something else using a lot of memory and 2) the swap is effectiely enabled. The possible work around I have thought of is just getting the vanilla kernel from kernel.org, but the gentoo wiki advise against it, since gentoo-sources is a patched kernel. You can install the vanilla kernel, I think you can even use emerge for that, but I also think your problem here is with emerge running out of memory, not gentoo-sources being incompatible. I'd try to fix whatever the emerge issue is as it will probably prevent you from installing other packages, and that is effectively a major issue when you want to use the system. This is my first post to a mailing list, so I hope it is not to bad! :D With best regards, - TheRedMood -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
RE: [gentoo-user] Ram Problem!
Ohh! Thanks a lot :) Still it would have been useful to know what was causing it to go out of memory.
Re: [gentoo-user] 3.7.1 SATA errors
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 08:35:20AM -0600, Bruce Hill wrote: Puhleeeze don't put such long stuff in an email. Have you heard of attachments? pastebins? I was under the impression that gentoo strips attachments. At any rate, I summarized as much as possible and only put the the full logs at the end. As for the cookies, shrug so many sites require cookies and/or javascript these days that I won't waste my time trying to find one that doesn't. I just make sure they are temporary. -- ... _._. ._ ._. . _._. ._. ___ .__ ._. . .__. ._ .. ._. Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman rocket surgeon / fe...@crowfix.com GPG = E987 4493 C860 246C 3B1E 6477 7838 76E9 182E 8151 ITAR license #4933 I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've run out of room o
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Nuno J. Silva wrote: On 2012-12-24, Dale wrote: Nuno J. Silva wrote: On 2012-12-24, Dale wrote: Alan McKinnon wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:03:25 +0200 nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: On 2012-12-23, Alan McKinnon wrote: On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:22:24 +0200 nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt (Nuno J. Silva) wrote: [...] What about just mounting /usr as soon as the system boots? Please read the thread next time. The topic under discussion is solutions to the problem of not being able to do exactly that. Then I suppose you can surely explain in a nutshell why can't init scripts simply do that? It is trivially easy to create a circular loop whereby code required to mount /usr now resides on /usr. Which is the entire thrust of this whole thread. When I reboot, I get a lot of errors about /var being empty, since it is not mounted yet. It appears it wants /var as well as /usr early on in the boot process. It boots regardless of the errors tho. For the record Nuno, I have / and /boot on regular partitions. I have everything else, /home, /usr, /var and /usr/portage on LVM partitions. Until recently, I NEVER needed a init thingy and had zero errors while booting. Once this 'needing /usr on /' started a few months ago, I was told I would need one to boot. The claim being it was broken all the time but odd that it worked for the last 9 years with no problem, might add, I only been using Linux for the last 9 years but it also would have worked before that. In your case, does it actually fail without an initrd now? It's just that I see lots of people saying it doesn't work or it will silently fail, that's why I asked the question, I was looking for actual examples of how can this go wrong (other than just because the init scripts don't try to mount /usr before starting udev). Also, how does an initrd help solving the chicken-and-the-egg problem for a missing /usr? I suppose the LVM drivers create additional device files that are only created once udevd is up and running in order to process these events? (With the case of a regular partition being no problem just because linux apparently offers hardcoded files for some partitions in the first ATA controllers.) Well, so far I have stuck with the udev that works without a init thingy. I do have a init thingy for when the udev that requires it is marked stable. The devs are keeping the udev that requires /usr on / masked and/or keyworded until everyone is ready. That was until eudev was announced. Now they are also waiting on eudev to get stable so people can switch to it. I plan to switch too. The problem is this from my understanding. For decades, any commands or config files needed to boot Linux had to be in /bin, /sbin, /etc, and/or /lib. Those directories were what was needed to boot and anything needed to boot a system should be installed into one or more of those directories. Then someone came up with the idea of putting things into /usr instead. When they did that, it broke things. To me, this change makes as much sense as putting the mount command is /usr/bin but that is where some want Linux to go. I have read where some want to basically move about everything to /usr but not sure how much traction that is getting. From my understanding, the problem with udev was that the rules used to process events may require stuff from /usr. Which is OK, as I think the rules may even end up executing random executables. And the sole problem with this is that udev will not wait, it will simply fail in a silent way when applying rules that require stuff from /usr. Now, also, from my understanding, this was already the case for some time (maybe even years?). And that's why I've asked for more details. That's the claim but LOTS of people disagree on that. Keep in mind, right now, as my system is, I can boot with /usr on a LVM partition and NO init thingy. If it is broken, why does it work now? Why has it worked from the last 9 years and worked years before that for literally millions of other Linux users? So, if the udev you use is OK with no initrd, what is in the new udev that actually requires the initrd? From my understanding there are files in /usr that are needed for udev to work while booting. If udev doesn't have those files, it doesn't work and the system doesn't boot as it should. Meanwhile, I found https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=446372, which would explain why, all of a sudden, there is a bigger problem. Now, I wonder how is this solved with an initrd, by copying udevd there? If so, why don't we simply install udevd under (or copy its stuff to) / instead of using /usr as $PREFIX? Basically, something that has worked for decades is declared to be broken all that time and if it wasn't broken, we are going to break it. ... yeah... the thing here is that I'm just trying to separate the upstream comments on separate /usr is broken from the actual
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Kevin Chadwick wrote: Are there any other cases, apart from emotional attachment based on inertia, where a separate / and /usr are desirable? As I see it, there is only the system, and it is an atomic unit. You should really read the thread before posting. I suspect that Alan has. Alan is not known to post without knowing what he is talking about. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
RE: [gentoo-user] Re: Ram Problem!
From: nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Ram Problem! Date: Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:32:54 +0200 No surprise here, from what I can see, what's happening is that *emerge* is running out of memory, it's not a compilation, so -pipe or MAKEOPTS won't make any difference here. Are you, by any chance, running anything else on the machine, or maybe you forgot to enable the swap? No, I am running a cli only liverescuecd. There is nothing that should take much swap. Even then, unless emerge has changed a lot in the last few years, I doubt you need that much memory to have emerge copy files to /. But check the output of free -m or something like that to check whether 1) there's something else using a lot of memory and 2) the swap is effectiely enabled. Output of free -m: total used free sharedbuffers cached Mem: 116 41 75 0 2 14 -/+ buffers/cache: 23 92 Swap: 486153332 You can install the vanilla kernel, I think you can even use emerge for that, but I also think your problem here is with emerge running out of memory, not gentoo-sources being incompatible. I'd try to fix whatever the emerge issue is as it will probably prevent you from installing other packages, and that is effectively a major issue when you want to use the system. That is my concern. If I get it working with a vanilla kernel, and then booting into the system, emerge do not work, it was all wasted. With best regards, - TheRedMood
[gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On 2012-12-24, Michael Mol wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Nuno J. Silva nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt wrote: On 2012-12-24, Dale wrote: [...] From my understanding, if I upgrade my system to the later version of udev and bypass the init system, my system will not boot. I have not tested the theory but that is what people have been saying. Not only is my /usr separate but it is on LVM partitons too. Your problem would be LVM (if that's an issue at all, as I said I don't know LVM), you'd not need udevd to mount /usr if it were a regular partition. you wouldn't have this problem if you did *something else* is a terrible response. There are very good reasons to use LVM. There are good (IMO, at least) reasons to avoid using an initr* on Gentoo. (Those reasons are sprinkled through the thread, some spoken by me, some spoken by others.) A shame that was not what I meant at all, the only thing I said was yes, the problem is probably caused by it being on LVM, not because of /usr being separate. Just pointing the specific part of Dale's config that would be the problem. You'll find most of the people in the discussion so far aren't against initr* in all cases. It's the increase in number of cases where it becomes technically required that's a problem. -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
Re: [gentoo-user] 3.7.1 SATA errors
fe...@crowfix.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 08:35:20AM -0600, Bruce Hill wrote: Puhleeeze don't put such long stuff in an email. Have you heard of attachments? pastebins? I was under the impression that gentoo strips attachments. At any rate, I summarized as much as possible and only put the the full logs at the end. As for the cookies, shrug so many sites require cookies and/or javascript these days that I won't waste my time trying to find one that doesn't. I just make sure they are temporary. One bad thing about paste bins, they get removed. Most people on this list prefer them included or attached. That way the error is always available for future reference in the archives. If it is on a paste bin site and it gets removed, then that reference is gone, usually forever. I might add, I don't have a paste bin account either. ;-) Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:56 AM, Nuno J. Silva nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt wrote: On 2012-12-24, Michael Mol wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:06 AM, Nuno J. Silva nunojsi...@ist.utl.pt wrote: On 2012-12-24, Dale wrote: [...] From my understanding, if I upgrade my system to the later version of udev and bypass the init system, my system will not boot. I have not tested the theory but that is what people have been saying. Not only is my /usr separate but it is on LVM partitons too. Your problem would be LVM (if that's an issue at all, as I said I don't know LVM), you'd not need udevd to mount /usr if it were a regular partition. you wouldn't have this problem if you did *something else* is a terrible response. There are very good reasons to use LVM. There are good (IMO, at least) reasons to avoid using an initr* on Gentoo. (Those reasons are sprinkled through the thread, some spoken by me, some spoken by others.) A shame that was not what I meant at all, the only thing I said was yes, the problem is probably caused by it being on LVM, not because of /usr being separate. Just pointing the specific part of Dale's config that would be the problem. Miscommunication, then. Happens. :) -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] 3.7.1 SATA errors
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 07:41:10AM -0800, fe...@crowfix.com wrote: I was under the impression that gentoo strips attachments. At any rate, I summarized as much as possible and only put the the full logs at the end. As for the cookies, shrug so many sites require cookies and/or javascript these days that I won't waste my time trying to find one Would you consider our own pastebin from portage? emerge -av app-text/wgetpaste wgetpaste /path/to/3.6/.config /path/to/3.7/.config You can pastebin them both at the same time, in the same paste, and include a link. I ask for both because there might be other options other than the ones you noted, and we can use vimdiff on the two files side-by-side, which IMO makes it very easy to see the differences. Also can you dmesg | wgetpaste and note the uname -srm output? Thanks, Bruce -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Michael Mol wrote: you wouldn't have this problem if you did *something else* is a terrible response. There are very good reasons to use LVM. There are good (IMO, at least) reasons to avoid using an initr* on Gentoo. (Those reasons are sprinkled through the thread, some spoken by me, some spoken by others.) You'll find most of the people in the discussion so far aren't against initr* in all cases. It's the increase in number of cases where it becomes technically required that's a problem. -- :wq You are right on LVM. I put / on a normal partition specifically because I wanted to avoid a init thingy. Only / and /boot are on normal partitions, everything else is on LVM. LVM takes a bit to get used to but when you run out of space or have way to much space, you can move things around easily. LVM is the best move I made in a good while. Thanks to all the folks who helped be convert too. :-D Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Ram Problem!
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 04:05:44PM +0100, Teodor Spæren wrote: The possible work around I have thought of is just getting the vanilla kernel from kernel.org, but the gentoo wiki advise against it, since gentoo-sources is a patched kernel. With all due respect, Gentoo is the only distro using a Gentoo patched kernel. It's not really necessary, and NONE of the 8 comps in our shop runs any of the gentoo provided kernel sources. Just get the kernel.org of your choice and: mingdao@baruch ~/kernel $ wget http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v3.0/linux-3.4.24.tar.bz2 Change the version for whichever one you desire. -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Dale wrote: Michael Mol wrote: you wouldn't have this problem if you did *something else* is a terrible response. There are very good reasons to use LVM. There are good (IMO, at least) reasons to avoid using an initr* on Gentoo. (Those reasons are sprinkled through the thread, some spoken by me, some spoken by others.) You'll find most of the people in the discussion so far aren't against initr* in all cases. It's the increase in number of cases where it becomes technically required that's a problem. -- :wq You are right on LVM. I put / on a normal partition specifically because I wanted to avoid a init thingy. Only / and /boot are on normal partitions, everything else is on LVM. LVM takes a bit to get used to but when you run out of space or have way to much space, you can move things around easily. LVM is the best move I made in a good while. Thanks to all the folks who helped be convert too. :-D Dale :-) :-) *me* convert. I proofed it three times and still missed that. I'm a awful typer and getting to be a bad proof reader too. :/ Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Ram Problem!
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 04:52:27PM +0100, Teodor Spæren wrote: That is my concern. If I get it working with a vanilla kernel, and then booting into the system, emerge do not work, it was all wasted. You may want to consider a swap file: http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/linux-add-a-swap-file-howto/ NB: I don't know how well it's going to help with Gentoo. It's been close to a decade, if not longer, since I've used a machine with such limits, and we only installed binary system to them. There is tinderbox for Gentoo, if that would help any at all: http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/ -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] 3.7.1 SATA errors
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:07:04AM -0600, Bruce Hill wrote: Would you consider our own pastebin from portage? Sure, in progress. I'll have to read up on this pastebin stuff. -- ... _._. ._ ._. . _._. ._. ___ .__ ._. . .__. ._ .. ._. Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman rocket surgeon / fe...@crowfix.com GPG = E987 4493 C860 246C 3B1E 6477 7838 76E9 182E 8151 ITAR license #4933 I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've run out of room o
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Dec 24, 2012 10:00 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: I have not tested the theory but that is what people have been saying. Not only is my /usr separate but it is on LVM partitons too. If I recall correctly, easy repartitioning was supposed to be one of the main reasons wy LVM was made in the first place. ;)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 05:06:41PM +0200, Nuno J. Silva wrote: Now, also, from my understanding, this was already the case for some time (maybe even years?). And that's why I've asked for more details. So, if the udev you use is OK with no initrd, what is in the new udev that actually requires the initrd? eselect news read is yore frnd ;) 2012-03-16-udev-181-unmasking Title udev-181 unmasking AuthorWilliam Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org Posted2012-03-16 Revision 1 udev-181 is being unmasked on 2012-03-19. This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of udev =181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot your system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr. An initramfs which does this is created by =sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25.1 or =sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be sure any initramfs you create pre-mounts /usr. Also, if you are using OpenRC, you must upgrade to = openrc-0.9.9. For more information on why this has been done, see the following URL: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken You can read that systemd is *THE* problem, not udev, and that until the primma donnas fubared udev by jamming systemd into it, There Was No Such Problem (TM). And that explains where the train jumped the track... -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Dale wrote: Michael Mol wrote: you wouldn't have this problem if you did *something else* is a terrible response. There are very good reasons to use LVM. There are good (IMO, at least) reasons to avoid using an initr* on Gentoo. (Those reasons are sprinkled through the thread, some spoken by me, some spoken by others.) You'll find most of the people in the discussion so far aren't against initr* in all cases. It's the increase in number of cases where it becomes technically required that's a problem. -- :wq You are right on LVM. I put / on a normal partition specifically because I wanted to avoid a init thingy. Only / and /boot are on normal partitions, everything else is on LVM. LVM takes a bit to get used to but when you run out of space or have way to much space, you can move things around easily. LVM is the best move I made in a good while. Thanks to all the folks who helped be convert too. :-D Dale :-) :-) *me* convert. I proofed it three times and still missed that. I'm a awful typer and getting to be a bad proof reader too. :/ Dale Lay off the eggnog, Dale. Too early yet. :P -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 12:25:02AM +0800, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
On Dec 24, 2012 10:00 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
I have not
tested the theory but that is what people have been saying. Not only is
my /usr separate but it is on LVM partitons too.
If I recall correctly, easy repartitioning was supposed to be one of the
main reasons wy LVM was made in the first place. ;)
mingdao@server ~ $ df -hT
Filesystem Type Size Used Avail Use% Mounted on
rootfs rootfs2.0G 93M 1.9G 5% /
/dev/rootxfs 2.0G 93M 1.9G 5% /
tmpfstmpfs 3.0G 284K 3.0G 1% /run
udev devtmpfs 10M 4.0K 10M 1% /dev
shm tmpfs 3.0G 0 3.0G 0% /dev/shm
cgroup_root tmpfs 10M 0 10M 0% /sys/fs/cgroup
/dev/mapper/system-var xfs10G 737M 9.3G 8% /var
/dev/mapper/system-usr xfs10G 4.3G 5.8G 43% /usr
/dev/mapper/system-home xfs 6.0G 5.0G 1023M 84% /home
/dev/mapper/storage-photos xfs 500G 19G 482G 4% /photos
/dev/mapper/storage-backups xfs 500G 313G 188G 63% /backups
/dev/mapper/storage-offload fuseblk 300G 262G 39G 88% /offload
/dev/mapper/storage-peterxfs25G 1.7G 24G 7% /peter
/dev/mapper/storage-jeremiah xfs10G 2.5G 7.5G 25% /jeremiah
server ~ # vgdisplay
--- Volume group ---
VG Name storage
System ID
Formatlvm2
Metadata Areas1
Metadata Sequence No 10
VG Access read/write
VG Status resizable
MAX LV0
Cur LV5
Open LV 5
Max PV0
Cur PV1
Act PV1
VG Size 1.82 TiB
PE Size 4.00 MiB
Total PE 476834
Alloc PE / Size 341760 / 1.30 TiB
Free PE / Size 135074 / 527.63 GiB
VG UUID 5ifFA3-FEME-tAne-s8pd-D5Zr-5MhY-GzLjGS
--- Volume group ---
VG Name system
System ID
Formatlvm2
Metadata Areas1
Metadata Sequence No 7
VG Access read/write
VG Status resizable
MAX LV0
Cur LV3
Open LV 3
Max PV0
Cur PV1
Act PV1
VG Size 64.29 GiB
PE Size 4.00 MiB
Total PE 16459
Alloc PE / Size 6656 / 26.00 GiB
Free PE / Size 9803 / 38.29 GiB
VG UUID vxWFrl-cfeA-YTGe-oMCF-Muei-wSbe-uLKiq9
mingdao@server ~ $ cat /proc/mdstat
Personalities : [linear] [raid0] [raid1] [raid10] [raid6] [raid5] [raid4]
[multipath]
md3 : active raid10 sdg1[2] sde1[0] sdh1[3] sdf1[1]
1953115136 blocks super 1.2 512K chunks 2 near-copies [4/4] []
md1 : active raid6 sdc2[2] sdd2[3] sdb2[1] sda2[0]
67418112 blocks level 6, 512k chunk, algorithm 2 [4/4] []
md0 : active raid1 sdc1[2] sdd1[3] sdb1[1] sda1[0]
2097088 blocks [4/4] []
unused devices: none
mingdao@server ~ $ egrep -v (^#|^ *$) /etc/fstab
/dev/md0/ xfs inode64,logbsize=262144
0 1
/var/swapfile1 swapswapdefaults
0 0
/dev/system/var /varxfs defaults
0 0
/dev/system/usr /usrxfs defaults
0 0
/dev/system/home/home xfs defaults
0 0
/dev/storage/photos /photos xfs users,rw
0 0
/dev/storage/backups/backupsxfs users,rw
0 0
/dev/storage/offload/offloadntfsdefaults
0 0
/dev/storage/peter /peter xfs defaults
0 0
/dev/storage/jeremiah /jeremiah xfs defaults
0 0
/dev/cdrom /mnt/cdrom autonoauto,ro
0 0
mingdao@server ~ $ egrep -v (^#|^ *$) /etc/lilo.conf
compact
lba32
boot = /dev/md0
raid-extra-boot = mbr-only
map = /boot/.map
install = /boot/boot-menu.b # Note that for lilo-22.5.5 or later you
# do not need boot-{text,menu,bmp}.b in
# /boot, as they are linked into the lilo
# binary.
menu-scheme=Wb
prompt
timeout=50
append=panic=10 nomce dolvm domdadm rootfstype=xfs
image = /boot/vmlinuz
root = /dev/md0
label = Gentoo
read-only # Partitions should be mounted read-only for checking
image = /boot/vmlinuz.old
root = /dev/md0
label = Gentoo-def
read-only # Partitions should be mounted read-only for checking
No initrd...
--
Happy
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 3.7.1 SATA errors
content omitted from reply This time it has 4 attachments; afaik there were zero attachments the first time (deleted email here so can't check now). No worries, files here now. Do you have a /var/log/messages (might be in rotated, gzipped one even) that includes the 3.6.10 *and* 3.7.1 boot? -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] 3.7.1 SATA errors
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:07:04AM -0600, Bruce Hill wrote: emerge -av app-text/wgetpaste wgetpaste /path/to/3.6/.config /path/to/3.7/.config 3.6.10 .config -- http://bpaste.net/show/66307/ 3.7.1 .config -- http://bpaste.net/show/66309/ Also can you dmesg | wgetpaste and note the uname -srm output? 3.6.10 dmesg -- http://bpaste.net/show/66310/ uname -srm: Linux 3.6.10-gentoo x86_64 A couple of others: My partial transcription of the 3.7.1 boot error messages: http://bpaste.net/show/66311/ 3.6.10 emerge --info: http://bpaste.net/show/66312/ I also added all this to the Dropbox dir. -- ... _._. ._ ._. . _._. ._. ___ .__ ._. . .__. ._ .. ._. Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman rocket surgeon / fe...@crowfix.com GPG = E987 4493 C860 246C 3B1E 6477 7838 76E9 182E 8151 ITAR license #4933 I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've run out of room o
Re: [gentoo-user] 3.7.1 SATA errors
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 07:41:10AM -0800, fe...@crowfix.com wrote: I was under the impression that gentoo strips attachments. At any rate, I summarized as much as possible and only put the the full logs at the end. Looks like the attachments got thru. I will try to remember that. -- ... _._. ._ ._. . _._. ._. ___ .__ ._. . .__. ._ .. ._. Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman rocket surgeon / fe...@crowfix.com GPG = E987 4493 C860 246C 3B1E 6477 7838 76E9 182E 8151 ITAR license #4933 I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've run out of room o
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Dec 24, 2012 11:46 PM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 05:06:41PM +0200, Nuno J. Silva wrote: Now, also, from my understanding, this was already the case for some time (maybe even years?). And that's why I've asked for more details. So, if the udev you use is OK with no initrd, what is in the new udev that actually requires the initrd? eselect news read is yore frnd ;) 2012-03-16-udev-181-unmasking Title udev-181 unmasking AuthorWilliam Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org Posted2012-03-16 Revision 1 udev-181 is being unmasked on 2012-03-19. This news item is to inform you that once you upgrade to a version of udev =181, if you have /usr on a separate partition, you must boot your system with an initramfs which pre-mounts /usr. An initramfs which does this is created by =sys-kernel/genkernel-3.4.25.1 or =sys-kernel/dracut-017-r1. If you do not want to use these tools, be sure any initramfs you create pre-mounts /usr. Also, if you are using OpenRC, you must upgrade to = openrc-0.9.9. For more information on why this has been done, see the following URL: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken You can read that systemd is *THE* problem, not udev, and that until the primma donnas fubared udev by jamming systemd into it, There Was No Such Problem (TM). And that explains where the train jumped the track... BINGO! I'm an Enterprise SysAdmin, and for me things that happen 'at the same time' with 'details hidden because it clutters the screen' means lost weekends trying to figure out what went wrong during boot. I absolutely *love* OpenRC for it clearly, explicitly shows what steps took place during initialization. I dislike Upstart, but I hate SystemD. An init is exactly that : INITial system state. Not something that wants to be-all and end-all like systemd. That is exactly the reason when udev started to drift -- no, *veer* -- towards systemd, I embraced Walter Dnes' solution of mdev. Sorry if slightly off-topic. Rgds, --
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Michael Mol wrote: Lay off the eggnog, Dale. Too early yet. :P -- :wq For me it is NyQuil. I'm still battling the flu. I'm kicking butt but getting mine kicked at the same time. Other than NyQuil, no alcohol here. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Bruce Hill wrote: SNIP No initrd... YET!!! ROFL When eudev goes stable, then we can disregard that yet. ;-) Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:05:25AM -0600, Dale wrote: Bruce Hill wrote: SNIP No initrd... YET!!! ROFL When eudev goes stable, then we can disregard that yet. ;-) Dale devfs still works wonderfully ... for principle, if no other reason, that file server will *NEVER* have an initrd image -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: 3.7.1 SATA errors
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 10:53:34AM -0600, Bruce Hill wrote: This time it has 4 attachments; afaik there were zero attachments the first time (deleted email here so can't check now). No worries, files here now. Yes, I originally sent no attachments, since I thought the mailing list stripped them. Do you have a /var/log/messages (might be in rotated, gzipped one even) that includes the 3.6.10 *and* 3.7.1 boot? Can't do anything for 3.7.1, since it never boots. Here is the 3.6.10 file, from boot until all disks are found: http://bpaste.net/show/66317/ -- ... _._. ._ ._. . _._. ._. ___ .__ ._. . .__. ._ .. ._. Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman rocket surgeon / fe...@crowfix.com GPG = E987 4493 C860 246C 3B1E 6477 7838 76E9 182E 8151 ITAR license #4933 I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've run out of room o
[gentoo-user] Looks like a nasty bug in portage .38
I'm on ~amd64. Updated portage in the morning. But it seems the .38 version has a nasty bug. It freezes the system every single time I try to compile a cross tool chain. I tried with various options, like reducing make jobs, etc, but didn't help. Back to .31 and things seem to be moving better. Anyone else faced this? -- Nilesh Govindrajan http://nileshgr.com
[gentoo-user] Re: android and mtp
On 2012-12-24, Nilesh Govindrajan m...@nileshgr.com wrote: On Monday 24 December 2012 09:24:16 AM IST, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2012-12-23, luis jure l...@internet.com.uy wrote: on 2012-12-22 at 17:13 Alan McKinnon wrote: Now, imagine you are the guy at Samsung deciding what features the S2 will support. Which option you gonna pick? yeah, you're right, i guess. but for once i'd like the guys at the corporations to think like me, and not to be forced to think like them... I'm glad they chose MTP: I want my phone to continue to work while I'm transferring files. In order to mount the filesystem via USB, the phone would have to unmount it (which means it's nothing but a flash drive). In order to mount the filesystem via USB, it also means they'd be forced to use VFAT for the Linux root filesystem, and that sucks bad. They still use VFAT for the so called sdcard (my Xperia S has internal storage, not extensible). That's understandable. But for phones with only a single flash device (like my Nexus Galaxy), using MTP is the only sensical thing to do. If you want to access only the SD card, then VFAT and USB mass storage works (well, it works as well as VFAT allows). -- Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] 3.7.1 SATA errors
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 11:23:35AM -0800, fe...@crowfix.com wrote: snip, whack, d200d, cough, spit Puhleeeze don't put such long stuff in an email. Have you heard of attachments? pastebins? Felix, Personally, after years reading LKML, I have no problem with in-line text of _any_ length, especially on the initial post or when you are asked to respond with detailed info. While I understand Bruce's comment I don't think it represents a democratic picture of what this list has been comfortable with over the years. That said, what I do have a BIG problem with is people responding and not taking the time to edit the response down to a few lines that make it clear about what their point is. Many responses to 1000 line emails are 1001 lines - the responder adds a one-liner. That's a real waste. It's a trade off. It's less likely that some of us will go read pastebin stuff, and if we want to respond technically then that's leaving us to copy/paste responses which I'm personally less likely to do. Anyway, you pays your money, you takes your chance... ;-) Cheers, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] 3.7.1 SATA errors
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 6:35 AM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 11:23:35AM -0800, fe...@crowfix.com wrote: snip, whack, d200d, cough, spit Puhleeeze don't put such long stuff in an email. Have you heard of attachments? pastebins? Felix, Personally, after years reading LKML, I have no problem with in-line text of _any_ length, especially on the initial post or when you are asked to respond with detailed info. While I understand Bruce's comment I don't think it represents a democratic picture of what this list has been comfortable with over the years. Agreed. That said, what I do have a BIG problem with is people responding and not taking the time to edit the response down to a few lines that make it clear about what their point is. Many responses to 1000 line emails are 1001 lines - the responder adds a one-liner. That's a real waste. Guilty. To be fair, I try to properly snip and edit when I can, but if I'm responding from my phone (more often than not, of late), getting that kind of editing work in is very difficult. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: android and mtp
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 1:17 PM, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-12-24, Nilesh Govindrajan m...@nileshgr.com wrote: On Monday 24 December 2012 09:24:16 AM IST, Grant Edwards wrote: I'm glad they chose MTP: I want my phone to continue to work while I'm transferring files. In order to mount the filesystem via USB, the phone would have to unmount it (which means it's nothing but a flash drive). In order to mount the filesystem via USB, it also means they'd be forced to use VFAT for the Linux root filesystem, and that sucks bad. They still use VFAT for the so called sdcard (my Xperia S has internal storage, not extensible). That's understandable. But for phones with only a single flash device (like my Nexus Galaxy), using MTP is the only sensical thing to do. If you want to access only the SD card, then VFAT and USB mass storage works (well, it works as well as VFAT allows). To a very limited extent. If you have running programs on the phone, they may very well depend on being able to write to the SD card, and may crash if the SD card is removed. In Android, there is _no_ internal storage space for application data; only application code. If an application is supposed to retain data, it needs to be able to put it on the SD card. Similarly, it's very common to move user-installed applications from internal memory to the phone (for many apps, this doesn't require rooting the phone). This is problematic if the filesystem is yanked out from under them while they're running. VFAT is not designed for concurrent access, and should not be used if MTP can be made to work. MTP is there specifically to allow the filesystem to be available to multiple consumers...that of the device and that of the machine the device is plugged into. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:58:15 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: So, Nuno, everything was fine until they started moving things to a place where it shouldn't be. No Dale, that is just flat out wrong. There is no such thing as place where stuff should be. There are only conventions, and like all conventions, rituals, fashions and traditions these are prone to breakage when things move on. Things move on because they become way more complex than the designer of the convention thought they would (or could). The truth is simply this (derived from empirical observation): Long ago we had established conventions about / and /usr; mostly because the few sysadmins around agreed on some things. In those days there was no concept of a packager or maintainer, there was only a sysadmin. This person was a lot like me - he decided and if you didn't like it that was tough. So things stayed as they were for a very long time. Thankfully, it is not like that anymore and the distinction between / and /usr is now so blurry there might as well not be a distinction. Which is good as the distinction wasn't exactly a good thing from day 1 either - it was useful for terminal servers (only by convention) and let the sysadmin keep his treasured uptime (which only proves he isn't doing kernel maintenance...) I'm sorry you bought into the crap about / and /usr that people of my ilk foisted on you, but the time for that is past, and things move on. If there is to be a convention, there can be only one that makes any sense: / and /usr are essentially the same, so put your stuff anywhere you want it to be. ironically this no gives you the ultimate in choice, not the false one you had for years. So if your /usr is say 8G, then enlarge / bu that amount, move /usr over and retain all your mount points as the were. Now for the foreseeable future anything you might want to hotplug at launch time stands a very good chance of working as expected. You will only need an initrd if you have / on striped RAID or LVM or similar, but that is a boot strap problem not a /usr problem (and you do not have such a setup). Right now you need an initrd anyway to boot such setups. The design of separate / and /usr on modern machines IS broken by design. It is fragile and causes problems in the large case. This doesn't mean YOUR system is broken and won't boot, it means it causes unnecessary hassle in the whole ecosystem, and the fix is to change behaviour and layout to something more appropriate to what we have today. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:05:25AM -0600, Dale wrote: Bruce Hill wrote: SNIP No initrd... YET!!! ROFL When eudev goes stable, then we can disregard that yet. ;-) Dale devfs still works wonderfully ... for principle, if no other reason, that file server will *NEVER* have an initrd image You shouldn't need to wait for eudev. Technically any early mount system configured and done _before_ udev should do the trick. I mean, it's not like udev is even *essential* for boot - that we happen to depend on it is just a matter of convenience. Shouldn't be hard to write an rc script that does just that for anyone that hates init thingies bad enough. Just hardcode an n-second sleep and plug in the kernel detected device name. Do rc scripts count as init thingies? :) -- This email is:[ ] actionable [ ] fyi[x] social Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate[ ] soon [x] none
RE: [gentoo-user] Re: Ram Problem!
You may want to consider a swap file: http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/linux-add-a-swap-file-howto/ I have already done this. I had some problems trying to compile gcc, so I learned it then. NB: I don't know how well it's going to help with Gentoo. It's been close to a decade, if not longer, since I've used a machine with such limits, and we only installed binary system to them. There is tinderbox for Gentoo, if that would help any at all: http://tinderbox.dev.gentoo.org/ I don't know what tinderbox is, but I'll have to look it up. I thought that gentoo would be perfect for such an old system, except for the long compile times :3 With all due respect, Gentoo is the only distro using a Gentoo patched kernel. It's not really necessary, and NONE of the 8 comps in our shop runs any of the gentoo provided kernel sources. Just get the kernel.org of your choice and: Yeah, that is what I thought! After doing an LFS install, I don't even know the benefit of the patched kernel. Change the version for whichever one you desire. Thanks :) I use curl, but I guess it is the same with some command diffrence. It seems that I have gotten the general idea. Since there are non who really can give me a reason it won't work I will go for a vanilla kernel. Thanks so much for the helpful answers. With best regards, - TheRedMood
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Alan McKinnon wrote: On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:58:15 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: So, Nuno, everything was fine until they started moving things to a place where it shouldn't be. No Dale, that is just flat out wrong. There is no such thing as place where stuff should be. There are only conventions, and like all conventions, rituals, fashions and traditions these are prone to breakage when things move on. Things move on because they become way more complex than the designer of the convention thought they would (or could). The truth is simply this (derived from empirical observation): Long ago we had established conventions about / and /usr; mostly because the few sysadmins around agreed on some things. In those days there was no concept of a packager or maintainer, there was only a sysadmin. This person was a lot like me - he decided and if you didn't like it that was tough. So things stayed as they were for a very long time. Thankfully, it is not like that anymore and the distinction between / and /usr is now so blurry there might as well not be a distinction. Which is good as the distinction wasn't exactly a good thing from day 1 either - it was useful for terminal servers (only by convention) and let the sysadmin keep his treasured uptime (which only proves he isn't doing kernel maintenance...) I'm sorry you bought into the crap about / and /usr that people of my ilk foisted on you, but the time for that is past, and things move on. If there is to be a convention, there can be only one that makes any sense: / and /usr are essentially the same, so put your stuff anywhere you want it to be. ironically this no gives you the ultimate in choice, not the false one you had for years. So if your /usr is say 8G, then enlarge / bu that amount, move /usr over and retain all your mount points as the were. Now for the foreseeable future anything you might want to hotplug at launch time stands a very good chance of working as expected. You will only need an initrd if you have / on striped RAID or LVM or similar, but that is a boot strap problem not a /usr problem (and you do not have such a setup). Right now you need an initrd anyway to boot such setups. The design of separate / and /usr on modern machines IS broken by design. It is fragile and causes problems in the large case. This doesn't mean YOUR system is broken and won't boot, it means it causes unnecessary hassle in the whole ecosystem, and the fix is to change behaviour and layout to something more appropriate to what we have today. The problems with that is these: It worked ALL these years, why should it not now? I have / on a traditional partition which is not going to resize easily. If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy. I don't want a init thingy or I would have put / on LVM too. I made / large enough that I would not fill it up in the lifetime of this system but not large enough to absorb /usr. If I am going to have to redo all my partitions yet again, I will not use LVM. I use LVM to eliminate this EXACT problem. I got tired of running out of space and having to move stuff around all the time. So, worked for ages, then it breaks when people change where they put things. Answer is, don't change where you put things. Then things still work for most everyone, including me. I'm not a programmer nor am I a rocket scientist but even I can see that. If I can see it, I have no idea why a programmer can't other than being willingly blinded. ;-) Udev/systemd seems to be the problem. How do I come to that conclusion, eudev people says they will support separate /usr with no init thingy. Either the eudev folks are rocket scientist type programmers and the udev/systemd people are playing with fire crackers or there is a way for this to work with udev/systemd to, IF they wanted it to work. Thing is, they have some grand scheme to force people to their way of doing things, which includes a init thingy. Since there is a way to continue with the old way, which has worked for decades, guess what I am going to do? Yep, I'm going to jump off the udev ship and onto the eudev ship. The eudev ship may be old and traditional but it works like I expect. Now if others want to stay on the current ship, works for me too. I'm just not liking the meals served on the udev ship anymore. I might add, one of the reasons I left Mandriva was because of the init thingy that kept giving me grief. If I have to use that thing on Gentoo, the first time it breaks, I'm going to a binary install. If I am going to put up with that mess, I may as well have something that installs quickly. That was one thing I liked about Mandriva, install was really easy. It still is. Ubuntu is too. Actually, they look a lot alike to me. Everyone can have their opinion but I also have mine. This worked fine for ages until udev/systemd came along. That's my opinion and I don't think I am alone on that. Dale :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 3:00 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Alan McKinnon wrote: [snip] The problems with that is these: It worked ALL these years, why should it not now? I have / on a traditional partition which is not going to resize easily. If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy. I don't want a init thingy or I would have put / on LVM too. I made / large enough that I would not fill it up in the lifetime of this system but not large enough to absorb /usr. If I am going to have to redo all my partitions yet again, I will not use LVM. I use LVM to eliminate this EXACT problem. I got tired of running out of space and having to move stuff around all the time. So, worked for ages, then it breaks when people change where they put things. Answer is, don't change where you put things. Then things still work for most everyone, including me. I'm not a programmer nor am I a rocket scientist but even I can see that. If I can see it, I have no idea why a programmer can't other than being willingly blinded. ;-) Udev/systemd seems to be the problem. How do I come to that conclusion, eudev people says they will support separate /usr with no init thingy. Either the eudev folks are rocket scientist type programmers and the udev/systemd people are playing with fire crackers or there is a way for this to work with udev/systemd to, IF they wanted it to work. Thing is, they have some grand scheme to force people to their way of doing things, which includes a init thingy. Since there is a way to continue with the old way, which has worked for decades, guess what I am going to do? Yep, I'm going to jump off the udev ship and onto the eudev ship. The eudev ship may be old and traditional but it works like I expect. Now if others want to stay on the current ship, works for me too. I'm just not liking the meals served on the udev ship anymore. I might add, one of the reasons I left Mandriva was because of the init thingy that kept giving me grief. If I have to use that thing on Gentoo, the first time it breaks, I'm going to a binary install. If I am going to put up with that mess, I may as well have something that installs quickly. That was one thing I liked about Mandriva, install was really easy. It still is. Ubuntu is too. Actually, they look a lot alike to me. Everyone can have their opinion but I also have mine. This worked fine for ages until udev/systemd came along. That's my opinion and I don't think I am alone on that. Dale What's really missing on Gentoo to make this effectively painless (even if I'd still think it hackish design) is strong automation for updating kernels and initrd images. genkernel and dracut both try to achieve it, but I don't think they've really hit the mark yet...and there'd almost have to be integration with portage to make things truly clean...but safely autobuilding kernels is a very hard problem. And then there's building and pulling in out-of-mainline kernel modules. And I don't think there's enough people with the time and interest in getting either tool updated enough that the initrd experience is as clean as it is in, say, Debian or Ubuntu. It'd be a major undertaking. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] problem with lilo and one of my kernels
On Sun, Dec 23, 2012 at 09:27:13PM -0500, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 05:40:05AM -0500, cov...@ccs.covici.com wrote Hi. Today on one of my test kernels where I am using git bisect to find a bug, I got the following when running lilo: Boot image: /boot/vmlinuz-3.6.0-rc4-00011-g2273929-dirty Fatal: Setup length exceeds 63 maximum; kernel setup will overwrite boot loader See messages #12 and #14 in http://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/slackware-14/lilo-setup-length-exceeds-63-maximum%3B-943467/ I think that is where it said to upgrade lilo, but I have the latest version and no joy. That's not how I read that website. Could you post 2 items, to help us figure out what might be going wrong? 1) The output from ls -l /boot/ as well as any subdirectories in /boot 2) Your /etc/lilo.conf -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP The problems with that is these: It worked ALL these years, why should it not now? I have / on a traditional partition which is not going to resize easily. If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy. I don't want a init thingy Is that really true? Do you _really_ care whether an 'init thingy' exists on your system, or is this energy about it really based in something else? I'm just not understanding the resistance so I'm curious. I don't like, really don't like, the work that currently goes into making my 'init thingy' work. All the Gentoo docs about creating hierarchies by hand and populating them with files and then compressing it. All that drives me nuts. It should be 100% automatic, and probably is with the right tools which I haven't found. But I'm not understanding why you are so against it in totality. It would be one thing to say that it's too much work. That I understand, but not wanting one seems a bit overboard to me... - Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy. No you don't. You could use a boot partition. Or grub2. So, worked for ages, then it breaks when people change where they put things. Answer is, don't change where you put things. Then things still work for most everyone, including me. I'm not a programmer nor am I a rocket scientist but even I can see that. If I can see it, I have no idea why a programmer can't other than being willingly blinded. ;-) You have no idea why it's being deprecated because you STAUNCHLY REFUSE TO READ why so, even when it's blatantly being spelled out over and over again why it's being done that way. recap: many packages depending on udev keep putting stuff in their udev rules that depend on binaries in /usr. It's not udev's responsibility to fix or maintain these packages. Does it work for you? Ok. That doesn't mean it isn't broken. There's a couple of documents [1] [2] that spell out what /usr is supposed to be, and for many distros, it's _failing_ to meet those standards. [1] http://www.tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesystem-Hierarchy/html/usr.html [2] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEUSRHIERARCHY Again: /usr, according to what it's supposed to be, is deeply broken for a large number of distros. Even when it works - for you. / merging with /usr (or /, wherever the rest of the programs are supposed to be) actually fixes the breakage, because then udev or whatever programs in / can't be out of sync with the programs it depends on. The analogy here is like when people complained to Ted Tso that ext4 was not as stable was ext3 (exhibiting the same corruption problems as seen in xfs). No, that's not true. ext3 just happened to have a quirky behavior that gave the illusion of stability (the writes still failed to reach the disk) _for programs that were written broken_. Come ext4, which actually behaves as the standard is supposed to, and people complain that ext4 is the broken one. It isn't. Hm, was that a knock from the ghost of Unix past? Since there is a way to continue with the old way, which has worked for decades, Yes there is one. An init thingy is just one of them and the means to automatically make one is already available to all distros. Another thing you could do is run an early mount script prior to running udev. -- This email is:[ ] actionable [ ] fyi[x] social Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate[ ] soon [x] none
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 14:00:39 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Alan McKinnon wrote: On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:58:15 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: So, Nuno, everything was fine until they started moving things to a place where it shouldn't be. No Dale, that is just flat out wrong. There is no such thing as place where stuff should be. There are only conventions, and like all conventions, rituals, fashions and traditions these are prone to breakage when things move on. Things move on because they become way more complex than the designer of the convention thought they would (or could). The truth is simply this (derived from empirical observation): Long ago we had established conventions about / and /usr; mostly because the few sysadmins around agreed on some things. In those days there was no concept of a packager or maintainer, there was only a sysadmin. This person was a lot like me - he decided and if you didn't like it that was tough. So things stayed as they were for a very long time. Thankfully, it is not like that anymore and the distinction between / and /usr is now so blurry there might as well not be a distinction. Which is good as the distinction wasn't exactly a good thing from day 1 either - it was useful for terminal servers (only by convention) and let the sysadmin keep his treasured uptime (which only proves he isn't doing kernel maintenance...) I'm sorry you bought into the crap about / and /usr that people of my ilk foisted on you, but the time for that is past, and things move on. If there is to be a convention, there can be only one that makes any sense: / and /usr are essentially the same, so put your stuff anywhere you want it to be. ironically this no gives you the ultimate in choice, not the false one you had for years. So if your /usr is say 8G, then enlarge / bu that amount, move /usr over and retain all your mount points as the were. Now for the foreseeable future anything you might want to hotplug at launch time stands a very good chance of working as expected. You will only need an initrd if you have / on striped RAID or LVM or similar, but that is a boot strap problem not a /usr problem (and you do not have such a setup). Right now you need an initrd anyway to boot such setups. The design of separate / and /usr on modern machines IS broken by design. It is fragile and causes problems in the large case. This doesn't mean YOUR system is broken and won't boot, it means it causes unnecessary hassle in the whole ecosystem, and the fix is to change behaviour and layout to something more appropriate to what we have today. The problems with that is these: It worked ALL these years, why should it not now? I have / on a traditional partition which is not going to resize easily. If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy. I don't want a init thingy or I would have put / on LVM too. I made / large enough that I would not fill it up in the lifetime of this system but not large enough to absorb /usr. If I am going to have to redo all my partitions yet again, I will not use LVM. I use LVM to eliminate this EXACT problem. I got tired of running out of space and having to move stuff around all the time. So, worked for ages, then it breaks when people change where they put things. Answer is, don't change where you put things. Then things still work for most everyone, including me. I'm not a programmer nor am I a rocket scientist but even I can see that. If I can see it, I have no idea why a programmer can't other than being willingly blinded. ;-) Udev/systemd seems to be the problem. How do I come to that conclusion, eudev people says they will support separate /usr with no init thingy. Either the eudev folks are rocket scientist type programmers and the udev/systemd people are playing with fire crackers or there is a way for this to work with udev/systemd to, IF they wanted it to work. Thing is, they have some grand scheme to force people to their way of doing things, which includes a init thingy. Since there is a way to continue with the old way, which has worked for decades, guess what I am going to do? Yep, I'm going to jump off the udev ship and onto the eudev ship. The eudev ship may be old and traditional but it works like I expect. Now if others want to stay on the current ship, works for me too. I'm just not liking the meals served on the udev ship anymore. I might add, one of the reasons I left Mandriva was because of the init thingy that kept giving me grief. If I have to use that thing on Gentoo, the first time it breaks, I'm going to a binary install. If I am going to put up with that mess, I may as well have something that installs quickly. That was one thing I liked about Mandriva, install was really easy. It still is. Ubuntu is too. Actually, they look a lot alike to me. Everyone can have
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy. No you don't. You could use a boot partition. Or grub2. I don't remember reading /boot as a suggested solution. Frankly, that's an interesting idea. And I'd completely forgotten about grub2. That actually sounds promising. So, worked for ages, then it breaks when people change where they put things. Answer is, don't change where you put things. Then things still work for most everyone, including me. I'm not a programmer nor am I a rocket scientist but even I can see that. If I can see it, I have no idea why a programmer can't other than being willingly blinded. ;-) You have no idea why it's being deprecated because you STAUNCHLY REFUSE TO READ why so, even when it's blatantly being spelled out over and over again why it's being done that way. recap: many packages depending on udev keep putting stuff in their udev rules that depend on binaries in /usr. It's not udev's responsibility to fix or maintain these packages. Nobody ever argued that it was. The reason this argument is so heated on this list has its roots in an earlier discussion, going back about a year and a half ago. It started when systemd was brought up as a response to one problem or another a few times, and critiques and arguments against it were often met with what read like bad-faith arguments in dismissive tones. Elsewhere, systemd's architect met criticisms in a similarly dismissive fashion. This made some folks (myself included) wary of systemd and anything it controlled, simply because it seemed useless to try to participate in rational critique. Then udev announced it was going to merge into systemd's source tree for better developer interop. At that point, some of us feared (rightly, as it turned out) that the top-down, my-way-or-the-highway attitude from systemd would take over udev, and that the close proximity in the source tree would make it difficult for the udev component to exist independently and in a stable fashion. (Where 'in a stable fashion' means doesn't become a moving target for anyone apart from systemd trying to interoperate with it.) I remember feeling like I'd just seen a train derail, and was watching a large, slow moving train wreck. Then came the declaration of separate /usr is broken, much to the dismay of those of us for whom that configuration truly did work just fine. Yes, we understand that, in an overly complex system, dependencies can get mixed up and you need to resolve that somehow. (Personally, I think that any binary outside /usr that depends on binaries or data inside /usr is broken and should be fixed.) Then came the decision to move udev inside /usr, forcing the issue. Now, it'd been long understood that udev *itself* hadn't been broken. The explanation given as much as a year earlier was that udev couldn't control what *other* packages gave it for rules scripts. OK, that's not strictly udev's fault. That's the fault of packages being depended on at too early a stage in the boot process. And, perhaps, hotplug events for some devices _should_ be deferred until the proper resources for handling it are available. I can think of at least a few ways you could do that. And, yes, this was a problem systemd was facing, and wasn't finding a way out of. (Why? I still don't know. Maybe they didn't want to implement dependency declarations or demand that packages impement partial functionality to reduce initial dependencies.) Still, instead, the decision was made by the systemd/udev management to give udev the same _intrinsic_ dependency faults that systemd had, and udev, previously, hadn't. Previously, udev was a tool that you would use, and you would be expected to be wise while using it. Now, udev is a tool that's lost some of its power in order to force an environment more suitable for systemd. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Mark Knecht wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP The problems with that is these: It worked ALL these years, why should it not now? I have / on a traditional partition which is not going to resize easily. If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy. I don't want a init thingy Is that really true? Do you _really_ care whether an 'init thingy' exists on your system, or is this energy about it really based in something else? I'm just not understanding the resistance so I'm curious. I don't like, really don't like, the work that currently goes into making my 'init thingy' work. All the Gentoo docs about creating hierarchies by hand and populating them with files and then compressing it. All that drives me nuts. It should be 100% automatic, and probably is with the right tools which I haven't found. But I'm not understanding why you are so against it in totality. It would be one thing to say that it's too much work. That I understand, but not wanting one seems a bit overboard to me... - Mark One of the reasons I left Mandriva was because of the init thingy. If I wanted one and liked having one, I would have never switched to Gentoo. The init thingy was not the only reason but it was one of them. The reason I do not want one is because it adds one more point of failure. In my past experience, it failed me a lot on Mandriva. I don't want to go backwards to failure. I want to keep moving forward, which is why I chose Gentoo, no init thingy needed unless you put / on something like LVM or encrypt it or something. That is why I put everything but /boot and / on LVM here, to avoid having to use a init thingy. I have done a lot to avoid that thing then it turns out, someone is trying to push it on me anyway. If I am forced to use a init thingy, the first time it fails and I can't fix it, I'm moving to something else. If I want a broken init thingy, I can find something else that suites my needs. I've said it before, I love Gentoo but I'm not going to reinstall or otherwise spend hours trying to fix something that I shouldn't need to to begin with and never needed before. Just saying. ;-) Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Mark David Dumlao wrote: On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 4:00 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy. No you don't. You could use a boot partition. Or grub2. So, worked for ages, then it breaks when people change where they put things. Answer is, don't change where you put things. Then things still work for most everyone, including me. I'm not a programmer nor am I a rocket scientist but even I can see that. If I can see it, I have no idea why a programmer can't other than being willingly blinded. ;-) You have no idea why it's being deprecated because you STAUNCHLY REFUSE TO READ why so, even when it's blatantly being spelled out over and over again why it's being done that way. recap: many packages depending on udev keep putting stuff in their udev rules that depend on binaries in /usr. It's not udev's responsibility to fix or maintain these packages. Does it work for you? Ok. That doesn't mean it isn't broken. There's a couple of documents [1] [2] that spell out what /usr is supposed to be, and for many distros, it's _failing_ to meet those standards. [1] http://www.tldp.org/LDP/Linux-Filesystem-Hierarchy/html/usr.html [2] http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#THEUSRHIERARCHY Again: /usr, according to what it's supposed to be, is deeply broken for a large number of distros. Even when it works - for you. / merging with /usr (or /, wherever the rest of the programs are supposed to be) actually fixes the breakage, because then udev or whatever programs in / can't be out of sync with the programs it depends on. The analogy here is like when people complained to Ted Tso that ext4 was not as stable was ext3 (exhibiting the same corruption problems as seen in xfs). No, that's not true. ext3 just happened to have a quirky behavior that gave the illusion of stability (the writes still failed to reach the disk) _for programs that were written broken_. Come ext4, which actually behaves as the standard is supposed to, and people complain that ext4 is the broken one. It isn't. Hm, was that a knock from the ghost of Unix past? Since there is a way to continue with the old way, which has worked for decades, Yes there is one. An init thingy is just one of them and the means to automatically make one is already available to all distros. Another thing you could do is run an early mount script prior to running udev. -- This email is:[ ] actionable [ ] fyi[x] social Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate[ ] soon [x] none I think Michael said it better but. . . I am against changing my system from something that I KNOW FOR A FACT WORKS to adding one more point of failure that I should NOT need. Don't tell me my system is broken and can't boot when I sit here and watch it boot all the way to a GUI login. I have watched it boot just fine for years, ever since I started using Gentoo WITHOUT a init thingy I might add. Other than the occasional kernel issue, it boots just fine. I'm not concerned about some exotic or weird setup since I purposely AVOID that. I use LVM but not on anything that will affect booting up. All that should be needed for booting is on a regular partition. If udev, systemd or any other programs needs something to boot, it should NOT be placed in /usr. Again, I'm not a programmer but even I know that. If some programmer, not going to mention names, is not smart enough to know that, then it is not my system or me that has a problem. Maybe that programmer has some of his brain on some partition that has not yet been mounted. lol Maybe he/she should use a init thingy to fix that. ROFL If this is so broken, why are the eudev people going to fix it? They have said on -dev that they will support booting a separate /usr without a init thingy. If eudev can do it, why not udev? I think it is like Michael said, they want everything their way and every one else can just suck it up. Well, I'm not planning to suck it up. I'm just going to use something else that apparently has some smarter programmers. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 01:23:16PM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 12:00 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP The problems with that is these: It worked ALL these years, why should it not now? I have / on a traditional partition which is not going to resize easily. If I put / on LVM, I need a init thingy. I don't want a init thingy Is that really true? Do you _really_ care whether an 'init thingy' exists on your system, or is this energy about it really based in something else? I'm just not understanding the resistance so I'm curious. I don't like, really don't like, the work that currently goes into making my 'init thingy' work. All the Gentoo docs about creating hierarchies by hand and populating them with files and then compressing it. All that drives me nuts. It should be 100% automatic, and probably is with the right tools which I haven't found. But I'm not understanding why you are so against it in totality. It would be one thing to say that it's too much work. That I understand, but not wanting one seems a bit overboard to me... Once upon a time (for 7 years) Slackware was my distro, and not only as a user. They still have a script (mkinitrd) which only asks a minimal amount of information from the user to run a simple one-liner and create initrd.gz. Gentoo had mkinitrd once upon a time, but it's now in attic. Somewhere, sometime, for some reason, initramfs (inital ram filesystem) became vogue for the Gentoo camp, rather than initrd (initial ram disk image), and mkinitrd got retired. Since there are so very many ways to boot a system, with / on RAID0, /usr on LVM, and any other number of combinations on this LAN, I didn't bother to investigate why the Gentoo devs retired mkinitrd. So long as you're not going to let this thread die, I've thrown that in the mix and maybe someone will come up with the *real* *reason* that mkinitrd, such a simple method to create an initrd, is in attic rather than portage. -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On 24/12/12 23:52, Dale wrote: Kevin Chadwick wrote: Are there any other cases, apart from emotional attachment based on inertia, where a separate / and /usr are desirable? As I see it, there is only the system, and it is an atomic unit. You should really read the thread before posting. I suspect that Alan has. Alan is not known to post without knowing what he is talking about. Dale :-) :-) I used initrd's many years ago, and separate /usr and/ until on a redhat system I rebooted with an out of sequence initrd and kernel on a critical server (the sort of thing that puts your employment at risk when there are 20 odd developers using it ...) ok, eliminate that point of failure! I then stopped using init*'s until recently and surprise, never had an init* failure until this latest fiasco has caused me to go back to using init*'s. I have had a couple of failures - mostly to do with complexity and trying to juggle more items..and missing something. This is something binary distros are less prone to than gentoo. And my workload/system complexity is now higher as well - all round loss ... As far as the system being atomic, that has been one of microsofts Achilles heals for many years - so tightly integrated one minor failure takes out everything. I separate / and /usr, its for reliability AND flexibility as far as I am concerned - yes I can change what I do, but why change for something that gives me less? I use LVM on everything except laptops and at least a couple of times a year move things around. I have had major disasters in /usr that were insulated from the rest of the system, I can have a system stay up while I do major changes, so / and /usr as one will be a problem for me. I can see where Lennart and co are coming from, but their target is not reliability, flexibility or long term use ... its run on everything, and throwaway and start again if you want a change - the microsoft approach if you like. It seems to be driven by the cloud and a more throwaway mindset for computing than we are used to, or what gentoo is designed for. Not all the proposed changes are bad ... a read only /usr would be nice, but I object to being forced into what I regard as an unreliable configuration (or use unreliable, crappy software, eg pulse audio!) because of these changes - and for those who say I have a choice ... thats correct, my choice will be eudev. I can see a split coming with two design choices, eudev like with reliably and flexibility at the core for servers, and a more MS like desktop approach for RH and the other big distros as they find themselves being abandoned in the server market. I suspect the thing to watch will be where RH Enterprise goes in its next few versions. So roll on eudev! (and happy Christmas to those celebrating!) BillK
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 04:36:06PM -0600, Dale wrote: One of the reasons I left Mandriva was because of the init thingy. If I wanted one and liked having one, I would have never switched to Gentoo. The init thingy was not the only reason but it was one of them. The reason I do not want one is because it adds one more point of failure. In my past experience, it failed me a lot on Mandriva. I don't want to go backwards to failure. I want to keep moving forward, which is why I chose Gentoo, no init thingy needed unless you put / on something like LVM or encrypt it or something. That is why I put everything but /boot and / on LVM here, to avoid having to use a init thingy. I have done a lot to avoid that thing then it turns out, someone is trying to push it on me anyway. If I am forced to use a init thingy, the first time it fails and I can't fix it, I'm moving to something else. If I want a broken init thingy, I can find something else that suites my needs. I've said it before, I love Gentoo but I'm not going to reinstall or otherwise spend hours trying to fix something that I shouldn't need to to begin with and never needed before. Just saying. ;-) Dale What Dale is saying is, I don't want anything forced on me that leaves me no choice but to accept it. That's a fundamental way of life to us (Dale, me, and others). Today the idea of being an individual, and not having another man's ideas forced on everyone, has been mostly replaced by the sheeple mentality. There are so many people who just go along without even questioning. We're not two of those sheeple, and won't become such. So, what most of you seem to be missing is this: the thing to which Dale (and a lot of us) object to is not so much an initrd image, but being forced to use something that is not our choice. And the problem with it coming from the Fedora camp, and such an arrogant, pompous, prima donna as Lennart Poeterring, is what is most objectionable. If there was one modicum of common sense, of humility, in his personality, then maybe more of this older, independent, out-of-the-sheepfold type of man would check out his ideas. But, alas, It Won't Happen (TM). Nice little DuckDuckGo hit: http://pastebin.com/RzZYnZwT -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 05:23:13PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote: Then came the decision to move udev inside /usr, forcing the issue. Now, it'd been long understood that udev *itself* hadn't been broken. The explanation given as much as a year earlier was that udev couldn't control what *other* packages gave it for rules scripts. OK, that's not strictly udev's fault. That's the fault of packages being depended on at too early a stage in the boot process. And, perhaps, hotplug events for some devices _should_ be deferred until the proper resources for handling it are available. I can think of at least a few ways you could do that. And, yes, this was a problem systemd was facing, and wasn't finding a way out of. (Why? I still don't know. Maybe they didn't want to implement dependency declarations or demand that packages impement partial functionality to reduce initial dependencies.) You're stumbling upon it ... just keep hashing it out. The decision to write a new init system (systemd) and do things altogether differently is exactly what caused your previously referred to train wreck. And Kay Sievers collaborating with Lennart on this corrupted udev. Take those two prima donnas out of the udev destruction, and no such init problem exists today ... just as it didn't exist before then, for so many years. Linus didn't tolerate what they did to module and firmware loading: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303 and he placed the blame squarely on Lennart and Kay where it belongs. To quote Linus Torvalds: What kind of insane udev maintainership do we have? And can we fix it? Bank on it ... he *will* keep these prima donnas from destroying it. There's quite the historical precedent for such. -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Bruce Hill wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 05:23:13PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote: Then came the decision to move udev inside /usr, forcing the issue. Now, it'd been long understood that udev *itself* hadn't been broken. The explanation given as much as a year earlier was that udev couldn't control what *other* packages gave it for rules scripts. OK, that's not strictly udev's fault. That's the fault of packages being depended on at too early a stage in the boot process. And, perhaps, hotplug events for some devices _should_ be deferred until the proper resources for handling it are available. I can think of at least a few ways you could do that. And, yes, this was a problem systemd was facing, and wasn't finding a way out of. (Why? I still don't know. Maybe they didn't want to implement dependency declarations or demand that packages impement partial functionality to reduce initial dependencies.) You're stumbling upon it ... just keep hashing it out. The decision to write a new init system (systemd) and do things altogether differently is exactly what caused your previously referred to train wreck. And Kay Sievers collaborating with Lennart on this corrupted udev. Take those two prima donnas out of the udev destruction, and no such init problem exists today ... just as it didn't exist before then, for so many years. Linus didn't tolerate what they did to module and firmware loading: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303 and he placed the blame squarely on Lennart and Kay where it belongs. To quote Linus Torvalds: What kind of insane udev maintainership do we have? And can we fix it? Bank on it ... he *will* keep these prima donnas from destroying it. There's quite the historical precedent for such. I find it fitting that me and Linus agree on udev. ROFL I'm not alone but still. ;-) Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
[gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:04:13 -0600 Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: Gentoo had mkinitrd once upon a time, but it's now in attic. Somewhere, sometime, for some reason, initramfs (inital ram filesystem) became vogue for the Gentoo camp, rather than initrd (initial ram disk image), and mkinitrd got retired. Is there Gentoo documentation for creating initramfs without using dracut? I could only find documentation for doing it *with* dracut, and that procedure required using genkernel. Surely Gentoo must have an initramfs guide for non-genkernel users, but I couldn't find one.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 2:36 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: SNIP One of the reasons I left Mandriva was because of the init thingy. If I wanted one and liked having one, I would have never switched to Gentoo. The init thingy was not the only reason but it was one of them. The reason I do not want one is because it adds one more point of failure. In my past experience, it failed me a lot on Mandriva. I don't want to go backwards to failure. I want to keep moving forward, which is why I chose Gentoo, no init thingy needed unless you put / on something like LVM or encrypt it or something. That is why I put everything but /boot and / on LVM here, to avoid having to use a init thingy. I have done a lot to avoid that thing then it turns out, someone is trying to push it on me anyway. If I am forced to use a init thingy, the first time it fails and I can't fix it, I'm moving to something else. If I want a broken init thingy, I can find something else that suites my needs. I've said it before, I love Gentoo but I'm not going to reinstall or otherwise spend hours trying to fix something that I shouldn't need to to begin with and never needed before. Just saying. ;-) Dale Fair enough. I don't agree that leaving Gentoo because you chose to put all of /usr on LVM and then chose not to deal with the implications of that over time, but it's your choice and I certainly support choice. And I appreciate you communicating your POV. I'm also interested in Bruce's history about initrd. Sounds like if that worked today I'd just use it to make an initrd and be done with it. Unlike you, I guess, I don't have any political position on these images that get used early on, any more than I do or do not like the format of grub.conf or other things like that. Cheers, Mark
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 05:23:13PM -0500, Michael Mol wrote: Then came the decision to move udev inside /usr, forcing the issue. Now, it'd been long understood that udev *itself* hadn't been broken. The explanation given as much as a year earlier was that udev couldn't control what *other* packages gave it for rules scripts. OK, that's not strictly udev's fault. That's the fault of packages being depended on at too early a stage in the boot process. And, perhaps, hotplug events for some devices _should_ be deferred until the proper resources for handling it are available. I can think of at least a few ways you could do that. And, yes, this was a problem systemd was facing, and wasn't finding a way out of. (Why? I still don't know. Maybe they didn't want to implement dependency declarations or demand that packages impement partial functionality to reduce initial dependencies.) You're stumbling upon it ... just keep hashing it out. No, I'm pretty sure I understand most of what's going on. I don't understand why systemd and udevd couldn't settle on a standard interface for each other (rather than tightly integrate), and I don't understand why neither systemd nor udevd could implement a dependency-aware system that understands problems like circular dependencies and accounts for it; every package manager since the dawn of the thing has had The purpose of my email was to try to be as neutral as possible while laying out the history of the thing over the past year and a half. I'm stopping short of calling the lead admins lazy, because you don't get where they are by being lazy. The most generous thing I can think of to say is that Lennart has deadlines to meet in order to meet Red Hat release schedules, and trying to corral a bunch of packages with lazily-defined dependencies into would be extraordinarily difficult. And...huh. I think I just realized why Lennart and Red Hat are pushing systemd...it's because of Amazon's EC2. In EC2, you spin up more copies of a system image in order to scale your site to handle additional load. Reducing boot time for new system images means you can scale your computational capacity that much more quickly...and Red Hat wants in on the scalable cloud action. The decision to write a new init system (systemd) and do things altogether differently is exactly what caused your previously referred to train wreck. And Kay Sievers collaborating with Lennart on this corrupted udev. Take those two prima donnas out of the udev destruction, and no such init problem exists today ... just as it didn't exist before then, for so many years. Linus didn't tolerate what they did to module and firmware loading: https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/10/2/303 and he placed the blame squarely on Lennart and Kay where it belongs. To quote Linus Torvalds: What kind of insane udev maintainership do we have? And can we fix it? Bank on it ... he *will* keep these prima donnas from destroying it. There's quite the historical precedent for such. That's what forks accomplish. The original project can die, but a useful thing can take its place. So I'd venture a guess eudev will replace udev in Linus's eyes. And some functionality has been pulled into the kernel to avoid depending on the rogue userland project. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 4:29 PM, »Q« boxc...@gmx.net wrote: On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:04:13 -0600 Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: Gentoo had mkinitrd once upon a time, but it's now in attic. Somewhere, sometime, for some reason, initramfs (inital ram filesystem) became vogue for the Gentoo camp, rather than initrd (initial ram disk image), and mkinitrd got retired. Is there Gentoo documentation for creating initramfs without using dracut? I could only find documentation for doing it *with* dracut, and that procedure required using genkernel. Surely Gentoo must have an initramfs guide for non-genkernel users, but I couldn't find one. I used this one (I think!!!) 6 months or a year ago. It worked first time but it was a bit of work getting there: http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Initramfs
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Mark Knecht wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 4:29 PM, »Q« boxc...@gmx.net wrote: On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:04:13 -0600 Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: Gentoo had mkinitrd once upon a time, but it's now in attic. Somewhere, sometime, for some reason, initramfs (inital ram filesystem) became vogue for the Gentoo camp, rather than initrd (initial ram disk image), and mkinitrd got retired. Is there Gentoo documentation for creating initramfs without using dracut? I could only find documentation for doing it *with* dracut, and that procedure required using genkernel. Surely Gentoo must have an initramfs guide for non-genkernel users, but I couldn't find one. I used this one (I think!!!) 6 months or a year ago. It worked first time but it was a bit of work getting there: http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Initramfs I tried that a while back when this init thingy started. I never got it to boot once, not even a close call. I got blinking keyboard lights and error messages that filled the screen. I worked with that thing for over a week. It is in the same pile as hal. Oooo, let's not even go there. Grr! I eventually went to dracut which *seems* to work. My current solution, don't reboot. root@fireball / # uptime 19:28:53 up 93 days, 12:38, 9 users, load average: 0.30, 0.31, 0.32 root@fireball / # That has worked for the last 93 days. If you are worried about something, avoid it. ;-D Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Mark David Dumlao wrote: On Tue, Dec 25, 2012 at 1:15 AM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 11:05:25AM -0600, Dale wrote: Bruce Hill wrote: SNIP No initrd... YET!!! ROFL When eudev goes stable, then we can disregard that yet. ;-) Dale devfs still works wonderfully ... for principle, if no other reason, that file server will *NEVER* have an initrd image You shouldn't need to wait for eudev. Technically any early mount system configured and done _before_ udev should do the trick. I mean, it's not like udev is even *essential* for boot - that we happen to depend on it is just a matter of convenience. Shouldn't be hard to write an rc script that does just that for anyone that hates init thingies bad enough. Just hardcode an n-second sleep and plug in the kernel detected device name. Do rc scripts count as init thingies? :) -- This email is:[ ] actionable [ ] fyi[x] social Response needed: [ ] yes [x] up to you [ ] no Time-sensitive: [ ] immediate[ ] soon [x] none Is that what eudev is going to do? I follow -dev and according to the eudev people they are going to support a separate /usr with no init thingy. So, they have a plan to do this. From what they were posting, they seem pretty sure they can do this. I'm just waiting on eudev to get stable. It was posted that the one in the tree still needs a couple fixes and then it will be ready for some testing. Heck, I'll gladly test it whenever they say it boots and KDE will work. Heck, just booting is a good start. lol Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 04:34:00PM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: I'm also interested in Bruce's history about initrd. Sounds like if that worked today I'd just use it to make an initrd and be done with it. Unlike you, I guess, I don't have any political position on these images that get used early on, any more than I do or do not like the format of grub.conf or other things like that. Cheers, Mark Everyone I know who uses an initrd writes his own script. You might read some of the files from Slackware: http://slackware.oregonstate.edu/slackware-14.0/source/a/mkinitrd/ For me, personally, there just isn't a reason for having an initrd in Gentoo. There are good and valid reasons that I use separate /var or /usr or LVM or RAID partitions that, under systemd's udev, would require an initrd. But IMO the OpenRC and =sys-fs/udev-181 don't need to be rewritten, or obsoleted, by the mess that is systemd. As stated before ... I'm not of the mindset to have choices dictated to me. Bruce -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 06:29:07PM -0600, »Q« wrote: On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:04:13 -0600 Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: Gentoo had mkinitrd once upon a time, but it's now in attic. Somewhere, sometime, for some reason, initramfs (inital ram filesystem) became vogue for the Gentoo camp, rather than initrd (initial ram disk image), and mkinitrd got retired. Is there Gentoo documentation for creating initramfs without using dracut? I could only find documentation for doing it *with* dracut, and that procedure required using genkernel. Surely Gentoo must have an initramfs guide for non-genkernel users, but I couldn't find one. Do you understand that initrd.gz and initramfs are *not* the same thing? -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 04:54:08PM -0800, Mark Knecht wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 4:29 PM, »Q« boxc...@gmx.net wrote: On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:04:13 -0600 Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: Gentoo had mkinitrd once upon a time, but it's now in attic. Somewhere, sometime, for some reason, initramfs (inital ram filesystem) became vogue for the Gentoo camp, rather than initrd (initial ram disk image), and mkinitrd got retired. Is there Gentoo documentation for creating initramfs without using dracut? I could only find documentation for doing it *with* dracut, and that procedure required using genkernel. Surely Gentoo must have an initramfs guide for non-genkernel users, but I couldn't find one. I used this one (I think!!!) 6 months or a year ago. It worked first time but it was a bit of work getting there: http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Initramfs Same question ... initrd.gz and initramfs are *not* the same thing; and there was a package called mkinitrd in Gentoo that was retired to attic some time ago, before my exodus from Slackware to Gentoo; therefore, I don't know it's history. Most distros still have a mkinitrd script, but not Gentoo. And there are lots of resources online which can guide you in making an initrd or initramfs. I'm an old guy and don't care to learn too much new unless someone very knowledgable in *nix (not just one distro) can give me a good reason for doing so. No one has with initramfs to date. -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Mark Knecht wrote: Fair enough. I don't agree that leaving Gentoo because you chose to put all of /usr on LVM and then chose not to deal with the implications of that over time, but it's your choice and I certainly support choice. And I appreciate you communicating your POV. I'm also interested in Bruce's history about initrd. Sounds like if that worked today I'd just use it to make an initrd and be done with it. Unlike you, I guess, I don't have any political position on these images that get used early on, any more than I do or do not like the format of grub.conf or other things like that. Cheers, Mark Putting /usr on LVM is not the problem. I have had /usr on LVM for a good long while now. It has booted just fine. The new udev is what is going to break it, whether I use LVM or not from what has been said on this list and elsewhere. My point is, I came here to get rid of the init nightmare. I have my system set up specifically to avoid the init thingy. If I am going to have a init thingy that I can't fix without spending hours doing it, I may as well move to something easier. In the past, the only way I could get a init thingy fixed was to reinstall. If anyone here thinks I am going to do that with Gentoo, they are completely out of their mind and plumb bat guano crazy. I'll be installing Linux but it won't be a all day event. With all the distros out there, I bet I can find something that installs pretty fast and maybe even not have a init thingy to boot. One never knows. ;-) When I moved to Gentoo, I felt like I moved up. Simple setup, works simply and works every time. Now, I feel like I am taking a step backwards, not forward. I have already seen the past, I don't want to repeat it. That's my opinion. I'm not saying everyone should share it or believe it either. I believe it tho. I love Gentoo but not enough to have to start over or spend hours trying to figure out something that I shouldn't have to have to begin with. Progress is fine but not when it breaks what is working. People thought hal was progress. Look where it ended up. I think, and for some I hope, udev loses support by everyone but the ones maintaining it. Let it go its way and others progress forward with better ideas and not by shoving it on people either. Just my $0.02 and considering I'm on NyQuil, it ain't much. lol Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
Bruce Hill wrote: On Mon, Dec 24, 2012 at 06:29:07PM -0600, »Q« wrote: On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 17:04:13 -0600 Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote: Gentoo had mkinitrd once upon a time, but it's now in attic. Somewhere, sometime, for some reason, initramfs (inital ram filesystem) became vogue for the Gentoo camp, rather than initrd (initial ram disk image), and mkinitrd got retired. Is there Gentoo documentation for creating initramfs without using dracut? I could only find documentation for doing it *with* dracut, and that procedure required using genkernel. Surely Gentoo must have an initramfs guide for non-genkernel users, but I couldn't find one. Do you understand that initrd.gz and initramfs are *not* the same thing? Don't they sort of *do* the same thing? Different method but still a boot up helper thingy. This is why I started calling them init thingy. There are a few init thingys and I just lump them all together since they sort of serve the same function but in a different way. Feel free to set me straight tho. As long as you don't tell me my system is broken and has not been able to boot for the last 9 years without one of those things. ROFL Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
[gentoo-user] Implicit udev dependancy in Gentoo? and workaround.
I'm asking questions here before filing a bug/reature-request, to make sure I have my ducks in a row. I did a big update a couple of days ago. As per the user in... http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7168984.html I too ran into a situation where I couldn't open any xterms because /dev/pts was empty. The solution for that user came in 2 parts... 1) Add the following line to /etc/fstab devpts /dev/pts devpts defaults 0 0 2) Run rc-update add udev-mount sysinit oops... what udev-mount? I'm the troublemaker/malcontent who runs mdev instead of udev. I noticed that the temporary solution would be to manually execute mount devpts. The problem was that it would only last till the next reboot, after which the mount needed to be issued again. I got around that by putting mount devpts in /etc/local.d/000.start (which file must be executable). It is executed every bootup, solving the problem. My questions... 1) Is this just my system, or has anybody else with mdev run into it? If others have the same problem, I'll update the mdev wiki page to mention this. 2) Can someone who uses udev have a look at their udev-mount script and see if it does any other stuff besides mounting devpts? -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-user] Implicit udev dependancy in Gentoo? and workaround.
On 25/12/12 11:21, Walter Dnes wrote:
I'm asking questions here before filing a bug/reature-request, to make
sure I have my ducks in a row. I did a big update a couple of days ago.
As per the user in... http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7168984.html
I too ran into a situation where I couldn't open any xterms because
/dev/pts was empty. The solution for that user came in 2 parts...
1) Add the following line to /etc/fstab
devpts /dev/pts devpts defaults 0 0
2) Run rc-update add udev-mount sysinit oops... what udev-mount? I'm
the troublemaker/malcontent who runs mdev instead of udev.
I noticed that the temporary solution would be to manually execute
mount devpts. The problem was that it would only last till the next
reboot, after which the mount needed to be issued again. I got around
that by putting mount devpts in /etc/local.d/000.start (which file
must be executable). It is executed every bootup, solving the problem.
My questions...
1) Is this just my system, or has anybody else with mdev run into it?
If others have the same problem, I'll update the mdev wiki page to
mention this.
2) Can someone who uses udev have a look at their udev-mount script
and see if it does any other stuff besides mounting devpts?
It does a few other things ... attached it here as its not that long.
BillK
#!/sbin/runscript
# Copyright 1999-2010 Gentoo Foundation
# Distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License v2
description=mount devtmpfs on /dev
depend()
{
provide dev-mount
keyword -vserver -lxc
}
mount_dev_directory()
{
local mounted=false fstab=false action=--mount msg=Mounting rc=0
if ! grep -qs devtmpfs /proc/filesystems; then
eerror CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y is required in your kernel
configuration
eerror for this version of udev to run successfully.
eerror This requires immediate attention.
if ! mountinfo -q /dev; then
mount -n -t tmpfs dev /dev
busybox mdev -s
mkdir /dev/pts
fi
return 1
fi
# Is /dev already a mounted devtmpfs?
mountinfo -q -f devtmpfs /dev mounted=true
# If an entry for /dev exists in fstab it must be a devtmpfs.
fstabinfo -q -t devtmpfs /dev fstab=true
# No options are processed here as they should all be in /etc/fstab
if $fstab; then
$mounted action=--remount msg=Remounting
ebegin $msg /dev according to /etc/fstab
fstabinfo $action /dev
rc=$?
elif ! $mounted; then
ebegin Mounting /dev
# Some devices require exec, Bug #92921
mount -n -t devtmpfs -o exec,nosuid,mode=0755,size=10M udev
/dev
rc=$?
else
ebegin Using /dev mounted from kernel
fi
eend $rc
}
seed_dev()
{
# Seed /dev with some things that we know we need
# creating /dev/console, /dev/tty and /dev/tty1 to be able to write
# to $CONSOLE with/without bootsplash before udevd creates it
[ -c /dev/console ] || mknod -m 600 /dev/console c 5 1
[ -c /dev/tty1 ] || mknod -m 620 /dev/tty1 c 4 1
[ -c /dev/tty ] || mknod -m 666 /dev/tty c 5 0
# udevd will dup its stdin/stdout/stderr to /dev/null
# and we do not want a file which gets buffered in ram
[ -c /dev/null ] || mknod -m 666 /dev/null c 1 3
# so udev can add its start-message to dmesg
[ -c /dev/kmsg ] || mknod -m 660 /dev/kmsg c 1 11
# Create problematic directories
mkdir -p /dev/pts /dev/shm
return 0
}
start()
{
mount_dev_directory || return 1
seed_dev
return 0
}
Re: [gentoo-user] Implicit udev dependancy in Gentoo? and workaround.
On 25/12/12 11:21, Walter Dnes wrote: I'm asking questions here before filing a bug/reature-request, to make sure I have my ducks in a row. I did a big update a couple of days ago. As per the user in... http://forums.gentoo.org/viewtopic-p-7168984.html I too ran into a situation where I couldn't open any xterms because /dev/pts was empty. The solution for that user came in 2 parts... 1) Add the following line to /etc/fstab devpts /dev/pts devpts defaults 0 0 2) Run rc-update add udev-mount sysinit oops... what udev-mount? I'm the troublemaker/malcontent who runs mdev instead of udev. I noticed that the temporary solution would be to manually execute mount devpts. The problem was that it would only last till the next reboot, after which the mount needed to be issued again. I got around that by putting mount devpts in /etc/local.d/000.start (which file must be executable). It is executed every bootup, solving the problem. My questions... 1) Is this just my system, or has anybody else with mdev run into it? If others have the same problem, I'll update the mdev wiki page to mention this. 2) Can someone who uses udev have a look at their udev-mount script and see if it does any other stuff besides mounting devpts? Sorry about the html mail ... I just moved to tbird and didnt realise it was selected. BillK
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet?
On Dec 25, 2012 1:55 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 06:58:15 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: The truth is simply this (derived from empirical observation): Long ago we had established conventions about / and /usr; mostly because the few sysadmins around agreed on some things. In those days there was no concept of a packager or maintainer, there was only a sysadmin. This person was a lot like me - he decided and if you didn't like it that was tough. So things stayed as they were for a very long time. The convention stuck for a loong time because it works, it's reasonable, and it does not place unduly restrictions on the SysAdmin. Even back when hard disks are a mote in the eyes of today's mammoths, you *can* make /usr part of /, there's no stopping you. Sure, other SysAdmins may scoff and/or question your sanity, but the choice is yours. YOU know what's best for your precious servers, YOU made the call. But with the latest udev, Lennart et al saw it fit to yank that choice out of the hands of SysAdmins, while at the same time trying to enforce a stupidly overbloated init replacement. Thankfully, it is not like that anymore and the distinction between / and /usr is now so blurry there might as well not be a distinction. Which is good as the distinction wasn't exactly a good thing from day 1 either - it was useful for terminal servers (only by convention) and let the sysadmin keep his treasured uptime (which only proves he isn't doing kernel maintenance...) When you're in charge of over 100 servers as the back-end of a multinational company that has a revenue in excess of 10 million USD per day, even a temporary outage means the CIO, COO, and CEO breathing down your neck. There's an adage: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'm sorry you bought into the crap about / and /usr that people of my ilk foisted on you, but the time for that is past, and things move on. If there is to be a convention, there can be only one that makes any sense: / and /usr are essentially the same, so put your stuff anywhere you want it to be. ironically this no gives you the ultimate in choice, not the false one you had for years. So if your /usr is say 8G, then enlarge / bu that amount, move /usr over and retain all your mount points as the were. Now for the foreseeable future anything you might want to hotplug at launch time stands a very good chance of working as expected. No. I prefer any mucking in /usr to have as small effect as possible to / That I what SysAdmins worth their salary do: compartment everything. Reduce interdependencies as much as possible. The design of separate / and /usr on modern machines IS broken by design. It is fragile and causes problems in the large case. This doesn't mean YOUR system is broken and won't boot, it means it causes unnecessary hassle in the whole ecosystem, and the fix is to change behaviour and layout to something more appropriate to what we have today. The way I see it, it's /usr integrated into / that introduces fragility. Too much going on in / In case you haven't noticed, since Windows 7 (or Vista, forget which) Microsoft has even went the distance of splitting between C: (analogous to /usr) and 'System Partition' (analogous to /). The boot process is actually handled by the 100ish MB 'System Partition' before being handed to C:. This will at least give SysAdmins a fighting chance of recovering a botched maintenance. (Note: Said behavior will only be visible if installing onto a clean hard disk. If there are partitions left over from previous Windows installs, Win7 will not create a separate 'System Partition') So, if Microsoft saw the light, why does Red Hat sunk into darkness instead? -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com Rgds, --
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: android and mtp
On 12/23/2012 03:22 PM, luis jure wrote: well, it seems i have been very lucky indeed. i just emerged jmtpfs as per mark's suggestion, and it just worked. i just created a /media/galaxy directory, and an entry in fstab (like yours, but with jmtpfs instead of mtpfs) and that was it. now i can simply mount /media/galaxy. and the best, for those of you using xfce and thunar, in the multimedia tab of preferences - advanced - volume manager, i clicked the portable music players check box, and added the command mount /media/galaxy/. now when i connect my phablet it is automatically mounted, and i can umount/eject it from thunar. couldn't be easier, a perfect solution for my needs! best, lj I just removed mtpfs and installed jmtpfs from the poly-c overlay, in order to get access to my external SD card in my new Galaxy S3. It was far easier to get to work than mtpfs - and so far jmtpfs hasn't segfaulted yet. Apparently mtpfs only sees the internal SD and not the external one. Trying to get some music on there so I can bring my bluetooth speaker to work so I have something to listen to while I work. It's just me so I don't care too much about automounting, I just put an entry in /etc/fstab and mount it manually when I need to update something. Dan
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Anyone switched to eudev yet? - what was wron with SysVInit?
On 12/24/2012 10:56 PM, Pandu Poluan wrote: Even back when hard disks are a mote in the eyes of today's mammoths, you *can* make /usr part of /, there's no stopping you. Sure, other SysAdmins may scoff and/or question your sanity, but the choice is yours. YOU know what's best for your precious servers, YOU made the call. But with the latest udev, Lennart et al saw it fit to yank that choice out of the hands of SysAdmins, while at the same time trying to enforce a stupidly overbloated init replacement. I may be really out of the loop or old-fashioned, but what went wrong with the old SysV init scheme? SysV inhereited the init scheme practically in toto from what was created for the intermediate SysIV version that was intermal to Bell Labs. SysIV got used for a few projects, and it was a major improvement over the SysIII scheme. Those developing the SysIV/SysV init scheme tried to anticipate future extensions (especially dependency problems) even to the point of ashing Murry Hill to make chenges to the shell to make some magic easier. [Specifically the use of shell exec for input/output file descriptor changes.] [Disclaimer: I was working a Holmdel with a SystemIV based project as a contractor and was involved in some of this work.] From what has been happening with the systemd stuff, I do not see what advantages it really offers over the SysV scheme and its successors like OpenRC. Someone enlighten me please? -- G.Wolfe Woodbury redwo...@gmail.com
