Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo on MacBook
Moshe Kamensky moshe.kamen...@googlemail.com wrote: * Moshe Kamensky moshe.kamen...@googlemail.com [08/09/11 23:30]: * cov...@ccs.covici.com cov...@ccs.covici.com [08/09/11 23:18]: Moshe Kamensky moshe.kamen...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi There, I am trying to install Gentoo dual boot on a MacBook Pro (17 inch). I have refit installed, but the problem is that I cannot boot from the CD (the option is not available in the menu). I was wondering if someone knows how to do it. What happens if you hold the c key when you hear the chime -- keep holding for a minute or so and it should boot from the cd. That helped, thanks! I was happy to soon... It now boots, but after asking me about keyboard layout, it tries to find the cdrom and fails, with messages like: Looking for CDROM Attempting to mount media /dev/sda1 Attempting to mount media /dev/sda2 Attempting to mount media /dev/sda3 Attempting to mount media /dev/sda4 Media not found Determining root device... Could not find the root block device in . Please specify another value or: press Enter for the same, type shell for a shell, or q to skip (The /dev/sda* are partitions on my HD). Why not install it as a virtual machine under the OSX? Much easier and you can have both working at once and the performance is not bad at all. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici cov...@ccs.covici.com
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Friday 09 Sep 2011 00:26:33 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 18:39:21 -0400 Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: Unless I misunderstood this and referenced threads, all this agro is being generated because udev devs decided to give primacy not to the linux fs and prevailing FHS conventions, but their udev code and what may have been an easy workaround for them? Given that I do not understand the ins and outs of udev, or the way gentoo and upstream manage such proposals and ultimately accept changes, why don't gentoo devs raise alternative options with the Fedora dev or who ever had this idea upstream that udev code effort is more precious than all the workarounds (initramfs, repartitioning, etc.) that some of us have to go through? The alternatives I've read so far that advocate the avoidance of the imposition of an initramfs or merging /usr into / for the sake of a udev design choice, seem more 'intelligent' to me - in a gentoo principle sort of way. On the other hand, for a binary distro the udev dev approach would of course seem less disruptive and therefore our small gentoo user base may need to shout really loud to be heard. Do we get to vote on this? Not really: you can vote with your feet and use another distro/operating system. But the choice is theirs. Can we make a difference other than venting here and in the forums? Yes: design and write a different system. That's a really poor answer. You are offering two distasteful options at either end of the spectrum when the real solution is plainly obvious right in the middle: Communicate to whichever devs are making the calls, explain the issue caused by the proposed changes, open and entertain dialogue, let all voices be heard and let sanity prevail. You have consistently offered only two realistic options: their way or the highway. This presumes that the devs involved are impervious to the concept of dialogue at all, and cannot be contacted or swayed. You see, none of that is true. There is *always* a third way and it is almost always the best possible route to follow. In the case of Gentoo, the dialog is having place in the dev list, at this very moment. In the case of Fedora (and, I think, OpenSuse), the dialog is actually over. The Gentoo devs are just going with the flow. (This is how I see things, I could have some facts wrong). Aha! This is I think where it went wrong. The Gentoo devs should *not* have gone with the flow. Giving the udev code primacy over the conventional FHS way, rather than spending some more time to sort out the genuine cause of the problem (udev) is something that in this case affects the Gentoo principle of doing it the 'Gentoo way' - more than binary distros who are already using initramfs. So this is a Gentoo user/use case argument more than upstream devs may care to examine. It is not an arbitrary decision, and it is not from one developer (this kind of things never are). The dialog happend (or is happening) among those who construct the stack or the distributions. We have a say, of course (we always do), but I don't really think that it should be that important. I really, truly believe that the decision is (and should be) in the hands of the people actually writing the code. You have made this point clear enough, but the way this has been decided clearly cuts across the choice of freedom that Gentoo users had until now. People are getting upset and using an initramfs, repartitioning, or becoming Linux developers overnight to write their own udev code is not a particularly attractive option for most Gentoo users. I think this is how Linux rose to be what it is today, and how it will keep going on strong. Sometimes mistakes will be made, and some users will be burned by them. I (personally, IMHO, etc., etc.) don't think this is one of those times. And that is way I'm expressing myself in this thread. Fair enough. It is evident that there are quite a few of us that disagree with your view on this matter. I think that in this case some devs followed what is convenient or expedient, rather than choosing a more purist/elegant approach that fixes what's broken (udev) without affecting adversely the wider ecosystem. That is all. I know what I say a lot of people don't like, but I think it should be said, clear and loud. I believe that you have repeated your position enough times that we all get it. Your position though advocates a design solution which cuts across the Gentoo way of doing things. This makes Gentoo less valuable to some of us. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
Mick wrote: On Friday 09 Sep 2011 00:26:33 Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: In the case of Gentoo, the dialog is having place in the dev list, at this very moment. In the case of Fedora (and, I think, OpenSuse), the dialog is actually over. The Gentoo devs are just going with the flow. (This is how I see things, I could have some facts wrong). Aha! This is I think where it went wrong. The Gentoo devs should *not* have gone with the flow. Giving the udev code primacy over the conventional FHS way, rather than spending some more time to sort out the genuine cause of the problem (udev) is something that in this case affects the Gentoo principle of doing it the 'Gentoo way' - more than binary distros who are already using initramfs. So this is a Gentoo user/use case argument more than upstream devs may care to examine. This is my understanding and what I can recall reading on -dev. Basically someone, a dev, at Fedora decided to do it this way. That was where the discussion ended. I read somewhere that the dev in question won't even reply, maybe not even read, complaints to what he/she is doing. Basically, he/she is saying what has been said in this thread. It is my way or the highway. Along with the loss of options, having this big a change with the person inflicting it not listening is disturbing. What's next, /home will be need on / as well? I really think having one or even just a few people that can cause a change like this needs to be revisited. I would like to know what Linus thinks about this mess. Does he know? Is he thinking this is OK? Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] Filesystem with lowest CPU load, acceptable emerge performance, and stable?
So, can anyone recommend me a filesystem that fulfills my following needs: Scenario: vFirewall (virtual Firewall) that is going to be deployed at my IaaS Cloud Provider. Disk I/O Characteristic: Occasional writes during 'normal' usage, once-a-week eix-sync + emerge -avuD Priority: Stable (i.e., less chance of corruption), least CPU usage. My Google-Fu seems to indicate either XFS or JFS; what do you think? IMHO a firewall (physical or virtual) is something that fits strictly into the appliance category. It must do only one thing and do it well, with as little complexity and maintenance overhead as possible. Why in the world would anyone want to run gentoo (which among the rest needs portage and a whole compiler stack) -- or for that matter any other full-fledged linux distribution -- on something like that in production is beyond me... That said, XFS and JFS are targeted at completely different use cases and are way too complex for your scenario. Without appropriately-sized hardware I'm not even sure XFS fits in the stable category. Stick to ext3, keeping an eye on the inode count for /usr/portage as the default value on a small partition probably won't be enough. Fs-related CPU usage in a firewall (which has nearly zero disk activity when up and running) is mostly a non-issue unless you need some form of heavy logging or you're doing something wrong. Weekly updates, on the other hand are exposing you to the risk of random breakages and -- if you compile from source -- are going to cost you a serious amount of CPU. My advice would be to limit updates to those fixing known vulnerabilities, and even then compiling somewhere else and doing binary installs would be preferable. andrea
[gentoo-user] Re: /dev/sda* missing at boot
The 09/09/11, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 23:44:41 schrieb Alan McKinnon: On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 21:29:40 + Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: Would it not be possible to have a minimal /usr tree in the root partition for udev's use at boot time, and to later mount a more robust /usr partition over this? What am I missing here? A big problem will be that the package manager cannot easily maintain that phase 1 code as it's under another mount point. Doing so would require the package manager to bind-mount / somewhere and copy updated binaries of essential packages there as well as into the real /usr. Not an insurmountable problem, it just requires changes to all affected packages, and well within the capabilities of distros. Couldn't whatever mounts /usr bind-mount this hidden /usr somewhere (where, I think, could be a good question here) before mounting the real one? Then it would be visible even after the real /usr is mounted. So, you're asking if it's smart to use yet another path (hidden once finished to properly boot) to store what is currently stored in /bin and /sbin... Remember: the only reason why /bin and /sbin exist is to have tools available during boot time to mount /usr. -- Nicolas Sebrecht
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 04:03:53 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote:
No, I think you haven't been reading carefully enough. Again:
1. In 2011, we need a dynamic /dev tree. I'm not going to argue why.
2. udev, successor of devfs, which was successor of the classical /dev
tree, after years of design and development iterations, solves the
problem. It's not perfect, but I think that is as close as it could
be, for the problem it tries to solve, and with the feature set it
has.
3. udev needs either an initramfs, because it needs an early user
space, or a /usr inside /.
From this 3 points, I make my conclusion: keep up with the changes, or
code an alternative (that includes using something like mdev).
From my point of view, as an old Solaris admin, point 3) is the problem.
If what-ever-it-is is needed during boot, it should be in /sbin or /bin or
/lib
If it is curently in /usr/* then it is in the wrong place, and that package
should be modified.
Later in the thread you mentioned a bluetooth keyboard. This obviously
requires either a driver module, or a bluetooth server process, or similar,
which belong in /lib{32,64}/modules or /sbin
Having udev able to execute arbitrary code during boot looks like yet another
large security hole opening up. At least keep the code it can execute tied
down to the directories that were set up for this purpose.
--
Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC.http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol
Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes.
Then, when you do, you'll be a mile away, and you'll have their shoes.
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
Paul Colquhoun wrote:
From my point of view, as an old Solaris admin, point 3) is the
problem. If what-ever-it-is is needed during boot, it should be in
/sbin or /bin or /lib If it is curently in /usr/* then it is in the
wrong place, and that package should be modified. Later in the thread
you mentioned a bluetooth keyboard. This obviously requires either a
driver module, or a bluetooth server process, or similar, which belong
in /lib{32,64}/modules or /sbin Having udev able to execute arbitrary
code during boot looks like yet another large security hole opening
up. At least keep the code it can execute tied down to the directories
that were set up for this purpose.
Picking a random post to reply to.
I been using Linux for a while. Let me see if I understand this
correctly. As I understand it, when a system boots it needs /bin,
/sbin, /lib*, and /etc and nothing else other than /boot for grub to
load the kernel. Those directories are for booting the system and for
system operations. That is my understanding of how it has been since
further back than I care to explore. Things that are used after a
system boots, such as things in the default runlevel or KDE, goes into
/usr somewhere. This is the reason that /usr and /var can be on
separate partitions. I have always understood that /usr and /var can be
put on separate partitions for security reasons or to put some larger
partitions on separate drives. If I recall correctly, websites files
are under /var. Those can get pretty large quick I would guess.
So, now someone has decided to change this and it seems a few think this
is nothing users should worry about. I don't run a large server or
anything but this still worries me. I don't like the fact that the
changes I had planned will now require me to also install one more thing
to break. My system is simple and I like to keep it that way. The
fanciest thing I have is a camera and a printer that I use once in a
blue moon. I want to put /usr on a spare partition because it is
growing fairly quickly with the KDE4 updates and others too. Now, it
looks like I have to do a whole redo of everything. Something that was
simple just got complicated.
My choices are:
1: move from Gentoo to something else. I'm seriously considering this
one. If I can learn Gentoo, I can learn any distro! LFS may be
excluded tho.
2: Stick with Gentoo and hope this is corrected like hal was dealt with.
2b: Go with LVM for everything and have a init* to boot.
2c: Move /usr and use init* with no LVM.
2d: Just redo my whole system with a larger / partition.
I liked my original plan better.
1: Go to boot runlevel.
2: Mount what will be new /usr partition to some mount point.
3: Copy /usr to the new partition
4: rm the old /usr data.
5: Mount the new /usr partition and add it to fstab
6: Switch back to default runlevel and life goes on.
Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse it
sounds. I can't even imagine someone who runs some large server. Any
hair left? lol
Dale
:-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Thursday, September 08, 2011 06:55:32 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: I htink almost everyone understand this. Regards. I think you are one of *very* few that understands this. This reminds me of a old joke. One in four people have a mental issue. Check three friends and if they are OK, you are it. Again, it is a joke but my point is, very few people are liking this. That alone should say a lot. I know, but Open Source has never been a democracy. It is a meritocracy. No matter how many get upset by a change, the opinions that matter are from those writing the code. I don't agree. There are people with opinions that matter even though they don't write the code. There are plenty of Open Source projects where the opinions and comments from users also matter. And if those users actually put time and effort into the documentation/support side they get listened to more often. This is a very few people forcing a change that no one wants. That's a contradiction, isn't it? The few people forcing the change want it, I hope. Ok, lets do it by numbers. People forcing it: 5 (maybe? not that many more) People liking it (including the above 5): 10 (maybe?) total number of users: 1,000,000 (pulled out of my head) Percentage of users liking it of all the users: 10 / 1,000,000 = 0.0001 %. That's a very low number that in most cases would be rounded to 0. Eg. noone. You seem to fail to understand that. I don't agree with the few people and the no one wants parts. I understand that this change is upseting some people, but I don't think you (nor I) can say for sure if it's even a majority of Gentoo users, I think the majority of Gentoo users will happily continue the way they have been working with their systems. Then, when this change gets forced upon them, they will all start complaining loudly because all their systems no longer boot. and even if it were, again, Open Source is not a democracy. Actually, it is. People tend to vote with their feet (ok, downloads) and if they don't like something, they walk away. Personally, if I'm going to have to start running my Gentoo box like a binary based distro, I may as well use a binary based distro. If others feel like I do, then Gentoo may start losing users. I got away from Mandrake for reasons such as this. That's your prerrogative. And that's why I'm saying my word in the list: I'm pretty sure many users in the list (which are not all the Gentoo users) are not really upset with this change. The other POV has to be heard. I haven't gone through the whole thread, but it seems to me there are several people against this change and only one who is for. I kept quiet as my arguments were already being raised and I dislike +1 postings. But in this case, I feel an exception is needed. I'm going back to my garden. You have fun promoting this mess that is being created. You seem to enjoy it a lot. I'm not promoting anything. Just want to get into the record that some users don't mind this change, and some of us even welcome it. Why would anyone welcome a change where an initramfs (or whatever it's called these days) is necessary just to boot your system? This also needs to keep getting updated whenever a needed piece of software is updated. I tend to update the software more often then the kernel. Now, I'll have to rebuild my kernel more regularly. Even though, from my point of view, nothing will have changed. -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Fri, 09 Sep 2011 03:53:26 -0500
Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote:
Paul Colquhoun wrote:
From my point of view, as an old Solaris admin, point 3) is the
problem. If what-ever-it-is is needed during boot, it should be in
/sbin or /bin or /lib If it is curently in /usr/* then it is in the
wrong place, and that package should be modified. Later in the
thread you mentioned a bluetooth keyboard. This obviously requires
either a driver module, or a bluetooth server process, or similar,
which belong in /lib{32,64}/modules or /sbin Having udev able to
execute arbitrary code during boot looks like yet another large
security hole opening up. At least keep the code it can execute
tied down to the directories that were set up for this purpose.
Picking a random post to reply to.
I been using Linux for a while. Let me see if I understand this
correctly. As I understand it, when a system boots it needs /bin,
/sbin, /lib*, and /etc and nothing else other than /boot for grub to
load the kernel. Those directories are for booting the system and
for system operations. That is my understanding of how it has been
since further back than I care to explore.
Correct.
/ is often set up with only the minimal packages needed to guarantee
that single user mode will work correctly if the only thing mounted
is / itself.
Things that are used
after a system boots, such as things in the default runlevel or KDE,
goes into /usr somewhere. This is the reason that /usr and /var can
be on separate partitions. I have always understood that /usr
and /var can be put on separate partitions for security reasons or to
put some larger partitions on separate drives. If I recall
correctly, websites files are under /var. Those can get pretty large
quick I would guess.
Correct again.
/var is for variable data, usually persistent data like log files,
databases, web sites, caches. It is writeable by root and system data
goes there (as opposed to user data).
So, now someone has decided to change this and it seems a few think
this is nothing users should worry about. I don't run a large server
or anything but this still worries me. I don't like the fact that
the changes I had planned will now require me to also install one
more thing to break. My system is simple and I like to keep it that
way. The fanciest thing I have is a camera and a printer that I use
once in a blue moon. I want to put /usr on a spare partition because
it is growing fairly quickly with the KDE4 updates and others too.
Now, it looks like I have to do a whole redo of everything.
Something that was simple just got complicated.
The truth is that with these changes your system will continue to work
just fine. Just like my laptops work just fine (I have one big
partition with another for /home on laptops).
My laptops don't need a separate /usr, but my servers do.
So it really looks like someone is forcing a change that makes udev's
life easier and potentially wreaks everything else in doing so.
My choices are:
1: move from Gentoo to something else. I'm seriously considering
this one. If I can learn Gentoo, I can learn any distro! LFS may be
excluded tho.
It's not a Gentoo change, it's a udev change. So you'll be stuck with
this new stuff regardless of which distro you go with.
2: Stick with Gentoo and hope this is corrected like hal was dealt
with. 2b: Go with LVM for everything and have a init* to boot.
2c: Move /usr and use init* with no LVM.
2d: Just redo my whole system with a larger / partition.
2e. Migrate to Windows where you too can have one partition on / and
have it fully supported by Microsoft!! OK, my sarcasm is showing.
I liked my original plan better.
1: Go to boot runlevel.
2: Mount what will be new /usr partition to some mount point.
3: Copy /usr to the new partition
4: rm the old /usr data.
5: Mount the new /usr partition and add it to fstab
6: Switch back to default runlevel and life goes on.
Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse
it sounds. I can't even imagine someone who runs some large server.
Any hair left? lol
I'm lucky, I can vote with my feet. Out of 140, I have two servers that
*require* Linux. One runs Sybase ASE, the other runs Oracle. Everything
else works like a bomb on FreeBSD.
kthankxbyeudev, thanksfornotplayingnicely
Not everyone else is so fortunate though.
--
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Thursday, September 08, 2011 03:01:10 PM Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 1:35 PM, pk pete...@coolmail.se wrote: On 2011-09-08 16:51, Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: But the freedom is still there. The freedom to either keep your system as it is (don't upgrade) ^ You do realise that this is quite valid for Windows (and all other OS's in existence)? At least so far... Don't get *me* started. My _day job_ is C++/MFC on Windows. _Please_ upgrade, you'll make my life much easier. Outdated operating systems make baby coder cry. I already mentioned that you update security flaws. Update the security flaws is all nice and well, but won't hold up for very long. Security updates for older versions will stop within a short period. And not sufficient information will be available to keep patching the software individually. And again, that's only if you resist the change. This sounds like We are borg, resistance is futile :) -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: /dev/sda* missing at boot
Am Freitag, 9. September 2011, 10:06:21 schrieb Nicolas Sebrecht: The 09/09/11, Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: Am Donnerstag, 8. September 2011, 23:44:41 schrieb Alan McKinnon: On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 21:29:40 + Alan Mackenzie a...@muc.de wrote: Would it not be possible to have a minimal /usr tree in the root partition for udev's use at boot time, and to later mount a more robust /usr partition over this? What am I missing here? A big problem will be that the package manager cannot easily maintain that phase 1 code as it's under another mount point. Doing so would require the package manager to bind-mount / somewhere and copy updated binaries of essential packages there as well as into the real /usr. Not an insurmountable problem, it just requires changes to all affected packages, and well within the capabilities of distros. Couldn't whatever mounts /usr bind-mount this hidden /usr somewhere (where, I think, could be a good question here) before mounting the real one? Then it would be visible even after the real /usr is mounted. So, you're asking if it's smart to use yet another path (hidden once finished to properly boot) to store what is currently stored in /bin and /sbin... Remember: the only reason why /bin and /sbin exist is to have tools available during boot time to mount /usr. The question arose, when Canek mentioned bluetoothd, that udev seems to need in some cases. If bluetoothd doesn't quite fit to /bin or /sbin (I tend to agree here), but is needed before /usr is mounted, then it has to be put *somewhere*. I don't say, that this is the way to go. Only searching for alternatives to a forced initramfs. Regards, Michael
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Thu, 8 Sep 2011 19:34:56 -0400 Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote: You don't need every possible thing that udev could ever run to be avialable on /, just the things that are essential. That is quite a small list subset of the full list of all possible devices: All HID devices All console devices All code to access and read file systems Everything that can be used in place of a physical keyboard (serial, console over ethernet) That looks like it might be a large amount of disk space, but in fact it isn't. This very mail is being typed on a binary distro (Ubuntu): The bluez package is 1.6M. /lib alone is 331M, I use a fraction of it but it is still there. /lib/modules contains two kernel versions of 136M each. Again, it is not bounded. Today is bluez, tomorrow we don't know. That's the point of udev, really. You're still not getting it. Just because it appears convenient to make udev unbounded does not mean that all possible code on the machine has to be accessible to udev. Or that udev will potentially run any arbitrary code you might have. Or put another way, udev might be able to run anything, like say lauching KDE, but the simple truth is that it won't in any reasonable scenario. Therefore you do not need to support or entertain that possibility. The truth is that a very small portion of the total code on the machine needs to be accessible to udev and all of it (including all foreseeable code) fits into a traditional / quite nicely. There is no upper limit on the size of /, you simply make it as large as you need and put everything supported in there. Once again, and this is very important, the only things that are absolutely required to be in / is all the code that must run before /usr is mounted. That list of things is very small, and if the user or the distro happens to cock it up, then the user or distro must fix it. Why is this apparently so hard to understand? The solution seems blindingly obvious: Any code launched by udev must be available on the same partition as /. However the system is rigged, that one condition must be satisfied. And consider who is setting this up: - root, who presumably knows what they are doing - distro devs, who also know what they are doing Or are the udev devs seriously contemplating allowing udev hooks so that any arbitrary user can launch any arbitrary code that might arbitrarily be anywhere? I still maintain this fix is for a problem that does not exist. -- Alan McKinnnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
Dale writes: Wow, what a big thread. While I also do not really like udev requiring /usr at boot time, I also understand that there are some arguments pro doing so. But then, I wonder what the big deal is. If an initramfs is now required for people using a separate /usr, then let's all use an initramfs, if we can't change how udev is going. It's annoying, we may feel it is wrong, but to me it seems that for most of us it is not a really big problem. What I fear much more is when good old grub is no longer supported and I have to use grub2, which I tried to understand, but failed. My choices are: 1: move from Gentoo to something else. I'm seriously considering this one. If I can learn Gentoo, I can learn any distro! LFS may be excluded tho. So, because you want to avoid to change your Gentoo installation to use an initramfs, you switch to another distribution, which most likely uses an initramfs anayway? 2: Stick with Gentoo and hope this is corrected like hal was dealt with. 2b: Go with LVM for everything and have a init* to boot. LVM is great and I suggest everyone using it, but it's not necessary here. 2c: Move /usr and use init* with no LVM. If you can extend you root partition, yes, just copy /usr there, and all will be fine. 2d: Just redo my whole system with a larger / partition. Which would be a lot of work. Personally I do not care much about this, as I already am using an initramfs :) That's because all my partitions are encrypted LVM volumes. Except for /boot, which is on on USB stick. When I switched to using an initramfs, it was not very complicated. I simply use genkernel. With CLEAN=no and MRPROPER=no, it uses my /usr/src/linux/.config and does not change the kernel options. Then comes genkernel --install --lvm -luks all, and I have kernel and initramfs in /boot. I manually add them to my grub.conf. emerge @module-rebuild, and I'm done. I guess for most of us this would work. I don't know what Michael has to do in order to keep nvidia-drivers instead of nouveau, but I assume some howto or new item will come up to solve this. Whenever Gentoo had us to do major changes, there was a good explanation of what to do, and it worked fine. Migration to openrc was more complicated I think. And hey, I was satisfied with the way it's been before. I liked my original plan better. 1: Go to boot runlevel. 2: Mount what will be new /usr partition to some mount point. 3: Copy /usr to the new partition 4: rm the old /usr data. 5: Mount the new /usr partition and add it to fstab 6: Switch back to default runlevel and life goes on. I don't get this one. Why do you want to copy an existing /usr partition to another one? Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse it sounds. I can't even imagine someone who runs some large server. Any hair left? lol Yes, I also feel sorry for guys like Alan. But for us desktop users I think's it's not such a big deal. Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
David W Noon writes: The more I think about this merge of / and /usr, the dumber I think the idea is. As I wrote in an earlier message on this list, the initramfs will be many times larger than the kernel itself. Indeed, my /boot partition is only 32 MiB, and that will be too small to contain all the extra libraries and programs to run the initramfs script. Here, I only need 2.2 M for the kernel, 1.7 M for System.map, and 3.5 M for the initramfs. Wonko
[gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo on MacBook
* cov...@ccs.covici.com cov...@ccs.covici.com [09/09/11 02:15]: Moshe Kamensky moshe.kamen...@googlemail.com wrote: * Moshe Kamensky moshe.kamen...@googlemail.com [08/09/11 23:30]: * cov...@ccs.covici.com cov...@ccs.covici.com [08/09/11 23:18]: Moshe Kamensky moshe.kamen...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi There, I am trying to install Gentoo dual boot on a MacBook Pro (17 inch). I have refit installed, but the problem is that I cannot boot from the CD (the option is not available in the menu). I was wondering if someone knows how to do it. What happens if you hold the c key when you hear the chime -- keep holding for a minute or so and it should boot from the cd. That helped, thanks! I was happy to soon... It now boots, but after asking me about keyboard layout, it tries to find the cdrom and fails, with messages like: Looking for CDROM Attempting to mount media /dev/sda1 Attempting to mount media /dev/sda2 Attempting to mount media /dev/sda3 Attempting to mount media /dev/sda4 Media not found Determining root device... Could not find the root block device in . Please specify another value or: press Enter for the same, type shell for a shell, or q to skip (The /dev/sda* are partitions on my HD). Why not install it as a virtual machine under the OSX? Much easier and you can have both working at once and the performance is not bad at all. I didn't consider it, since I don't really need the OSX, but I might give it a try. Is there a particular VM you recommend? Thanks, Moshe
[gentoo-user] Re: Wireless Configuration...
Am 07.09.2011 16:06, schrieb Michael Mol: I believe NetworkManager provides WPA supplicant functionlaity, so I don't think you need wpa_supplicant if you have NetworkManager. It's been a *long* time (about five years) since I messed with wireless configuration daemons, though. Lots of things can change in that time, including memory... I don't think so! NetworkManager generates a configuration file on the fly for wpa_supplicant, so you still need it, you just don't need to configure it anywhere else than NetworkManager! Regards -- Moritz Schlarb
[gentoo-user] user mount authorization failed
Hi, After playing with remove gnome and kde I have only one problem. When I try to access my external driver by clicking on the icon in Thunar I'm getting message unauthorized. What mystical file I have to edit to restore this functionality which was ok in my other environment than xfce? Thank you Laszlo
Re: [gentoo-user] user mount authorization failed
Hi, Am Freitag, 9. September 2011, 14:14:40 schrieb Space Cake: Hi, After playing with remove gnome and kde I have only one problem. When I try to access my external driver by clicking on the icon in Thunar I'm getting message unauthorized. What mystical file I have to edit to restore this functionality which was ok in my other environment than xfce? you need to configure polkit for this to work. Create a file /etc/polkit-1/localauthority/50-local.d/my-polkit-udisks.pkla with content: [udisks full access] Identity=unix-group:wheel Action=org.freedesktop.udisks.* ResultActive=yes Here users of group wheel are allowed to do all udisks related actions. Change this to fit your needs. Look into man pklocalauthority also, it has some details. Thank you Laszlo Hth, Michael
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
Alex Schuster wrote: David W Noon writes: The more I think about this merge of / and /usr, the dumber I think the idea is. As I wrote in an earlier message on this list, the initramfs will be many times larger than the kernel itself. Indeed, my /boot partition is only 32 MiB, and that will be too small to contain all the extra libraries and programs to run the initramfs script. Here, I only need 2.2 M for the kernel, 1.7 M for System.map, and 3.5 M for the initramfs. Wonko Well, that may not be the case for everyone else. root@fireball / # du -shc /boot/ 84M /boot/ 84M total root@fireball / # Of course, while I am redoing my partitions, I guess I can make /boot bigger as well. Heck, may have to change something else before to long. I'm sure someone will find some side corner case where something might happen and decide to fix what isn't broke. Yep, sounds about right to me. It's not the first time for this sort of thing to happen. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Friday 09 Sep 2011 12:35:47 Alex Schuster wrote: Dale writes: Wow, what a big thread. While I also do not really like udev requiring /usr at boot time, I also understand that there are some arguments pro doing so. But then, I wonder what the big deal is. If an initramfs is now required for people using a separate /usr, then let's all use an initramfs, if we can't change how udev is going. It's annoying, we may feel it is wrong, but to me it seems that for most of us it is not a really big problem. What I fear much more is when good old grub is no longer supported and I have to use grub2, which I tried to understand, but failed. My choices are: 1: move from Gentoo to something else. I'm seriously considering this one. If I can learn Gentoo, I can learn any distro! LFS may be excluded tho. So, because you want to avoid to change your Gentoo installation to use an initramfs, you switch to another distribution, which most likely uses an initramfs anayway? 2: Stick with Gentoo and hope this is corrected like hal was dealt with. 2b: Go with LVM for everything and have a init* to boot. LVM is great and I suggest everyone using it, but it's not necessary here. 2c: Move /usr and use init* with no LVM. If you can extend you root partition, yes, just copy /usr there, and all will be fine. 2d: Just redo my whole system with a larger / partition. Which would be a lot of work. Personally I do not care much about this, as I already am using an initramfs :) That's because all my partitions are encrypted LVM volumes. Except for /boot, which is on on USB stick. When I switched to using an initramfs, it was not very complicated. I simply use genkernel. With CLEAN=no and MRPROPER=no, it uses my /usr/src/linux/.config and does not change the kernel options. Then comes genkernel --install --lvm -luks all, and I have kernel and initramfs in /boot. I manually add them to my grub.conf. emerge @module-rebuild, and I'm done. I guess for most of us this would work. I don't know what Michael has to do in order to keep nvidia-drivers instead of nouveau, but I assume some howto or new item will come up to solve this. Whenever Gentoo had us to do major changes, there was a good explanation of what to do, and it worked fine. Migration to openrc was more complicated I think. And hey, I was satisfied with the way it's been before. I liked my original plan better. 1: Go to boot runlevel. 2: Mount what will be new /usr partition to some mount point. 3: Copy /usr to the new partition 4: rm the old /usr data. 5: Mount the new /usr partition and add it to fstab 6: Switch back to default runlevel and life goes on. I don't get this one. Why do you want to copy an existing /usr partition to another one? Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse it sounds. I can't even imagine someone who runs some large server. Any hair left? lol Yes, I also feel sorry for guys like Alan. But for us desktop users I think's it's not such a big deal. It's not a catastrophically big deal, but it is an imposed workaround that goes against the freedom of choice that we gentoo-ers have enjoyed hitherto. It also seems counter-intuitive that udev devs' convenience should take primacy over the FHS convention and the prevailing minimal booting process. It will only affect one out of three boxen of mine and I could surely fix that, but I am against restricting unquestioningly what I can do with gentoo, just because a udev coder didn't think it through enough to come up with a smarter solution; and then the Gentoo devs did not put up a fight in representing their user base. It's a point of principle and on this basis I'd like to object to it, not for a poxy little box which I can reconfigure one day if I must. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Wireless Configuration...
- Original Message - From: Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Wireless Configuration... OK, so if you restore the two lines and this error goes away, can you then initialise the device without any other errors? So far as I am aware. Assuming that rfkill shows all is unlocked and the device active, what does iwlist wlan0 scan show now? The output I quoted was from that configuration. - Original Message - From: Moritz Schlarb m...@moritz-schlarb.de Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Wireless Configuration... Am 07.09.2011 16:06, schrieb Michael Mol: I believe NetworkManager provides WPA supplicant functionlaity, so I don't think you need wpa_supplicant if you have NetworkManager. It's been a *long* time (about five years) since I messed with wireless configuration daemons, though. Lots of things can change in that time, including memory... I don't think so! NetworkManager generates a configuration file on the fly for wpa_supplicant, so you still need it, you just don't need to configure it anywhere else than NetworkManager! So NetworkManager/KNetworkManager generates a wpa_supplicant.conf on the fly to use, thereby ignoring the one in /etc/wpa_supplicant? Would it then be correct that it also ignores the settings in /etc/conf.d/net? Ben
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
Dale writes: Alex Schuster wrote: David W Noon writes: The more I think about this merge of / and /usr, the dumber I think the idea is. As I wrote in an earlier message on this list, the initramfs will be many times larger than the kernel itself. Indeed, my /boot partition is only 32 MiB, and that will be too small to contain all the extra libraries and programs to run the initramfs script. Here, I only need 2.2 M for the kernel, 1.7 M for System.map, and 3.5 M for the initramfs. Well, that may not be the case for everyone else. Sure, but how much bigger are your kernels actually? root@fireball / # du -shc /boot/ 84M /boot/ 84M total root@fireball / # I get 82M, but I have ten kernels in there. What stuff do you have in /boot? Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Gentoo on MacBook
Moshe Kamensky moshe.kamen...@googlemail.com wrote: * cov...@ccs.covici.com cov...@ccs.covici.com [09/09/11 02:15]: Moshe Kamensky moshe.kamen...@googlemail.com wrote: * Moshe Kamensky moshe.kamen...@googlemail.com [08/09/11 23:30]: * cov...@ccs.covici.com cov...@ccs.covici.com [08/09/11 23:18]: Moshe Kamensky moshe.kamen...@googlemail.com wrote: Hi There, I am trying to install Gentoo dual boot on a MacBook Pro (17 inch). I have refit installed, but the problem is that I cannot boot from the CD (the option is not available in the menu). I was wondering if someone knows how to do it. What happens if you hold the c key when you hear the chime -- keep holding for a minute or so and it should boot from the cd. That helped, thanks! I was happy to soon... It now boots, but after asking me about keyboard layout, it tries to find the cdrom and fails, with messages like: Looking for CDROM Attempting to mount media /dev/sda1 Attempting to mount media /dev/sda2 Attempting to mount media /dev/sda3 Attempting to mount media /dev/sda4 Media not found Determining root device... Could not find the root block device in . Please specify another value or: press Enter for the same, type shell for a shell, or q to skip (The /dev/sda* are partitions on my HD). Why not install it as a virtual machine under the OSX? Much easier and you can have both working at once and the performance is not bad at all. I didn't consider it, since I don't really need the OSX, but I might give it a try. Is there a particular VM you recommend? Vmware fusion is good, and I have heard good things about parallells. Also remember they use a different BIOS on the MAC and this may be part of the problem you are having. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici cov...@ccs.covici.com
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 10:55 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Thu, Sep 8, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: I htink almost everyone understand this. Regards. I think you are one of *very* few that understands this. This reminds me of a old joke. One in four people have a mental issue. Check three friends and if they are OK, you are it. Again, it is a joke but my point is, very few people are liking this. That alone should say a lot. I know, but Open Source has never been a democracy. It is a meritocracy. No matter how many get upset by a change, the opinions that matter are from those writing the code. This is a very few people forcing a change that no one wants. That's a contradiction, isn't it? The few people forcing the change want it, I hope. It's not. So far, one dev made the decision to do this and a few have agreed. There are lots of people, as noted in this thread, that disagree. Some of those people have been using Linux for a very long time. I don't know how long you have been using Linux but I'm pushing ten years myself. I suspect that Neil and Alan, and maybe others, have been using Linux a LOT longer than that. Maybe more than both of us put together. When I see a post by Alan or Neil, I read it carefully. There are Linux idiots in this world but they are not one of them. On some subjects, I fall into the ignorance category. I don't claim to know it all but some things I do know well. The contradiction part was a joke. A bad one, it seems. I started using Linux in 1996, when I started college (Computer Science, if you must know). I used RedHat, then Mandrake, then Gentoo, around 2003. After college I worked in several companies, doing mostly programming, but also a lot of system administration. I have worked with Solaris, HP-UX, SCO, and a tiny little bit of AIX, but the bulk of my curriculum is in Linux. In 2005 I got bored of being like Dilbert, and went back to school to get my masters in 2008 (Computer Science, again), and after getting back to work less than six months, I returned to Academia to get my PhD (Computer Science, what the hell), which I hope to get next year. That is not going to happen if instead of finishing writing my papers, I keep posting to threads in gentoo-user. I have some experience with Linux and Unix. I have followed the development of Linux, GNOME and everything in beetween in the stack like some people follow soap operas or football games. I think I kinda know what I'm talking about. But of course, I could be wrong in this issue. I just don't think so. I said my points and listened to very different and interesting ones. From my POV (and I say this with all the respect possible), I see a lot of people afraid of change or too worried about their pet configurations, but not a really Earth-shattering technical strong point that makes me believe this change is unnecessary, irrational, or lazy. It is incovenient? Sure, but in the long run I think it would make Linux better. This I haven't said, I think: I care about Linux, and basically Linux only. I want it to be on all my electronics, from my cell phone to my refrigerator and of course in my desktop. That is already happening, and the direction it is heading. But to do that, Linux cannot be a classical Unix. It needs to be so much more. It needs to do thinks *DIFFERENTLY*. So, even if Linux will be always able to do anything any other Unix could do, it will do it in a fundamentally different way. So if you care for a Unix boxen that only does Unix-boxen things, in the classical, 1970-way, then probably Linux is not the best option for you. And for sure *I* don't want progress stopped only so Linux is able to do the things already does in the same way, with the only argument being my script/setup/partition works now, why should I changed it? Change happens. I appreciate the discussion, and I think it was enlightening and entertaining, but I will not participate anymore. I need to get my PhD one of this days. Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Wireless Configuration...
On Friday, September 9 at 13:53 (+0200), Moritz Schlarb said: I don't think so! NetworkManager generates a configuration file on the fly for wpa_supplicant, so you still need it, you just don't need to configure it anywhere else than NetworkManager! Well, not entirely through an on-the-fly config file but through a dbus connection. But yeah, NM requires wpa_supplicant (with dbus enabled). Just look at the .ebuild.
Re: [gentoo-user] Gentoo on MacBook
On 9 September 2011, at 04:50, Moshe Kamensky wrote: ... I was happy to soon... It now boots, but after asking me about keyboard layout, it tries to find the cdrom and fails, with messages like: Looking for CDROM Attempting to mount media /dev/sda1 Attempting to mount media /dev/sda2 Attempting to mount media /dev/sda3 Attempting to mount media /dev/sda4 Media not found Determining root device... Could not find the root block device in . Please specify another value or: press Enter for the same, type shell for a shell, or q to skip (The /dev/sda* are partitions on my HD). What CD are you trying to boot? I would try different LiveCDs until you find one that works. The Gentoo wiki suggests that an older version of the Gentoo Minimal CD might work (2008.0 or earlier), otherwise try SystemRescueCD, Knoppix, Ubuntu and others. I appreciate that Google may not easily distinguish between 8 or 12 completely different hardware configurations all called macbook, but the information is out there. http://www.google.com/search?q=gentoo%20install%20macbook%20pro If yours is a newish model then click on the more search tools link on the left hand side and choose past year. This discusses booting a MacBoo Pro in some detail: http://myhumblecorner.wordpress.com/2011/05/31/gentoo-and-a-little-ubuntu-on-a-macbook-pro-53/ It probably won't be your model, but it's worth checking. When installing Gentoo the important thing is getting booted from LiveCD to a command prompt. If you can achieve that then you know that you can surely install Gentoo, because from then onwards you're only unpacking a tarball and setting up a bootloader. Stroller.
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On 2011-09-09 13:35, Alex Schuster wrote: When I switched to using an initramfs, it was not very complicated. I simply use genkernel. With CLEAN=no and MRPROPER=no, it uses my /usr/src/linux/.config and does not change the kernel options. Then comes genkernel --install --lvm -luks all, and I have kernel and initramfs And for those that like to do without genkernel? Again, adding another layer for things to go wrong. I don't get this one. Why do you want to copy an existing /usr partition to another one? He said he wishes to move his /usr to a spare partition (the part about KDE4)... I assume his /usr currently resides on / (or maybe a smaller partition that he cannot easily expand). Yes, I also feel sorry for guys like Alan. But for us desktop users I think's it's not such a big deal. I'm a desktop and a (personal server) user and I think it's quite a big deal. I want simplicity; adding layers increases complexity. I think it's the same for Dale and most other people objecting to this. To me it's a very big deal (this is a deal breaker, or close to it). I've been using Linux continously since around 1998 (well, I did my first install on my amiga 4000 in 1995 using 9 floppy disks, don't remember the distro) and I've been using (not much administration though) Solaris, AIX and HP-UX since around that time as well (at school at work). It seems some developers are hell bent on inventing Windows all over again (this goes not only for udev but also for Gnome and their supporting libraries)... Best regards Peter K
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
pk writes: On 2011-09-09 13:35, Alex Schuster wrote: When I switched to using an initramfs, it was not very complicated. I simply use genkernel. With CLEAN=no and MRPROPER=no, it uses my /usr/src/linux/.config and does not change the kernel options. Then comes genkernel --install --lvm -luks all, and I have kernel and initramfs And for those that like to do without genkernel? Again, adding another layer for things to go wrong. I just wanted to say that it _can_ be easy. When I installed my system, I knew I would need an initramfs, and while I knew what that is, I did not know how to set it up. But then I thought about trying genkernel, which I never used before, and it worked very well. I did not have to care about the details. Instead of make bzImage modules modules_install and copying the results to /boot, I use the genkernel command, and that's it. I don't get this one. Why do you want to copy an existing /usr partition to another one? He said he wishes to move his /usr to a spare partition (the part about KDE4)... I assume his /usr currently resides on / (or maybe a smaller partition that he cannot easily expand). Right, I somehow overlooked this, thanks for pointing that out. Dale, if you want to avoid the initramfs, what about moving large stuff like /usr/src to another location and symlinking it? That's a hack, but a small one compared to what an initramfs is :) Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 1:04 PM, Alex Schuster wo...@wonkology.org wrote: pk writes: On 2011-09-09 13:35, Alex Schuster wrote: When I switched to using an initramfs, it was not very complicated. I simply use genkernel. With CLEAN=no and MRPROPER=no, it uses my /usr/src/linux/.config and does not change the kernel options. Then comes genkernel --install --lvm -luks all, and I have kernel and initramfs And for those that like to do without genkernel? Again, adding another layer for things to go wrong. I just wanted to say that it _can_ be easy. When I installed my system, I knew I would need an initramfs, and while I knew what that is, I did not know how to set it up. But then I thought about trying genkernel, which I never used before, and it worked very well. I did not have to care about the details. Instead of make bzImage modules modules_install and copying the results to /boot, I use the genkernel command, and that's it. I don't get this one. Why do you want to copy an existing /usr partition to another one? He said he wishes to move his /usr to a spare partition (the part about KDE4)... I assume his /usr currently resides on / (or maybe a smaller partition that he cannot easily expand). Right, I somehow overlooked this, thanks for pointing that out. Dale, if you want to avoid the initramfs, what about moving large stuff like /usr/src to another location and symlinking it? That's a hack, but a small one compared to what an initramfs is :) Why symlink? Why not make it its own mountpoint? :) -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On 2011-09-09 10:53, Dale wrote: Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse it Yes Dale, you have my permission! And while you're at it, slap him from me too! ;-) It _may_ be this guy that's responsible for this crap: http://linuxplumbersconf.org/ocw/users/58 Also: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/16994 PS. If things go tits up you may want to have a look at FreeBSD (or some other BSD). I'm quite sure they wouldn't put up with crap like this... I know I will investigate my options at least. Best regards Peter K
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
Am Freitag, 9. September 2011, 19:24:06 schrieb pk: On 2011-09-09 10:53, Dale wrote: Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse it Yes Dale, you have my permission! And while you're at it, slap him from me too! ;-) It _may_ be this guy that's responsible for this crap: http://linuxplumbersconf.org/ocw/users/58 Also: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/16994 OMG! What a mess. udev treats all exit-codes except 0 the same. That's so bad, I have no words for it. Definitely not a developer I trust to do things the right way. PS. If things go tits up you may want to have a look at FreeBSD (or some other BSD). I'm quite sure they wouldn't put up with crap like this... I know I will investigate my options at least. Agree, FreeBSD is really a fine OS. Best regards Peter K Thanks for the links, regards, Michael
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 13:41:07 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote about Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot: David W Noon writes: The more I think about this merge of / and /usr, the dumber I think the idea is. As I wrote in an earlier message on this list, the initramfs will be many times larger than the kernel itself. Indeed, my /boot partition is only 32 MiB, and that will be too small to contain all the extra libraries and programs to run the initramfs script. Here, I only need 2.2 M for the kernel, 1.7 M for System.map, and 3.5 M for the initramfs. My kernels are even smaller than yours: around 1.8MiB; and I have no initramfs at all -- currently. The problem is the initramfs will bloat out significantly once large run-time libraries are required for early housekeeping, such as fsck for various types of filesystem. In particular, the old e2fsck.static program has been dropped from e2fspprogs (about 3 years ago) and we now have the following: dwn@karnak ~ % ldd /sbin/e2fsck linux-gate.so.1 = (0xb7832000) libext2fs.so.2 = /lib/libext2fs.so.2 (0xb77c1000) libcom_err.so.2 = /lib/libcom_err.so.2 (0xb77bd000) libblkid.so.1 = /lib/libblkid.so.1 (0xb7798000) libuuid.so.1 = /lib/libuuid.so.1 (0xb7793000) libe2p.so.2 = /lib/libe2p.so.2 (0xb778b000) libc.so.6 = /lib/libc.so.6 (0xb7604000) libpthread.so.0 = /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0xb75ea000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7833000) As you can see, the fsck utility for ext2/3/4 filesystems requires glibc and libpthread, as well as its smaller custom libraries. Putting all the run-time libraries into the initramfs will make it both large and a maintenance chore. What kind of libraries do you have inside your initramfs? -- Regards, Dave [RLU #314465] *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* dwn...@ntlworld.com (David W Noon) *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] using icc with portage
As I say, I did once. There is no fallback to gcc if icc wouldn't compile a package. I know, that the ICC compiler promise to give more performance However, collect your experience and speak with the gentoo maintainer for the icc compiler packages to have a fallback routine. Would be really great. I am thinking to get in the next month a core I7. To compile gentoo on it, would be SUPER! Am 07.09.2011 10:05, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger: Am 2011-09-07 07:19, schrieb justin: On 9/5/11 11:43 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: Anyone else using Intel's compiler, icc? Hi Stefan, try to stick to gcc as most pacakges will compile with it. I personally use icc/ifort for some sience packages and see speedups of calculation between 2-25x depending on the *FLAGS. But this needs much optimization of the flags. Nevertheless interesting for performance critical apps. Another compiler which was recently released after a long time as closed source app into the open source world is the ekopath compiler suite (ekopath(-bin) and path64) which proofed to have the best optimization of all compilers in benchmarks. But same as icc, it might not work with some packages. And never use it with the kernel. Thanks to both of you (Justin, Tamer). All this doesn't answer my question, but OK, I will find my way ... Greets, Stefan
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
David W Noon writes: On Fri, 9 Sep 2011 13:41:07 +0200, Alex Schuster wrote about Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot: David W Noon writes: The more I think about this merge of / and /usr, the dumber I think the idea is. As I wrote in an earlier message on this list, the initramfs will be many times larger than the kernel itself. Indeed, my /boot partition is only 32 MiB, and that will be too small to contain all the extra libraries and programs to run the initramfs script. Here, I only need 2.2 M for the kernel, 1.7 M for System.map, and 3.5 M for the initramfs. My kernels are even smaller than yours: around 1.8MiB; and I have no initramfs at all -- currently. The problem is the initramfs will bloat out significantly once large run-time libraries are required for early housekeeping, such as fsck for various types of filesystem. In particular, the old e2fsck.static program has been dropped from e2fspprogs (about 3 years ago) and we now have the following: dwn@karnak ~ % ldd /sbin/e2fsck linux-gate.so.1 = (0xb7832000) libext2fs.so.2 = /lib/libext2fs.so.2 (0xb77c1000) libcom_err.so.2 = /lib/libcom_err.so.2 (0xb77bd000) libblkid.so.1 = /lib/libblkid.so.1 (0xb7798000) libuuid.so.1 = /lib/libuuid.so.1 (0xb7793000) libe2p.so.2 = /lib/libe2p.so.2 (0xb778b000) libc.so.6 = /lib/libc.so.6 (0xb7604000) libpthread.so.0 = /lib/libpthread.so.0 (0xb75ea000) /lib/ld-linux.so.2 (0xb7833000) As you can see, the fsck utility for ext2/3/4 filesystems requires glibc and libpthread, as well as its smaller custom libraries. Putting all the run-time libraries into the initramfs will make it both large and a maintenance chore. Okay, it seems I very much underestimated the problems. In my case, I only need the initramfs in order to scan for logical volumes and to open the luks-encrypted root partition. Other partitions are mounted _after_ the initramfs was left. With the UDEV change, /usr needs to be mounted from _inside_ the initramfs. So you're right, much more stuff is being needed. The above libraries and the e2fsck binary total to 2.3 M here. The initramfs is gzipped, so we have 1 M. Still not _that_ much, but I don't know what else might be needed. And something must put it into the initramfs... I assume genkernel will get this feature? Surely the Gentoo devs won't expect us users to do this all by ourselves? What kind of libraries do you have inside your initramfs? I have no idea... but I can have a look. Ah - none at all. /lib contains a directory with all sorts of keymaps, an empty luks directory, and some 56 kernel modules. Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] using icc with portage
On 9/9/11 9:39 PM, Tamer Higazi wrote: As I say, I did once. There is no fallback to gcc if icc wouldn't compile a package. I know, that the ICC compiler promise to give more performance However, collect your experience and speak with the gentoo maintainer for the icc compiler packages to have a fallback routine. Would be really great. I am thinking to get in the next month a core I7. To compile gentoo on it, would be SUPER! How would one distinguish a failed build because of some library incompatibility and a real compilation problem with compiler. I dodn't see a general way to distiguish compiler problems from other problems. Nevertheless, please try the icc package from sci overlay. Ot works quite smooth. If you like speed, try the gold linker for c++ packages like chromium, qt-libs, libreoffice and similar. Am 07.09.2011 10:05, schrieb Stefan G. Weichinger: Am 2011-09-07 07:19, schrieb justin: On 9/5/11 11:43 PM, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote: Anyone else using Intel's compiler, icc? Hi Stefan, try to stick to gcc as most pacakges will compile with it. I personally use icc/ifort for some sience packages and see speedups of calculation between 2-25x depending on the *FLAGS. But this needs much optimization of the flags. Nevertheless interesting for performance critical apps. Another compiler which was recently released after a long time as closed source app into the open source world is the ekopath compiler suite (ekopath(-bin) and path64) which proofed to have the best optimization of all compilers in benchmarks. But same as icc, it might not work with some packages. And never use it with the kernel. Thanks to both of you (Justin, Tamer). All this doesn't answer my question, but OK, I will find my way ... Greets, Stefan signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
pk wrote: On 2011-09-09 13:35, Alex Schuster wrote: When I switched to using an initramfs, it was not very complicated. I simply use genkernel. With CLEAN=no and MRPROPER=no, it uses my /usr/src/linux/.config and does not change the kernel options. Then comes genkernel --install --lvm -luks all, and I have kernel and initramfs And for those that like to do without genkernel? Again, adding another layer for things to go wrong. I tried genkernel. All I got was a kernel that wouldn't boot. Heck, it barely even started to boot. The kernel wouldn't even finish loading. After several tries, I put genkernel in the trash. It worked a LOT better there for me. It was out of sight and mind. ;-) I don't get this one. Why do you want to copy an existing /usr partition to another one? He said he wishes to move his /usr to a spare partition (the part about KDE4)... I assume his /usr currently resides on / (or maybe a smaller partition that he cannot easily expand). You hit it, for some reason I put /usr on the root partition without thinking. This is where I am now: rootfs19534436 10693048 8841388 55% / Over half full. When I have a critical partition get over 60%, I start looking for expansion. Moving /usr was my plan but someone stole that from me I guess. Now I got to figure out what I want to do next. Yes, I also feel sorry for guys like Alan. But for us desktop users I think's it's not such a big deal. I'm a desktop and a (personal server) user and I think it's quite a big deal. I want simplicity; adding layers increases complexity. I think it's the same for Dale and most other people objecting to this. To me it's a very big deal (this is a deal breaker, or close to it). I've been using Linux continously since around 1998 (well, I did my first install on my amiga 4000 in 1995 using 9 floppy disks, don't remember the distro) and I've been using (not much administration though) Solaris, AIX and HP-UX since around that time as well (at school at work). It seems some developers are hell bent on inventing Windows all over again (this goes not only for udev but also for Gnome and their supporting libraries)... Best regards Peter K I'm a desktop user to and I'm not liking this one bit. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
Alex Schuster wrote: Right, I somehow overlooked this, thanks for pointing that out. Dale, if you want to avoid the initramfs, what about moving large stuff like /usr/src to another location and symlinking it? That's a hack, but a small one compared to what an initramfs is :) Wonko I already have portage on a separate partition and I clean out my kernel sources once I get a really good stable kernel. I actually cleaned out /boot and /usr/src last night. The kernel I am running now has let me have weeks of uptimes so I guess it is stable, at least everything works and no random crashes or anything. Well, kpat locks up on me sometimes but that is nothing new. As soon as I see a way to win, it locks up tight. Pisses me off when it does that. lol I got a spare drive in here. I may just do a install there and use it to play with init crap and maybe LVM. Sort of see what I want to do. Still thinking about just picking something else tho. I'm just not seeing the need to continue if options are going to be removed. Eventually Gentoo will be like Mandrake where you just install and say a prayer it works. The things that are going away are the reasons I chose Gentoo to begin with. sighs Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: Am Freitag, 9. September 2011, 19:24:06 schrieb pk: On 2011-09-09 10:53, Dale wrote: Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse it Yes Dale, you have my permission! And while you're at it, slap him from me too! ;-) It _may_ be this guy that's responsible for this crap: http://linuxplumbersconf.org/ocw/users/58 Also: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/16994 OMG! What a mess. udev treats all exit-codes except 0 the same. That's so bad, I have no words for it. Definitely not a developer I trust to do things the right way. PS. If things go tits up you may want to have a look at FreeBSD (or some other BSD). I'm quite sure they wouldn't put up with crap like this... I know I will investigate my options at least. Agree, FreeBSD is really a fine OS. Best regards Peter K Thanks for the links, regards, Michael I know one thing, BSD is secure as heck. I installed it once on a old rig and typed the password in wrong during setup. I never could get into that thing again. I had to start over. lol That is why I chose Linux in general. I want something that is secure enough that I don't have to worry about some script kiddie messing with me. BSD is one option I will be looking into if I move from Gentoo. After all, they are fairly close maybe even a step up. Especially now. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
Alex Schuster wrote: Dale writes: Alex Schuster wrote: David W Noon writes: The more I think about this merge of / and /usr, the dumber I think the idea is. As I wrote in an earlier message on this list, the initramfs will be many times larger than the kernel itself. Indeed, my /boot partition is only 32 MiB, and that will be too small to contain all the extra libraries and programs to run the initramfs script. Here, I only need 2.2 M for the kernel, 1.7 M for System.map, and 3.5 M for the initramfs. Well, that may not be the case for everyone else. Sure, but how much bigger are your kernels actually? root@fireball / # du -shc /boot/ 84M /boot/ 84M total root@fireball / # I get 82M, but I have ten kernels in there. What stuff do you have in /boot? Wonko Well, I *had* several old kernels in there. I save stable kernels as I upgrade until I have a really good one then I remove the older ones. I always keep at least two kernels tho. If one fails, I got a fall back. I have had to use those fall backs before so I won't be changing that policy here any time soon. I think I had about a dozen or so in there until my cleaning out party last night. I also save back up configs to just in case a kernel goes bad or I need to go back. I version my kernels too. Long story. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:15 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Michael Schreckenbauer wrote: Am Freitag, 9. September 2011, 19:24:06 schrieb pk: On 2011-09-09 10:53, Dale wrote: Can I slap whoever started this? The more I think on this, the worse it Yes Dale, you have my permission! And while you're at it, slap him from me too! ;-) It _may_ be this guy that's responsible for this crap: http://linuxplumbersconf.org/ocw/users/58 Also: http://comments.gmane.org/gmane.linux.hotplug.devel/16994 OMG! What a mess. udev treats all exit-codes except 0 the same. That's so bad, I have no words for it. Definitely not a developer I trust to do things the right way. PS. If things go tits up you may want to have a look at FreeBSD (or some other BSD). I'm quite sure they wouldn't put up with crap like this... I know I will investigate my options at least. Agree, FreeBSD is really a fine OS. Best regards Peter K Thanks for the links, regards, Michael I know one thing, BSD is secure as heck. I installed it once on a old rig and typed the password in wrong during setup. I never could get into that thing again. I had to start over. lol That is why I chose Linux in general. I want something that is secure enough that I don't have to worry about some script kiddie messing with me. BSD is one option I will be looking into if I move from Gentoo. After all, they are fairly close maybe even a step up. Especially now. Doesn't Gentoo have a BSD target? The problem here is with udev, which doesn't apply to BSD, AFAIK. Gentoo/BSD might be a good direction to go. Also, where does FreeBSD's kernel stand, with respect to device drivers? -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
Alan McKinnon wrote: I'm lucky, I can vote with my feet. Out of 140, I have two servers that *require* Linux. One runs Sybase ASE, the other runs Oracle. Everything else works like a bomb on FreeBSD. kthankxbyeudev, thanksfornotplayingnicely Not everyone else is so fortunate though. I guess I understood more than I thought then. Shocking. I understand that but the udev guru doesn't. ;-) I may go the BSD route too if I leave Gentoo. So, my feet works too. I wonder if I would even be missed here? :/ Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: I may go the BSD route too if I leave Gentoo. So, my feet works too. I wonder if I would even be missed here? :/ I'd hate it if you left. In the short time I've been on this list, your usage habits and history are the ones I've identified most with. :) -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
Michael Mol wrote: Doesn't Gentoo have a BSD target? The problem here is with udev, which doesn't apply to BSD, AFAIK. Gentoo/BSD might be a good direction to go. Also, where does FreeBSD's kernel stand, with respect to device drivers? If I recall correctly, Gentoo is sort of based on BSD. I don't think using their target would solve the problem with udev tho. I have no idea on device drivers but I suspect Alan might. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] /dev/sda* missing at boot
Michael Mol wrote: On Fri, Sep 9, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Dalerdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: I may go the BSD route too if I leave Gentoo. So, my feet works too. I wonder if I would even be missed here? :/ I'd hate it if you left. In the short time I've been on this list, your usage habits and history are the ones I've identified most with. :) The bad thing is, I like helping people and enjoy this list. I think me and Alan are the top posters here so I guess me and him like helping folks. Alan has a lot of server type experience and I have a bit of desktop experience. We may have some overlap there tho. Me, I'm a desktop user and I like to run a distro that I'm proud of. In the past, it seemed Gentoo sort of lead on some things. Now, it seems to follow instead. If I want a distro that just follows, I could have stayed with Mandrake/Mandriva. It follows Redhat if I recall correctly. It also uses the init* stuff too. Which as I pointed out before is one reason I left that. If I got to use one with Gentoo, that just takes one reason for using Gentoo and all the compiling stuff away. Gentoo has some good points but lately, they seem to be getting lost on the point scale. Well, I got divorced once. I just hope reason will pop up and I don't have to shift something important to me again. This would be as bad as me divorcing my ex. Heck, maybe worse. I been using Gentoo long before I met my ex. sighs Dale :-) :-)
[gentoo-user] ALTGR-INTL keymapping for the Linux console?
Hi, is it possible to use an pc101,us,altgr-intl keymapping for the linux console as I use it under X-Windows without mapping each special key manually? Under /usr/share/keymaps I didn't find anything named that way... Thank you very much for any help in advance! Have a nice weekend! Best regards, mcc
Re: [gentoo-user] ALTGR-INTL keymapping for the Linux console?
On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 1:01 AM, meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote: Hi, is it possible to use an pc101,us,altgr-intl keymapping for the linux console as I use it under X-Windows without mapping each special key manually? Under /usr/share/keymaps I didn't find anything named that way... For Latin-1 with OpenRC, setting /etc/conf.d/keymaps, the key keymap to la-latin1 works. The keymap is in: /usr/share/keymaps/i386/qwerty/la-latin1.map.gz Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] ALTGR-INTL keymapping for the Linux console?
Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com [11-09-10 07:28]: On Sat, Sep 10, 2011 at 1:01 AM, meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote: Hi, is it possible to use an pc101,us,altgr-intl keymapping for the linux console as I use it under X-Windows without mapping each special key manually? Under /usr/share/keymaps I didn't find anything named that way... For Latin-1 with OpenRC, setting /etc/conf.d/keymaps, the key keymap to la-latin1 works. The keymap is in: /usr/share/keymaps/i386/qwerty/la-latin1.map.gz Regards. -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México Hi Canek, thank you very much for your help. I forgot to mention, that I am running UTF8 -- is this keymap still working with it? Best regards, mcc
Re: [gentoo-user] Filesystem with lowest CPU load, acceptable emerge performance, and stable?
On Wed, Sep 07, 2011 at 12:26:15AM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote So, can anyone recommend me a filesystem that fulfills my following needs: Scenario: vFirewall (virtual Firewall) that is going to be deployed at my IaaS Cloud Provider. Disk I/O Characteristic: Occasional writes during 'normal' usage, once-a-week eix-sync + emerge -avuD Priority: Stable (i.e., less chance of corruption), least CPU usage. My Google-Fu seems to indicate either XFS or JFS; what do you think? Try thinking outside the box. Do you really need more than extfs2? That should be the ultimate in low-overhead writing on the device. Another option is to send the log data out on UDP port 514 to be logged on another machine. A cute trick is to have /etc/conf.d/net as follows config_eth0= 192.168.123.2/24 broadcast 192.168.123.255 routes_eth0= default via 192.168.123.254 And then send the log data to the broadcast address 192.168.123.255 UDP port 514. Any computer with the same broadcast address can receive the log data. You can even have multiple computers sending out, and multiple computers receiving. One of the first things an attacker does after compromising a machine is to wipe the logs on that machine to cover his tracks. If the log data goes to multiple different machines, it will be much more difficult to wipe. Another strategy, on the paranoid side, is to have the router sending logs to a machine like 192.168.123.45, and also have a machine on a totally different IP address (e.g. 10.0.0.1) with its NIC set to promiscuous mode, listen for and save the log data. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
