On 2013-04-08 3:56 PM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote:
Since Gentoo now recommends GrUB rather by default, it might be nice
for folks to know how to use this.
? So the handbook used to recommend LILO? I installed my first gentoo
box back in about 2004/2005, and grub was 'the
On 04/09/2013 06:02 AM, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-04-08 3:56 PM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com wrote:
Since Gentoo now recommends GrUB rather by default, it might be nice
for folks to know how to use this.
? So the handbook used to recommend LILO? I installed my first gentoo
box
On Tue, Apr 09, 2013 at 06:02:38AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote
Personally, I didn't know people still used LILO (no flame intended, I
just didn't realize it was still alive and kicking), but then gentoo was
my first real experience with linux...
It works; i.e. it loads the OS, with a minimum
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 05:00:17PM +, Grant Edwards wrote:
On 2013-04-07, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 09:31:43PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:16:45 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
If /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is an empty file or a
symlink to /dev/null,
The first can obviously be taken quite literally, while the second just
might
On 04/08/2013 12:04 PM, Bruce Hill wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 09:31:43PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:16:45 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
If /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is an empty file or a
symlink to /dev/null,
The first can obviously be taken quite
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 07:42:23PM +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote:
Mike is right, if it's not a dep of another ebuild, you don't need
wpa_supplicant. I just upgraded udev to 200 on the last remote box
(which is always a bit of a thrill after typing reboot return :-) ).
As expected, eth0 came
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 01:29:20PM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
After psyching myself and everyone else for the udev 200 update, it
failed on compile phase! We are using hardened server, and error
message (which I am transferring over manually) is:
The specific snippet of code:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:58:38PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:35:22 -0400
Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
As for /sbin/ip. I have no such command.
I'd recommend installing and becoming familiar with the iproute2
package. I personally find the tools it delivers to
On 04/08/2013 12:28 PM, Bruce Hill wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:58:38PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:35:22 -0400
Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
As for /sbin/ip. I have no such command.
I'd recommend installing and becoming familiar with the iproute2
package. I
On 08-Apr-13 19:19, Michael Mol wrote:
On 04/08/2013 12:28 PM, Bruce Hill wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:58:38PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:35:22 -0400
Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
As for /sbin/ip. I have no such command.
I'd recommend installing and becoming
On Apr 9, 2013 12:32 AM, Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote:
On 08-Apr-13 19:19, Michael Mol wrote:
On 04/08/2013 12:28 PM, Bruce Hill wrote:
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:58:38PM -0400, Randy Barlow wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:35:22 -0400
Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
As for /sbin/ip.
On Apr 8, 2013 11:17 PM, Bruce Hill da...@happypenguincomputers.com
wrote:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 07:42:23PM +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote:
Mike is right, if it's not a dep of another ebuild, you don't need
wpa_supplicant. I just upgraded udev to 200 on the last remote box
(which is
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 09:40:41PM -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
/sbin/ip link addr show
That will tell you the names of your interfaces, as they currently exist.
FWIW that command should be ip addr show rather than ip link addr show,
and no need for full path in later versions (forgetting
Am 08.04.2013 18:16, schrieb Bruce Hill:
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 07:42:23PM +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote:
Mike is right, if it's not a dep of another ebuild, you don't need
wpa_supplicant. I just upgraded udev to 200 on the last remote box
(which is always a bit of a thrill after typing
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 09:46:28PM +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote:
I have something similar with grub (with grub set default, savedefault,
fallback). Also most machines have some sort of rescue access with like
ipmi serial over lan or a eric card (kvm). But some remote machines
don't and
Am 08.04.2013 21:56, schrieb Bruce Hill:
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 09:46:28PM +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote:
I have something similar with grub (with grub set default, savedefault,
fallback). Also most machines have some sort of rescue access with like
ipmi serial over lan or a eric card (kvm).
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 10:10:09PM +0200, Michael Hampicke wrote:
Hi Michael,
If you have the time, maybe you can post your GrUB setup and a short HOW-TO
do
this somewhere. I've often mentioned doing it with LiLO in #gentoo on
Freenode
and always get flamed by GrUB fanbois, but
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:20:57 -0500, Bruce Hill wrote:
You might not care, but I automatically hit D (delete) in Mutt for
every email that's top-posted. Just saying...
But not until after replying? :P
--
Neil Bothwick
Are Cheerios really doughnut seeds?
signature.asc
Description: PGP
On Mon, Apr 08, 2013 at 11:11:08PM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 8 Apr 2013 11:20:57 -0500, Bruce Hill wrote:
You might not care, but I automatically hit D (delete) in Mutt for
every email that's top-posted. Just saying...
But not until after replying? :P
Well, if I see white text
Am Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:23:04 -0400
schrieb Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com:
On 04/06/2013 11:19 PM, Nick Khamis wrote:
Hello Michael,
Is it because you disabled udev's renaming entirely via the kernel
command-line parameter? Because you've done some magic in
/etc/udev/rules.d/?
On 06.04.2013 21:11, Jörg Schaible wrote:
Jarry wrote:
On 06-Apr-13 19:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
STOP SPREADING THIS FUD
It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people
who
blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news
announcement, who did not
Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we
should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked
away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related
package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine.
I reset the system and
Manually bringing up eth0 using ifconfig got me up and running. It's
quite shaky though. net.eth0 does not work any more and of course
neither does sshd or any other service that requires net.eth*. Thanks
Michael.
If they're supposed to be configured via DHCP, try dhclient
$interface_name. If
On 04/07/2013 10:01 AM, Nick Khamis wrote:
Manually bringing up eth0 using ifconfig got me up and running. It's
quite shaky though. net.eth0 does not work any more and of course
neither does sshd or any other service that requires net.eth*. Thanks
Michael.
If they're supposed to be
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:38:23 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we
should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked
away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related
package, which was odd since
I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and
potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and
gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare
There are 4500 people coming into work tomorrow morning, and this
machine also happens to be our LDAP
Installing wpa_supplicant got the network scripts working again. Not
sure why. Does anyone know why we need wpa_supplication now?
On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and
potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry
Are you using 802.1x or wireless on that machine? If not, I can't think
of a reason you'd need it, outside of it being a hard dependency of some
other package.
On 04/07/2013 10:22 AM, Nick Khamis wrote:
Installing wpa_supplicant got the network scripts working again. Not
sure why. Does
No... I'm stumped. I really don't want it in there either... I will
attempt removing it once finished updating the system.
N.
On 4/7/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you using 802.1x or wireless on that machine? If not, I can't think
of a reason you'd need it, outside of it being a
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 10:20:02 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and
potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and
gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare
You should do udev first, that way if it breaks
You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum
amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a pessimist...
PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on this list.
Makes sense and I apologize for the top posts. Have everything up to
date with udev in the
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 17:00:24 Nick Khamis wrote:
You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum
amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a pessimist...
PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on this list.
Makes sense and I apologize for the
On 4/7/13, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 17:00:24 Nick Khamis wrote:
You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum
amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a
pessimist...
PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on
On 2013-04-07 12:11 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
if there is a /dev entry in your /etc/fstab, then it must have
devtmpfs as its fs type. Most installations would not have such an
entry in /etc/fstab - but better check to be safe.
I've heard this many times, but can anyone explain
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 17:37:00 Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-04-07 12:11 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
if there is a /dev entry in your /etc/fstab, then it must have
devtmpfs as its fs type. Most installations would not have such an
entry in /etc/fstab - but better check to be safe.
On 2013-04-07, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty,
nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING
On 2013-04-07 1:00 PM, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote:
OK, so parts of the news item are not to be taken literally, and other
parts are. Perhaps it would be wise to mark the sections so we can
tell the difference? ;)
Context is everything.
You can't equate
Remove the
On 2013-04-07 9:38 AM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we
should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked
away.
Well, hopefully you learned a valuable lesson. I cannot even *fathom*
the *idea* of doing a
After psyching myself and everyone else for the udev 200 update, it
failed on compile phase! We are using hardened server, and error
message (which I am transferring over manually) is:
The specific snippet of code:
die econf failed
This thing is not going easy
N.
On
Am 07.04.2013 16:32, schrieb Nick Khamis:
No... I'm stumped. I really don't want it in there either... I will
attempt removing it once finished updating the system.
N.
On 4/7/13, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you using 802.1x or wireless on that machine? If not, I can't think
I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news:
1. tempfs in kernel
2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d
3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel
4) check fstab for the /tmp
And it changed!
This is the pits dude...
N.
On 4/7/13, Michael Hampicke gentoo-u...@hadt.biz wrote:
Am
On 2013-04-07 1:48 PM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news:
1. tempfs in kernel
2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d
3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel
4) check fstab for the /tmp
And it changed!
WHAT changed???
Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0
and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as
modules.
N
On 4/7/13, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-04-07 1:48 PM, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
I just did got udev updated. Did
Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth?
N
On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0
and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as
modules.
N
On 4/7/13, Tanstaafl
For those that have an error compiling udev 200:
# emerge -1 XML-Parser
# perl-cleaner --all
There was not mention of this in the news. Nor will the package pull
them in as a
dependency.
N.
On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth?
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 18:48:02 Nick Khamis wrote:
I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news:
1. tempfs in kernel
I guess you're talking about: CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y
2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d
That's OK.
3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel
Good.
4) check fstab
Am 07.04.2013 20:08, schrieb Nick Khamis:
For those that have an error compiling udev 200:
# emerge -1 XML-Parser
# perl-cleaner --all
There was not mention of this in the news. Nor will the package pull
them in as a
dependency.
N.
On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
Is
I went into the kernel, rebuilt it with no changes (network driver was
already built as a module), rebooted and nothing changed. Option 2
worked ok.
As for the x86 machines, they were also updated blindly (94 packages
udev 200) included... 70-presistent file in rules.d and no problems.
eth0 was
Oooops, I meant option 3.1:
3.1 Create a new empty file:
touch /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules
and reboot. The kernel will rename the interfaces hopefully as they were
before.
N.
On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
I went into the kernel, rebuilt it with no changes
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 19:48:13 Nick Khamis wrote:
Oooops, I meant option 3.1:
3.1 Create a new empty file:
touch /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules
and reboot. The kernel will rename the interfaces hopefully as they were
before.
N.
On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 14:04:35 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth?
No, it's like reading the news item. Either symlink the file mentioned
to /dev/null or add the kernel boot option it recommends. The default is
the new behaviour, as you should expect.
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:14:36 +0100, Mick wrote:
Rebuild your kernel with the drivers for the NICs as modules. The
kernel *should* rename them to what they were before. I can't vouch
for this, but NICs which are not built in here were not renamed by udev.
Where does this come from? Udev
On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:16:45 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
If /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is an empty file or a
symlink to /dev/null,
The first can obviously be taken quite literally, while the second just
might actually require a tiny bit of thought - ie, 'hmmm, wonder if
they
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 02:04:35PM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth?
No, it isn't. There are several ways to name your interfaces. They are
discussed on the freedesktop.org wiki page linked in the news item.
William
pgp6UzYmzHCN8.pgp
On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 21:25:48 Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:14:36 +0100, Mick wrote:
Rebuild your kernel with the drivers for the NICs as modules. The
kernel *should* rename them to what they were before. I can't vouch
for this, but NICs which are not built in here were not
On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 22:20:51 +0100, Mick wrote:
Where does this come from? Udev renames the interfaces when it
initialises them, what difference does it make where it loads the
driver code from? I am seeing consistent behaviour across machines
with drivers built in and as modules.
I
Jarry wrote:
On 06-Apr-13 19:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote:
STOP SPREADING THIS FUD
It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people who
blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news
announcement, who did not read the CLEARLY WORDED wiki article at
Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
Am 06.04.2013 21:33, schrieb Mick:
On Saturday 06 Apr 2013 20:03:15 Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
Am 06.04.2013 17:57, schrieb Alan Mackenzie:
Hi, Nick.
On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:51:42AM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote:
After updating our systems we lost network
Oh dear what did I start!@!@! I'm sorry, I did not know this was a
machine brewing. Don't follow the mailing list all that often. I
updated 3 x86 machines with no problem but the 64 just took a crap...
I agree! Should have read the notes.
N.
On 4/6/13, Jörg Schaible joerg.schai...@gmx.de wrote:
Our net card was also build as a module Volker, did you include
your net driver for example in /etc/conf.d/modules?
N.
On 4/6/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
Oh dear what did I start!@!@! I'm sorry, I did not know this was a
machine brewing. Don't follow the mailing list all that
Am 06.04.2013 23:19, schrieb Nick Khamis:
Our net card was also build as a module Volker, did you include
your net driver for example in /etc/conf.d/modules?
no
I removed the 70-something rules, and did pretty much nothing else.
/etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules just exists and is
Am 06.04.2013 23:28, schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
Am 06.04.2013 23:19, schrieb Nick Khamis:
Our net card was also build as a module Volker, did you include
your net driver for example in /etc/conf.d/modules?
no
I removed the 70-something rules, and did pretty much nothing else.
Well I looked into /sys/class/net as mentioned by Alan. In there I
see eth0/ eth1/ lo/ and sit0/. Not sure what too look for in (e.g.
eth0/). /sys/class/net/eth0/ifindex says 3. Other files look ok, for
example address (contains mac address if that has not changed...).
N.
On 4/6/13, Volker
In attempted to delete 70-something rules from /etc/udev/rules.d/ and
it was recreated on boot with the same content. I don't think the
device got renamed since ifconfig eth0 shows the correct info.
Your help is greatly appreciated,
N.
On 4/6/13, Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
Well I
I took a closer look at /etc/udev/70-something-rules-net and
/sys/class/net/eth0/ and all the ATTR (i.e., address, type, dev_id)
line up fine. I did not find a name file in /sys/class/net/eth0 however,
name=eth0 in etc/udev/70-something-rules-net.
Ifconfig alone returns nothing. Ifconfig eth0/1
On 04/06/2013 08:53 PM, Nick Khamis wrote:
I took a closer look at /etc/udev/70-something-rules-net and
/sys/class/net/eth0/ and all the ATTR (i.e., address, type, dev_id)
line up fine. I did not find a name file in /sys/class/net/eth0 however,
name=eth0 in etc/udev/70-something-rules-net.
I do not have /etc/ip however, I do have /etc/ipmaddr show:
1: lo
inet6 ff02::1
2: sit0
inte6 ff02::1
3: eth0
link 33:33:00:00:00:01
inet6 ff02:1
4: eth1
link 33:33:00:00:00:01
inet6 ff02:1
Too much inte6 for my liking... Did I somehow get rid of ipv4?
N.
On 4/6/13, Michael
Read the news entry - add the designated option to your grub kernel
line - reboot. That will be the simplest solution for now.
Long term, avoid udev upgrades like the plague and test them on
non-critical systems first. Strange that the reason I think us server
people were OK with udev being
/sbin/ip, not /etc/ip
Those inet6 addresses beginning with ff02 are link-local addresses.
Those are automatically configured on a link simply by the link being up.
Something is failing to configure your interfaces' ipv4 settings.
The culprit is almost certainly somewhere in one of these places,
Sorry I did mean /sbin/ip... Long day. Regardless, /sbin/ipmaddr does
now show any ipv4 related material. Other than the network card
driver, what module should I ensure is loaded for ipv4 related stuff.
As for /etc/conf.d/net, net.eth0/eth1 these were untouched and still
point to eth0 and eth1.
It's probably not a module issue.
Are these interfaces supposed to be DHCP-configured, or are they
supposed to be statically and locally configured?
If they're supposed to be configured via DHCP, try dhclient
$interface_name. If they're supposed to be statically configured, try
using ifconfig to
ifconfig -a and ifconfig eth0 etc.. lists the interfaces correctly.
When trying to start net.eth0 the error that struck me as odd was:
/lib64/rc/net/wpa_supplicant.sh: line 68: _is_wireless: command not found
/etc/init.d/net.eth0: line 548: _exists: command not found
Sorry I can't paste stuff
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:35:22 -0400
Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
As for /sbin/ip. I have no such command.
I'd recommend installing and becoming familiar with the iproute2
package. I personally find the tools it delivers to be more intuitive
than the older tools, and I *think* they are
Can't do nothing right now, no network connection... Don't feel like
burning a livecd and chrooting to jail...
N.
On 4/6/13, Randy Barlow ra...@electronsweatshop.com wrote:
On Sat, 6 Apr 2013 22:35:22 -0400
Nick Khamis sym...@gmail.com wrote:
As for /sbin/ip. I have no such command.
I'd
The problem is that the definition of 'correctly' has changed. I don't
know if this is 'correctly' from your perspective of 'this is how I'm
used to seeing it' or 'correctly' from any of the three or more ways one
could use udev. The various defintions of 'correctly' may not overlap.
If they're
Hello Michael,
Is it because you disabled udev's renaming entirely via the kernel
command-line parameter? Because you've done some magic in
/etc/udev/rules.d/?
I did not change 70-something contents. I deleted it and let udev regenerate it.
The name in rules.d is net=eth0 and net=eth1
On 04/06/2013 11:19 PM, Nick Khamis wrote:
Hello Michael,
Is it because you disabled udev's renaming entirely via the kernel
command-line parameter? Because you've done some magic in
/etc/udev/rules.d/?
I did not change 70-something contents. I deleted it and let udev regenerate
it.
78 matches
Mail list logo
