[gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 350 bytes --]

Currently preserve_old_lib functions generate two commands per preserved
lib:

# revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
# rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'

I'd like to modify eutils.eclass to only generate one command:

# revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' && \
	rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'

What do you think?


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Alexis Ballier]

On Fri, 24 Feb 2012 18:56:44 +0100
""Paweł Hajdan, Jr."" <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:

> Currently preserve_old_lib functions generate two commands per
> preserved lib:
> 
> # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
> # rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
> 
> I'd like to modify eutils.eclass to only generate one command:
> 
> # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' && \
> 	rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
> 
> What do you think?
> 

+1

moreover the && wont delete the lib if revdep-rebuild failed i think,
so it should be even safer to copy/paste :)

A.

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
> moreover the && wont delete the lib if revdep-rebuild failed i think,
> so it should be even safer to copy/paste :)

Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking
them?  Oh, if only btrfs were stable...

Rich

[gentoo-dev] btrfs status and/was: preserve_old_lib

[Duncan]

Rich Freeman posted on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:47:45 -0500 as excerpted:

> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Alexis Ballier <aballier@gentoo.org>
> wrote:
>> moreover the && wont delete the lib if revdep-rebuild failed i think,
>> so it should be even safer to copy/paste :)

FWIW this is the preserved_libs feature/bug I ran into in early testing, 
that convinced me to turn it off.  Running revdep-rebuild manually was 
far safer anyway, since at least then I /knew/ the status of various 
libs, they weren't preserved on first run, then arbitrarily deleted on 
second, even if it still broke remaining depending apps to do so.

So if that was reliably fixed, I'd be FAR happier about enabling 
FEATURES=preserved-libs.  I'm not sure I actually would as I like a bit 
more direct knowledge of stale libs on the system than the automated 
handling gives me, but at least I'd not have to worry about the so-called 
"preserved" libs STILL disappearing and leaving broken packages, if I DID 
enable it!

So definitely ++ on this! =:^)

> Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking them?
>  Oh, if only btrfs were stable...

FWIW, in the rare event it breaks revdep-rebuild or the underlying 
rebuilding itself, I rely on my long set FEATURES=buildpkg and emerge
-K.  In the even rarer event that too is broken, there's always manual 
untarring of the missing lib from the binpkg (I've had to do that once 
when gcc itself was broken due to an unadvised emerge -C that I knew 
might break things given the depclean warning, but also knew I could fix 
with an untar if it came to it, which it did), or if it comes to it, 
booting to backup and using ROOT= to emerge -K back to the working system.


[btrfs status discussion, skip if uninterested.]

I'm not sure if that's a reference to the btrfs snapshots allowing 
rollbacks feature, or a hint that you're running it and worried about its 
stability underneath you...

If it's the latter, you probably already know this, but if it's the 
former, and for others interested...

I recently set the btrfs kernel options and merged btrfs-progs, then read 
up on the wiki and joined the btrfs list, with the plan being to get 
familiar with it and perhaps install it.

From all the reports about it being an option for various distros, etc, 
now, and all the constant improvement reports, I had /thought/ that the 
biggest issue for stability was the lack of an error-correcting (not just 
detecting) fsck.btrfs, and that the restore tool announced late last 
year, that allows pulling data off of unmountable btrfs volumes was a 
reasonable workaround.

What I found, even allowing for the fact that such lists get the bad 
reports and not the good ones, thus paint a rather worse picture of the 
situation than actually exists for most users, is that...

BTRFS still has a rather longer way to go than I had thought.  It's still 
FAR from stable, even for someone like myself that often runs betas and 
was prepared to keep (and use, if necessary) TESTED backups, etc.  Maybe 
by Q4 this year, but also very possibly not until next year.  I'd 
definitely NOT recommend that anyone run it now, unless you are 
SPECIFICALLY running it for testing and bug reporting purposes with 
"garbage" data (IOW, data that you're NOT depending on, at the btrfs 
level, at all) that you are not only PREPARED to lose, but EXPECT to 
lose, perhaps repeatedly, during your testing.

IOW, there's still known untraced and unfixed active data corruption bugs 
remaining.  Don't put your data on btrfs at this point unless you EXPECT 
to have it corrupted, and want to actively help in tracing and patching 
the problems!

Additionally, for anyone who has been interested in the btrfs RAID 
capacities, striped/raid0 it handles, but its raid1 and raid10 capacities 
are misnamed.   At present, it's strictly two-way-mirror ONLY, there's no 
way to do N-way (N>2) mirroring aside from layering on top of say mdraid, 
at all, and of course layering on top of mdraid loses the data integrity 
guarantees at that level, btrfs still has just the one additional copy it 
can fall back on.  This SERIOUSLY limits btrfs data integrity 
possibilities in a 2+ drive failure scenario.

btrfs raid5/6 isn't available yet, but the current roadmap says kernels 
3.4 or 3.5.  Multi-mirror is supposed to be built on that code, tho the 
mentions of it I've seen are specifically triple-mirror, so it's unclear 
whether arbitrary N-way (N>3) mirroring as in true raid1 will be possible 
even then.  But whether triple-way specifically or N-way (N>=3), given 
it's on top of raid5/6, to be introduced in 3.4/3.5, triple-way mirroring 
thus appears to be 3.5/3.6 at the earliest.

So while I had gotten the picture that btrfs was stabilizing and it was 
mostly over-cautiousness keeping that experimental label around, that's 
definitely NOT the case.  Nobody should really plan on /relying/ on it, 
even with backups, until at least late this year, and very possibly 
looking at 2013 now.

So btrfs is still a ways out. =:^(

Meanwhile, for anyone that's still interested in it at this point, note 
that the homepage wiki currently listed the btrfs-progs package is a 
stale copy on kernel.org, still read-only after the kernel.org breakin.  
The "temporary" but looking more and more permanent location is:

http://btrfs.ipv5.de/index.php?title=Main_Page

Also, regarding the gentoo btrfs-progs package, see my recently filed:

https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405519

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] btrfs status and/was: preserve_old_lib

[Richard Yao]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Have you tried ZFS? The kernel modules are in the portage tree and I
am maintaining a FAQ regarding the status of Gentoo ZFS support at github:

https://github.com/gentoofan/zfs-overlay/wiki/FAQ

Data stored on ZFS is generally safe unless you go out of your way to
lose it (e.g. put the ZIL/SLOG on a tmpfs).

On 02/24/12 18:26, Duncan wrote:
> Rich Freeman posted on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:47:45 -0500 as
> excerpted:
> 
>> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 1:43 PM, Alexis Ballier
>> <aballier@gentoo.org> wrote:
>>> moreover the && wont delete the lib if revdep-rebuild failed i
>>> think, so it should be even safer to copy/paste :)
> 
> FWIW this is the preserved_libs feature/bug I ran into in early
> testing, that convinced me to turn it off.  Running revdep-rebuild
> manually was far safer anyway, since at least then I /knew/ the
> status of various libs, they weren't preserved on first run, then
> arbitrarily deleted on second, even if it still broke remaining
> depending apps to do so.
> 
> So if that was reliably fixed, I'd be FAR happier about enabling 
> FEATURES=preserved-libs.  I'm not sure I actually would as I like a
> bit more direct knowledge of stale libs on the system than the
> automated handling gives me, but at least I'd not have to worry
> about the so-called "preserved" libs STILL disappearing and leaving
> broken packages, if I DID enable it!
> 
> So definitely ++ on this! =:^)
> 
>> Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than
>> unlinking them? Oh, if only btrfs were stable...
> 
> FWIW, in the rare event it breaks revdep-rebuild or the underlying
>  rebuilding itself, I rely on my long set FEATURES=buildpkg and
> emerge -K.  In the even rarer event that too is broken, there's
> always manual untarring of the missing lib from the binpkg (I've
> had to do that once when gcc itself was broken due to an unadvised
> emerge -C that I knew might break things given the depclean
> warning, but also knew I could fix with an untar if it came to it,
> which it did), or if it comes to it, booting to backup and using
> ROOT= to emerge -K back to the working system.
> 
> 
> [btrfs status discussion, skip if uninterested.]
> 
> I'm not sure if that's a reference to the btrfs snapshots allowing
>  rollbacks feature, or a hint that you're running it and worried
> about its stability underneath you...
> 
> If it's the latter, you probably already know this, but if it's the
>  former, and for others interested...
> 
> I recently set the btrfs kernel options and merged btrfs-progs,
> then read up on the wiki and joined the btrfs list, with the plan
> being to get familiar with it and perhaps install it.
> 
> From all the reports about it being an option for various distros,
> etc, now, and all the constant improvement reports, I had /thought/
> that the biggest issue for stability was the lack of an
> error-correcting (not just detecting) fsck.btrfs, and that the
> restore tool announced late last year, that allows pulling data off
> of unmountable btrfs volumes was a reasonable workaround.
> 
> What I found, even allowing for the fact that such lists get the
> bad reports and not the good ones, thus paint a rather worse
> picture of the situation than actually exists for most users, is
> that...
> 
> BTRFS still has a rather longer way to go than I had thought.  It's
> still FAR from stable, even for someone like myself that often runs
> betas and was prepared to keep (and use, if necessary) TESTED
> backups, etc.  Maybe by Q4 this year, but also very possibly not
> until next year.  I'd definitely NOT recommend that anyone run it
> now, unless you are SPECIFICALLY running it for testing and bug
> reporting purposes with "garbage" data (IOW, data that you're NOT
> depending on, at the btrfs level, at all) that you are not only
> PREPARED to lose, but EXPECT to lose, perhaps repeatedly, during
> your testing.
> 
> IOW, there's still known untraced and unfixed active data
> corruption bugs remaining.  Don't put your data on btrfs at this
> point unless you EXPECT to have it corrupted, and want to actively
> help in tracing and patching the problems!
> 
> Additionally, for anyone who has been interested in the btrfs RAID
>  capacities, striped/raid0 it handles, but its raid1 and raid10
> capacities are misnamed.   At present, it's strictly two-way-mirror
> ONLY, there's no way to do N-way (N>2) mirroring aside from
> layering on top of say mdraid, at all, and of course layering on
> top of mdraid loses the data integrity guarantees at that level,
> btrfs still has just the one additional copy it can fall back on.
> This SERIOUSLY limits btrfs data integrity possibilities in a 2+
> drive failure scenario.
> 
> btrfs raid5/6 isn't available yet, but the current roadmap says
> kernels 3.4 or 3.5.  Multi-mirror is supposed to be built on that
> code, tho the mentions of it I've seen are specifically
> triple-mirror, so it's unclear whether arbitrary N-way (N>3)
> mirroring as in true raid1 will be possible even then.  But whether
> triple-way specifically or N-way (N>=3), given it's on top of
> raid5/6, to be introduced in 3.4/3.5, triple-way mirroring thus
> appears to be 3.5/3.6 at the earliest.
> 
> So while I had gotten the picture that btrfs was stabilizing and it
> was mostly over-cautiousness keeping that experimental label
> around, that's definitely NOT the case.  Nobody should really plan
> on /relying/ on it, even with backups, until at least late this
> year, and very possibly looking at 2013 now.
> 
> So btrfs is still a ways out. =:^(
> 
> Meanwhile, for anyone that's still interested in it at this point,
> note that the homepage wiki currently listed the btrfs-progs
> package is a stale copy on kernel.org, still read-only after the
> kernel.org breakin. The "temporary" but looking more and more
> permanent location is:
> 
> http://btrfs.ipv5.de/index.php?title=Main_Page
> 
> Also, regarding the gentoo btrfs-progs package, see my recently
> filed:
> 
> https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=405519
> 

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
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=lusE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: [gentoo-dev] btrfs status and/was: preserve_old_lib

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 8:06 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@cs.stonybrook.edu> wrote:
> Have you tried ZFS?

Yes - but not terribly interested in doing that on linux.  I do
appreciate that it can be done, but still lacks raid-z reshaping,
which means it isn't quite flexible enough.

> On 02/24/12 18:26, Duncan wrote:
>> FWIW, in the rare event it breaks revdep-rebuild or the underlying
>>  rebuilding itself, I rely on my long set FEATURES=buildpkg and
>> emerge -K.

I also use buildpkg, but I don't keep them around forever.

>> I'm not sure if that's a reference to the btrfs snapshots allowing
>>  rollbacks feature, or a hint that you're running it and worried
>> about its stability underneath you...

That would be the former.  I'm QUITE aware of its stability.

I've played around with it on a VM - I posted on my blog an experience
with it around a year ago as well.  It has come quite a way, but it is
definitely not production quality.  Xfs-tools is useful if you want to
try breaking it - I think I posted on my blog an article about
capturing linux kernel core dumps for debugging purposes - it panics
quite readily.

If you do want to mess with it I'd recommend using the git kernel
maintained by the btrfs team.  It is obviously bleeding-edge, but due
to the high pace of fixes it tends to be more stable than the version
in the mainline kernel.

Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: btrfs status and/was: preserve_old_lib

[Duncan]

Richard Yao posted on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:06:21 -0500 as excerpted:

> Have you tried ZFS? The kernel modules are in the portage tree and I am
> maintaining a FAQ regarding the status of Gentoo ZFS support at github:
> 
> https://github.com/gentoofan/zfs-overlay/wiki/FAQ
> 
> Data stored on ZFS is generally safe unless you go out of your way to
> lose it (e.g. put the ZIL/SLOG on a tmpfs).

I haven't.

One reason is licensing issues.  I know they resolve to some degree for 
end users who don't distribute and for those only distributing sources, 
since the gpl isn't particularly concerned in that case, but it's still 
an issue that I'd prefer not to touch, personally (nothing against others 
doing so, just not me), so no zfs here.  There's a discussion that could 
be had beyond that and I'm tempted, but here isn't the place for it.

My reason for posting wasn't really that, anyway, it was the apparently 
common misconception out there that btrfs is basically ready and that 
they're just being conservative in switching off the experimental label.  
There's several posts a week on the btrfs list from people caught out 
trying to depend on it, asking about recovery tool status and the like, 
that they'd already /know/ the status of if they were using btrfs for 
testing, etc, it's only appropriate use atm, and it's simply not ready 
for that.

Additionally in the context of gentoo-dev, the post was to say, don't 
plan on btrfs stability for anything but pre-release versions of anything 
you might be maintaining this year (kernel, btrfs-progs and grub2 
packages excepted, but they don't depend on btrfs stability, they help 
create it).

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Richard Yao]

> Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking
> them?  Oh, if only btrfs were stable...

Is this a reference to snapshots? You can use ZFS for those. The
kernel modules are only available in the form of 9999 ebuilds right
now, but they your data should be safe unless you go out of your way
to break things (e.g. putting the ZIL/SLOG on a tmpfs). Alternatively,
there is XFS, which I believe also supports snapshots.

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Mike Gilbert]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@cs.stonybrook.edu> wrote:
>> Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking
>> them?  Oh, if only btrfs were stable...
>
> Is this a reference to snapshots? You can use ZFS for those. The
> kernel modules are only available in the form of 9999 ebuilds right
> now, but they your data should be safe unless you go out of your way
> to break things (e.g. putting the ZIL/SLOG on a tmpfs). Alternatively,
> there is XFS, which I believe also supports snapshots.
>

I've been using btrfs exclusively for about 6 months, and I don't
*think* I've lost anything... :)

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Rich Freeman]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 10:44 PM, Mike Gilbert <floppym@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> I've been using btrfs exclusively for about 6 months, and I don't
> *think* I've lost anything... :)
>

From what I've seen as long as you keep things simple, and don't have
heavy loads, you're at least reasonably likely to get by unscathed.
I'd definitely keep good backups though.  Just read the mailing lists,
or for kicks run xfs-test on your server.  Xfs-test doesn't do any
direct disk access or anything like that - it is no different than
running bazillions of cat's, mv's, rm's, cp's, etc.  It most likely
will panic your system if you try it on btrfs - on ext4 it will
probably load the living daylights out of it but you should be fine.
The issues with btrfs at this point are the ones that aren't so easy
to spot, like race conditions, issues when you use more unusual
configurations, and so on.

Oh, and go ahead and try filling up your disk some time.  If your
kernel is recent enough it might not panic when you get down to a few
GB left.

I'm eager for the rise of btrfs - it IS the filesystem of the future.
However, that cuts both ways right now.

Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Duncan]

Rich Freeman posted on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 22:53:50 -0500 as excerpted:

> From what I've seen as long as you keep things simple, and don't have
> heavy loads, you're at least reasonably likely to get by unscathed. I'd
> definitely keep good backups though.  Just read the mailing lists,
> or for kicks run xfs-test

> Oh, and go ahead and try filling up your disk some time.  If your kernel
> is recent enough it might not panic when you get down to a few GB left.
> 
> I'm eager for the rise of btrfs - it IS the filesystem of the future.
> However, that cuts both ways right now.

That's about right... along with the caveat that if something /does/ go 
wrong on your not too corner-case, generally normal, lightly loaded 
system, while there are recovery tools for /some/ situations, the normal 
distribution btrfsck is read-only.  The freshly sort-of available but 
still rather hidden in the DANGER, DON'T EVER USE branch error-correcting 
btrfsck, is still under very heavy stress testing internally by Oracle 
QA.  (As a result of those tests, there's a load of fixes headed to Linus 
for inclusion, discovered just since 3.3-rc1.  As a result of /that/ 3.3 
should be the most stable btrfs yet, but that's still far from saying 
it's stable!)

And yes, "filesystem of the future" DOES cut both ways, ATM.  It's an apt 
description and I too am seriously looking forward to btrfs.  But it's 
definitely NOT the "filesystem of now", for sure!  =:^)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[William Kenworthy]

On Fri, 2012-02-24 at 22:44 -0500, Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@cs.stonybrook.edu> wrote:
> >> Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking
> >> them?  Oh, if only btrfs were stable...
> >
> > Is this a reference to snapshots? You can use ZFS for those. The
> > kernel modules are only available in the form of 9999 ebuilds right
> > now, but they your data should be safe unless you go out of your way
> > to break things (e.g. putting the ZIL/SLOG on a tmpfs). Alternatively,
> > there is XFS, which I believe also supports snapshots.
> >
> 
> I've been using btrfs exclusively for about 6 months, and I don't
> *think* I've lost anything... :)
> 

I did ... tried it out and found it "tougher" than reiserfs to break
which is saying something considering how flaky extended 2/3 proved for
the same task.

Problem was, once it broke you couldnt fix it :(

Also there are some things that dont work, one of which was a few
packages would always fail to emerge when using btrfs for temp storage
(I think one was libreoffice)

So I deleted the btrfs partitions and put reiserfs back ...

BillK

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Zac Medico]

On 02/24/2012 08:10 PM, William Kenworthy wrote:
> Also there are some things that dont work, one of which was a few
> packages would always fail to emerge when using btrfs for temp storage
> (I think one was libreoffice)

I've been using btrfs for temp storage, for more than a year, and
haven't noticed any problems with specific packages (libroffice builds
fine).

The only problems I've experienced are:

 1) Intermittent ENOSPC when unpacking lots of files. Maybe this is
related to having compression enabled. I haven't experienced it lately,
so maybe it's fixed in recent kernels.

 2) Bug 353907 [1] which is fixed in recent kernels and coreutils.

[1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=353907
-- 
Thanks,
Zac

[gentoo-dev] Re: preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Duncan]

Zac Medico posted on Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:35:24 -0800 as excerpted:

> I've been using btrfs for temp storage, for more than a year

> The only problems I've experienced are:
> 
>  1) Intermittent ENOSPC when unpacking lots of files. Maybe this is
> related to having compression enabled. I haven't experienced it lately,
> so maybe it's fixed in recent kernels.

This is one of those "many bugs, same result" bugs.  The way btrfs 
allocates space is /extremely/ complicated, and based on what I read on-
list they've been fixing bugs in it, gradually reducing the ENOSPC 
triggers, for quite some time.

Last I read, the biggest remaining known one was indeed related to 
compression, apparently to a race condition of some sort, with one bit of 
code reaching the ENOSPC conclusion because it finished before the the 
actual processing code did.

However, apparently same bug could be triggered on uncompressed btrfs if 
it was stressed enough (rsyncing several gigs was a common duplicator).

Last I read they hadn't fully traced that one down in btrfs itself yet, 
but they had worked around the problem by throttling things further up 
the stack, in the kernel VFS code I believe.  The reasoning was that if a 
device was so overwhelmed it clearly couldn't keep up, regardless of the 
filesystem, throttling requests at the vfs level would put less pressure 
on the filesystem code, allowing things to work smoother.  It MAY (my own 
thought here) have been another application of the buffer-bloat work -- 
simply increasing buffer size and filling it even more doesn't help, when 
the bottleneck is further down the stack, rather the reverse!

AFAIK that's the present status for 3.3.  At least that one spurious 
ENOSPC trigger remains, but they've worked around it for now with the 
throttling, so it shouldn't hit anyone but those deliberately disabling 
the throttling in ordered to further test it, now.

But with luck, the stress-testing that Oracle QA's doing ATM will have 
found the root bug and it's fixed now too.  I hope...

>  2) Bug 353907 [1] which is fixed in recent kernels and coreutils.
> 
> [1] https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=353907

That one could be another head of the same race-related root bug.  In 
fact, reading it and seeing that ext4 was affected as well, I'm wondering 
if that's what triggered the introduction of the throttling at the VFS 
level.

(NB: Interesting that I wasn't the only one to see that as an invitation 
to discuss btrfs.  At least my subthread has the subject changed so 
people that want can ignore it, tho.  I wish that had happened here too, 
but I guess it's kind of late to try and change it with this post, so...)

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Doug Goldstein]

On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 6:31 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@cs.stonybrook.edu> wrote:
>> Am I the only paranoid person who moves them rather than unlinking
>> them?  Oh, if only btrfs were stable...
>
> Is this a reference to snapshots? You can use ZFS for those. The
> kernel modules are only available in the form of 9999 ebuilds right
> now, but they your data should be safe unless you go out of your way
> to break things (e.g. putting the ZIL/SLOG on a tmpfs). Alternatively,
> there is XFS, which I believe also supports snapshots.
>

FWIW, I'll second the ZFS > btrfs suggestion. I understand people want
to go btrfs cause its the Linux way but in real world usage, its
performance is abysmal We've had over a dozen developers switch to
btrfs in my group on their various environments (OpenSUSE, Fedora, own
rolled distros) and they've all gone back to their previous filesystem
of choice.

Simplest test I can suggest to btrfs users to attempt is the following:

dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/btrfs/file bs=4k count=100 oflag=direct
dd if=/dev/zero of=/mnt/ext4/file bs=4k count=100 oflag=direct

It will emulate the similar operation to an fdatasync().

-- 
Doug Goldstein

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Doug Goldstein <cardoe@gentoo.org> wrote:
> FWIW, I'll second the ZFS > btrfs suggestion.

Oh, if you need a safe COW filesystem today I'd definitely recommend
ZFS over btrfs for sure, although I suspect the people who are most
likely to take this sort of advice are also the sort of people who are
most likely to not be running Gentoo.  There are a bazillion problems
with btrfs as it stands.

However, fundamentally there is no reason to think that ZFS will
remain better in the future, once the bugs are worked out.  They're
still focusing on keeping btrfs from hosing your data - tuning
performance is not a priority yet.  However, the b-tree design of
btrfs should scale very well once the bugs are worked out.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Richard Yao]

> Oh, if you need a safe COW filesystem today I'd definitely recommend
> ZFS over btrfs for sure, although I suspect the people who are most
> likely to take this sort of advice are also the sort of people who are
> most likely to not be running Gentoo.  There are a bazillion problems
> with btrfs as it stands.

There is significant interest in ZFS in the Gentoo community,
especially on freenode. Several veteran users are evaluating it and
others have already begun to switch from other filesystems, volume
managers and RAID solutions.

> However, fundamentally there is no reason to think that ZFS will
> remain better in the future, once the bugs are worked out.  They're
> still focusing on keeping btrfs from hosing your data - tuning
> performance is not a priority yet.  However, the b-tree design of
> btrfs should scale very well once the bugs are worked out.

ZFSOnLinux performance tuning is not a priority either, but there have
been a few patches and the performance is good. btrfs might one day
outperform ZFS in terms of single disk performance, assuming that it
does not already, but I question the usefulness of single disk
performance as a performance metric. If I add a SSD to a ZFS pool
machine to complement the disk, system performance will increase
many-fold. As far as I can tell, that will never be possible with
btrfs without external solutions like Google's flashcache, which
killed an OCZ Vertex 3 within 16 days about a month ago that Wyatt in
#gentoo-chat on freenode had to replace. I imagine that its death
could have been delayed through write rate limiting, which is what ZFS
uses for L2ARC, but until you can replace the Linux page replacement
algorithm with either ARC or something comparable, flashcache will be
inferior to ZFS L2ARC. You can read more about this topic at the
following link:

http://linux-mm.org/AdvancedPageReplacement

ZFS at its core is a transactional object store and everything that
enables its use as a filesystem is implemented on top of that. ZFS
supports raidz3, zvols, L2ARC, SLOG/ZIL and endian independence, which
as far as I can tell, are things that btrfs will never support.. ZFS
also has either first-party or third-party support on Solaris,
FreeBSD, Linux, Mac OS X and Windows, while btrfs appears to have no
future outside of Linux.

Lastly, ZFS' performance scaling exceeds that of any block device
based filesystem I have seen (which excludes comparisons with
tmpfs/ramfs and lustre/gpfs). The following benchmark is of a SAN
device using ZFS:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/3963/zfs-building-testing-and-benchmarking/2

While ZFS performance in that benchmark is impressive, ZFS can scale
far higher with additional disks and more SSDs. SuperMicro has a
hotswappable 72-disk enclosure that should enable ZFS to far exceed
the performance of the system that Anandtech benchmarked, provided
that it is configured with a large ARC cache and multiple vdevs each
with multiple disks, some SSDs for L2ARC and a SLC SSD-based SLOG/ZIL.
I would not be surprised if ZFS performance were to exceed 1 million
IOPS on such hardware. Nothing that I have seen planned for btrfs can
perform comparably, in any configuration.

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 3:52 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@cs.stonybrook.edu> wrote:
> ZFSOnLinux performance tuning is not a priority either, but there have
> been a few patches and the performance is good. btrfs might one day
> outperform ZFS in terms of single disk performance, assuming that it
> does not already, but I question the usefulness of single disk
> performance as a performance metric.

Why would btrfs be inferior to ZFS on multiple disks?  I can't see how
its architecture would do any worse, and the planned features are
superior to ZFS (which isn't to say that ZFS can't improve either).

Beyond the licensing issues ZFS also does not support reshaping of
raid-z, which is the only n+1 redundancy solution it offers.  Btrfs of
course does not yet support n+1 at all aside from some experimental
patches floating around, but it plans to support reshaping at some
point in time.  Of course, there is no reason you couldn't implement
reshaping for ZFS, it just hasn't happened yet.  Right now the
competition for me is with ext4+lvm+mdraid.  While I really would like
to have COW soon, I doubt I'll implement anything that doesn't support
reshaping as mdraid+lvm does.

I do realize that you can add multiple raid-zs to a zpool, but that
isn't quite enough.  If I have 4x1TB disks I'd like to be able to add
a single 1TB disk and end up with 5TB of space.  I'd rather not have
to find 3 more 1TB hard drives to hold the data on while I redo my
raid and then try to somehow sell them again.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Richard Yao]

> Why would btrfs be inferior to ZFS on multiple disks?  I can't see how
> its architecture would do any worse, and the planned features are
> superior to ZFS (which isn't to say that ZFS can't improve either).

ZFS uses ARC as its page replacement algorithm, which is superior to
the LRU page replacement algorithm used by btrfs. ZFS has L2ARC and
SLOG. L2ARC permits things that would not be evacuated from ARC had it
been bigger to be stored in a Level 2 cache. SLOG permits writes to be
stored in memory before they are committed to the disks. This provides
the benefits of write sequentialization and protection against data
inconsistency in the event of a kernel panic. Furthermore, data is
striped across vdevs, so the more vdevs you have, the higher your
performance goes.

These features enable ZFS performance to go to impressive heights and
the btrfs developers display no intention of following it as far as I
have seen.

> Beyond the licensing issues ZFS also does not support reshaping of
> raid-z, which is the only n+1 redundancy solution it offers.  Btrfs of
> course does not yet support n+1 at all aside from some experimental
> patches floating around, but it plans to support reshaping at some
> point in time.  Of course, there is no reason you couldn't implement
> reshaping for ZFS, it just hasn't happened yet.  Right now the
> competition for me is with ext4+lvm+mdraid.  While I really would like
> to have COW soon, I doubt I'll implement anything that doesn't support
> reshaping as mdraid+lvm does.

raidz has 3 varieties, which are single parity, double parity and
triple parity. As for reshaping, ZFS is a logical volume manager. You
can set and resize limits on ZFS datasets as you please.

As for competiting with ext4+lvm+mdraid, I recently migrated a server
from that exact configuration. It had 6 disks, using RAID 6. I had a
VM on it running Gentoo Hardened in which I did a benchmark using dd
to write zeroes to the disk. Nothing I could do with ext4+lvm+mdraid
could get performance above 20MB/sec. After switching to ZFS,
performance went to 205MB/sec. The worst performance I observed was
92MB/sec. This used 6 Samsung HD204UI hard drives.

> I do realize that you can add multiple raid-zs to a zpool, but that
> isn't quite enough.  If I have 4x1TB disks I'd like to be able to add
> a single 1TB disk and end up with 5TB of space.  I'd rather not have
> to find 3 more 1TB hard drives to hold the data on while I redo my
> raid and then try to somehow sell them again.

You would probably be better served by making your additional drive
into a hotspare, but if you insist on using it, you can make it a
separate vdev, which should provide more space. To be honest, anyone
who wants to upgrade such a configuration probably is better off
getting 4x2TB disks, do a scrub and then start replacing disks in the
pool, iterating between replacing a disk and resilvering the vdev.
After you have finished this process, you will have doubled the amount
of space in the pool.

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 4:56 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@cs.stonybrook.edu> wrote:
> raidz has 3 varieties, which are single parity, double parity and
> triple parity. As for reshaping, ZFS is a logical volume manager. You
> can set and resize limits on ZFS datasets as you please.

That isn't my understanding as far as raidz reshaping goes.  You can
create raidz's and add them to a zpool.  You can add individual
drives/partitions to zpools.  You can remove any of these from a zpool
at any time and have it move data into other storage areas.  However,
you can't reshape a raidz.

Suppose I have a system with 5x1TB hard drives.  They're merged into a
single raidz with single-parity, so I have 4TB of space.  I want to
add one 1TB drive to the array and have 5TB of single-parity storage.
As far as I'm aware you can't do that with raidz.  What you could do
is set up some other 4TB storage area (raidz or otherwise), remove the
original raidz, recycle those drives into the new raidz, and then move
the data back onto it.  However, doing this requires 4TB of storage
space.  With mdadm you could do this online without the need for
additional space as a holding area.

ZFS is obviously a capable filesystem, but unless Oracle re-licenses
it we'll never see it take off on Linux.  For good or bad everybody
seems to like the monolithic kernel.  Btrfs obviously has a ways to go
before it is a viable replacement, but I doubt Oracle would be sinking
so much money into it if they intended to ever re-license ZFS.

Rich

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Richard Yao]

> That isn't my understanding as far as raidz reshaping goes.  You can
> create raidz's and add them to a zpool.  You can add individual
> drives/partitions to zpools.  You can remove any of these from a zpool
> at any time and have it move data into other storage areas.  However,
> you can't reshape a raidz.

ZFS is organized into pools, which are transactional object stores.
Various things can go into these transactional object stores, such as
ZFS data sets and zvols. A ZFS data set is what you would consider to
be a filesystem. A zvol is a block device on which other filesystems
can be installed. Data in pools are stored in vdevs, which can be
files masquerading as block devices, single disks, mirrored disks or a
raidz level.

ZFS is designed to put data integrity first. I question how many other
volume managers are capable of recovering from a crash during a
reshape without some sort of catastrophic data loss. WIth that said, I
do not see what your point is to talk about this. There are things you
can use your extra disk to do, but as far as storage requirements go,
a single disk does not go very far. You are better off replacing
hardware if your storage requirements grow beyond the ability of your
current disks to handle.

> Suppose I have a system with 5x1TB hard drives.  They're merged into a
> single raidz with single-parity, so I have 4TB of space.  I want to
> add one 1TB drive to the array and have 5TB of single-parity storage.
> As far as I'm aware you can't do that with raidz.  What you could do
> is set up some other 4TB storage area (raidz or otherwise), remove the
> original raidz, recycle those drives into the new raidz, and then move
> the data back onto it.  However, doing this requires 4TB of storage
> space.  With mdadm you could do this online without the need for
> additional space as a holding area.

If you have proper backups, you should be able to destroy the pool,
make a new one and restore the backup. If you do not have backups,
then I think there are more important things to consider than your
ability to do this without them.

> ZFS is obviously a capable filesystem, but unless Oracle re-licenses
> it we'll never see it take off on Linux.  For good or bad everybody
> seems to like the monolithic kernel.  Btrfs obviously has a ways to go
> before it is a viable replacement, but I doubt Oracle would be sinking
> so much money into it if they intended to ever re-license ZFS.

I heard a statement in IRC that Oracle owns all of the next generation
filesystems, which enables them to position btrfs for the low-end and
use ZFS at the high-end. I have no way of substantiating this, but I
can say that this does appear to be the case.

With that said, ebuilds are in the portage tree and support has been
integrated into genkernel. I have a physical system booting off ZFS
(no ext4 et al) and genkernel makes kernel upgrades incredibly easy,
even when configuring my own kernel through --menuconfig. Gentoo users
in IRC are quite interested in this and they do not seem to care that
the modules are out-of-tree or that the licensing is different. As far
as I can tell, there is no need for them to care.

You might want to look at Gentoo/FreeBSD, which also supports ZFS with
a monolithic kernel design, but has no licensing issues. There is
nothing forcing any of us to use Linux and if the licensing is a
problem for you, then perhaps it would be a good idea to switch.

Also, to avoid any confusion, a proper bootloader for ZFS does not
exist in portage at this time. I hacked the boot process to enable the
system to boot off ZFS using GRUB and it will require some more work
before this is ready for inclusion into portage. I made an
announcement to the ZFSOnLinux mailing list not that long ago
explaining what I did. I was waiting until ZFS support in Gentoo
reached a few milestones before I made an announcement about it here,
although most of the stuff you need is already in-tree:

http://groups.google.com/a/zfsonlinux.org/group/zfs-discuss/browse_thread/thread/d94f597f8f4e3c88

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Rich Freeman]

On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Richard Yao <ryao@cs.stonybrook.edu> wrote:
> If you have proper backups, you should be able to destroy the pool,
> make a new one and restore the backup. If you do not have backups,
> then I think there are more important things to consider than your
> ability to do this without them.

I wouldn't have pointed it out if the solution were this simple in my
case.  Not everything is worth backing up - I'd rather take a 2%
chance of losing everything but maybe the 0.1% of my storage that I
back up, than wipe the drive and have a 100% chance of losing
everything but the 0.1% of my storage that I back up.  My data isn't
worth the cost of a proper backup solution, but it isn't worthless
either so if I can have my cake and eat it too so much the better.

That said, it is true that reshaping often isn't practical for other
reasons, such as having 4 1TB drives, and by the time you want to add
another one the best price point is on 500TB drives.

Thanks for your comments just the same - they are informative.  My
licensing concern is more of wanting to promote GPL software than
being compliant, so FreeBSD isn't much of a help.  You may be right
about Oracle wanting to keep btrfs for the low end, although where
they are already aiming is already high enough for me, and once btrfs
becomes mainstream nobody is really going to be able to hold it back -
it isn't like Oracle actually has any control over it beyond
contributing the most code.

Rich

[gentoo-dev] Re: preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Duncan]

Richard Yao posted on Sat, 25 Feb 2012 17:47:06 -0500 as excerpted:

> Also, to avoid any confusion, a proper bootloader for ZFS does not exist
> in portage at this time. I hacked the boot process to enable the system
> to boot off ZFS using GRUB and it will require some more work before
> this is ready for inclusion into portage.

AFAIK grub2 has a zfs module and therefore zfs support.  I was just 
reading the thread announcing the freeze for grub 2.0, and there was a 
bit of discussion there about it, so whatever licensing issues they had 
with it previously, appear to have been worked out, as it's supposed to 
be part of grub 2.0.

So at least the grub-9999 build should have zfs support.  1.99 probably 
has it in some form, but I don't know what its status is.  Those are both 
in the gentoo main tree, tho both are masked.

-- 
Duncan - List replies preferred.   No HTML msgs.
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master --
and if you use the program, he is your master."  Richard Stallman

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Kent Fredric]

> # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' && \
>        rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'


Might even be worth patching revdep-rebuild:

    revdep-rebuild --library /usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4 --autoclean


-- 
Kent

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 507 bytes --]

El vie, 24-02-2012 a las 18:56 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." escribió:
> Currently preserve_old_lib functions generate two commands per preserved
> lib:
> 
> # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
> # rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
> 
> I'd like to modify eutils.eclass to only generate one command:
> 
> # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' && \
> 	rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
> 
> What do you think?
> 

Great, I am already running both in that way manually ;)

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[James Broadhead]

On 24 February 2012 17:56, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." <phajdan.jr@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Currently preserve_old_lib functions generate two commands per preserved
> lib:
>
> # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
> # rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
>
> I'd like to modify eutils.eclass to only generate one command:
>
> # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' && \
>        rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
>
> What do you think?

Definitely a good idea, but FYI it's only been possible since last week :P
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=326923

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1050 bytes --]

On 2/24/12 6:56 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> I'd like to modify eutils.eclass to only generate one command:
> 
> # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' && \
> 	rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'

Given supporting comments to this thread (and totally off-topic
zfs/btrfs discussion), I'd like to commit the patch below in 24 hours.

> --- eutils.eclass.orig	2012-02-26 10:02:24.000000000 +0100
> +++ eutils.eclass	2012-02-26 10:03:17.000000000 +0100
> @@ -1276,16 +1276,8 @@
>  		fi
>  		# temp hack for #348634 #357225
>  		[[ ${PN} == "mpfr" ]] && lib=${lib##*/}
> -		ewarn "  # revdep-rebuild --library '${lib}'"
> +		ewarn "  # revdep-rebuild --library '${lib}' && rm '${lib}'"
>  	done
> -	if [[ ${notice} -eq 1 ]] ; then
> -		ewarn
> -		ewarn "Once you've finished running revdep-rebuild, it should be safe to"
> -		ewarn "delete the old libraries.  Here is a copy & paste for the lazy:"
> -		for lib in "$@" ; do
> -			ewarn "  # rm '${lib}'"
> -		done
> -	fi
>  }
>  
>  # @FUNCTION: built_with_use


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Pacho Ramos]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1324 bytes --]

El lun, 27-02-2012 a las 16:06 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." escribió:
> On 2/24/12 6:56 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > I'd like to modify eutils.eclass to only generate one command:
> > 
> > # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' && \
> > 	rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
> 
> Given supporting comments to this thread (and totally off-topic
> zfs/btrfs discussion), I'd like to commit the patch below in 24 hours.
> 
> > --- eutils.eclass.orig	2012-02-26 10:02:24.000000000 +0100
> > +++ eutils.eclass	2012-02-26 10:03:17.000000000 +0100
> > @@ -1276,16 +1276,8 @@
> >  		fi
> >  		# temp hack for #348634 #357225
> >  		[[ ${PN} == "mpfr" ]] && lib=${lib##*/}
> > -		ewarn "  # revdep-rebuild --library '${lib}'"
> > +		ewarn "  # revdep-rebuild --library '${lib}' && rm '${lib}'"
> >  	done
> > -	if [[ ${notice} -eq 1 ]] ; then
> > -		ewarn
> > -		ewarn "Once you've finished running revdep-rebuild, it should be safe to"
> > -		ewarn "delete the old libraries.  Here is a copy & paste for the lazy:"
> > -		for lib in "$@" ; do
> > -			ewarn "  # rm '${lib}'"
> > -		done
> > -	fi
> >  }
> >  
> >  # @FUNCTION: built_with_use
> 

I think somebody pointed some "revdep-rebuild" versions where exiting
with successful code even when failed, was fixed version stabilized?

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Brian Dolbec]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1771 bytes --]

On Mon, 2012-02-27 at 20:29 +0100, Pacho Ramos wrote:
> El lun, 27-02-2012 a las 16:06 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." escribió:
> > On 2/24/12 6:56 PM, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> > > I'd like to modify eutils.eclass to only generate one command:
> > > 
> > > # revdep-rebuild --library '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4' && \
> > > 	rm '/usr/lib/libv8.so.3.9.4'
> > 
> > Given supporting comments to this thread (and totally off-topic
> > zfs/btrfs discussion), I'd like to commit the patch below in 24 hours.
> > 
> > > --- eutils.eclass.orig	2012-02-26 10:02:24.000000000 +0100
> > > +++ eutils.eclass	2012-02-26 10:03:17.000000000 +0100
> > > @@ -1276,16 +1276,8 @@
> > >  		fi
> > >  		# temp hack for #348634 #357225
> > >  		[[ ${PN} == "mpfr" ]] && lib=${lib##*/}
> > > -		ewarn "  # revdep-rebuild --library '${lib}'"
> > > +		ewarn "  # revdep-rebuild --library '${lib}' && rm '${lib}'"
> > >  	done
> > > -	if [[ ${notice} -eq 1 ]] ; then
> > > -		ewarn
> > > -		ewarn "Once you've finished running revdep-rebuild, it should be safe to"
> > > -		ewarn "delete the old libraries.  Here is a copy & paste for the lazy:"
> > > -		for lib in "$@" ; do
> > > -			ewarn "  # rm '${lib}'"
> > > -		done
> > > -	fi
> > >  }
> > >  
> > >  # @FUNCTION: built_with_use
> > 
> 
> I think somebody pointed some "revdep-rebuild" versions where exiting
> with successful code even when failed, was fixed version stabilized?

No, it is only in -9999 so far.  It has not been released in a -0.3*
ebuild yet.

The last patch to revdep-rebuild fixing return codes is:

http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/gentoolkit.git;a=commit;h=3e51df74595c535656ef9f38bf7a577a4f64d0f5
 
from 11 days ago.

-- 
Brian Dolbec <dolsen@gentoo.org>

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

["Paweł Hajdan, Jr."]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 713 bytes --]

On 2/27/12 10:37 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
>> I think somebody pointed some "revdep-rebuild" versions where exiting
>> with successful code even when failed, was fixed version stabilized?
> 
> No, it is only in -9999 so far.  It has not been released in a -0.3*
> ebuild yet.
> 
> The last patch to revdep-rebuild fixing return codes is:
> 
> http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/gentoolkit.git;a=commit;h=3e51df74595c535656ef9f38bf7a577a4f64d0f5
>  
> from 11 days ago.

If the maintainers of the package in question do not consider it
important enough to do a release (not even mentioning stabilization), I
don't think this is blocking.

Any further objections? (I'm going to listen)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 203 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-dev] preserve_old_lib and I'm even more lazy

[Paul Varner]

On Wed, 2012-02-29 at 09:45 +0100, "Paweł Hajdan, Jr." wrote:
> On 2/27/12 10:37 PM, Brian Dolbec wrote:
> >> I think somebody pointed some "revdep-rebuild" versions where exiting
> >> with successful code even when failed, was fixed version stabilized?
> > 
> > No, it is only in -9999 so far.  It has not been released in a -0.3*
> > ebuild yet.
> > 
> > The last patch to revdep-rebuild fixing return codes is:
> > 
> > http://git.overlays.gentoo.org/gitweb/?p=proj/gentoolkit.git;a=commit;h=3e51df74595c535656ef9f38bf7a577a4f64d0f5
> >  
> > from 11 days ago.
> 
> If the maintainers of the package in question do not consider it
> important enough to do a release (not even mentioning stabilization), I
> don't think this is blocking.
> 
> Any further objections? (I'm going to listen)
> 

Yes, you are going to break systems if you do this change.  If you
really want to do this before we have a fixed gentoolkit to support it,
then put yourself in the tools-portage herd and handle all of the bugs
that arise out of the change.

I just did a new release of gentoolkit-0.3.0.5 with the fixes in them so
that you could do this change once it gets stable.

Regards,
Paul