Re: [gentoo-user] sys-fs/udev-200 compile failed during new installation
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:41:26AM -0900, Jackie wrote: Hello all,I was trying to reinstall gentoo on my PC and when I was emerging gentoo-sources-3.8.5,sys-fs/udev-200 was required.However,after installation of gentoo-sources,comlpilation of udev failed and there is no output of error message.And this is the output of emerge --inform =sys-fs/udev-200: SNIP Since there is no error it's hard to debug anything. You could try to emerge it again (sometimes that resolves such issues) or otherwise look in /var/tmp/portage/sys-fs/udev-200/temp/build.log Inside there is the complete build output and therefore the error message should be contained as well. If you can't make sense of the error post the message here. WKR Hinnerk signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] stage3 only for i486?
Stroller, i didn't knew what a chroot was back then either, but i've found in gentoo a vdery good teacher. If you are willing to learn, with gentoo you can go as deeper as you want and learn a lot. Most of the linux knowledge i have i owe it to gentoo. As far as i understand know, chroot is pretty much a cage. you confine the system in a smaller folder structure and from the inside, you cannot access the outside (while it's true the opposite). it's particularly handy to cage a webserver for instance, so if someone hacks it, they don't see the entire system, but only the portion you chrooted. when installing gentoo, you chroot into the smaller gentoo system, contiained into the booting distro, be it a livecd or another distro. D Il giorno 04/apr/2013 05:07, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk ha scritto: On 3 April 2013, at 20:36, Alan McKinnon wrote: ... The reason I say Gentoo shouldn't worry about installers is that the typical person installing Gentoo already knows about chroots. Someone who doesn't is unlikely to consider Gentoo at all It's been a while, but I don't think I knew what a chroot was when I installed Gentoo. I can't say that I have a great understanding of chrooting today, or that I've ever used it for anything but installing Gentoo. Stroller.
[gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
On 2013-04-01, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/01/2013 03:26 PM, William Hubbs wrote: You know that both udev and eudev have exactly the same issue with separate /usr right? The problem there isn't in the udev code, but it has to do with what is happening in rules that other packages install. As I recall, the problem is where the ebuild choses to install the code. Putting the udev code under /usr forces the issue on systems where it would otherwise not be an issue. Putting the udev code under / avoids that issue, but opens up the system to the silently fail thing upstream liked to use as the basis of separate /usr is broken So, there are three conceivable configurations (initramfs notwithstanding): 1. With systems which don't require /usr binaries before /usr would be mounted, separate /usr is not a problem. 2. With systems which require /usr binaries for some features before /usr would be mounted, those features will silently fail. 3. With systems which require /usr binaries to mount /usr, all hell breaks loose. Putting the udev code under /usr moves all udev systems from group 2 into group 3. In a sense, this fixes those systems because the admin is forced to address the silent failures he was previously unaware of. It also means pissing off a bunch of people who had features silently failing...but they probably didn't know or care about those features in the first place. It also moves all systems from group 1 into group 3...which is simply wro= ng. So long as eudev keeps its install path at / instead of /usr, admins in group 1 will probably be perfectly happy. I'd guess nothing prevents the udev ebuild from doing so, too. -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
[gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
On 2013-04-02, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On 02/04/2013 21:13, Paul Hartman wrote: On Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Peter Humphrey pe...@humphrey.ukfsn.org wrote: The most important para to me in the news item was: The feature can also be completely disabled using net.ifnames=0 on the kernel command line. I just added that to my grub.conf entries and I sail blissfully on with eth0. I updated remote virtual server (xen guest) and added this same option, crossed my fingers and rebooted, eth0 was still there and I was happy. I did this to get exactly the same result: $ ls -al /etc/udev/rules.d/ total 8 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Apr 1 15:10 . drwxr-xr-x 4 root root 4096 Mar 30 20:34 .. lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root9 Apr 1 15:10 80-net-name-slot.rules - /dev/null Like you, I happen to *like* eth0 and wlan0 on a laptop workstation :-) Sort of the same here, except that I use lan0 instead of eth0, because once in a while I use broadcom's wireless drivers instead of the kernel drivers, and the former assign an ethX name. Sadly, I still get some problems after resuming from hibernation: *sometimes*, the ethernet NIC won't be renamed lan0 (and remains eth0), and I have to rmmod and modprobe. Also sadly, the fact that several people go oh noes you can't use wlan0 when I try to get comments on how to fix the issue does not help a lot... -- Nuno Silva (aka njsg) http://njsg.sdf-eu.org/
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: stage3 only for i486?
On 03.04.2013 23:36, Alan McKinnon wrote: The reason I say Gentoo shouldn't worry about installers is that the typical person installing Gentoo already knows about chroots. Someone who doesn't is unlikely to consider Gentoo at all (unless they are looking to rice, but we long since moved past that). As for me, the Gentoo installation process is really much easier than that of some installer-based distros. Regardless of knowledge of what chroot is, if one follows the (very well written and detailed) installation docs, he'd get Gentoo installed with far less effort than trying to make out what all these fancy buttons and menus mean in a graphical installer. And from an already-user-of-another-distro point of view, it's even more attractive that he can install and tune Gentoo from his already-installed linux, not even wasting time writing CDs, booting and stuff. And the guys around here confirmed that they hadn't had problems with chroot :) This idea will of course not be popular, I'll be told I'm trying to be elitist, and so the search for the perfect installer will continue unabated Well, an installer certainly would find its users. But none is perfect, and writing another (imperfect) one exclusively for Gentoo is sort of wasting time. A true Gentoo way IMO would be a selection of installers on the installation medium ;-) But AFAICT it is this idea that wouldn't be popular, rather than leaving no-installer at all. Regarding elitism, can the absence of an installer be considered elite? :) I'd rather call 'elite' e.g. the OpenSUSE installer (a claim for elite, at least). Probably it's time for me to agree with the 'Gentoo is what it is' pattern I had argued against a month ago. =) -- Best wishes, Yuri K. Shatroff
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: stage3 only for i486?
On 04/04/2013 10:15, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote: Well, an installer certainly would find its users. But none is perfect, and writing another (imperfect) one exclusively for Gentoo is sort of wasting time. A true Gentoo way IMO would be a selection of installers on the installation medium ;-) But AFAICT it is this idea that wouldn't be popular, rather than leaving no-installer at all. A true GentooWay installer would be any installer of your own choice that launches the shell of your chosing, accepts any stage3 tarball that you want and gotten from anywhere you choose to get it, and unpacked any place you feel like putting it. It will then run the software of your choice and install whatever you tell it to. That's an awful lot of your choices :-) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
On 04/04/2013 10:10, Nuno J. Silva (aka njsg) wrote: Sort of the same here, except that I use lan0 instead of eth0, because once in a while I use broadcom's wireless drivers instead of the kernel drivers, and the former assign an ethX name. Sadly, I still get some problems after resuming from hibernation: *sometimes*, the ethernet NIC won't be renamed lan0 (and remains eth0), and I have to rmmod and modprobe. Also sadly, the fact that several people go oh noes you can't use wlan0 when I try to get comments on how to fix the issue does not help a lot... I hear you :-) The amount of FUD and misinformation surrounding the entire udev ecosystem over the past 6 months defies all belief. I don't think I've ever seen quite this much hysteria and mob-think in anything computing-related until now. And that includes SCO, which is saying something... I gets so bad that people are starting to make shit up to be worried about, instead of just reading the simple document that is right in front of their eyes that already fully and completely answers the question at hand -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] kded4 keeping a flash drive busy
On 03/04/13 at 03:47pm, Francisco Ares wrote: Hi, I am sorry, I think I did not make myself clear. The only process using the flash drive is kded4. The link I sent was the closest search result about the same issue (not able to umount a flash drive). Thanks Francisco Well the reason I suggested that you look under the service manager is because the services listed there are kded modules AFAIR, i.e. they are all clubbed together and run under the process called kded4. Maybe one of them is acting up. -- - Yohan Pereira The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference between a mermaid and a seal. -- Mark Twain
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: stage3 only for i486?
I On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 5:06 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.comwrote: On 04/04/2013 10:15, Yuri K. Shatroff wrote: Well, an installer certainly would find its users. But none is perfect, and writing another (imperfect) one exclusively for Gentoo is sort of wasting time. A true Gentoo way IMO would be a selection of installers on the installation medium ;-) But AFAICT it is this idea that wouldn't be popular, rather than leaving no-installer at all. A true GentooWay installer would be any installer of your own choice that launches the shell of your chosing, accepts any stage3 tarball that you want and gotten from anywhere you choose to get it, and unpacked any place you feel like putting it. It will then run the software of your choice and install whatever you tell it to. That's an awful lot of your choices :-) -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com Isn't that exactly what the guide itself is? The only thing it doesn't make explicit is the choice of package manager and choice of shell, though that itself could be considered an advanced feature available to those experienced enough to know they want the choice, who are, I would hope, knowledgeable enough to make and enact that choice at the appropriate point in the install. The only feature the guide lacks is a pretty point and click interface that either over-clutters the user with options or denies them choices they might want, which I might add, the same could be said of portage itself. -- Poison [BLX] Joshua M. Murphy
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
On 2013-04-04 5:13 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: I gets so bad that people are starting to make shit up to be worried about, instead of just reading the simple document that is right in front of their eyes that already fully and completely answers the question at hand But Alan, haven't you read the recent (past couple of DAYS) emails in this very thread from people who followed the current 'simple document' you refer to and it did not work as advertised? I don't think these people are making this stuff up - are you saying you do? Not to mention the fact that this final/current seemingly complete document was way, way too late for the many people who ended up with totally broken systems, and *that* is what caused all of the 'hysteria and mob-think' you so condescendingly speak of. It is these reports that is causing me all kinds of fear/trepidation at this seemingly simple/benign update (as you seem to believe it is). So, again, I would really, really like a very simple answer as to the *best* way to retain the old way that is least likely to cause problems down the road (ie, if/when udev is subsumed by systemd). Currently I count 3 different ways. Or, as an alternative, *how* to switch to eudev (their web page does *not* have simple/precise instructions on how to switch, only a description of what it is) - ie, do I just emerge -C udev emerge -C virtual/udev emerge eudev? Or is there more to it?
[gentoo-user] VirtualBox guest eth0/enp0s3 problem
Hi list. I decided to install a virtual server for testing some stuff, but I couldn't configure eth0 as usual. The system complain it doesn't exist. After compiling the kernel hundreds of times, I supposed the problem wasn't my kernel configuration then installed dhcpcd. For my surprise, I got an IP address, but there weren't eth0, just enp0s3 instead. It wouldn't be a problem (even with dhcp), but I can't start any service. They (sshd) complain that there is no eth0. I'm using stable packages (x86). Any suggestions? Thank you. -- João de Matos Linux User #461527
Re: [gentoo-user] VirtualBox guest eth0/enp0s3 problem
Hi João, João Matos: Hi list. I decided to install a virtual server for testing some stuff, but I couldn't configure eth0 as usual. The system complain it doesn't exist. After compiling the kernel hundreds of times, I supposed the problem wasn't my kernel configuration then installed dhcpcd. Due to the new udev version, the devices will be renamed by default to names like enp0s3. This is not done by the kernel and no driver issue, just a renaming at boot time done by udev. For my surprise, I got an IP address, but there weren't eth0, just enp0s3 instead. It wouldn't be a problem (even with dhcp), but I can't start any service. They (sshd) complain that there is no eth0. You might have some old references to eth0 around, e.g.: - /etc/init.d/net.eth0 (move this file to /etc/init.d/net.enp0s3) - entries in /etc/conf.d/net (same here, rename them all to enp0s3) - net.eth0 is maybe installed in the default runlevel. Remove it and add net.enp0s3 - in case SSH still refuses to start, try running /lib/rc/bin/rc-depend -u as root and/or setting rc_depend_strict=NO in /etc/rc.conf I'm using stable packages (x86). Any suggestions? Thank you. -- João de Matos Linux User #461527 Regards, Felix
Re: [gentoo-user] VirtualBox guest eth0/enp0s3 problem
On 04/04/2013 15:27, João Matos wrote: Hi list. I decided to install a virtual server for testing some stuff, but I couldn't configure eth0 as usual. The system complain it doesn't exist. After compiling the kernel hundreds of times, I supposed the problem wasn't my kernel configuration then installed dhcpcd. For my surprise, I got an IP address, but there weren't eth0, just enp0s3 instead. It wouldn't be a problem (even with dhcp), but I can't start any service. They (sshd) complain that there is no eth0. I'm using stable packages (x86). Any suggestions? Thank you. -- João de Matos Linux User #461527 eselect news read -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] kded4 keeping a flash drive busy
On Wed, Apr 3, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Francisco Ares fra...@gmail.com wrote: Hello All Issuing a fuser -m [mount-point] shows that kded4 keeps using the flash drive device, so I am not allowed to umount it. Any hints on how to solve this? The most relevant search result is in http://forum.kde.org/viewtopic.php?f=67t=99419start=15 , but I just can't believe that I have to kill any process to make something so usual. Thanks Francisco -- If you have an apple and I have an apple and we exchange apples then you and I will still each have one apple. But if you have an idea and I have one idea and we exchange these ideas, then each of us will have two ideas. - George Bernard Shaw Hello, I think this is the bug: https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=304943 -- Andrés Becerra Sandoval
Re: [gentoo-user] VirtualBox guest eth0/enp0s3 problem
2013/4/4 Felix Kuperjans fe...@desaster-games.com Hi João, João Matos: Hi list. I decided to install a virtual server for testing some stuff, but I couldn't configure eth0 as usual. The system complain it doesn't exist. After compiling the kernel hundreds of times, I supposed the problem wasn't my kernel configuration then installed dhcpcd. Due to the new udev version, the devices will be renamed by default to names like enp0s3. This is not done by the kernel and no driver issue, just a renaming at boot time done by udev. For my surprise, I got an IP address, but there weren't eth0, just enp0s3 instead. It wouldn't be a problem (even with dhcp), but I can't start any service. They (sshd) complain that there is no eth0. You might have some old references to eth0 around, e.g.: - /etc/init.d/net.eth0 (move this file to /etc/init.d/net.enp0s3) - entries in /etc/conf.d/net (same here, rename them all to enp0s3) Everything is working ok now. :) Next time I'll keep in mind looking at eselect new. I've installed gentoo 3 weeks ago, I didn't know it would change since then. Thank you both. - net.eth0 is maybe installed in the default runlevel. Remove it and add net.enp0s3 - in case SSH still refuses to start, try running /lib/rc/bin/rc-depend -u as root and/or setting rc_depend_strict=NO in /etc/rc.conf I'm using stable packages (x86). Any suggestions? Thank you. -- João de Matos Linux User #461527 Regards, Felix -- João de Matos Linux User #461527 Graduando em Engenharia de Computação 2005.1 UEFS - Universidade Estadual de Feira de Santana
Re: [gentoo-user] sys-fs/udev-200 compile failed during new installation
在 Wed, 03 Apr 2013 22:43:53 -0900，Hinnerk van Bruinehsen h.v.bruineh...@fu-berlin.de 写道: On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:41:26AM -0900, Jackie wrote: Hello all,I was trying to reinstall gentoo on my PC and when I was emerging gentoo-sources-3.8.5,sys-fs/udev-200 was required.However,after installation of gentoo-sources,comlpilation of udev failed and there is no output of error message.And this is the output of emerge --inform =sys-fs/udev-200: SNIP Since there is no error it's hard to debug anything. You could try to emerge it again (sometimes that resolves such issues) or otherwise look in /var/tmp/portage/sys-fs/udev-200/temp/build.log Inside there is the complete build output and therefore the error message should be contained as well. If you can't make sense of the error post the message here. WKR Hinnerk Well,still don't get it clear. However,after compiling several times and fialed. I tried to mask udev-200,udev-199-r1 udev-198-r6 and it's solved,which almost made me exthausted :( Hope the next time rolling the system up it'll be ok. Thx for you suggestion anyway. -- 使用Opera的电子邮件客户端：http://www.opera.com/mail/
[gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
On 2013-04-03, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday 03 Apr 2013 20:46:37 Bruce Hill wrote: Therefore, all's well that's still working! And AFAIR, on at least 2 of those machines, the 70-persistent-net.rules was never something I did manually. Right, it used to be auto-generated by udev scripts. With udev-200 you are meant to remove it along with any other files from your /etc/udev/rules.d/ Huh? I'm supposed to remove all the other rules files as well? If we're not supposed to have user-defined rules, how do I do things like get various USB/firewire devices named/symlinked properly so that my backup drive gets mounted in the right spot, my oscilloscope SW can find the right USB serial port, and so on... -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! I'll show you MY at telex number if you show me gmail.comYOURS ...
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
On 04/04/2013 10:59 AM, Grant Edwards wrote: On 2013-04-03, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday 03 Apr 2013 20:46:37 Bruce Hill wrote: Therefore, all's well that's still working! And AFAIR, on at least 2 of those machines, the 70-persistent-net.rules was never something I did manually. Right, it used to be auto-generated by udev scripts. With udev-200 you are meant to remove it along with any other files from your /etc/udev/rules.d/ Huh? I'm supposed to remove all the other rules files as well? If we're not supposed to have user-defined rules, how do I do things like get various USB/firewire devices named/symlinked properly so that my backup drive gets mounted in the right spot, my oscilloscope SW can find the right USB serial port, and so on... You're supposed to remove all the files in there that you did not yourself create. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:38:28 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: Have you read the news item? Yes. I found it rather confusing. It refers to a new format for rules, but the examples use the exact same format as the old rules. Poor choice of terminology there, the format is the same only the chosen namespace is different. It talks about how 80-net-name-slot.rules needs to be either an empty file or a synmlink to /dev/null if you want to disable the new naming scheme -- but that doesn't seem to be right. After the upgrade my 80-net-name-slot.rules file was neither an empty file nor a symlink to /dev/null, but I'm still getting the same old names. Do you have a 70-persistent-net.rules file? That would override to give the old names, which is why the news item tells you to change it If the system still has old network interface renaming rules in /etc/udev/rules.d, like 70-persistent-net.rules, those will need to be either modified or removed. It explains why the file should be renamed and also why you should change the names in the rules to not use ethN. The only explanation I found was the old way is now deprecated. My bad, I thought that was covered in the news item, but it is left to one of the linked pages to explain it. -- Neil Bothwick The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 09:07:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: Not to mention the fact that this final/current seemingly complete document was way, way too late for the many people who ended up with totally broken systems, and *that* is what caused all of the 'hysteria and mob-think' you so condescendingly speak of. This time the news was released before the update became available, although for something as potentially system-breaking as this, the gap should have been several days larger IMO. So, again, I would really, really like a very simple answer as to the *best* way to retain the old way that is least likely to cause problems down the road (ie, if/when udev is subsumed by systemd). Currently I count 3 different ways The no.ifrename kernel option mentioned in the news item. Or, as an alternative, *how* to switch to eudev (their web page does *not* have simple/precise instructions on how to switch, only a description of what it is) - ie, do I just emerge -C udev emerge -C virtual/udev emerge eudev? Or is there more to it? quickpkg udev emerge -Ca udev emerge -1a eudev Don't try removing virtual/udev, that is depended on by several packages (and probably system) but is satisfied by eudev. The only gotcha I found is that the USE flags for eudev must match those for eudev, so if you have anything udev-related in /etc/portage/package.use, make sure it applies to eudev too. -- Neil Bothwick Did you hear about the blind prostitute? You have to hand it to her. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:28:10PM +0100, Mick wrote: On Wednesday 03 Apr 2013 20:46:37 Bruce Hill wrote: Therefore, all's well that's still working! And AFAIR, on at least 2 of those machines, the 70-persistent-net.rules was never something I did manually. Right, it used to be auto-generated by udev scripts. With udev-200 you are meant to remove it along with any other files from your /etc/udev/rules.d/ If you left them there and their syntax is still valid, then udev will parse them and do as is told. -- Regards, Mick Why are we meant to remove it? Why would we remove them, since they're working? My kernel(s) all have eth* and none of that weirdness others reported. Thanks, Bruce -- Happy Penguin Computers ') 126 Fenco Drive ( \ Tupelo, MS 38801 ^^ supp...@happypenguincomputers.com 662-269-2706 662-205-6424 http://happypenguincomputers.com/ A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing? A: Top-posting. Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail? Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting
[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Wed, 3 Apr 2013 16:38:28 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: Have you read the news item? Yes. I found it rather confusing. It refers to a new format for rules, but the examples use the exact same format as the old rules. Poor choice of terminology there, the format is the same only the chosen namespace is different. It talks about how 80-net-name-slot.rules needs to be either an empty file or a synmlink to /dev/null if you want to disable the new naming scheme -- but that doesn't seem to be right. After the upgrade my 80-net-name-slot.rules file was neither an empty file nor a symlink to /dev/null, but I'm still getting the same old names. Do you have a 70-persistent-net.rules file? That would override to give the old names, which is why the news item tells you to change it If the system still has old network interface renaming rules in /etc/udev/rules.d, like 70-persistent-net.rules, those will need to be either modified or removed. I don't have any rules except the 80-* one installed by new udev and I still have the old names - and this has been the case now for 3 machines and I upgrade a 4th right now. It explains why the file should be renamed and also why you should change the names in the rules to not use ethN. The only explanation I found was the old way is now deprecated. My bad, I thought that was covered in the news item, but it is left to one of the linked pages to explain it. - Jörg
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: stage3 only for i486?
130404 Alan McKinnon wrote: A true GentooWay installer would be any installer of your own choice that launches the shell of your chosing, accepts any stage3 tarball that you want and gotten from anywhere you choose to get it, and unpacked any place you feel like putting it. It will then run the software of your choice and install whatever you tell it to. In my Commonplace Book of quotes for the ages (big smile) ! Installing Gentoo is the age-old trial by fire or the ritual hazing well known to students, marines Masons. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: [way OT but interesting] Massive recent DDOS attack
Am 03.04.2013 13:16, schrieb J. Roeleveld: On Wed, April 3, 2013 11:09, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Wed, 03 Apr 2013 05:46:07 +0200, J. Roeleveld wrote: Do guinea pigs work better or worse than tribbles at calming you? Tribbles don't keep people calm indefinitely. At some point they all die from starvation and humans would follow soon after :) AFAIR guinea pigs don't last forever either... True, but they don't eat ALL the food first ;) -- Joost indeed. They never showed any interest for my pizzas.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 05:05:06PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote On Thu, 04 Apr 2013 09:07:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: Or, as an alternative, *how* to switch to eudev (their web page does *not* have simple/precise instructions on how to switch, only a description of what it is) - ie, do I just emerge -C udev emerge -C virtual/udev emerge eudev? Or is there more to it? quickpkg udev emerge -Ca udev emerge -1a eudev A bit more detail... *WARNING* do the following in sequence, quickly, and do *NOT* reboot until after step 7) 1) Optional fallback... quickpkg udev 2) Keyword sys-fs/eudev/eudev-1_beta2-r2 (~x86 or ~amd64 or whatever is correct for your machine) 3) Remove udev... emerge -Ca udev 4) Install eudev... emerge -1a eudev NOTE; eudev is a drop-in replacement for udev, and generates the same file names. With that in mind, the next 2 items make sense... 5) Stop the old udev demon and start the new one with the command... /etc/init.d/udev --nodeps restart 6) Do *NOT* remove virtual/udev and do *NOT* remove the udev service with rc-update 7) Follow any additional instructions you may get as ewarn messages or in /var/log/portage/elog -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
