[gentoo-user] Q on portage's rational to re-emerge packages
Hi, would anybody please be so kind to explain to me the rational used by portage to re-emerge some packages. I've installed portage 2.2.7 and when I try to emerge, say, app-shells/zsh-completions it re-emerges (emerge -vp shows 'rR') several packages including, i.e., app-office/libreoffice I can't imaging libreoffice depends in any way on zsh-completions. So, what's going on? (and rebuilding libreoffice isn't just fun) Many thanks, Helmut.
Re: [gentoo-user] Q on portage's rational to re-emerge packages
On 27/09/2013 10:24, Helmut Jarausch wrote: > Hi, > would anybody please be so kind to explain to me the rational used by > portage to re-emerge > some packages. > > I've installed portage 2.2.7 and when I try to emerge, say, > app-shells/zsh-completions > it re-emerges (emerge -vp shows 'rR') several packages including, i.e., > app-office/libreoffice > > I can't imaging libreoffice depends in any way on zsh-completions. > > So, what's going on? > > (and rebuilding libreoffice isn't just fun) > > Many thanks, > Helmut. You didn't supply any output or any details about your system, so your question can't be properly answered. I can make a guess, so from the man page: r reinstall (forced for some reason, possibly due to slot or sub-slot) R replacing (remerging same version) I'd guess libreoffice needs to be rebuilt and is triggered by a sub-slot (in the old days you would have had to run revdep-rebuild or emerge @preserved-rebuild to find this) I imagine this is in no way related to zsh-completions, that just happens to be on the command line. It's related to running emerge. If you require a better answer, please provide proper emerge output. Rage questions don't usually lead to correct explanations -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Q on portage's rational to re-emerge packages
On 09/27/2013 11:09:11 AM, Alan McKinnon wrote:
On 27/09/2013 10:24, Helmut Jarausch wrote:
> Hi,
> would anybody please be so kind to explain to me the rational used
by
> portage to re-emerge
> some packages.
>
> I've installed portage 2.2.7 and when I try to emerge, say,
> app-shells/zsh-completions
> it re-emerges (emerge -vp shows 'rR') several packages including,
i.e.,
> app-office/libreoffice
>
> I can't imaging libreoffice depends in any way on zsh-completions.
>
> So, what's going on?
>
> (and rebuilding libreoffice isn't just fun)
>
> Many thanks,
> Helmut.
You didn't supply any output or any details about your system, so your
question can't be properly answered. I can make a guess, so from the
man
page:
r reinstall (forced for some reason, possibly due to
slot or sub-slot)
R replacing (remerging same version)
I'd guess libreoffice needs to be rebuilt and is triggered by a
sub-slot
(in the old days you would have had to run revdep-rebuild or emerge
@preserved-rebuild to find this)
I imagine this is in no way related to zsh-completions, that just
happens to be on the command line. It's related to running emerge.
If you require a better answer, please provide proper emerge output.
Rage questions don't usually lead to correct explanations
--
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Here is a full example:
emerge -auv1 app-shells/zsh-completions
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies - * Digest verification failed:
* /LOCAL/local/portage/dev-python/wxpython/wxpython-.ebuild
* Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size
* Got: 4166
* Expected: 4167
... done!
[ebuild rR] dev-python/setuptools-1.1.6 PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7
python3_3 -pypy2_0 -python2_6 -python3_2" 0 kB
[ebuild rR] dev-python/sip-4.15.2:0/10 USE="-debug -doc"
PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_3 -python2_6 -python3_2" 0 kB
[ebuild rR] dev-python/pyopenssl-0.13.1 USE="-doc"
PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_3 -pypy2_0 -python2_6 -python3_2" 0 kB
[ebuild rR] dev-python/pmw-2.0.0-r2:py3 USE="-doc -examples
{-test}" PYTHON_TARGETS="python3_3 -python3_2" 0 kB
[ebuild rR] app-portage/gentoolkit-0.3.0.8-r1
PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_3 -pypy2_0 -python2_6 -python3_2" 0 kB
[ebuild rR] dev-python/pytz-2013d PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7
python3_3 -pypy2_0 -python2_6 -python3_2" 0 kB
[ebuild rR] dev-python/paramiko-1.11.0 USE="-doc -examples"
PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 -python2_6" 0 kB
[ebuild rR] dev-python/numpydoc-0.4-r1 USE="{-test}"
PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 -python2_6" 0 kB
[ebuild rR] dev-python/PyQt4-4.10.3 USE="X dbus declarative help
kde opengl script sql svg webkit -debug -doc -examples -multimedia
-phonon -scripttools -xmlpatterns" PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_3
-python2_6 -python3_2" 0 kB
[ebuild U ] app-shells/zsh-completions-0.10.0::sunrise
[0.8.0::sunrise] 145 kB
[ebuild rR] app-office/libreoffice-4.1.2.2 USE="bluetooth
branding cups dbus gnome gtk java kde opengl vba webdav (-aqua) -debug
-eds -gstreamer -gtk3 -jemalloc -mysql -odk -postgres -telepathy
{-test}" LIBREOFFICE_EXTENSIONS="presenter-minimizer -nlpsolver
-scripting-beanshell -scripting-javascript -wiki-publisher"
PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET="python2_7 -python3_3" PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7
python3_3" 0 kB
Total: 11 packages (1 upgrade, 10 reinstalls), Size of downloads: 145 kB
Does portage keep a "todo list" anywhere?
Thanks,
Helmut.
[gentoo-user] Slow network transfers ... lost interrupts because of clocksource?
I am back from my visit at a customer where I installed a new and shiny gentoo server for running VMs (KVM). Currently I don't have access as my VPN only works from my static IP at home (my router seems to be offline right now ... and I am still away from office for the weekend) so I can't check details now ... basically: I tried to copy/rsync some file with ~8GB over a gigabit connection ... from old to new server. Checked ethtool for gigabit, looked ok. I always saw the behavior that the transfer started rather fast and slowed down within minutes. Let's say ~50 MB/s in the start and then down to maybe 2 or so. That is way from the expected throughput with such new hardware. The NICs in the new server are BCM-something, Broadcom, using the tg3 Tigon module (exact model not available right now as mentioned above). In "dmesg" I see lines like hpet1: lost 1 rtc interrupts which makes me wonder if that leads to the lousy performance (btw, I fear slow virtualization performance as well). Dealing with HPET I checked for kernel support and also added kernel options to GRUB: hpet=force clocksource=hpet which lead to # cat /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource hpet I am unsure if I should further investigate things around this HPET-issue? My thinkpad here shows "tsc" as clocksource ... good/better ? What direction to go? force or disable HPET? - btw I saw the same slowdown on 2 NICs: one connects the server to the LAN via GB-switch, the other connects the 2 servers directly via crossconnect-cable (dedicated for backups). I tried rsync with various options, scp, and even some tar/netcat-combo ... The system runs gentoo sources 3.10.7, amd64 ... - Thanks for any thoughts on this! Stefan
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM2+mdraid5+LUKS+systemd (was Re: LVM2+mdraid+systemd)
Am 25.09.2013 01:38, schrieb Canek Peláez Valdés: > systemd-analyze blame to see what is taking so long. > > systemd-delta to see what changes from upstream do you have. Thanks ... I cleaned up some cruft already and will test some boot-process soon. Still on the road ...
Re: [gentoo-user] Managing multiple systems with identical hardware
>> I realized I only need two types of systems in my life. One hosted >> server and bunch of identical laptops. My laptop, my wife's laptop, >> our HTPC, routers, and office workstations could all be on identical >> hardware, and what better choice than a laptop? Extremely >> space-efficient, portable, built-in UPS (battery), and no need to buy >> a separate monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, camera, etc. Some >> systems will use all of that stuff and some will use none, but it's >> OK, laptops are getting cheap, and keyboard/mouse/video comes in handy >> once in a while on any system. > > Laptops are a good choice, desktops are almost dead out there, and thin > clients nettops are just dead in the water for anything other than > appliances and media servers > >> What if my laptop is the master system and I install any application >> that any of the other laptops need on my laptop and push its entire >> install to all of the other laptops via rsync whenever it changes? >> The only things that would vary by laptop would be users and >> configuration. > > Could work, but don't push *your* laptop's config to all the other > laptops. they end up with your stuff which might not be what them to > have. Rather have a completely separate area where you store portage > configs, tree, packages and distfiles for laptops/clients and push from > there. I actually do want them all to have my stuff and I want to have all their stuff. That way everything is in sync and I can manage all of them by just managing mine and pushing. How about pushing only portage configs and then letting each of them emerge unattended? I know unattended emerges are the kiss of death but if all of the identical laptops have the same portage config and I emerge everything successfully on my own laptop first, the unattended emerges should be fine. > I'd recommend if you have a decent-ish desktop lying around, you press > that into service as your master build host. yeah, it takes 10% longer > to build stuff, but so what? Do it overnight. Well, my goal is to minimize the number of different systems I maintain. Hopefully just one type of laptop and a server. >> Maybe puppet could help with that? It would almost be >> like my own distro. Some laptops would have stuff installed that they >> don't need but at least they aren't running Fedora! :) > > DO NOT PROVISION GENTOO SYSTEMS FROM PUPPET. OK, I'm thinking over how much variation there would be from laptop to laptop: 1. /etc/runlevels/default/* would vary of course. 2. /etc/conf.d/net would vary for the routers and my laptop which I sometimes use as a router. 3. /etc/hostapd/hostapd.conf under the same conditions as #2. 4. Users and /home would vary but the office workstations could all be identical in this regard. Am I missing anything? I can imagine everything else being totally identical. What could I use to manage these differences? > Rather keep your laptop as your laptop with it's own setup, and > everything else as that own setup. You only need one small difference > between what you want your laptop to have, and everything else to have, > to crash that entire model. I think it will work if I can find a way to manage the few differences above. Am I overlooking any potential issues? - Grant
[gentoo-user] Re: Q on portage's rational to re-emerge packages
On 2013.09.27 at 10:24 +0200, Helmut Jarausch wrote: > Hi, > would anybody please be so kind to explain to me the rational used by > portage to re-emerge > some packages. > > I've installed portage 2.2.7 and when I try to emerge, say, > app-shells/zsh-completions > it re-emerges (emerge -vp shows 'rR') several packages including, > i.e., app-office/libreoffice > > I can't imaging libreoffice depends in any way on zsh-completions. > > So, what's going on? It's fallout from dev-python/python-exec-2.0... Maybe Michał can explain why it's necessary to rebuild libreoffice. -- Markus
Re: [gentoo-user] Q on portage's rational to re-emerge packages
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 11:28:43AM +0200, Helmut Jarausch wrote:
>
>
> Here is a full example:
> emerge -auv1 app-shells/zsh-completions
>
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
>
> Calculating dependencies - * Digest verification failed:
> * /LOCAL/local/portage/dev-python/wxpython/wxpython-.ebuild
> * Reason: Filesize does not match recorded size
> * Got: 4166
> * Expected: 4167
> ... done!
> [ebuild rR] dev-python/setuptools-1.1.6 PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7
> python3_3 -pypy2_0 -python2_6 -python3_2" 0 kB
> [ebuild rR] dev-python/sip-4.15.2:0/10 USE="-debug -doc"
> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_3 -python2_6 -python3_2" 0 kB
> [ebuild rR] dev-python/pyopenssl-0.13.1 USE="-doc"
> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_3 -pypy2_0 -python2_6 -python3_2" 0 kB
> [ebuild rR] dev-python/pmw-2.0.0-r2:py3 USE="-doc -examples
> {-test}" PYTHON_TARGETS="python3_3 -python3_2" 0 kB
> [ebuild rR] app-portage/gentoolkit-0.3.0.8-r1
> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_3 -pypy2_0 -python2_6 -python3_2" 0 kB
> [ebuild rR] dev-python/pytz-2013d PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7
> python3_3 -pypy2_0 -python2_6 -python3_2" 0 kB
> [ebuild rR] dev-python/paramiko-1.11.0 USE="-doc -examples"
> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 -python2_6" 0 kB
> [ebuild rR] dev-python/numpydoc-0.4-r1 USE="{-test}"
> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 -python2_6" 0 kB
> [ebuild rR] dev-python/PyQt4-4.10.3 USE="X dbus declarative help
> kde opengl script sql svg webkit -debug -doc -examples -multimedia
> -phonon -scripttools -xmlpatterns" PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_3
> -python2_6 -python3_2" 0 kB
> [ebuild U ] app-shells/zsh-completions-0.10.0::sunrise
> [0.8.0::sunrise] 145 kB
> [ebuild rR] app-office/libreoffice-4.1.2.2 USE="bluetooth
> branding cups dbus gnome gtk java kde opengl vba webdav (-aqua) -debug
> -eds -gstreamer -gtk3 -jemalloc -mysql -odk -postgres -telepathy
> {-test}" LIBREOFFICE_EXTENSIONS="presenter-minimizer -nlpsolver
> -scripting-beanshell -scripting-javascript -wiki-publisher"
> PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET="python2_7 -python3_3" PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7
> python3_3" 0 kB
>
> Total: 11 packages (1 upgrade, 10 reinstalls), Size of downloads: 145 kB
>
>
> Does portage keep a "todo list" anywhere?
Hello Helmut,
you are encountering a relatively new feature of portage that is supposed to
make revdep-rebuild and emerge @preserve-rebuild obsolete.
The logic is, that if you update a package, other packages depending on this
package will automatically rebuild to prevent breakage.
It seems that in your case portage "thinks" that one of that packages depends
on zsh-completion and pulls that in for rebuild which in turn, most likely via
setuptools or PyQt4 pulls libreoffice to rebuild.
Because python is interpreted my guess is, that this rebuild would be
unnecessary. You can try to figure out the package via equery d ,
starting with zsh-completion itself.
It may be possible that you can "dodge" the rebuild by emergeing zsh-completion
with the --nodeps option.
WKR
Hinnerk
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Q on portage's rational to re-emerge packages
130927 Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote: > you are encountering a relatively new feature of portage > that is supposed to make revdep-rebuild & emerge @preserve-rebuild obsolete. > The logic is, that if you update a package, other packages > depending on this package will automatically rebuild to prevent breakage. > It seems that in your case portage "thinks" that one of that packages > depends on zsh-completion and pulls that in for rebuild, > which in turn, most likely via setuptools or PyQt4, > pulls libreoffice to rebuild. I have found sometimes that Portage wants to remerge LO or similar, but in fact the existing installed version continues to work regardless. Try remerging the other pkgs first & see if LO still functions as usual ; only if it doesn't do you need to remerge it. HTH -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
Re: [gentoo-user] Q on portage's rational to re-emerge packages
On Fri, 27 Sep 2013 07:18:08 -0400, Philip Webb wrote: > I have found sometimes that Portage wants to remerge LO or similar, > but in fact the existing installed version continues to work regardless. That's because you aren't using the broken bits. But that's fine as long as it continues to work for you. I prefer to let the re-emerge go ahead, I don't want it to stop working when I really need it and don't have the time to rebuild it. -- Neil Bothwick I'm not anti-social, I'm just not user friendly signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Re: Slow network transfers ... lost interrupts because of clocksource?
The 27/09/13, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: > > I am back from my visit at a customer where I installed a new and shiny > gentoo server for running VMs (KVM). > > Currently I don't have access as my VPN only works from my static IP at > home (my router seems to be offline right now ... and I am still away > from office for the weekend) so I can't check details now ... > > basically: > > I tried to copy/rsync some file with ~8GB over a gigabit connection ... > from old to new server. Checked ethtool for gigabit, looked ok. I always > saw the behavior that the transfer started rather fast and slowed down > within minutes. Let's say ~50 MB/s in the start and then down to maybe 2 > or so. That is way from the expected throughput with such new hardware. You should give details of the tests. It looks like a hard disk write speed bottleneck. -- Nicolas Sebrecht
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slow network transfers ... lost interrupts because of clocksource?
Am 27.09.2013 15:02, schrieb Nicolas Sebrecht: > You should give details of the tests. It looks like a hard disk write > speed bottleneck. I will get access again on monday. That's a hardware RAID-10 on 6 SAS disks ... that should be fast enough ...
[gentoo-user] Re: Slow network transfers ... lost interrupts because of clocksource?
The 27/09/13, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: > Am 27.09.2013 15:02, schrieb Nicolas Sebrecht: > > > You should give details of the tests. It looks like a hard disk write > > speed bottleneck. > > I will get access again on monday. > > That's a hardware RAID-10 on 6 SAS disks ... that should be fast enough ... Try avoiding to write on disks. Use devices /dev/null and /dev/zero with both protocol and command lines not optimizing zeros for network tests. You could also use dedicated network performance tools if you have install rights. -- Nicolas Sebrecht
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Slow network transfers ... lost interrupts because of clocksource?
Am 27.09.2013 15:18, schrieb Nicolas Sebrecht: > Try avoiding to write on disks. Use devices /dev/null and /dev/zero with > both protocol and command lines not optimizing zeros for network tests. > > You could also use dedicated network performance tools if you have > install rights. Will do next week to focus on the main issues ... did some bonnie-tests yesterday, which were quite OK so I assume it's not the disk-performance. AFAI googled rsync and ssh have their issues with big files ... but tar/netcat wasn't really fast either. Stefan
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Q on portage's rational to re-emerge packages
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 12:38:44PM +0200, Markus Trippelsdorf wrote: > On 2013.09.27 at 10:24 +0200, Helmut Jarausch wrote: > > Hi, > > would anybody please be so kind to explain to me the rational used by > > portage to re-emerge > > some packages. > > > > I've installed portage 2.2.7 and when I try to emerge, say, > > app-shells/zsh-completions > > it re-emerges (emerge -vp shows 'rR') several packages including, > > i.e., app-office/libreoffice > > > > I can't imaging libreoffice depends in any way on zsh-completions. > > > > So, what's going on? > > It's fallout from dev-python/python-exec-2.0... > Maybe Michał can explain why it's necessary to rebuild libreoffice. I've had plenty of grief over python-exec-0.3.1 getting depcleaned a couple days ago. Rebuilding each pkg effected works, but what about the ones you miss? Such as, no mail this morning... getmail stopped working. I've just now "re-emerge python-exec:0" and will live with that until Michał gets this fixed. Should we report here: https://bitbucket.org/mgorny/python-exec/issues/ -- 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
Re: [gentoo-user] Slow network transfers ... lost interrupts because of clocksource?
Am 27.09.2013 12:33, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger: > I am back from my visit at a customer where I installed a new and shiny > gentoo server for running VMs (KVM). > > Currently I don't have access as my VPN only works from my static IP at > home (my router seems to be offline right now ... and I am still away > from office for the weekend) so I can't check details now ... > > basically: > > I tried to copy/rsync some file with ~8GB over a gigabit connection ... > from old to new server. Checked ethtool for gigabit, looked ok. I always > saw the behavior that the transfer started rather fast and slowed down > within minutes. Let's say ~50 MB/s in the start and then down to maybe 2 > or so. That is way from the expected throughput with such new hardware. > > The NICs in the new server are BCM-something, Broadcom, using the tg3 > Tigon module (exact model not available right now as mentioned above). > > In "dmesg" I see lines like > > hpet1: lost 1 rtc interrupts > > which makes me wonder if that leads to the lousy performance (btw, I > fear slow virtualization performance as well). > > Dealing with HPET I checked for kernel support and also added kernel > options to GRUB: > > hpet=force clocksource=hpet > > which lead to > > # cat /sys/devices/system/clocksource/clocksource0/current_clocksource > hpet > > I am unsure if I should further investigate things around this HPET-issue? > > My thinkpad here shows "tsc" as clocksource ... good/better ? faster, if it works. Completely broken, if it doesn't. > What direction to go? force or disable HPET? > > neither
Re: [gentoo-user] Managing multiple systems with identical hardware
On 27/09/2013 12:37, Grant wrote: >>> I realized I only need two types of systems in my life. One hosted >>> server and bunch of identical laptops. My laptop, my wife's laptop, >>> our HTPC, routers, and office workstations could all be on identical >>> hardware, and what better choice than a laptop? Extremely >>> space-efficient, portable, built-in UPS (battery), and no need to buy >>> a separate monitor, keyboard, mouse, speakers, camera, etc. Some >>> systems will use all of that stuff and some will use none, but it's >>> OK, laptops are getting cheap, and keyboard/mouse/video comes in handy >>> once in a while on any system. >> >> Laptops are a good choice, desktops are almost dead out there, and thin >> clients nettops are just dead in the water for anything other than >> appliances and media servers >> >>> What if my laptop is the master system and I install any application >>> that any of the other laptops need on my laptop and push its entire >>> install to all of the other laptops via rsync whenever it changes? >>> The only things that would vary by laptop would be users and >>> configuration. >> >> Could work, but don't push *your* laptop's config to all the other >> laptops. they end up with your stuff which might not be what them to >> have. Rather have a completely separate area where you store portage >> configs, tree, packages and distfiles for laptops/clients and push from >> there. > > I actually do want them all to have my stuff and I want to have all > their stuff. That way everything is in sync and I can manage all of > them by just managing mine and pushing. How about pushing only > portage configs and then letting each of them emerge unattended? I > know unattended emerges are the kiss of death but if all of the > identical laptops have the same portage config and I emerge everything > successfully on my own laptop first, the unattended emerges should be > fine. Within those constraints it could work fine. The critical stuff to share is make.conf and /etc/portage/*, everything else can be shared to greater or lesser degree and you can undo things on a whim if you wish. There's one thing that we haven't touched on, and that's the hardware. Are they all identical hardware items, or at least compatible? Kernel builds and hardware-sensitive apps like mplayer are the top reasons you'd want to centralize things, but those are the very apps that will make sure life miserable trying to fins commonality that works in all cases. So do keep hardware needs in mind when making purchases. Personally, I wouldn't do the building and pushing on my own laptop, that turns me inot the central server and updates only happen when I'm in the office. I'd use a central build host and my laptop is just another client. Not all that important really, the build host is just an address from the client's point of view > >> I'd recommend if you have a decent-ish desktop lying around, you press >> that into service as your master build host. yeah, it takes 10% longer >> to build stuff, but so what? Do it overnight. > > Well, my goal is to minimize the number of different systems I > maintain. Hopefully just one type of laptop and a server. > >>> Maybe puppet could help with that? It would almost be >>> like my own distro. Some laptops would have stuff installed that they >>> don't need but at least they aren't running Fedora! :) >> >> DO NOT PROVISION GENTOO SYSTEMS FROM PUPPET. > > OK, I'm thinking over how much variation there would be from laptop to laptop: > > 1. /etc/runlevels/default/* would vary of course. > 2. /etc/conf.d/net would vary for the routers and my laptop which I > sometimes use as a router. > 3. /etc/hostapd/hostapd.conf under the same conditions as #2. > 4. Users and /home would vary but the office workstations could all be > identical in this regard. > > Am I missing anything? I can imagine everything else being totally identical. > > What could I use to manage these differences? I'm sure there are numerous files in /etc/ with small niggling differences, you will find these as you go along. In a Linux world, these files actually do not subject themselves to centralization very well, they really do need a human with clue to make a decision whilst having access to the laptop in question. Every time we've brain-stormed this at work, we end up with only two realistic options: go to every machine and configure it there directly, or put individual per-host configs into puppet and push. It comes down to the same thing, the only difference is the location where stuff is stored. I'm slowly coming to conclsuion that you are trying to solve a problem with Gentoo that binary distros already solved a very long time ago. You are forcing yourself to become the sole maintainer of GrantOS and do all the heavy lifting of packaging. But, Mint and friends already did all that work already and frankly, they are much better at it than you or I. I would urge you to take a good long hard l
[gentoo-user] Re: Managing multiple systems with identical hardware
Alan McKinnon gmail.com> writes: > I'm slowly coming to conclsuion that you are trying to solve a problem > with Gentoo that binary distros already solved a very long time ago. You > are forcing yourself to become the sole maintainer of GrantOS and do all > the heavy lifting of packaging. But, Mint and friends already did all > that work already and frankly, they are much better at it than you or I. > > I think it will work if I can find a way to manage the few differences > > above. Am I overlooking any potential issues? I think Grant Should look at CFengine, if he is not familar with it. It is the traditional 800 pound Gorrilla when it comes to managing many systems. Surely there are folks there in those forums that can help Grant filter his ideas until they are ready for action. CFengine is in portage. Alan may be right, as CFengine (or whatever) may work better with a binary distribution and is probable more tightly integrated with something like debian or such OSes. hth, James
[gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
mingdao@workstation ~ $ eselect news read 2013-09-27-initramfs-required Title Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs AuthorWilliam Hubbs Posted2013-09-27 Revision 1 Linux systems which have / and /usr on separate file systems but do not use an initramfs will not be supported starting on 01-Nov-2013. If you have / and /usr on separate file systems and you are not currently using an initramfs, you must set one up before this date. Otherwise, at some point on or after this date, upgrading packages will make your system unbootable. For more information on setting up an initramfs, see this URL: https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Initramfs/HOWTO Due to many upstream changes, properly supporting Linux systems that have /usr missing at boot time has become increasingly difficult. Despite all our efforts, it already breaks in some exotic configurations, and this trend is likely to grow worse. For more information on the upstream changes and why using an initramfs is the cleanest route forward, see the following URLs: http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken https://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/01/the-boot-process -- 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
Re: [gentoo-user] Q on portage's rational to re-emerge packages
On 27/09/2013 13:18, Philip Webb wrote: > 130927 Hinnerk van Bruinehsen wrote: >> you are encountering a relatively new feature of portage >> that is supposed to make revdep-rebuild & emerge @preserve-rebuild obsolete. >> The logic is, that if you update a package, other packages >> depending on this package will automatically rebuild to prevent breakage. >> It seems that in your case portage "thinks" that one of that packages >> depends on zsh-completion and pulls that in for rebuild, >> which in turn, most likely via setuptools or PyQt4, >> pulls libreoffice to rebuild. > > I have found sometimes that Portage wants to remerge LO or similar, > but in fact the existing installed version continues to work regardless. > Try remerging the other pkgs first & see if LO still functions as usual ; > only if it doesn't do you need to remerge it. Also consider how portage "knows" to rebuild something. In truth, it doesn't know and has no way to just find out. It has to rely on data added to the ebuild, and that's where this new feature called sub-slots comes in. In a nutshell, it's a DEPEND in reverse. LO has this one for example: =dev-util/mdds-0.8*:= That's a classic DEPEND, to install LO you must have mdds, so it gets pulled in and built. From then on portage keeps mdds up to date and knows it must use only version 0.8.something. So far so goo. But what happens if mdds-0.8.1 introduces an API/ABI change that breaks LO? Traditionally we had no way of dealing with this in ebuilds and had to rely on revdep-rebuild and @preserved-rebuild, both of which are ugly hacks (never mind that they work reliably). Portage still had no way of knowing breakage would happen if it did it's usual thing, so that's where subslots come in (the := notation)[1] Basically, it say something like "LO DEPENDS on mdds, but also if the installed version of mdds later changes, then LO needs to be rebuilt to properly link against the new (and changed) version of mdds. This only works right if the ebuild maintainer is on the ball, watches Changelogs for the DEPENDS packages and put the proper metadata in the ebuild. You can imagine how this can work out very very well when done right, and if the maintainer makes a mistake (or doesn't clearly understand how it works) it can cause many unneccessary rebuilds (but not actually *break* stuff). Huge packages like LO with many interconnected DEPENDS are always going to be the usual victim I'm afraid... And then there's things that use poppler, boost, PyQT and pykde4 - a similar effect is at work. End result = your cpus will be kept nice and toasty warm doing lots of compiles but actual breakage of the sort that led to revdep-rebuild being developed should reduce dramatically. Some unneccessary rebuilds are the price we pay for not having breakage. In Helmut's specific case here, the cause seems to be python-exec. I missed that one myself somehow so had no idea it was hanging around biting folks. [1] For clarity, I'll leave out explaining syntax here, that is documented elsewhere. -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Bruce Hill wrote: > mingdao@workstation ~ $ eselect news read > 2013-09-27-initramfs-required > Title Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs > AuthorWilliam Hubbs > Posted2013-09-27 > Revision 1 > > Linux systems which have / and /usr on separate file systems but do not > use an initramfs will not be supported starting on 01-Nov-2013. > > If you have / and /usr on separate file systems and you are not > currently using an initramfs, you must set one up before this date. > Otherwise, at some point on or after this date, upgrading packages > will make your system unbootable. > > For more information on setting up an initramfs, see this URL: > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Initramfs/HOWTO > > Due to many upstream changes, properly supporting Linux systems that > have /usr missing at boot time has become increasingly difficult. > Despite all our efforts, it already breaks in some exotic > configurations, and this trend is likely to grow worse. > > For more information on the upstream changes and why using an initramfs > is the cleanest route forward, see the following URLs: > > http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken > https://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/01/the-boot-process > I'm hoping that since I use eudev, I don't have to worry about this. If I do, this could get interesting, again. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:33:02PM -0500, Dale wrote: > Bruce Hill wrote: > > mingdao@workstation ~ $ eselect news read > > 2013-09-27-initramfs-required > > Title Separate /usr on Linux requires initramfs > > AuthorWilliam Hubbs > > Posted2013-09-27 > > Revision 1 > > > > Linux systems which have / and /usr on separate file systems but do not > > use an initramfs will not be supported starting on 01-Nov-2013. > > > > If you have / and /usr on separate file systems and you are not > > currently using an initramfs, you must set one up before this date. > > Otherwise, at some point on or after this date, upgrading packages > > will make your system unbootable. > > > > For more information on setting up an initramfs, see this URL: > > > > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Initramfs/HOWTO > > > > Due to many upstream changes, properly supporting Linux systems that > > have /usr missing at boot time has become increasingly difficult. > > Despite all our efforts, it already breaks in some exotic > > configurations, and this trend is likely to grow worse. > > > > For more information on the upstream changes and why using an initramfs > > is the cleanest route forward, see the following URLs: > > > > http://freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/separate-usr-is-broken > > https://blog.flameeyes.eu/2013/01/the-boot-process > > > > > I'm hoping that since I use eudev, I don't have to worry about this. If > I do, this could get interesting, again. > > Dale Do you have /usr separate from / ? -- 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
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
Bruce Hill wrote: > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:33:02PM -0500, Dale wrote: >> I'm hoping that since I use eudev, I don't have to worry about this. >> If I do, this could get interesting, again. Dale > Do you have /usr separate from / ? Yep. From my understanding tho, eudev is not supposed to be affected by this problem tho. One reason for this being seperate, I have / and /boot on a regular partition and everything else on LVM. Sometimes that /usr gets a bit full. It's not so bad after I moved all the portage stuff out and put it in /var. Now I have to watch /var too. lol Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On 28/09/2013 00:57, Dale wrote: > Bruce Hill wrote: >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:33:02PM -0500, Dale wrote: >>> I'm hoping that since I use eudev, I don't have to worry about this. >>> If I do, this could get interesting, again. Dale >> Do you have /usr separate from / ? > > Yep. From my understanding tho, eudev is not supposed to be affected by > this problem tho. > > One reason for this being seperate, I have / and /boot on a regular > partition and everything else on LVM. Sometimes that /usr gets a bit > full. It's not so bad after I moved all the portage stuff out and put > it in /var. Now I have to watch /var too. lol Ask yourself this question: Why do you have /usr separate? No really, *why exactly*? One of the very first things you do with /usr at boot time is mount it, and from then on you use it exactly as if it were always on / anyway. I'll bet that since you moved all of portage out, your mount options and fs configs are the same between the two anyway. So what exactly does a separate /usr get you on a stabd-alone workstation buy you? I've been looking at this for ages and conclude it buys me nothing but pain. They don't even change much if /home and /var are elsewhere, so guage your size right (easy to do) and never need look at it again. Separate /usr for the most part is an ancient artifact from decades ago. It's useful in edge cases but not in the general case with modern hardware. So why do people do it? I reckon it's inertia and nothign more. Which is kinda silly as inertia ignores everythign else in the environment that is changing around you (and *that* is a given). So unless you have something exotic like /usr mounted off a central server, or want / on LVM (and your grub doesn't support lvm), you are going to need an initramfs anyway to get around the circular bootstrap problem. I say people should make their lives easier and just stick /usr on the same volume as / and be done with it. It removes a whole lot of painful scenarios that are going to keep on biting you as the rest of the world moves on and progresses -- Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 01:10:14 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > One of the very first things you do with /usr at boot time is mount it, > and from then on you use it exactly as if it were always on / anyway. > I'll bet that since you moved all of portage out, your mount options and > fs configs are the same between the two anyway. So what exactly does a > separate /usr get you on a stabd-alone workstation buy you? If allows you to have /usr on a volume manager, LVM of ZFS, without the extra work of putting / on there. / doesn't really need to be on LVM/ZFS since its size is unlikely to change much. However, the main reason, IMO, for not putting root on the volume manager is to avoid the use of an initramfs. If it's going to require it anyway, you may as well use the initramfs to put / on the same managed volume as /usr. That's the route I took a while ago, using an initramfs to avoid having a separate /usr. On the eudev vs. udev point: Dale, if you read flameyes's blog post, you'll see that this isn't just about udev. -- Neil Bothwick Windows Error #01: No error... ...yet. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:57:06PM -0500, Dale wrote: > Bruce Hill wrote: > > On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:33:02PM -0500, Dale wrote: > >> I'm hoping that since I use eudev, I don't have to worry about this. > >> If I do, this could get interesting, again. Dale > > Do you have /usr separate from / ? > > Yep. From my understanding tho, eudev is not supposed to be affected by > this problem tho. > > One reason for this being seperate, I have / and /boot on a regular > partition and everything else on LVM. Sometimes that /usr gets a bit > full. It's not so bad after I moved all the portage stuff out and put > it in /var. Now I have to watch /var too. lol > > Dale You need to read the blog post listed in the news item, as it's not just specific to udev anymore. -- 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
Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01
On Sat, 28 Sep 2013 01:10:14 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote about Re: [gentoo-user] separate / and /usr to require initramfs 2013-11-01: > On 28/09/2013 00:57, Dale wrote: > > Bruce Hill wrote: > >> On Fri, Sep 27, 2013 at 05:33:02PM -0500, Dale wrote: > >>> I'm hoping that since I use eudev, I don't have to worry about > >>> this. If I do, this could get interesting, again. Dale > >> Do you have /usr separate from / ? > > > > Yep. From my understanding tho, eudev is not supposed to be > > affected by this problem tho. > > > > One reason for this being seperate, I have / and /boot on a regular > > partition and everything else on LVM. Sometimes that /usr gets a > > bit full. It's not so bad after I moved all the portage stuff out > > and put it in /var. Now I have to watch /var too. lol > > > Ask yourself this question: > > Why do you have /usr separate? > > No really, *why exactly*? You write as though you expected the question to be regarded as rhetorical. I can't speak for Dale, but since I have much the same arrangement (with /boot and / on physical partitions and everything else under LVM2 control) I shall write from my perspective. The reason I have /usr separate is so that I can have it striped without needing an initramfs. > One of the very first things you do with /usr at boot time is mount > it, and from then on you use it exactly as if it were always on / > anyway. No. The I/O characteristics of a striped /usr are rather different from those of / on a simple partition. > I'll bet that since you moved all of portage out, your mount > options and fs configs are the same between the two anyway. Again no. My portage volume has different mount options from /usr, as it has nosuid and noexec in force. The portage volume is not striped either, as it does not get as much I/O traffic as /usr. > So what > exactly does a separate /usr get you on a stabd-alone workstation buy > you? It buys me decent performance from elderly PATA hard drives. Striping gives a throughput multiplier on that corner of the DASD farm. This is advantageous because /usr/bin and /usr/lib receive a lot of data traffic running application programs -- much more than /bin and /lib. The /usr/bin directory appears earlier in my PATH than /bin and the majority of application software is loaded without /bin being troubled. The faster the /usr LV can respond, the faster software can load. > I've been looking at this for ages and conclude it buys me > nothing but pain. They don't even change much if /home and /var are > elsewhere, so guage your size right (easy to do) and never need look > at it again. > > Separate /usr for the most part is an ancient artifact from decades > ago. It's useful in edge cases but not in the general case with modern > hardware. So why do people do it? I reckon it's inertia and nothign > more. Which is kinda silly as inertia ignores everythign else in the > environment that is changing around you (and *that* is a given). I'm not sure if you're invoking some law of physics here, but inertia does not ignore everything else -- even if it actually offers resistance to change, it does not ignore it. > So unless you have something exotic like /usr mounted off a central > server, or want / on LVM (and your grub doesn't support lvm), you are > going to need an initramfs anyway to get around the circular bootstrap > problem. I am yet to have a circular dependency problem in my bootstrap sequence. Of course, I don't have bluez installed. I also do not have udev or systemd installed. > I say people should make their lives easier and just stick /usr on the > same volume as / and be done with it. It removes a whole lot of > painful scenarios that are going to keep on biting you as the rest of > the world moves on and progresses That then devolves the I/O characteristics of /usr/bin and /usr/lib into those of /bin and /lib, which would make a slow system even slower. -- Regards, Dave [RLU #314465] *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* dwn...@ntlworld.com (David W Noon) *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* signature.asc Description: PGP signature
