[gentoo-user] How to verify stable system after fsck corrections

[gentoo-user] How to verify stable system after fsck corrections

[Jake Moe]

The other night, my laptop decided it didn't want to start Gentoo
anymore.  Long story short, I ended up using fsck to fix the disk, after
which it booted ok.  However, the fsck was a bit destructive; at the
very least, a few files from my torrents had gone corrupt.  That's not a
big deal; Vuze lets me re-check all my torrents to make sure they're ok,
and I've re-downloaded the bits that weren't.  More worrysome is what
other files may be corrupt from the exercise.

My  question is: is there a way that Portage can compare what's
currently on the hard disk with what it installed, and do some sort of
checksum verification on it?  I'm going to assume not, unless I had
already generated my own checksums.  In that case, is the safest bet to
do an emerge -e world, and let it rebuild everything?  Or is there an
easier (i.e., shorter) way of doing it?

Thanks for your help.

Jake Moe

Re: [gentoo-user] How to verify stable system after fsck corrections

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 801 bytes --]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:46:33 +1000, Jake Moe wrote:

> My  question is: is there a way that Portage can compare what's
> currently on the hard disk with what it installed, and do some sort of
> checksum verification on it? 

Portage records a checksum for each file it installs, that's how it known
not to delete files that were not installed by the ebuild it is
unmerging. equery has an option to check packages against these

equery check --only-failures '*'

Note that it will show failures on any files that have been modified
since installation, such as configuration and data files, so you'll have
to check these manually, but if a library or executable shows up you
almost certainly have a problem.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Wow! That lightning sounds clo..zzzzit!" NO CARRIER

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: How to verify stable system after fsck corrections

[Nicolas Richard]

Le 01/06/10 13:04, Neil Bothwick a écrit :
> equery check --only-failures '*'

Note: the local option --only-failures seems not available in the
current stable version of gentoolkit.

> Note that it will show failures on any files that have been modified
> since installation, such as configuration and data files, so you'll have
> to check these manually, but if a library or executable shows up you
> almost certainly have a problem.

I ran it and many .la files are found. I guess this is because of
'lafilefixer', and they should not be considered as corrupted.

Nicolas.

Re: [gentoo-user] How to verify stable system after fsck corrections

[Jake Moe]

On 01/06/10 21:04, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:46:33 +1000, Jake Moe wrote:
>
>   
>> My  question is: is there a way that Portage can compare what's
>> currently on the hard disk with what it installed, and do some sort of
>> checksum verification on it? 
>>     
> Portage records a checksum for each file it installs, that's how it known
> not to delete files that were not installed by the ebuild it is
> unmerging. equery has an option to check packages against these
>
> equery check --only-failures '*'
>
> Note that it will show failures on any files that have been modified
> since installation, such as configuration and data files, so you'll have
> to check these manually, but if a library or executable shows up you
> almost certainly have a problem.
>
>   
Thanks for that Neil.  Sounds like just what I need.  However, when I
run it, I get:


jmoe@jhb5970 ~ $ equery check --only-failures '*'
!!! unknown local option --only-failures, ignoring
!!! Invalid Atom: ''
jmoe@jhb5970 ~ $ equery check '*'
!!! Invalid Atom: ''
jmoe@jhb5970 ~ $


Is the '*' atom spec a new Portage feature?  I haven't switched to the
new Portage yet, I'm still using "stable".  Maybe it's time I bite the
bullet and upgrade...

John Moe

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How to verify stable system after fsck corrections

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 558 bytes --]

On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:55:27 +0200, Nicolas Richard wrote:

> > Note that it will show failures on any files that have been modified
> > since installation, such as configuration and data files, so you'll
> > have to check these manually, but if a library or executable shows up
> > you almost certainly have a problem.  
> 
> I ran it and many .la files are found. I guess this is because of
> 'lafilefixer', and they should not be considered as corrupted.

Correct.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Uhura: Captain, you're being flamed on channel one.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How to verify stable system after fsck corrections

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday 01 June 2010 23:21:37 Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 15:55:27 +0200, Nicolas Richard wrote:
> > > Note that it will show failures on any files that have been
> > > modified since installation, such as configuration and data
> > > files, so you'll have to check these manually, but if a library
> > > or executable shows up you almost certainly have a problem.
> > 
> > I ran it and many .la files are found. I guess this is because of
> > 'lafilefixer', and they should not be considered as corrupted.
> 
> Correct.

So if I run lafilefixer, equery check is essentially useless - at least, I 
can't undertake to spot the one problem among the 221 false positives I 
get from running it.

-- 
Rgds
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: How to verify stable system after fsck corrections

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 534 bytes --]

On Wed, 2 Jun 2010 00:06:02 +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> > > I ran it and many .la files are found. I guess this is because of
> > > 'lafilefixer', and they should not be considered as corrupted.  
> > 
> > Correct.  
> 
> So if I run lafilefixer, equery check is essentially useless - at
> least, I can't undertake to spot the one problem among the 221 false
> positives I get from running it.

You can't but grep can.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"What I need is a list of specific unknown problems we will encounter."

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] How to verify stable system after fsck corrections

[Dale]

Jake Moe wrote:
> On 01/06/10 21:04, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>    
>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:46:33 +1000, Jake Moe wrote:
>>
>>
>>      
>>> My  question is: is there a way that Portage can compare what's
>>> currently on the hard disk with what it installed, and do some sort of
>>> checksum verification on it?
>>>
>>>        
>> Portage records a checksum for each file it installs, that's how it known
>> not to delete files that were not installed by the ebuild it is
>> unmerging. equery has an option to check packages against these
>>
>> equery check --only-failures '*'
>>
>> Note that it will show failures on any files that have been modified
>> since installation, such as configuration and data files, so you'll have
>> to check these manually, but if a library or executable shows up you
>> almost certainly have a problem.
>>
>>
>>      
> Thanks for that Neil.  Sounds like just what I need.  However, when I
> run it, I get:
>
>
> jmoe@jhb5970 ~ $ equery check --only-failures '*'
> !!! unknown local option --only-failures, ignoring
> !!! Invalid Atom: ''
> jmoe@jhb5970 ~ $ equery check '*'
> !!! Invalid Atom: ''
> jmoe@jhb5970 ~ $
>
>
> Is the '*' atom spec a new Portage feature?  I haven't switched to the
> new Portage yet, I'm still using "stable".  Maybe it's time I bite the
> bullet and upgrade...
>
> John Moe
>
>    

I'm running the latest portage and the command worked fine here.  I been 
running the latest portage for a while and it works fine.  May as well 
upgrade and check out the new features.

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] How to verify stable system after fsck corrections

[Jake Moe]

On 02/06/10 14:53, Dale wrote:
> Jake Moe wrote:
>> On 01/06/10 21:04, Neil Bothwick wrote:
>>   
>>> On Tue, 01 Jun 2010 19:46:33 +1000, Jake Moe wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>     
>>>> My  question is: is there a way that Portage can compare what's
>>>> currently on the hard disk with what it installed, and do some sort of
>>>> checksum verification on it?
>>>>
>>>>        
>>> Portage records a checksum for each file it installs, that's how it
>>> known
>>> not to delete files that were not installed by the ebuild it is
>>> unmerging. equery has an option to check packages against these
>>>
>>> equery check --only-failures '*'
>>>
>>> Note that it will show failures on any files that have been modified
>>> since installation, such as configuration and data files, so you'll
>>> have
>>> to check these manually, but if a library or executable shows up you
>>> almost certainly have a problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>> Thanks for that Neil.  Sounds like just what I need.  However, when I
>> run it, I get:
>>
>>
>> jmoe@jhb5970 ~ $ equery check --only-failures '*'
>> !!! unknown local option --only-failures, ignoring
>> !!! Invalid Atom: ''
>> jmoe@jhb5970 ~ $ equery check '*'
>> !!! Invalid Atom: ''
>> jmoe@jhb5970 ~ $
>>
>>
>> Is the '*' atom spec a new Portage feature?  I haven't switched to the
>> new Portage yet, I'm still using "stable".  Maybe it's time I bite the
>> bullet and upgrade...
>>
>> John Moe
>>
>>    
>
> I'm running the latest portage and the command worked fine here.  I
> been running the latest portage for a while and it works fine.  May as
> well upgrade and check out the new features.
>
> Dale
>
> :-)  :-)
>
For the record, I unmasked and un-keyworded (is that the right word?)
Portage, and got the same complaint from the command.  So I un-keyworded
gentoolkit as well, and now it works.

John Moe