Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev
On 7 April 2013, at 07:00, Joseph wrote: ... Are these new udev rules going across all Linux distros or this is something specific to Gentoo? I would assume across all distros. Gentoo generally makes a policy of just packaging whatever upstream offers. In fact, the origins of the ebuild is that it does little more than automating the `configure make make install` of compiling upsteam's source. I don't see why the Gentoo devs would impose this on us, unless it came from upstream. AIUI the motive for these changes are so that you can unpack an enterprise-type server, the ones with two NICs on the motherboard, and always know which NIC is which. You can then unpack a pallet load of them, and deploy them without any need for determining which is which or for any manual intervention. This is actually pretty important and useful, but I'm not sure this has all been done the best way. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 09:12:15 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote: I didnt get hit either either, but (STRONG hint) ... I use eudev, so dies Dale and I believe Walt uses mdev. Time for those in server environments to jump ship? Except the problems that udev is trying to avoid are more likely to be exerienced in server environments. Those running a desktop with a single network card are never going to be bothered about namespace clashes. -- Neil Bothwick Famed tautologist dies of suicide in distressing tragedy signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty, nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE, Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means no UNcommented lines. Comments are just that, and if there are no UNcommented lines, then nothing is active, hence it is effectively 'empty'. But not actually empty. If you are correct, and I suspect you are, then the news item is poorly worded. No effective content is not the same as no content at all. -- Neil Bothwick ... Never say anything more predictive than Watch this! signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 03:06:30 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: Wha? I swear I was told that you could not reliably name the iterfaces eth[0-n] using udev rules (which is what I've always done without problems) because of race conditions. So I changed over to net[0-n] on one machine, and was planning on doing so on the others soon. Can we still use udev rules to name interfaces eth[0-n] or not? Yes, just as before. And just as before, you cannot rely on it working every time. -- Neil Bothwick Linuxgeek How do i find the model of my card? Serena[T] your nick is misleading, seriously signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:34:03 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: Now I only had to figure out how to rename eth[0-9]+ to the custom naming scheme when using mdev. ***UDEV*** has broken using eth[0-9]. mdev works just fine, thank you. udev has broken nothing, it is avoiding the breakage caused by a fundamentally flawed renaming procedure. Or does mdev have some magic for for renaming eth0 to eth1 while eth1 already exists? -- Neil Bothwick Having children will turn you into your parents. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Am Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:23:04 -0400
schrieb Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com:
On 04/06/2013 11:19 PM, Nick Khamis wrote:
Hello Michael,
Is it because you disabled udev's renaming entirely via the kernel
command-line parameter? Because you've done some magic in
/etc/udev/rules.d/?
I did not change 70-something contents. I deleted it and let udev
regenerate it.
The name in rules.d is net=eth0 and net=eth1 pointing to the correct
mac address.
Your help is greatly appreciated,
Just an FYI...when I removed them, udev did not regenerate them. You
might try removing them again (or moving them to ~root/ for
safekeeping), rebooting, and seeing what happens.
That udev regenerated them for you is very, very weird.
Especially considering that the programs for generating them aren't installed
anymore. Look at the output of qlist -e udev|grep write and see if you find
them (the programs were /lib/udev/write_{cd,net}_rules). For me grep finds
nothing, so I have to ask: are you *really* using udev-200?
--
Marc Joliet
--
People who think they know everything really annoy those of us who know we
don't - Bjarne Stroustrup
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] mdev and lvm2
Hello List, What is the status of using mdev (instead the ever growing udev) together with lvm2? Reason for my question is that at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev it says One beta tester reports getting close with lvm2, but it's not there yet.. Regards, -- Dan Johansson, http://www.dmj.nu *** This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons! ***
[gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 06.04.2013 21:11, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Jarry wrote:
On 06-Apr-13 19:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
STOP SPREADING THIS FUD
It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people
who
blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news
announcement, who did not read the CLEARLY WORDED wiki article at
freedesktop.org or alternatively went into mod-induced panic and
started
making shit up in their heads.
Steady on, old chap! By it I was meaning the general
inconvenience
all round occasioned by the changes between udev-{197,200}. Not
everybody encountered this. For example Dale, and Walt D. didn't
have
to do anything. But pretty much everybody else did.
The problem is, news item is not correct! I followed it
and yet finished with server having old network name (eth0).
Problem was the point 4. in news item, which is not quite clear:
-
4. predictable network interface names:
If /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is an empty file
or a symlink to /dev/null, the new names will be disabled and
the kernel will do all the interface naming...
-
Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE,
which basically did the same thing as empty file: disabled
new network names. Unfortunatelly, I found it just after
screwed reboot. But I did everything I found in news item:
checked and verified that file was not symlink to /dev/null
and that it was not empty (1667 bytes does not seem to me
to be empty file).
As I wrote previously, I am pretty sure I never created this
file manually so it must have been created by som previous
udev-version. So I finished up with similar problem as OP:
after rebooting I did not find interface I expected. The
only difference is I expected already interface with new
name, and OP is probably the old one...
You're not alone, this happened for me on all my 4 machines.
Same confusion here, but this paragraph saved my ass
--
In a normal new installation there are no files in /etc/udev/rules.d
and if you haven't edited any files you have in there, you should most
likely backup and delete them all if they don't belong to any packages.
--
So I checked and just removed all files. luckily everything went fine
:)
So I must add my point to complaining about news item
not beeing quite clear. And this happens quite often...
heiko
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we
should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked
away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related
package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine.
I reset the system and poof Here I am at the co-location on Sunday
at 9:00am.
Serves me right I guess.
I double checked. When deleting 70-something rules and restarting the
machine they get regenerated.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
N.
On 4/7/13, Heiko Zinke ma...@rabuju.com wrote:
On 06.04.2013 21:11, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Jarry wrote:
On 06-Apr-13 19:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
STOP SPREADING THIS FUD
It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people
who
blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news
announcement, who did not read the CLEARLY WORDED wiki article at
freedesktop.org or alternatively went into mod-induced panic and
started
making shit up in their heads.
Steady on, old chap! By it I was meaning the general
inconvenience
all round occasioned by the changes between udev-{197,200}. Not
everybody encountered this. For example Dale, and Walt D. didn't
have
to do anything. But pretty much everybody else did.
The problem is, news item is not correct! I followed it
and yet finished with server having old network name (eth0).
Problem was the point 4. in news item, which is not quite clear:
-
4. predictable network interface names:
If /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is an empty file
or a symlink to /dev/null, the new names will be disabled and
the kernel will do all the interface naming...
-
Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE,
which basically did the same thing as empty file: disabled
new network names. Unfortunatelly, I found it just after
screwed reboot. But I did everything I found in news item:
checked and verified that file was not symlink to /dev/null
and that it was not empty (1667 bytes does not seem to me
to be empty file).
As I wrote previously, I am pretty sure I never created this
file manually so it must have been created by som previous
udev-version. So I finished up with similar problem as OP:
after rebooting I did not find interface I expected. The
only difference is I expected already interface with new
name, and OP is probably the old one...
You're not alone, this happened for me on all my 4 machines.
Same confusion here, but this paragraph saved my ass
--
In a normal new installation there are no files in /etc/udev/rules.d
and if you haven't edited any files you have in there, you should most
likely backup and delete them all if they don't belong to any packages.
--
So I checked and just removed all files. luckily everything went fine
:)
So I must add my point to complaining about news item
not beeing quite clear. And this happens quite often...
heiko
Re: [gentoo-user] mdev and lvm2
Hi, Dan. On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 02:34:16PM +0200, Dan Johansson wrote: Hello List, What is the status of using mdev (instead the ever growing udev) together with lvm2? Reason for my question is that at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev it says One beta tester reports getting close with lvm2, but it's not there yet.. I think that beta tester was me. I had lvm2 partitions running under mdev without problems. (They were also RAID-1, just for completion's sake.) The only change I had to make was to my /etc/fstab. Where I previously had: /dev/vg/usr /usr options under udev, I then needed /dev/mapper/vg-usr /usr options instead. mdev failed to create the /dev/vg directory. With this change, my system worked quite happily. Sadly, I went back to udev when xf86-input-evdev-2.7.0 started depending on udev, back in June last year. Regards, -- Dan Johansson, http://www.dmj.nu *** This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons! *** -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Manually bringing up eth0 using ifconfig got me up and running. It's
quite shaky though. net.eth0 does not work any more and of course
neither does sshd or any other service that requires net.eth*. Thanks
Michael.
If they're supposed to be configured via DHCP, try dhclient
$interface_name. If they're supposed to be statically configured, try
using ifconfig to configure them manually.
Now that I have internet connection, I am not sure what my line of
action should be.
N.
On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we
should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked
away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related
package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine.
I reset the system and poof Here I am at the co-location on Sunday
at 9:00am.
Serves me right I guess.
I double checked. When deleting 70-something rules and restarting the
machine they get regenerated.
Any help is greatly appreciated.
N.
On 4/7/13, Heiko Zinke ma...@rabuju.com wrote:
On 06.04.2013 21:11, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Jarry wrote:
On 06-Apr-13 19:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
STOP SPREADING THIS FUD
It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people
who
blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news
announcement, who did not read the CLEARLY WORDED wiki article at
freedesktop.org or alternatively went into mod-induced panic and
started
making shit up in their heads.
Steady on, old chap! By it I was meaning the general
inconvenience
all round occasioned by the changes between udev-{197,200}. Not
everybody encountered this. For example Dale, and Walt D. didn't
have
to do anything. But pretty much everybody else did.
The problem is, news item is not correct! I followed it
and yet finished with server having old network name (eth0).
Problem was the point 4. in news item, which is not quite clear:
-
4. predictable network interface names:
If /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is an empty file
or a symlink to /dev/null, the new names will be disabled and
the kernel will do all the interface naming...
-
Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE,
which basically did the same thing as empty file: disabled
new network names. Unfortunatelly, I found it just after
screwed reboot. But I did everything I found in news item:
checked and verified that file was not symlink to /dev/null
and that it was not empty (1667 bytes does not seem to me
to be empty file).
As I wrote previously, I am pretty sure I never created this
file manually so it must have been created by som previous
udev-version. So I finished up with similar problem as OP:
after rebooting I did not find interface I expected. The
only difference is I expected already interface with new
name, and OP is probably the old one...
You're not alone, this happened for me on all my 4 machines.
Same confusion here, but this paragraph saved my ass
--
In a normal new installation there are no files in /etc/udev/rules.d
and if you haven't edited any files you have in there, you should most
likely backup and delete them all if they don't belong to any packages.
--
So I checked and just removed all files. luckily everything went fine
:)
So I must add my point to complaining about news item
not beeing quite clear. And this happens quite often...
heiko
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 04/07/2013 10:01 AM, Nick Khamis wrote: Manually bringing up eth0 using ifconfig got me up and running. It's quite shaky though. net.eth0 does not work any more and of course neither does sshd or any other service that requires net.eth*. Thanks Michael. If they're supposed to be configured via DHCP, try dhclient $interface_name. If they're supposed to be statically configured, try using ifconfig to configure them manually. Now that I have internet connection, I am not sure what my line of action should be. Figure out why you're still running udev-171. I suspect your errors come from having the old version of udev after everything updated around it. Or switch to mdev or eudev. Your call...but your old udev is probably at the heart of your problem. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:38:23 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine. I reset the system and poof Here I am at the co-location on Sunday at 9:00am. Serves me right I guess. I double checked. When deleting 70-something rules and restarting the machine they get regenerated. That's how udev-171 was supposed to work. You need to update to 200 then delete the file and it will stay deleted. You really need to read the news item and associated page CAREFULLY, then work through them CAREFULLY and the upgrade should do just what you want. udev, or whatever device manager you choose, is a critical system component, not the sort of thing you should leave to update itself without reading the instructions, especially on a remote server. -- Neil Bothwick MICROSOFT: Most Intelligent Customers Realize Our Software Only Fools Teenagers signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare There are 4500 people coming into work tomorrow morning, and this machine also happens to be our LDAP server. N. On 4/7/13, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:38:23 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine. I reset the system and poof Here I am at the co-location on Sunday at 9:00am. Serves me right I guess. I double checked. When deleting 70-something rules and restarting the machine they get regenerated. That's how udev-171 was supposed to work. You need to update to 200 then delete the file and it will stay deleted. You really need to read the news item and associated page CAREFULLY, then work through them CAREFULLY and the upgrade should do just what you want. udev, or whatever device manager you choose, is a critical system component, not the sort of thing you should leave to update itself without reading the instructions, especially on a remote server. -- Neil Bothwick MICROSOFT: Most Intelligent Customers Realize Our Software Only Fools Teenagers
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Installing wpa_supplicant got the network scripts working again. Not sure why. Does anyone know why we need wpa_supplication now? On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare There are 4500 people coming into work tomorrow morning, and this machine also happens to be our LDAP server. N. On 4/7/13, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:38:23 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine. I reset the system and poof Here I am at the co-location on Sunday at 9:00am. Serves me right I guess. I double checked. When deleting 70-something rules and restarting the machine they get regenerated. That's how udev-171 was supposed to work. You need to update to 200 then delete the file and it will stay deleted. You really need to read the news item and associated page CAREFULLY, then work through them CAREFULLY and the upgrade should do just what you want. udev, or whatever device manager you choose, is a critical system component, not the sort of thing you should leave to update itself without reading the instructions, especially on a remote server. -- Neil Bothwick MICROSOFT: Most Intelligent Customers Realize Our Software Only Fools Teenagers
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Are you using 802.1x or wireless on that machine? If not, I can't think of a reason you'd need it, outside of it being a hard dependency of some other package. On 04/07/2013 10:22 AM, Nick Khamis wrote: Installing wpa_supplicant got the network scripts working again. Not sure why. Does anyone know why we need wpa_supplication now? On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare There are 4500 people coming into work tomorrow morning, and this machine also happens to be our LDAP server. N. On 4/7/13, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:38:23 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine. I reset the system and poof Here I am at the co-location on Sunday at 9:00am. Serves me right I guess. I double checked. When deleting 70-something rules and restarting the machine they get regenerated. That's how udev-171 was supposed to work. You need to update to 200 then delete the file and it will stay deleted. You really need to read the news item and associated page CAREFULLY, then work through them CAREFULLY and the upgrade should do just what you want. udev, or whatever device manager you choose, is a critical system component, not the sort of thing you should leave to update itself without reading the instructions, especially on a remote server. -- Neil Bothwick MICROSOFT: Most Intelligent Customers Realize Our Software Only Fools Teenagers signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
No... I'm stumped. I really don't want it in there either... I will attempt removing it once finished updating the system. N. On 4/7/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: Are you using 802.1x or wireless on that machine? If not, I can't think of a reason you'd need it, outside of it being a hard dependency of some other package. On 04/07/2013 10:22 AM, Nick Khamis wrote: Installing wpa_supplicant got the network scripts working again. Not sure why. Does anyone know why we need wpa_supplication now? On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare There are 4500 people coming into work tomorrow morning, and this machine also happens to be our LDAP server. N. On 4/7/13, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:38:23 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine. I reset the system and poof Here I am at the co-location on Sunday at 9:00am. Serves me right I guess. I double checked. When deleting 70-something rules and restarting the machine they get regenerated. That's how udev-171 was supposed to work. You need to update to 200 then delete the file and it will stay deleted. You really need to read the news item and associated page CAREFULLY, then work through them CAREFULLY and the upgrade should do just what you want. udev, or whatever device manager you choose, is a critical system component, not the sort of thing you should leave to update itself without reading the instructions, especially on a remote server. -- Neil Bothwick MICROSOFT: Most Intelligent Customers Realize Our Software Only Fools Teenagers
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 10:20:02 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a pessimist... PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on this list. -- Neil Bothwick the sum of all human intelligence is constant, only the number of humans increases. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
On Apr 7, 2013 5:59 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:34:03 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: Now I only had to figure out how to rename eth[0-9]+ to the custom naming scheme when using mdev. ***UDEV*** has broken using eth[0-9]. mdev works just fine, thank you. udev has broken nothing, it is avoiding the breakage caused by a fundamentally flawed renaming procedure. Or does mdev have some magic for for renaming eth0 to eth1 while eth1 already exists? Broken or not is totally depending on the eye of the beholder. Server SysAdmins *sometimes* need to reboot, and if the name suddenly changes, that's hell on earth for us. AFAICT, prior to udev-200, once an interface got assigned an ethX moniker, it just won't change name unless there's a hardware change. At least, that's my experience so far. Rgds, --
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev
On Apr 7, 2013 3:56 PM, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote: On 7 April 2013, at 07:00, Joseph wrote: ... Are these new udev rules going across all Linux distros or this is something specific to Gentoo? I would assume across all distros. Gentoo generally makes a policy of just packaging whatever upstream offers. In fact, the origins of the ebuild is that it does little more than automating the `configure make make install` of compiling upsteam's source. I don't see why the Gentoo devs would impose this on us, unless it came from upstream. AIUI the motive for these changes are so that you can unpack an enterprise-type server, the ones with two NICs on the motherboard, and always know which NIC is which. You can then unpack a pallet load of them, and deploy them without any need for determining which is which or for any manual intervention. This is actually pretty important and useful, but I'm not sure this has all been done the best way. Stroller. AFAICT, on-board NICs have sequential MAC Adresses, with the one labeled Port 1 has the smallest MAC Address. So far, *all* Linux distros I've used on a server will reliably name Port X as eth$((X-1)). So it's never a puzzle as to which port bears which ethX moniker. The new naming scheme, however, is much less intuitive. Where originally I just immediately use eth0, now I have to enumerate the monikers first, because even between servers of the same model (let's say, HP's DL360 G7), the PCI attachment point might differ. Granted, Linux SysAdmins *are* expected to understand the vagaries of Linux, but it's still a great inconvenience. Rgds, --
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 22:26:52 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote: udev has broken nothing, it is avoiding the breakage caused by a fundamentally flawed renaming procedure. Or does mdev have some magic for for renaming eth0 to eth1 while eth1 already exists? Broken or not is totally depending on the eye of the beholder. Server SysAdmins *sometimes* need to reboot, and if the name suddenly changes, that's hell on earth for us. AFAICT, prior to udev-200, once an interface got assigned an ethX moniker, it just won't change name unless there's a hardware change. At least, that's my experience so far. But that isn't guaranteed. Basically, renaming within the eth namespace has always had the potential for breakage, whether it worked for you or not. The fact that for 99% of the time it didn't break doesn't remove that potential, and a server with multiple NICs is more likely to be affected than a laptop. Also, if you believe the breakage won't apply to you, there is nothing to stop you continuing with your old rules, in fact that is exactly what udev does if you don't remove them yourself. -- Neil Bothwick Many husbands go broke on the money their wives save on sales. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] mdev and lvm2
On Sunday 07 April 2013 13.47:55 Alan Mackenzie wrote: Hi, Dan. On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 02:34:16PM +0200, Dan Johansson wrote: Hello List, What is the status of using mdev (instead the ever growing udev) together with lvm2? Reason for my question is that at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev it says One beta tester reports getting close with lvm2, but it's not there yet.. I think that beta tester was me. I had lvm2 partitions running under mdev without problems. (They were also RAID-1, just for completion's sake.) The only change I had to make was to my /etc/fstab. Where I previously had: /dev/vg/usr /usr options under udev, I then needed /dev/mapper/vg-usr /usr options instead. mdev failed to create the /dev/vg directory. With this change, my system worked quite happily. Sadly, I went back to udev when xf86-input-evdev-2.7.0 started depending on udev, back in June last year. Hi Alan, Thanks for you feedback. Regards, -- Dan Johansson, http://www.dmj.nu *** This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons! ***
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a pessimist... PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on this list. Makes sense and I apologize for the top posts. Have everything up to date with udev in the crosshairs. That being said: 1) Network drivers are compiled as modules 2) I deleted the contents of /etc/udev/rules.d (i.e, 70-something) 3) Removed udev-postmount from runlevels. That should be sufficient to hold onto the old names eth0/1? Thanks for all your help. N. On 4/7/13, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 10:20:02 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a pessimist... PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on this list. -- Neil Bothwick the sum of all human intelligence is constant, only the number of humans increases.
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty, nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE, Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means no UNcommented lines. Comments are just that, and if there are no UNcommented lines, then nothing is active, hence it is effectively 'empty'. But not actually empty. If you are correct, and I suspect you are, then the news item is poorly worded. No effective content is not the same as no content at all. Oh, I agree that it was poorly worded, I was just pointing out that it was kind of silly to take quite it so literally... Every sysadmin knows (or should know) that a config file full of nothing but comments isn't going to do *anything* other than provide whatever defaults the program is designed to use in such a case.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 17:00:24 Nick Khamis wrote: You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a pessimist... PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on this list. Makes sense and I apologize for the top posts. Have everything up to date with udev in the crosshairs. That being said: 1) Network drivers are compiled as modules 2) I deleted the contents of /etc/udev/rules.d (i.e, 70-something) 3) Removed udev-postmount from runlevels. That should be sufficient to hold onto the old names eth0/1? If they are built as modules, then I would expect the old naming convention to be retained - unless you had renamed them in a different order in your 70- something... rules. This is not all though. Check the page: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Udev/upgrade You also need CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y in your kernel and if there is a /dev entry in your /etc/fstab, then it must have devtmpfs as its fs type. Most installations would not have such an entry in /etc/fstab - but better check to be safe. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 4/7/13, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 17:00:24 Nick Khamis wrote: You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a pessimist... PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on this list. Makes sense and I apologize for the top posts. Have everything up to date with udev in the crosshairs. That being said: 1) Network drivers are compiled as modules 2) I deleted the contents of /etc/udev/rules.d (i.e, 70-something) 3) Removed udev-postmount from runlevels. That should be sufficient to hold onto the old names eth0/1? If they are built as modules, then I would expect the old naming convention to be retained - unless you had renamed them in a different order in your 70- something... rules. This is not all though. Check the page: http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Udev/upgrade You also need CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y in your kernel and if there is a /dev entry in your /etc/fstab, then it must have devtmpfs as its fs type. Most installations would not have such an entry in /etc/fstab - but better check to be safe. -- Regards, Mick Oh yes! The devtempfs is enabled in the kernel, and no entry in fstab. Forgot to mention that. N.
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 07-Apr-13 18:03, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty, nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE, Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means no UNcommented lines. Comments are just that, and if there are no UNcommented lines, then nothing is active, hence it is effectively 'empty'. But not actually empty. If you are correct, and I suspect you are, then the news item is poorly worded. No effective content is not the same as no content at all. Oh, I agree that it was poorly worded, I was just pointing out that it was kind of silly to take quite it so literally... Every sysadmin knows (or should know) that a config file full of nothing but comments isn't going to do *anything* other than provide whatever defaults the program is designed to use in such a case. True, but only if admin checks content of the file. The lazy one (me) just checked size (ls -l /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules), found it is not linked to /dev/null and the file size is 1667 bytes, and satisfied that he checked all what was in news-item rebooted... Devs should not over-estimate users. Or I put it other way: every news-item should be fool-proof (if it is possible)... Jarry -- ___ This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists! Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev
On 04/07/13 22:35, Pandu Poluan wrote: [snip] AFAICT, on-board NICs have sequential MAC Adresses, with the one labeled Port 1 has the smallest MAC Address. So far, *all* Linux distros I've used on a server will reliably name Port X as eth$((X-1)). So it's never a puzzle as to which port bears which ethX moniker. The new naming scheme, however, is much less intuitive. Where originally I just immediately use eth0, now I have to enumerate the monikers first, because even between servers of the same model (let's say, HP's DL360 G7), the PCI attachment point might differ. Granted, Linux SysAdmins *are* expected to understand the vagaries of Linux, but it's still a great inconvenience. Rgds, -- In my opinion this new udev-200 naming port is a big screw-up; I wouldn't be surprised if few months down the road we will go back to old naming because of misunderstandings. -- Joseph
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 2013-04-07 12:11 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: if there is a /dev entry in your /etc/fstab, then it must have devtmpfs as its fs type. Most installations would not have such an entry in /etc/fstab - but better check to be safe. I've heard this many times, but can anyone explain just *when* you would want or need a /dev entry in your fstab?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 17:37:00 Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-04-07 12:11 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: if there is a /dev entry in your /etc/fstab, then it must have devtmpfs as its fs type. Most installations would not have such an entry in /etc/fstab - but better check to be safe. I've heard this many times, but can anyone explain just *when* you would want or need a /dev entry in your fstab? Only to state the obvious: When your /dev resides in a separate partition. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 2013-04-07, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty, nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE, Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means no UNcommented lines. Comments are just that, and if there are no UNcommented lines, then nothing is active, hence it is effectively 'empty'. But not actually empty. If you are correct, and I suspect you are, then the news item is poorly worded. No effective content is not the same as no content at all. Oh, I agree that it was poorly worded, I was just pointing out that it was kind of silly to take quite it so literally... OK, so parts of the news item are not to be taken literally, and other parts are. Perhaps it would be wise to mark the sections so we can tell the difference? ;) Every sysadmin knows (or should know) that a config file full of nothing but comments isn't going to do *anything* other than provide whatever defaults the program is designed to use in such a case. It's entirely possible for udev (or any other program) to check whether a file is empty or not and behave differently depending on that test. And if it is explicitly stated that something depends on a file being empty, that's what I assume was indended. Of course it's possible to determine via experimentation that nothing but comments produces the same behavior as empty. Of course we all figured that out after we realized that udev wasn't behaving as was described in the news entry and started reading other documentation. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! PEGGY FLEMMING is at stealing BASKET BALLS to gmail.comfeed the babies in VERMONT.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 2013-04-07 1:00 PM, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: OK, so parts of the news item are not to be taken literally, and other parts are. Perhaps it would be wise to mark the sections so we can tell the difference? ;) Context is everything. You can't equate Remove the udev-postmount init script from your runlevels. with If /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is an empty file or a symlink to /dev/null, The first can obviously be taken quite literally, while the second just might actually require a tiny bit of thought - ie, 'hmmm, wonder if they mean literally 'empty', or just nothing in it that does anything? Imnsho, the latter is obviously what was meant, while just as obviously a truly *empty* file would do the same thing as one with no *effective* content.
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 2013-04-07 12:18 PM, Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote: On 07-Apr-13 18:03, Tanstaafl wrote: Every sysadmin knows (or should know) that a config file full of nothing but comments isn't going to do *anything* other than provide whatever defaults the program is designed to use in such a case. True, but only if admin checks content of the file. The lazy one (me) just checked size (ls -l /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules), found it is not linked to /dev/null and the file size is 1667 bytes, and satisfied that he checked all what was in news-item rebooted... Devs should not over-estimate users. Or I put it other way: every news-item should be fool-proof (if it is possible)... Or put another way, lazy devs should simply admit that they run the risk of making silly mistakes like this because of their laziness. Failure to check the actual contents of a file critical to system operation (whether booting or network) when it is specifically mentioned in release notes (or a news item) is just asking for precisely these kinds of problems. I'm sympathetic with Nick, but I don't feel sorry for him, he did this to himself. Hell, I'm *still* analyzing things before pulling the trigger, and I'm 100% certain that I've got a handle on what to do now (after lots of reading and asking questions here)...
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 2013-04-07 9:38 AM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. Well, hopefully you learned a valuable lesson. I cannot even *fathom* the *idea* of doing a world update on a remote server without going through each and every package to be updated, reading every news item I could find, etc etc ad nauseum, and googling if any systems critical to booting (like udev) are involved. For me, world updates are usually very small because I keep my server updated weekly. I generally sync every day, checking what packages are available, then once that update has been available/unchanged for 3 or 4 days, I update it... waiting even a bit longer (and googling for issues) if the package(s) are critical system packages. Admittedly, doing it this way manually wouldn't work for anyone managing more than a few servers, although I imagine it could be scripted by one with the knowledge/desire. But seriously - there has been so much noise about the whole udev situation in the last months (6+?) that you should really be kicking yourself that you did that.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
After psyching myself and everyone else for the udev 200 update, it failed on compile phase! We are using hardened server, and error message (which I am transferring over manually) is: The specific snippet of code: die econf failed This thing is not going easy N. On 4/7/13, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-04-07 9:38 AM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. Well, hopefully you learned a valuable lesson. I cannot even *fathom* the *idea* of doing a world update on a remote server without going through each and every package to be updated, reading every news item I could find, etc etc ad nauseum, and googling if any systems critical to booting (like udev) are involved. For me, world updates are usually very small because I keep my server updated weekly. I generally sync every day, checking what packages are available, then once that update has been available/unchanged for 3 or 4 days, I update it... waiting even a bit longer (and googling for issues) if the package(s) are critical system packages. Admittedly, doing it this way manually wouldn't work for anyone managing more than a few servers, although I imagine it could be scripted by one with the knowledge/desire. But seriously - there has been so much noise about the whole udev situation in the last months (6+?) that you should really be kicking yourself that you did that.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Am 07.04.2013 16:32, schrieb Nick Khamis: No... I'm stumped. I really don't want it in there either... I will attempt removing it once finished updating the system. N. On 4/7/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: Are you using 802.1x or wireless on that machine? If not, I can't think of a reason you'd need it, outside of it being a hard dependency of some other package. Mike is right, if it's not a dep of another ebuild, you don't need wpa_supplicant. I just upgraded udev to 200 on the last remote box (which is always a bit of a thrill after typing reboot return :-) ). As expected, eth0 came up, everything works fine, wpa_supplicant is not installed.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news: 1. tempfs in kernel 2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d 3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel 4) check fstab for the /tmp And it changed! This is the pits dude... N. On 4/7/13, Michael Hampicke gentoo-u...@hadt.biz wrote: Am 07.04.2013 16:32, schrieb Nick Khamis: No... I'm stumped. I really don't want it in there either... I will attempt removing it once finished updating the system. N. On 4/7/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: Are you using 802.1x or wireless on that machine? If not, I can't think of a reason you'd need it, outside of it being a hard dependency of some other package. Mike is right, if it's not a dep of another ebuild, you don't need wpa_supplicant. I just upgraded udev to 200 on the last remote box (which is always a bit of a thrill after typing reboot return :-) ). As expected, eth0 came up, everything works fine, wpa_supplicant is not installed.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On 2013-04-07 1:48 PM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news: 1. tempfs in kernel 2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d 3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel 4) check fstab for the /tmp And it changed! WHAT changed???
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0 and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as modules. N On 4/7/13, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-04-07 1:48 PM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news: 1. tempfs in kernel 2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d 3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel 4) check fstab for the /tmp And it changed! WHAT changed???
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? N On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0 and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as modules. N On 4/7/13, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-04-07 1:48 PM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news: 1. tempfs in kernel 2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d 3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel 4) check fstab for the /tmp And it changed! WHAT changed???
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
For those that have an error compiling udev 200: # emerge -1 XML-Parser # perl-cleaner --all There was not mention of this in the news. Nor will the package pull them in as a dependency. N. On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? N On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0 and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as modules. N On 4/7/13, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2013-04-07 1:48 PM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news: 1. tempfs in kernel 2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d 3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel 4) check fstab for the /tmp And it changed! WHAT changed???
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 18:48:02 Nick Khamis wrote: I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news: 1. tempfs in kernel I guess you're talking about: CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y 2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d That's OK. 3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel Good. 4) check fstab for the /tmp I guess again you mean: /dev And it changed! If your NICs changed their name then most likely the drivers were built in the kernel and not as modules. If so, you have following 3 options: 1. Go with the new names. Change your entries in /etc/conf.d/net to use the new names as these are shown here: ls -la /sys/class/net/ and then change the symlinks in your /etc/init.d/from the old interface names to the new: cd /etc/init.d rm net.eth0 ln -s net.lo netNew_Name ls -l net.New_Name lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 6 Mar 31 11:51 /etc/init.d/net.enp11s0 - net.lo the last line is what mine shows, for what used to be net.eth0 on *my* machine. 2. You categorically don't want the new 'predictable' names and you want to stay as you were: Rebuild your kernel with the drivers for the NICs as modules. The kernel *should* rename them to what they were before. I can't vouch for this, but NICs which are not built in here were not renamed by udev. 3. You categorically don't want the new 'predictable' names and you want to stay as you were, but you don't want to rebuild the kernel: 3.1 Create a new empty file: touch /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules and reboot. The kernel will rename the interfaces hopefully as they were before. 3.2 Instead of creating the empty 80-net-name-slot.rules file, append this option in your grub kernel line: net.ifnames=0 I hope some of the above will work for you and you'll be able to get back where you were a couple of days ago. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Am 07.04.2013 20:08, schrieb Nick Khamis: For those that have an error compiling udev 200: # emerge -1 XML-Parser # perl-cleaner --all There was not mention of this in the news. Nor will the package pull them in as a dependency. N. On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? N On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0 and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as modules. This is most likely related to your previous world update. Maybe there was an update for perl, after which you did not run perl-cleaner.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
I went into the kernel, rebuilt it with no changes (network driver was already built as a module), rebooted and nothing changed. Option 2 worked ok. As for the x86 machines, they were also updated blindly (94 packages udev 200) included... 70-presistent file in rules.d and no problems. eth0 was still eth0... N. On 4/7/13, Michael Hampicke gentoo-u...@hadt.biz wrote: Am 07.04.2013 20:08, schrieb Nick Khamis: For those that have an error compiling udev 200: # emerge -1 XML-Parser # perl-cleaner --all There was not mention of this in the news. Nor will the package pull them in as a dependency. N. On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? N On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0 and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as modules. This is most likely related to your previous world update. Maybe there was an update for perl, after which you did not run perl-cleaner.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
Oooops, I meant option 3.1: 3.1 Create a new empty file: touch /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules and reboot. The kernel will rename the interfaces hopefully as they were before. N. On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I went into the kernel, rebuilt it with no changes (network driver was already built as a module), rebooted and nothing changed. Option 2 worked ok. As for the x86 machines, they were also updated blindly (94 packages udev 200) included... 70-presistent file in rules.d and no problems. eth0 was still eth0... N. On 4/7/13, Michael Hampicke gentoo-u...@hadt.biz wrote: Am 07.04.2013 20:08, schrieb Nick Khamis: For those that have an error compiling udev 200: # emerge -1 XML-Parser # perl-cleaner --all There was not mention of this in the news. Nor will the package pull them in as a dependency. N. On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? N On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0 and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as modules. This is most likely related to your previous world update. Maybe there was an update for perl, after which you did not run perl-cleaner.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 19:48:13 Nick Khamis wrote: Oooops, I meant option 3.1: 3.1 Create a new empty file: touch /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules and reboot. The kernel will rename the interfaces hopefully as they were before. N. On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote: I went into the kernel, rebuilt it with no changes (network driver was already built as a module), rebooted and nothing changed. Option 2 worked ok. As for the x86 machines, they were also updated blindly (94 packages udev 200) included... 70-presistent file in rules.d and no problems. eth0 was still eth0... N. Kewl! If all interfaces are as expected and the servers are up and running, you can hopefully enjoy what's left of your weekend. :-) Interesting to note that having the drivers as modules does not work on your machines. Hmm ... I wonder if there is a difference between cards on the mobo and cards on USB/cardbus and the like. I am getting to hate udev's logic more and more with each update ... -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-user] perl-core/Version-Requirements is it or is it not installed?
I am getting confused with 'perl-core/Version-Requirements' which emerge -- depclean wants to unmerge, eix does not show as installed and emerge -C is happy to uninstall ... Why is this? == # emerge --depclean -a Calculating dependencies... done! Calculating removal order... These are the packages that would be unmerged: virtual/perl-Version-Requirements selected: 0.101.20-r2 protected: none omitted: none perl-core/Version-Requirements selected: 0.101.20 protected: none omitted: none == == # emerge -C -p -v perl-core/Version-Requirements * This action can remove important packages! In order to be safer, use * `emerge -pv --depclean atom` to check for reverse dependencies before * removing packages. These are the packages that would be unmerged: perl-core/Version-Requirements selected: 0.101.20 protected: none omitted: none All selected packages: perl-core/Version-Requirements-0.101.20 == but then eix has a different opinion: == $ eix -l virtual/perl-Version-Requirements * virtual/perl-Version-Requirements Available versions: 0.101.20-r2 ~ 0.101.21 Description: Virtual for Version-Requirements $ eix -l perl-core/Version-Requirements * perl-core/Version-Requirements Available versions: 0.101.20 ~ 0.101.21 Homepage:http://search.cpan.org/dist/Version-Requirements/ Description: A set of version requirements for a CPAN dist == Any ideas? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:25:50AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-04-05 4:11 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote: Just dealing with one server and my Linux router, they've been updated to sys-fs/udev-200 and are both still using the same /etc/udev/rules.d/70-persistent-net.rules file they've had for over a year, which was working with udev-171. Do you have your network interface drivers built into the kernel or are they modules? I'm very interested in the significance of this question... My server is module free, so all drivers are built into the kernel. The significance is that the kernel determines the eth* name order. Right now, you are lucky in that the order is what you think it should be, but if something changes in the kernel causing your cards to be initialized in a different order, you will not be allowed to swap them around in the eth* name space, e.g. eth1 can't become eth0 or visa versa. That is why it is recommended that you use something like net0, net1, etc for your interface names. William pgpLBZjeEifdp.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes
On 2013-04-07 4:09 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:25:50AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-04-05 4:11 PM, William Hubbs willi...@gentoo.org wrote: Do you have your network interface drivers built into the kernel or are they modules? I'm very interested in the significance of this question... My server is module free, so all drivers are built into the kernel. The significance is that the kernel determines the eth* name order. Right now, you are lucky in that the order is what you think it should be, but if something changes in the kernel causing your cards to be initialized in a different order, you will not be allowed to swap them around in the eth* name space, e.g. eth1 can't become eth0 or visa versa. That is why it is recommended that you use something like net0, net1, etc for your interface names. Wow... that is actually what I was thinking it meant, but wasn't sure... Thanks for the validation!
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 14:04:35 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? No, it's like reading the news item. Either symlink the file mentioned to /dev/null or add the kernel boot option it recommends. The default is the new behaviour, as you should expect. Why would they change the behaviour because they consider the old way broken, then default to the old way? -- Neil Bothwick Ralph's Observation - It is a mistake to allow any mechanical object to realize that you are in a hurry. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:14:36 +0100, Mick wrote: Rebuild your kernel with the drivers for the NICs as modules. The kernel *should* rename them to what they were before. I can't vouch for this, but NICs which are not built in here were not renamed by udev. Where does this come from? Udev renames the interfaces when it initialises them, what difference does it make where it loads the driver code from? I am seeing consistent behaviour across machines with drivers built in and as modules. -- Neil Bothwick If we aren't supposed to eat animals, why are they made of meat? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 12:03:21 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: But not actually empty. If you are correct, and I suspect you are, then the news item is poorly worded. No effective content is not the same as no content at all. Oh, I agree that it was poorly worded, I was just pointing out that it was kind of silly to take quite it so literally... These are computers we are dealing with, literally interpretation is the norm. If the news item meant devoid of actionable content, that is what it should have said. Every sysadmin knows (or should know) that a config file full of nothing but comments isn't going to do *anything* other than provide whatever defaults the program is designed to use in such a case. You do realise that you have just described the file as full so it cannot be considered empty :) -- Neil Bothwick Last words of a Windows user: = Why does that work now? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:16:45 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: If /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is an empty file or a symlink to /dev/null, The first can obviously be taken quite literally, while the second just might actually require a tiny bit of thought - ie, 'hmmm, wonder if they mean literally 'empty', or just nothing in it that does anything? Even if that were reasonable, how are you supposed to know which they mean? You guessed right and now have the benefit of hindsight, that does not justify ambiguous or inaccurate instructions. -- Neil Bothwick Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. (Albert Einstein) signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 02:04:35PM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? No, it isn't. There are several ways to name your interfaces. They are discussed on the freedesktop.org wiki page linked in the news item. William pgp6UzYmzHCN8.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 21:25:48 Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:14:36 +0100, Mick wrote: Rebuild your kernel with the drivers for the NICs as modules. The kernel *should* rename them to what they were before. I can't vouch for this, but NICs which are not built in here were not renamed by udev. Where does this come from? Udev renames the interfaces when it initialises them, what difference does it make where it loads the driver code from? I am seeing consistent behaviour across machines with drivers built in and as modules. I don't, and recall reading about this somewhere (was it this M/L? ) but can't find it right now. I have noticed that PCI installed NICs get renamed by udev, while extreneous NICs, e.g. USB based devices retain their old naming convention. In my case the non-MoBo cards and devices happened to have drivers installed as modules - they were not renamed. Perhaps I drew an erroneous correlation. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 22:20:51 +0100, Mick wrote: Where does this come from? Udev renames the interfaces when it initialises them, what difference does it make where it loads the driver code from? I am seeing consistent behaviour across machines with drivers built in and as modules. I don't, and recall reading about this somewhere (was it this M/L? ) but can't find it right now. I've read suggestions, but no evidence. I have noticed that PCI installed NICs get renamed by udev, while extreneous NICs, e.g. USB based devices retain their old naming convention. In my case the non-MoBo cards and devices happened to have drivers installed as modules - they were not renamed. Perhaps I drew an erroneous correlation. I have a couple of devices that are not renamed, the drivers are modules but they also give nothing useful when running the udevadm command from the news item. I think it is more likely that the lack of renaming is due to udev not being able to find a unique name to give them. -- Neil Bothwick The law of Probability Dispersal decrees that whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] gcc-4.5.4 failed (install phase)
I'm getting an error re-compiling gcc-4.5.4
o _dim_i16.o _dim_r4.o _dim_r8.o _dim_r10.o _dim_r16.o _atan2_r4.o _atan2_r8.o _atan2_r10.o _atan2_r16.o _mod_i4.o _mod_i8.o _mod_i16.o _mod_r4.o _mod_r8.o _mod_r10.o
_mod_r16.o misc_specifics.o dprod_r8.o f2c_specifics.o
libtool: link: /usr/i686-pc-linux-gnu/bin/ranlib .libs/libgfortran.a
libtool: link: ( cd .libs rm -f libgfortran.la ln -s ../libgfortran.la
libgfortran.la )
true DO=all multi-do # make
make[3]: Leaving directory
`/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-4.5.4/work/build/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libgfortran'
make[2]: Leaving directory
`/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-4.5.4/work/build/i686-pc-linux-gnu/libgfortran'
make[1]: Leaving directory `/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-4.5.4/work/build'
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-4.5.4/work/build
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-4.5.4/work/gcc-4.5.4
cp: cannot stat
‘/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-4.5.4/work/build/gcc/doc/*.info’: No such file
or directory
* ERROR: sys-devel/gcc-4.5.4 failed (install phase):
* (no error message)
*
* Call stack:
* ebuild.sh, line 93: Called src_install
* environment, line 4201: Called toolchain_src_install
* environment, line 4861: Called die
* The specific snippet of code:
* cp ${S}/gcc/doc/*.info gcc/doc/ || die;
*
* If you need support, post the output of `emerge --info
'=sys-devel/gcc-4.5.4'`,
* the complete build log and the output of `emerge -pqv
'=sys-devel/gcc-4.5.4'`.
*
* Please include
/var/tmp/portage/sys-devel/gcc-4.5.4/work/build/gcc-build-logs.tar.bz2 in your
bug report...
emerge --info '=sys-devel/gcc-4.5.4'
Portage 2.1.11.55 (default/linux/x86/13.0/desktop, gcc-4.5.4, glibc-2.15-r3,
3.5.7-gentoo i686)
=
System Settings
=
System uname: Linux-3.5.7-gentoo-i686-AMD_Athlon-TM-_XP_2500+-with-gentoo-2.1
KiB Mem: 1034648 total,139212 free
KiB Swap:2008120 total, 1982116 free
Timestamp of tree: Sun, 07 Apr 2013 17:00:01 +
ld GNU ld (GNU Binutils) 2.22
ccache version 3.1.9 [disabled]
app-shells/bash: 4.2_p37
dev-java/java-config: 2.1.12-r1
dev-lang/python: 2.7.3-r3, 3.2.3-r2
dev-util/ccache: 3.1.9
dev-util/cmake: 2.8.9
dev-util/pkgconfig: 0.28
sys-apps/baselayout: 2.1-r1
sys-apps/openrc: 0.11.8
sys-apps/sandbox: 2.5
sys-devel/autoconf: 2.13, 2.69
sys-devel/automake: 1.9.6-r3, 1.10.3, 1.11.6, 1.12.6
sys-devel/binutils: 2.22-r1
sys-devel/gcc:4.1.2, 4.5.4, 4.6.3
sys-devel/gcc-config: 1.7.3
sys-devel/libtool:2.4-r1
sys-devel/make: 3.82-r4
sys-kernel/linux-headers: 3.7 (virtual/os-headers)
sys-libs/glibc: 2.15-r3
Repositories: gentoo
ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=x86
ACCEPT_LICENSE=* -@EULA PUEL dlj-1.1 Oracle-BCLA-JavaSE
CBUILD=i686-pc-linux-gnu
CFLAGS=-O2 -march=athlon-xp -pipe -ggdb
CHOST=i686-pc-linux-gnu
CONFIG_PROTECT=/etc /usr/lib/fax /usr/share/gnupg/qualified.txt
/usr/share/openvpn/easy-rsa /var/spool/fax/etc
CONFIG_PROTECT_MASK=${EPREFIX}/etc/gconf /etc/ca-certificates.conf /etc/env.d /etc/fonts/fonts.conf /etc/gconf /etc/gentoo-release /etc/php/apache2-php5.3/ext-active/
/etc/php/apache2-php5.4/ext-active/ /etc/php/cgi-php5.3/ext-active/ /etc/php/cgi-php5.4/ext-active/ /etc/php/cli-php5.3/ext-active/ /etc/php/cli-php5.4/ext-active/
/etc/revdep-rebuild /etc/sandbox.d /etc/terminfo /etc/texmf/language.dat.d /etc/texmf/language.def.d /etc/texmf/updmap.d /etc/texmf/web2c
CXXFLAGS=-O2 -march=athlon-xp -pipe -ggdb
DISTDIR=/usr/portage/distfiles
FCFLAGS=-O2 -march=i686 -pipe
FEATURES=assume-digests binpkg-logs config-protect-if-modified distlocks ebuild-locks fixlafiles merge-sync news parallel-fetch protect-owned sandbox sfperms strict
unknown-features-warn unmerge-logs unmerge-orphans userfetch
FFLAGS=-O2 -march=i686 -pipe
GENTOO_MIRRORS=http://distro.ibidio.org/pub/linux/distributions/gentoo/ ftp:///ftp-stud.fht-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/gentoo/ http://gentoo.osuosl.org/
http://mirror.datapipe.net/gentoo http://gentoo.binarycompass.org;
LANG=en_US.UTF-8
LC_ALL=en_US.UTF-8
LDFLAGS=-Wl,-O1 -Wl,--as-needed
MAKEOPTS=-j1
PKGDIR=/usr/portage/packages
PORTAGE_CONFIGROOT=/
PORTAGE_RSYNC_OPTS=--recursive --links --safe-links --perms --times --compress --force --whole-file --delete --stats --human-readable --timeout=180
--exclude=/distfiles --exclude=/local --exclude=/packages
PORTAGE_TMPDIR=/var/tmp
PORTDIR=/usr/portage
PORTDIR_OVERLAY=
SYNC=rsync://rsync.gentoo.org/gentoo-portage
USE=X a52 aac acpi alsa apache2 berkdb bluetooth branding bzip2 cairo cdda cdr cgi cleartype cli consolekit corefonts cracklib crypt cups cxx dbus dri dts dvd dvdr
emboss encode exif fam firefox flac foomaticdb fortran gdbm gif gpm gtk hal iconv ipv6 java jpeg kpathsea lcms ldap libnotify mad mng modules mp3 mp4 mpeg mudflap
mysql ncurses nls nptl ogg opengl openmp pam
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!
On Apr 7, 2013 8:13 AM, William Kenworthy bi...@iinet.net.au wrote:
On 07/04/13 01:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
'Evening, Alan.
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 06:36:07PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 06/04/2013 17:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the servers and
typing the error message here. Did our configuration get switched to
IP6? These are our DB servers and why me!!! Why ME!
No, it's not just you, it's happened to pretty much everybody.
udev-200
now renames eth0, eth1,
Please please PLEASE, for the love of god joseph mary and every other
$DEITY on the planet
STOP SPREADING THIS FUD
It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people who
blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news
announcement, who did not read the CLEARLY WORDED wiki article at
freedesktop.org or alternatively went into mod-induced panic and
started
making shit up in their heads.
Steady on, old chap! By it I was meaning the general inconvenience
all round occasioned by the changes between udev-{197,200}. Not
everybody encountered this. For example Dale, and Walt D. didn't have
to do anything. But pretty much everybody else did.
I didnt get hit either either, but (STRONG hint) ... I use eudev, so
dies Dale and I believe Walt uses mdev. Time for those in server
environments to jump ship?
It may hit us eventually, but at the moment its :)
BillK
Well, *my* Gentoo servers are already running mdev...
Hmm... doesn't anyone think it's weird that we haven't heard any complaints
/ horror stories from the Gentoo-server mailing list?
Rgds,
--
[gentoo-user] dev-libs/folks-0.4.3 fails to emerge
I have been having several issues with libraries on my system and have been attempting to use revdep-rebuild to resolve them but have been having some issues. I have been able to resolve many issues by re-emerging mesa and manualy listing the packages RR wants to emerge but i have now just Folks left failing to emerge. Build log of folks: http://bpaste.net/show/89761/ Revdep-Rebuild output: http://bpaste.net/show/u6V9VDtiY8Bh6DVjQj3g/ make.conf: http://bpaste.net/show/89762/ I have also rebuilt telepathy-glib debus-glib and gio with no change in folks. gee does not appear to be a package. Few hunches for the issues makeopts was set to -j333 or some large number(supprised it worked as long as it did) let the system go stale to long and tried to update. (maybe 3 months ish) Thanks for any help you can give me in getting folks happy again. -Andy
Re: [gentoo-user] mdev and lvm2
Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: Hi, Dan. On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 02:34:16PM +0200, Dan Johansson wrote: Hello List, What is the status of using mdev (instead the ever growing udev) together with lvm2? Reason for my question is that at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev it says One beta tester reports getting close with lvm2, but it's not there yet.. I think that beta tester was me. I had lvm2 partitions running under mdev without problems. (They were also RAID-1, just for completion's sake.) The only change I had to make was to my /etc/fstab. Where I previously had: /dev/vg/usr /usr options under udev, I then needed /dev/mapper/vg-usr /usr options instead. mdev failed to create the /dev/vg directory. With this change, my system worked quite happily. Sadly, I went back to udev when xf86-input-evdev-2.7.0 started depending on udev, back in June last year. Regards, -- Dan Johansson, http://www.dmj.nu *** This message is printed on 100% recycled electrons! *** -- Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany). LVM can be configured to double-check udev to make sure all the /dev entries are done correctly. By default this is not switched on. See /etc/lvm/lvm.conf It might solve that part. It solves some udev issues on one of my systems where the links are not handled correctly by udev for snapshots. -- Joost -- Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev
On 7 April 2013, at 16:35, Pandu Poluan wrote: On Apr 7, 2013 3:56 PM, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote: AIUI the motive for these changes are so that you can unpack an enterprise-type server, the ones with two NICs on the motherboard, and always know which NIC is which. You can then unpack a pallet load of them, and deploy them without any need for determining which is which or for any manual intervention. This is actually pretty important and useful, but I'm not sure this has all been done the best way. AFAICT, on-board NICs have sequential MAC Adresses, with the one labeled Port 1 has the smallest MAC Address. So far, *all* Linux distros I've used on a server will reliably name Port X as eth$((X-1)). So it's never a puzzle as to which port bears which ethX moniker. I would expect this to be the case, too, but I'm told it's not always so - you cannot be certain of it. I think that the kernel allocates interfaces to NICs in the order in which they're found - eth0 to the first one, eth1 to the second, and so on. A pair of on-board NICs may be allocated interface IDs in the same order as their MACs, but they may not be - especially if, for some reason, one responds abnormally slowly to probing from the kernel. A really good long discussion of this is available at [1], see also [2]: Without biosdevname, you get all ethX names - they're just in completely non-deterministic order. Often times after the first non-deterministic order is set in 70-persistent-net.names, and with no other configuration changes to your system, on reboot you'll get those same names for those devices again, but only because no renames are actually taking place - the kernel accidentally names them in the same way each time. You cannot swizzle them within the ethX namespace and have it work - it's racy and failure-prone. You must change out of ethX in order to get consistency at all. The new naming scheme, however, is much less intuitive. Where originally I just immediately use eth0, now I have to enumerate the monikers first, because even between servers of the same model (let's say, HP's DL360 G7), the PCI attachment point might differ. I agree. However, attempts to solve this in kernel (I think *several* of them), which would have allowed the eth0, ethX namespaces to be retained, were rejected. See [3]. I believe that HP shared involvement in this - I think they collaborated with Dell on how the BIOS would declare the NICs in a way that would be available to the kernel. Stroller. [1] http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdevm=128163454631618w=3 [2] http://lists.us.dell.com/pipermail/linux-poweredge/2010-November/043586.html [3] http://marc.info/?l=linux-netdevm=128518030400371w=3
Re: [gentoo-user] dev-libs/folks-0.4.3 fails to emerge
On 8 April 2013, at 03:49, Andrew Hoffman wrote: I have been having several issues with libraries on my system and have been attempting to use revdep-rebuild to resolve them but have been having some issues. ... Build log of folks: http://bpaste.net/show/89761/ Revdep-Rebuild output: http://bpaste.net/show/u6V9VDtiY8Bh6DVjQj3g/ make.conf: http://bpaste.net/show/89762/ Please post logs and text files in the body of the email or as attachments. Others may me more forthcoming, but in my case pastebin web links make it more difficult for me to help you. Also it is better that such content is archived together with the support discussion. The archives of this list become less useful when pastebin links expire. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 10:30:10AM -0600, Joseph wrote In my opinion this new udev-200 naming port is a big screw-up; I wouldn't be surprised if few months down the road we will go back to old naming because of misunderstandings. Some time ago, after udevd was subsumed into the systemd tarball, firmware loading was screwed up by the udev/systemd team. They insisted that the old way was wrong, and only their new and improved method of loading firmware was to be used. Here we go again. How long before they create more problems? -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
Re: [gentoo-user] dev-libs/folks-0.4.3 fails to emerge
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 09:49:57PM -0500, Andrew Hoffman wrote
I have also rebuilt telepathy-glib debus-glib and gio with no change
in folks. gee does not appear to be a package.
I tried...
USE=vala vapigen introspection emerge -pv folks
on my system. It gives...
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild N ] dev-libs/gobject-introspection-1.32.1 USE=-doc -doctool
{-test} 0 kB
[ebuild N ] dev-lang/vala-0.12.1-r1:0.12 USE=vapigen {-test} 2,233 kB
[ebuild N ] sys-apps/dbus-1.6.8 USE=X -debug -doc (-selinux)
-static-libs {-test} 1,885 kB
[ebuild N ] dev-lang/vala-0.18.1:0.18 USE=vapigen {-test} 0 kB
[ebuild N ] dev-libs/dbus-glib-0.100.2 USE=-debug -doc -static-libs
{-test} 732 kB
[ebuild N ] dev-libs/libgee-0.6.7 USE=introspection 494 kB
[ebuild N ] net-libs/telepathy-glib-0.20.1-r1 USE=introspection vala
-debug {-test} PYTHON_TARGETS=python2_7 -python2_5 -python2_6 3,668 kB
[ebuild N ] dev-libs/folks-0.4.3 USE=-debug 621 kB
I think that gee refers to dev-libs/libgee. Can you give the output
of emerge --info? I notice that you also have the line...
source /var/lib/layman/make.conf
...in your make.conf. It may be over-riding stuff in your regular
make.conf. emerge --info will tell us what you have in total.
But a listing of /var/lib/layman/make.conf might still help us.
Another potential issue... in my make.conf I have...
PYTHON_TARGETS=python2_7
PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET=python2_7
YES!!! I need both of them. I don't see them in your make.conf, unless
they're in the /var/lib/layman/make.conf
--
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
I don't run desktop environments; I run useful applications
