From: Pacho Ramos <pacho@gentoo.org>
To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org
Subject: Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem
Date: Tue, 20 Sep 2011 16:23:05 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <1316528585.1711.8.camel@belkin4> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <pan.2011.09.20.13.57.21@cox.net>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3524 bytes --]
El mar, 20-09-2011 a las 13:57 +0000, Duncan escribió:
> Pacho Ramos posted on Tue, 20 Sep 2011 15:09:01 +0200 as excerpted:
>
> > I haven't ever tried it but, what would occur if that people with really
> > updated systems simply unpack an updated stage3 tarball in their / and,
> > later, try to update?
>
> I believe it was Mike that pointed me at the error in that, which once he
> mentioned it I recognized it due to having to recover from the same
> problem but for a different reason.[1]
>
> The problem is that since the stage-3 untarring bypasses portage, the
> files on the live filesystem no longer match what portage believes to be
> installed. The filesystem right after the untarring should be functional
> to at minimum the level of the stage tarball, but as soon as one starts
> emerging new packages, there will be issues since the old versions won't
> be properly removed, because the files no longer match what's in the
> database.
>
> FEATURES=unmerge-orphans is a dramatic help cleaning up the mess (it
> wasn't around when I had the problem for other reasons, unfortunately),
> but I don't believe it can or will catch everything.
>
> There's definitely a stage-3 tarball method that works and is actually
> the recommended method for updating real old installations, but it
> involves using a chroot and effectively installing from scratch in the
> chroot, then booting to it instead of the existing installation. That's
> basically a special-case of case #5 in the Gentoo Linux Alternative
> Installation HOWTO, installing Gentoo from an existing Linux distro[2].
> The only bit of note is that the existing distro happens to be (an
> outdated) Gentoo as well, instead of whatever other distro.
>
> ---
>
> [1] My situation was separate /, /usr and /var partitions, each with
> backups, but ending up in a recovery situation where the backups weren't
> in sync time-wise. Thus portage's package installation database on /var
> was out of sync with the actual files on / and /usr. I was still finding
> the occasional stale file triggering issues, over a year later! It's for
> this reason that by personal policy, everything portage installs to is on
> the same partition, along with the installed package database, so if I
> end up using a backup of that partition, the database is by definition in
> sync with what's installed since it's all the same backup partition.
>
>
> [2] http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/altinstall.xml#doc_chap5
>
> I used this HOWTO from Mandrake back in 2004, for my original
> Gentoo/~amd64 install. For that matter, the gentoo/amd64 32-bit chroot
> guide is a variant on this idea as well, except that for just a 32-bit
> chroot, the host-system kernel and services can be used, so they don't
> need built. But I did a variant on /that/ for my netbook build image,
> located on my main machine since it's far more powerful than the netbook,
> and of course I built the kernel and system services for it, tho I only
> actually ran them after installing them to the netbook.
I thought that problem wouldn't occur as, if I don't misremember, stage3
tarballs include /var/db/pkg files for its packages and, then, an
"emerge -e world" just after unpacking stage3 would use
updated /var/db/pkg contents from stage3 and, for the remaining files,
they would be updated as soon as emerge -e world ends (maybe this and
"unmerge-orphans" would solved most of the issues)
[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2011-09-20 14:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2011-09-19 22:14 [gentoo-dev] RFC: Making backwards-incompatible tree changes | a solution for GLEP 55's problem Alex Alexander
2011-09-19 22:53 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2011-09-20 0:46 ` Rich Freeman
2011-09-20 1:44 ` Duncan
2011-09-20 7:12 ` Alex Alexander
2011-09-20 10:43 ` Patrick Lauer
2011-09-20 10:28 ` Brian Harring
2011-09-20 10:40 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2011-09-20 11:07 ` Brian Harring
2011-09-20 11:27 ` Ciaran McCreesh
2011-09-20 13:33 ` Ulrich Mueller
2011-09-20 10:50 ` Dirkjan Ochtman
2011-09-20 6:56 ` Alex Alexander
2011-09-20 13:09 ` [gentoo-dev] " Pacho Ramos
2011-09-20 13:16 ` Pacho Ramos
2011-09-20 13:16 ` Michał Górny
2011-09-20 13:25 ` Pacho Ramos
2011-09-20 13:57 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2011-09-20 14:23 ` Pacho Ramos [this message]
2011-09-20 17:00 ` [gentoo-dev] " Patrick Lauer
2011-09-21 4:00 ` [gentoo-dev] " Duncan
2011-09-21 13:24 ` Pacho Ramos
2011-09-20 15:19 ` [gentoo-dev] " Zac Medico
2011-09-20 15:28 ` Zac Medico
2011-09-20 17:03 ` Patrick Lauer
2011-09-20 17:14 ` Rich Freeman
2011-09-20 17:48 ` Alec Warner
2011-09-20 20:03 ` Michał Górny
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=1316528585.1711.8.camel@belkin4 \
--to=pacho@gentoo.org \
--cc=gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox