Re: [gentoo-user] Progress on s/udev/mdev/
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 09:53:50PM -0600, Dale wrote Question: Is this going to be added to the shiney new Gentoo wiki at some point? The wiki needs some more content for sure. ;-) I didn't know if ya'll had thought of this before or not. Actually, I was hoping to convince the devs to accept a patched ebuild that would accept busybox with the +mdev flag, in addition to the other options in RDEPEND. If this gets accepted by the devs, it would imply changes in the Gentoo docs, plus an additional new profile, etc, etc. Right now, it has to be manually maintained, because it's off the beaten path, and beta-testing, etc. I'm not looking to fork Gentoo. I want this to become another optional profile, not a hack-job that has to be manually maintained by the user. IANACP (I Am Not A C Programmer). I'm willing to help out in the documentation, or where ever else I can. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
Re: [gentoo-user] Progress on s/udev/mdev/
On Mon, Nov 21, 2011 at 17:22, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 09:53:50PM -0600, Dale wrote Question: Is this going to be added to the shiney new Gentoo wiki at some point? The wiki needs some more content for sure. ;-) I didn't know if ya'll had thought of this before or not. Actually, I was hoping to convince the devs to accept a patched ebuild that would accept busybox with the +mdev flag, in addition to the other options in RDEPEND. If this gets accepted by the devs, it would imply changes in the Gentoo docs, plus an additional new profile, etc, etc. True, it would be very preferred to have mdev as a new profile. BUT ... If the procedure lacks something and/or causes a huge number of bugs/annoyances, it will never be accepted as a profile. So we'll have to start with what we have right now, and push it to as many early adopters as possible. One way is to put this into wiki.g.o as an article, and give people a linkback via this list and/or the forums. Right now, it has to be manually maintained, because it's off the beaten path, and beta-testing, etc. I'm not looking to fork Gentoo. I want this to become another optional profile, not a hack-job that has to be manually maintained by the user. Eh? The changes are so minor it truly can't be considered a fork. Hack-job, perhaps. Fork, no ;-) IANACP (I Am Not A C Programmer). I'm willing to help out in the documentation, or where ever else I can. AFAICT, your procedure involves no C programming at all. After reflecting on your procedure, I think the whole process can be automated via scripts (bash and/or .ebuild). Let's see if I can whup up such a script within this week... Rgds, -- FdS Pandu E Poluan ~ IT Optimizer ~ • LOPSA Member #15248 • Blog : http://pepoluan.tumblr.com • Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan
Re: [gentoo-user] Progress on s/udev/mdev/
On Nov 19, 2011 11:58 AM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 08:41:43AM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote On Nov 19, 2011 6:56 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 09:38:42 +1100, Paul Colquhoun wrote: You can copy the ebuild to your own private overlay ( /usr/local/portage ) make your changes there, and bump the version number slightly. No need to bump the version number, overlays take priority over the standard tree when there are equal version numbers. I knew I forgot something so simple . Thanks! Hmmm... so, @waltdnes, you should modify the procedure a bit, there... Will do. This is what beta tests are for G. While you're at it, you might want to check out how mdev handles hotplugging. Start with the primer: http://git.busybox.net/busybox/tree/docs/mdev.txt?h=1_18_stable And gain some ideas here on how mdev executes helper scripts: http://quirk.ch/2010/01/how-to-set-up-mdev-rules-for-busybox Hope these help! I'm still away from my Gentoo boxen so I can't test my ideas yet. Rgds,
Re: [gentoo-user] Progress on s/udev/mdev/
Pandu Poluan wrote: So, any progress/updates on the attempt to replace udev with busybox's mdev? As for my case, it's working well on XenServer and VMware ESX / vSphere (haven't found the time to test a VirtualBox installation yet). Except for one annoyance: Now, I've done the steps put forth by waltdnes here: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/user/242563 ... but every eix-sync emerge -avuD @world finds me having to re-edit /usr/portage/virtual/dev-manager/dev-manager-0.ebuild, or else portage wants to emerge sys-apps/makedev and sys-fs/static-dev Is there a way to 'force' portage to use the edited dev-manager-0.ebuild and not the original version pulled in by eix-sync? Rgds, Question: Is this going to be added to the shiney new Gentoo wiki at some point? The wiki needs some more content for sure. ;-) I didn't know if ya'll had thought of this before or not. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] Progress on s/udev/mdev/
On Nov 20, 2011 10:56 AM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Pandu Poluan wrote: So, any progress/updates on the attempt to replace udev with busybox's mdev? As for my case, it's working well on XenServer and VMware ESX / vSphere (haven't found the time to test a VirtualBox installation yet). Except for one annoyance: Now, I've done the steps put forth by waltdnes here: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/user/242563 ... but every eix-sync emerge -avuD @world finds me having to re-edit /usr/portage/virtual/dev-manager/dev-manager-0.ebuild, or else portage wants to emerge sys-apps/makedev and sys-fs/static-dev Is there a way to 'force' portage to use the edited dev-manager-0.ebuild and not the original version pulled in by eix-sync? Rgds, Question: Is this going to be added to the shiney new Gentoo wiki at some point? The wiki needs some more content for sure. ;-) I didn't know if ya'll had thought of this before or not. Well, although I can't read @waltdnes' mind, I'm sure he has that in mind. We're still ironing out the showstoppers. As soon as the generic glitches/annoyances (e.g., my 'fight' against portage reverting the .ebuild edits) are handled, I'm sure a w.g.o article will automagically appears ;-) Rgds,
[gentoo-user] Progress on s/udev/mdev/
So, any progress/updates on the attempt to replace udev with busybox's mdev? As for my case, it's working well on XenServer and VMware ESX / vSphere (haven't found the time to test a VirtualBox installation yet). Except for one annoyance: Now, I've done the steps put forth by waltdnes here: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/user/242563 ... but every eix-sync emerge -avuD @world finds me having to re-edit /usr/portage/virtual/dev-manager/dev-manager-0.ebuild, or else portage wants to emerge sys-apps/makedev and sys-fs/static-dev Is there a way to 'force' portage to use the edited dev-manager-0.ebuild and not the original version pulled in by eix-sync? Rgds, -- FdS Pandu E Poluan ~ IT Optimizer ~ • LOPSA Member #15248 • Blog : http://pepoluan.tumblr.com • Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan
Re: [gentoo-user] Progress on s/udev/mdev/
On Fri, 18 Nov 2011 06:33:59 PM Pandu Poluan wrote: So, any progress/updates on the attempt to replace udev with busybox's mdev? As for my case, it's working well on XenServer and VMware ESX / vSphere (haven't found the time to test a VirtualBox installation yet). Except for one annoyance: Now, I've done the steps put forth by waltdnes here: http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/gentoo/user/242563 ... but every eix-sync emerge -avuD @world finds me having to re-edit /usr/portage/virtual/dev-manager/dev-manager-0.ebuild, or else portage wants to emerge sys-apps/makedev and sys-fs/static-dev Is there a way to 'force' portage to use the edited dev-manager-0.ebuild and not the original version pulled in by eix-sync? Rgds, You can copy the ebuild to your own private overlay ( /usr/local/portage ) make your changes there, and bump the version number slightly. -- Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC.http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. Then, when you do, you'll be a mile away, and you'll have their shoes.
Re: [gentoo-user] Progress on s/udev/mdev/
On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 09:38:42 +1100, Paul Colquhoun wrote: ... but every eix-sync emerge -avuD @world finds me having to re-edit /usr/portage/virtual/dev-manager/dev-manager-0.ebuild, or else portage wants to emerge sys-apps/makedev and sys-fs/static-dev Is there a way to 'force' portage to use the edited dev-manager-0.ebuild and not the original version pulled in by eix-sync? You can copy the ebuild to your own private overlay ( /usr/local/portage ) make your changes there, and bump the version number slightly. No need to bump the version number, overlays take priority over the standard tree when there are equal version numbers. -- Neil Bothwick This is the day for firm decisions! Or is it? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Progress on s/udev/mdev/
On Nov 19, 2011 6:56 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 09:38:42 +1100, Paul Colquhoun wrote: ... but every eix-sync emerge -avuD @world finds me having to re-edit /usr/portage/virtual/dev-manager/dev-manager-0.ebuild, or else portage wants to emerge sys-apps/makedev and sys-fs/static-dev Is there a way to 'force' portage to use the edited dev-manager-0.ebuild and not the original version pulled in by eix-sync? You can copy the ebuild to your own private overlay ( /usr/local/portage ) make your changes there, and bump the version number slightly. No need to bump the version number, overlays take priority over the standard tree when there are equal version numbers. I knew I forgot something so simple . Thanks! Hmmm... so, @waltdnes, you should modify the procedure a bit, there... Rgds,
Re: [gentoo-user] Progress on s/udev/mdev/
On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 08:41:43AM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote On Nov 19, 2011 6:56 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 09:38:42 +1100, Paul Colquhoun wrote: You can copy the ebuild to your own private overlay ( /usr/local/portage ) make your changes there, and bump the version number slightly. No need to bump the version number, overlays take priority over the standard tree when there are equal version numbers. I knew I forgot something so simple . Thanks! Hmmm... so, @waltdnes, you should modify the procedure a bit, there... Will do. This is what beta tests are for G. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
Re: [gentoo-user] Progress on s/udev/mdev/
On Nov 19, 2011 11:58 AM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 08:41:43AM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote On Nov 19, 2011 6:56 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sat, 19 Nov 2011 09:38:42 +1100, Paul Colquhoun wrote: You can copy the ebuild to your own private overlay ( /usr/local/portage ) make your changes there, and bump the version number slightly. No need to bump the version number, overlays take priority over the standard tree when there are equal version numbers. I knew I forgot something so simple . Thanks! Hmmm... so, @waltdnes, you should modify the procedure a bit, there... Will do. This is what beta tests are for G. Great! BTW, if the ebuild goes into overlay, it could use a newer EAPI, couldn't it? If it could, then it'll solve the problem of busybox[mdev]. Rgds,
