[gentoo-user] Can anyone tell me?

[gentoo-user] Can anyone tell me?

[Chris Walters]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hello,

Can anyone tell me what packages you know of that will break your system if you
choose to put "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~amd64" in your make.conf file?  I have had my
system break, twice now, from a package upgrade - I think that one of the
culprits is gawk, but can't be certain.

I do know that the only way to fix the problem was to restore from backup, or
to try re-installing again.  I just want to know which packages are so unstable
that I should mask them.  TIA.

Regards,
Chris


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFHyanyUx1jS/ORyCsRCkPPAKCDom6TEWG6Wro0ApYt/bnNrS+14gCcCNlc
VBfTw5gYqqXTfwsWwb8WiDQ=
=+py3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Can anyone tell me?

[Mark Knecht]

On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Chris Walters <cjw2004d@comcast.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA512
>
>  Hello,
>
>  Can anyone tell me what packages you know of that will break your system if you
>  choose to put "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~amd64" in your make.conf file?  I have had my
>  system break, twice now, from a package upgrade - I think that one of the
>  culprits is gawk, but can't be certain.
>
>  I do know that the only way to fix the problem was to restore from backup, or
>  to try re-installing again.  I just want to know which packages are so unstable
>  that I should mask them.  TIA.
>
>  Regards,
>  Chris
>

Hi Chris,
   I don't think your question can be answered as phrased.

   *Any* package marked with '~' is 'new', 'in testing', 'unstable',
etc. Very few (in my experience) 'break' my machine, but I have a rule
that any package energed as part of emerge system must be stable and I
personally add ~x86 or ~amd64 only for specific packages that I want
or need some new feature.

Hope this helps,
Mark
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Can anyone tell me?

[Dan Farrell]

On Sat, 1 Mar 2008 12:16:36 -0800
"Mark Knecht" <markknecht@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Chris Walters <cjw2004d@comcast.net>
> wrote:
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> >  Hash: SHA512
> >
> >  Hello,
> >
> >  Can anyone tell me what packages you know of that will break your
> > system if you choose to put "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~amd64" in your
> > make.conf file?  I have had my system break, twice now, from a
> > package upgrade - I think that one of the culprits is gawk, but
> > can't be certain.
> >
> >  I do know that the only way to fix the problem was to restore from
> > backup, or to try re-installing again.  I just want to know which
> > packages are so unstable that I should mask them.  TIA.

doesn't sound like a broken package to me.  perhaps something else got
borked?  

> >  Regards,
> >  Chris
> >
> 
> Hi Chris,
>    I don't think your question can be answered as phrased.
> 
>    *Any* package marked with '~' is 'new', 'in testing', 'unstable',
> etc. Very few (in my experience) 'break' my machine, but I have a rule
> that any package energed as part of emerge system must be stable and I
> personally add ~x86 or ~amd64 only for specific packages that I want
> or need some new feature.

My experience is the same as Mark's.  I use ~amd64 only when
necessary, and although sometimes it doesn't work or is buggy
afterwords (after all, it's testing) it has never once broken the
system.   That having been said, I wouldn't use it for system critical
anything (other than the kernel).  


> Hope this helps,
> Mark
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Can anyone tell me?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sunday 02 March 2008, Dan Farrell wrote:

> > >  Can anyone tell me what packages you know of that will break
> > > your system if you choose to put "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~amd64" in your
> > > make.conf file?  I have had my system break, twice now, from a
> > > package upgrade - I think that one of the culprits is gawk, but
> > > can't be certain.
> > >
> > >  I do know that the only way to fix the problem was to restore
> > > from backup, or to try re-installing again.  I just want to know
> > > which packages are so unstable that I should mask them.  TIA.
>
> doesn't sound like a broken package to me.  perhaps something else
> got borked?

Or maybe some "unusual" compiler settings?

OP, please post your /etc/make.conf



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Can anyone tell me?

[Chris Walters]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Sunday 02 March 2008, Dan Farrell wrote:
> 
>> doesn't sound like a broken package to me.  perhaps something else
>> got borked?
> 
> Or maybe some "unusual" compiler settings?
> 
> OP, please post your /etc/make.conf

I don't think it is the compiler settings - they are fairly standard "-O3 
-march=athlon64 -pipe"  That's it.  I've never had any problems with -O3, but 
it could still be a part of the problem, since it substantially changes the 
code at compile time.

The problem has to do the the Service Dependencies not being able to be 
scanned, and I am advised to run /sbin/depscan.sh

When I run that, I just get the same error - which also involves a missing 
/bin/mktemp file.  It seems that that package blocks that latest version of 
coreutils...

Regards,
Chris
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Can anyone tell me?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sunday 02 March 2008, Chris Walters wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > On Sunday 02 March 2008, Dan Farrell wrote:
> >> doesn't sound like a broken package to me.  perhaps something else
> >> got borked?
> >
> > Or maybe some "unusual" compiler settings?
> >
> > OP, please post your /etc/make.conf
>
> I don't think it is the compiler settings - they are fairly standard
> "-O3 -march=athlon64 -pipe"  That's it.  I've never had any problems
> with -O3, but it could still be a part of the problem, since it
> substantially changes the code at compile time.

I don't -O3 can ever be considered "standard". Also you say you don't 
think that's it, then admit -O3 changes the code substantially. I'm 
having horrible visions that you are taking a shotgun approach to 
fault-finding

> The problem has to do the the Service Dependencies not being able to
> be scanned, and I am advised to run /sbin/depscan.sh
>
> When I run that, I just get the same error - which also involves a
> missing /bin/mktemp file.  It seems that that package blocks that
> latest version of coreutils...

What you wrote doesn't make sense. depscan.sh is installed by baselayout 
and mktemp is installed by coreutils. You have depscan.sh Which package 
is blocking which? You don't have to guess which one, portage will tell 
you when an emerge fails.

You really should supply more information so that we can help you. You 
have now posted 4 times on this thread, and have not supplied any 
relevant info at all apart from your arch is ~amd64 and you have a 
problem. So let's do this the right way which involves you supplying 
the following:

- when your system "broke twice", what exactly does this mean? What no 
longer works, and how does the system's behaviour differ from what you 
expect?
- relevant logs
- command(s) run before the problem manifests
- console output that demonstrates a problem


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Can anyone tell me?

[Chris Walters]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Alan McKinnon wrote:
| On Sunday 02 March 2008, Chris Walters wrote:
|> Alan McKinnon wrote:
| I don't -O3 can ever be considered "standard". Also you say you don't
| think that's it, then admit -O3 changes the code substantially. I'm
| having horrible visions that you are taking a shotgun approach to
| fault-finding

Say again?  How am I "taking a shotgun approach to fault-finding"?

|> The problem has to do the the Service Dependencies not being able to
|> be scanned, and I am advised to run /sbin/depscan.sh
|>
|> When I run that, I just get the same error - which also involves a
|> missing /bin/mktemp file.  It seems that that package blocks that
|> latest version of coreutils...
|
| What you wrote doesn't make sense. depscan.sh is installed by baselayout
| and mktemp is installed by coreutils. You have depscan.sh Which package
| is blocking which? You don't have to guess which one, portage will tell
| you when an emerge fails.

Well, apparently either the latest ~amd64 keyword masked version of coreutils
does not install /bin/mktemp, or makes changes so that /sbin/depscan.sh cannot
find it, because "/bin/mktemp missing" is a part of the error message, I
receive.  When I mask the latest version of coreutils, and merge the older one
and the mktemp ebuild, the problem disappears (yes, I was able to get emerge to
work - finally).

| You really should supply more information so that we can help you. You
| have now posted 4 times on this thread, and have not supplied any
| relevant info at all apart from your arch is ~amd64 and you have a
| problem. So let's do this the right way which involves you supplying
| the following:
|
| - when your system "broke twice", what exactly does this mean? What no
| longer works, and how does the system's behaviour differ from what you
| expect?
| - relevant logs
| - command(s) run before the problem manifests
| - console output that demonstrates a problem

I asked for specific and general information in my original message to this
list.  That was what packages had others, using the "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~amd64",
had trouble with.  If you have no answer to that question, then you should just
say so, or not have bothered to reply.  I am not liking the attitude on this
list one bit.  I didn't ask you, or anyone else to solve a specific problem for
me, just a simple general question.  If I wanted specific help, I would have
provided all that you are claiming I should provide.

Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFHyv3mUx1jS/ORyCsRChqaAJsHpoz1bA6ry3id6SXVjdTY5YZasACaAsGE
TVslqDzdm1KxKhJNI3t+xi4=
=s/VG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Can anyone tell me?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 830 bytes --]

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 14:20:08 -0500, Chris Walters wrote:

> Well, apparently either the latest ~amd64 keyword masked version of
> coreutils does not install /bin/mktemp, or makes changes so
> that /sbin/depscan.sh cannot find it, because "/bin/mktemp missing" is
> a part of the error message, I receive.

% eix -c -e coreutils
[I] sys-apps/coreutils (6.10-r1@24/01/08): Standard GNU file utilities

% qlist coreutils | grep mktemp
/usr/share/man/man1/mktemp.1.bz2
/bin/mktemp
/usr/bin/mktemp

It's certainly there on this box, and the other ~amd64 and ~x86 boxes I
have.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Theory is when you know everything, but nothing works.
Reality is when everything works, but you don't know why.
However, usually theory and reality are mixed together :
Nothing works, and nobody knows why not.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Can anyone tell me?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sunday 02 March 2008, Chris Walters wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:

<snip>

> | What you wrote doesn't make sense. depscan.sh is installed by
> | baselayout and mktemp is installed by coreutils. You have
> | depscan.sh Which package is blocking which? You don't have to guess
> | which one, portage will tell you when an emerge fails.
>
> Well, apparently either the latest ~amd64 keyword masked version of
> coreutils does not install /bin/mktemp, or makes changes so that
> /sbin/depscan.sh cannot find it, because "/bin/mktemp missing" is a
> part of the error message, I receive.  When I mask the latest version
> of coreutils, and merge the older one and the mktemp ebuild, the
> problem disappears (yes, I was able to get emerge to work - finally).

Ah. That's useful info. Are you saying that current coreutils does not 
supply mktemp (it should), so you have to use an older coreutils and a 
discrete mktemp ebuild?

What's in the build log for the non-working coreutils regarding mktemp?


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Can anyone tell me?

[Chris Walters]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Hello Mark,

I was under the impression that packages with the ~amd64 (or ~x86) keywords are
in testing, but no serious instabilities had been found, or they would be hard
masked.

I have had non-testing packages break my system before, as well.  What
generally happens is the the environment variables become messed up, or the
service dependencies do - either way, I can't use emerge or any of the
available utilities to fix the problem, or even find out what it does.

About a year ago, I went to a testing system and haven't had any problems,
except when I re-install Gentoo.  I guess it is always a choice - either go
with the "stable" version of a distribution or you go with the testing version
(some people really push the envelope and go for the unstable version).

I read up on the keywords, and found out that having the ~mad64 keyword on a
package just means that it hasn't been adequately tested on that architecture.
That's how people like me help move things along - by testing those packages on
our systems, and reporting any problems we find.

Regards,
Chris

Mark Knecht wrote:
| On Sat, Mar 1, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Chris Walters <cjw2004d@comcast.net> wrote:
|>  Hello,
|>
|>  Can anyone tell me what packages you know of that will break your system if you
|>  choose to put "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~amd64" in your make.conf file?  I have had my
|>  system break, twice now, from a package upgrade - I think that one of the
|>  culprits is gawk, but can't be certain.
|>
|>  I do know that the only way to fix the problem was to restore from backup, or
|>  to try re-installing again.  I just want to know which packages are so unstable
|>  that I should mask them.  TIA.
|>
|>  Regards,
|>  Chris
|>
|
| Hi Chris,
|    I don't think your question can be answered as phrased.
|
|    *Any* package marked with '~' is 'new', 'in testing', 'unstable',
| etc. Very few (in my experience) 'break' my machine, but I have a rule
| that any package energed as part of emerge system must be stable and I
| personally add ~x86 or ~amd64 only for specific packages that I want
| or need some new feature.
|
| Hope this helps,
| Mark

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFHypMsUx1jS/ORyCsRCg3SAJ9RjQk0hCUPo1oLfGRJR0gBYOdEmACfaoL+
0Vb2FeuvF/RoA2MWEZjAs9U=
=Gp0G
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Can anyone tell me?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1620 bytes --]

On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 14:09:45 -0500, Chris Walters wrote:

> Can anyone tell me what packages you know of that will break your
> system if you choose to put "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~amd64" in your make.conf
> file?  I have had my system break, twice now, from a package upgrade -
> I think that one of the culprits is gawk, but can't be certain.

I run two completely ~amd64 systems here and have very few problems.

> I do know that the only way to fix the problem was to restore from
> backup, or to try re-installing again.  I just want to know which
> packages are so unstable that I should mask them.  TIA.

The ~ in ~amd64 means the ebuilds are in testing, not that they, or the
software they install, are considered unstable in the "likely to crash"
meaning of the term. Because you are using bleeding edge ebuilds, there
is the odd occasion when things don't play nicely together, or mistakes
are made. The gawk problem one one such situation, where it depended on a
library in /usr/lib and broke any system with /usr on a separate
filesystem. It didn't require a reinstall to fix, I know because I was
hit by it and didn't reinstall. It was a one-off that was fixed quickly,
if you didn't sync and update each day you could easily have missed it.

The testing ebuilds are for just that, it is only by people using them
and reporting problems that those problems are kept out of the stable
tree. If you are not prepared to deal with the occasional problem,
running a testing system is not for you.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

There's an old proverb that says just about whatever you want it to

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Can anyone tell me?

[Chris Walters]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA512

Neil Bothwick wrote:
| On Sat, 01 Mar 2008 14:09:45 -0500, Chris Walters wrote:

| I run two completely ~amd64 systems here and have very few problems.

I've run testing on Gentoo and other distributions.  With Gentoo, for over a
year, with few problems, and those were generally easily fixed.

| The ~ in ~amd64 means the ebuilds are in testing, not that they, or the
| software they install, are considered unstable in the "likely to crash"
| meaning of the term. Because you are using bleeding edge ebuilds, there
| is the odd occasion when things don't play nicely together, or mistakes
| are made. The gawk problem one one such situation, where it depended on a
| library in /usr/lib and broke any system with /usr on a separate
| filesystem. It didn't require a reinstall to fix, I know because I was
| hit by it and didn't reinstall. It was a one-off that was fixed quickly,
| if you didn't sync and update each day you could easily have missed it.
|
| The testing ebuilds are for just that, it is only by people using them
| and reporting problems that those problems are kept out of the stable
| tree. If you are not prepared to deal with the occasional problem,
| running a testing system is not for you.

I find these paragraphs to be rude and insulting.  I am not an idiot - I know
exactly what "testing" means, and what "unstable" means.  Just because I ask a
relatively simple question in this group does not mean that I am "not prepared
to deal with the occasional problem".  Were that the case, I would not be
working with computers at all, since all operating systems and distributions
have an "occasional problem" even in their "stable" branches.

Chris
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----

iD8DBQFHyt3tUx1jS/ORyCsRCt5YAJ9yTa9Bz9zWJjgn9moyE2mi/0FIGgCfX3OY
KWvc1mFs3pZiOOJIZuwE7dY=
=m3jB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Can anyone tell me?

[Dan Farrell]

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:03:44 -0500
Chris Walters <cjw2004d@comcast.net> wrote:

> I find these paragraphs to be rude and insulting.  I am not an idiot
> - I know exactly what "testing" means, and what "unstable" means.
> Just because I ask a relatively simple question in this group does
> not mean that I am "not prepared to deal with the occasional
> problem".  Were that the case, I would not be working with computers
> at all, since all operating systems and distributions have an
> "occasional problem" even in their "stable" branches.
> 
> Chris

If I may speak for Neil, he provides a lot of very useful information
to the list and is a very courteous poster as well.  In my mind, that
little lemming that somehow appears along with his emails is
the sign of a good addition to the thread.  I'm sure he didn't
mean to insult you. I hope that you agree that even though you started
the thread, the information he gave could be useful to others reading
it. I thought it was an informative and well-written post myself, not
that yours aren't, but don't be too defensive.  We're all here to learn
(and perhaps to teach, occasionally at least ;) )

to answer your original question succinctly: 

> Can anyone tell me what packages you know of that will break your
> system if you choose to put "ACCEPT_KEYWORDS=~amd64" in your make.conf
> file? 

no, no one can tell until they are tested, and then they will be marked
stable.  

If I may take a moment to make a few (friendly and respectful!)
criticisms of your post, that may have given people the wrong
impression, I think there are probably two things that may have done
so:  firstly, your subject line was 'Can anyone help me?'  Sure, you're
asking for help, but a more relevant subject line would have nicely
synopsized your post.  Most people that start a thread here _are_
looking for help, after all.  Secondly, I think this: 

>I do know that the only way to fix the problem was to restore from
>backup, or to try re-installing again.  I just want to know which
>packages are so unstable that I should mask them.  

definitely made my blood boil a little.  It sounds as if, with your gawk case
here, a careful analysis of the log files could have perhaps provided
you with a few fundamentals from /usr/lib that were missing and only
needed to be copied over to / before /usr or /usr/lib was mounted from
it's seperate filesystem.  (I am just guessing that's how Neil solved
this particular problem, although I wouldn't know.)  Saying that the
only way to fix a particular problem is by replacing the software with
a working version is very rarely the case.  

I hope you can understand how that could give us a little bit of a bad
first impression here on the lists, because it consists of a lot of
serious gentooers that all seem to share a dislike of reinstalls and
backup restorations rather than responding to particular error messages
and resolving their problems that way.  Perhaps it's just the gentoo
way - reinstalling seems to be very popular in ubuntu.  

Anyhow, my advice to you is to do what many, including myself do - save
yourself the headache of running ~amd64, and only use package.keywords
to unmask packages as necessary.  

Good luck, and may you withhold judgment of me as I have of you, 

		Dan Farrell
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Can anyone tell me?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 391 bytes --]

On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 12:03:44 -0500, Chris Walters wrote:

> I find these paragraphs to be rude and insulting.  I am not an idiot -
> I know exactly what "testing" means, and what "unstable" means.

Sorry if you feel that way, but many people confuse the various meanings
of unstable and stable in the context of software branches.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Oxymoron: Reagan memoirs.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]