[gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[walt]

On 01/20/2013 01:29 AM, victor romanchuk wrote:
> just migrated to sys-fs/udev-197 - everything went smoothly and seems to
> work. the only observation at this time is absence of device file
> /dev/root whilst both /etc/mtab and /proc/mounts are referring to that
> device node:
> 
> # grep root /etc/mtab /proc/mounts
> /etc/mtab:/dev/root / ext4 rw,relatime,commit=0 0 0
> /proc/mounts:rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0
> /proc/mounts:/dev/root / ext4 rw,relatime,data=ordered 0 0

I see exactly the same and didn't even notice until you mentioned it.
Did /dev/root really exist in the /dev/ directory in the past?  Can't
remember.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Dale]

walt wrote:
> On 01/20/2013 01:29 AM, victor romanchuk wrote:
>> just migrated to sys-fs/udev-197 - everything went smoothly and seems to
>> work. the only observation at this time is absence of device file
>> /dev/root whilst both /etc/mtab and /proc/mounts are referring to that
>> device node:
>>
>> # grep root /etc/mtab /proc/mounts
>> /etc/mtab:/dev/root / ext4 rw,relatime,commit=0 0 0
>> /proc/mounts:rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0
>> /proc/mounts:/dev/root / ext4 rw,relatime,data=ordered 0 0
> I see exactly the same and didn't even notice until you mentioned it.
> Did /dev/root really exist in the /dev/ directory in the past?  Can't
> remember.
>

It does here:

root@fireball / # ls -al /dev/root
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jan 10 07:12 /dev/root -> sda6
root@fireball / #

Since this appears to be a issue now, I'm switching to eudev.  For some
reason, I can't mask enough to keep it as it is now.  I hope I don't
loose my uptime. 

root@fireball / # uptime
 18:16:17 up 120 days, 11:25,  9 users,  load average: 0.25, 0.63, 1.09
root@fireball / #

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Bruce Hill]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 06:17:04PM -0600, Dale wrote:
> walt wrote:
> > On 01/20/2013 01:29 AM, victor romanchuk wrote:
> >> just migrated to sys-fs/udev-197 - everything went smoothly and seems to
> >> work. the only observation at this time is absence of device file
> >> /dev/root whilst both /etc/mtab and /proc/mounts are referring to that
> >> device node:
> >>
> >> # grep root /etc/mtab /proc/mounts
> >> /etc/mtab:/dev/root / ext4 rw,relatime,commit=0 0 0
> >> /proc/mounts:rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0
> >> /proc/mounts:/dev/root / ext4 rw,relatime,data=ordered 0 0
> > I see exactly the same and didn't even notice until you mentioned it.
> > Did /dev/root really exist in the /dev/ directory in the past?  Can't
> > remember.
> >
> 
> It does here:
> 
> root@fireball / # ls -al /dev/root
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jan 10 07:12 /dev/root -> sda6
> root@fireball / #
> 
> Since this appears to be a issue now, I'm switching to eudev.  For some
> reason, I can't mask enough to keep it as it is now.  I hope I don't
> loose my uptime. 
> 
> root@fireball / # uptime
>  18:16:17 up 120 days, 11:25,  9 users,  load average: 0.25, 0.63, 1.09
> root@fireball / #
> 
> Dale

You should have stuck with udev *before* systemd took over:
 >=sys-fs/udev-181
 >=virtual/udev-181

Then you wouldn't have these problems now. There are 8 or more Gentoo boxen
running on this LAN with the above and none of the issues that come up daily
now in this ML.

Think very carefully before you "switch to eudev". It's not even stable, nor
proven, and will surely result in you losing much more than a little uptime.
Think hair, time, serenity. ;)

Bruce
-- 
Happy Penguin Computers               >')
126 Fenco Drive                       ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801                       ^^
support@happypenguincomputers.com
662-269-2706 662-205-6424
http://happypenguincomputers.com/

Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Dale]

Bruce Hill wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 06:17:04PM -0600, Dale wrote:
>>
>> It does here:
>>
>> root@fireball / # ls -al /dev/root
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jan 10 07:12 /dev/root -> sda6
>> root@fireball / #
>>
>> Since this appears to be a issue now, I'm switching to eudev.  For some
>> reason, I can't mask enough to keep it as it is now.  I hope I don't
>> loose my uptime. 
>>
>> root@fireball / # uptime
>>  18:16:17 up 120 days, 11:25,  9 users,  load average: 0.25, 0.63, 1.09
>> root@fireball / #
>>
>> Dale
> You should have stuck with udev *before* systemd took over:
>  >=sys-fs/udev-181
>  >=virtual/udev-181
>
> Then you wouldn't have these problems now. There are 8 or more Gentoo boxen
> running on this LAN with the above and none of the issues that come up daily
> now in this ML.
>
> Think very carefully before you "switch to eudev". It's not even stable, nor
> proven, and will surely result in you losing much more than a little uptime.
> Think hair, time, serenity. ;)
>
> Bruce

Asked on gentoo-eudev and was told it was being used and works fine. 
Right now, I'm on udev-171.  The higher ones are masked.  Note the =
sign above. 

Since I can keep it masked for now, may just stick here for a bit. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Walter Dnes]

On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 06:17:04PM -0600, Dale wrote

> Since this appears to be a issue now, I'm switching to eudev.

  Welcome to the dark side Luke. <G> I'm in the midst of re-installing
Gentoo on my netbook with eudev instead of mdev.  It's working so far,
but I haven't installed all the applications yet.

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 467 bytes --]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:56:01 -0600, Bruce Hill wrote:

> Then you wouldn't have these problems now. There are 8 or more Gentoo
> boxen running on this LAN with the above and none of the issues that
> come up daily now in this ML.

For completeness, there are seven Gentoo systems here, all but one
running udev-197 and also with none of the problems you mention.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Meow" <SPLAT!>  "Woof" <SPLAT!>    Jeez, it's really raining today.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Alan McKinnon]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:17:04 -0600
Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> walt wrote:
> > On 01/20/2013 01:29 AM, victor romanchuk wrote:
> >> just migrated to sys-fs/udev-197 - everything went smoothly and
> >> seems to work. the only observation at this time is absence of
> >> device file /dev/root whilst both /etc/mtab and /proc/mounts are
> >> referring to that device node:
> >>
> >> # grep root /etc/mtab /proc/mounts
> >> /etc/mtab:/dev/root / ext4 rw,relatime,commit=0 0 0
> >> /proc/mounts:rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0
> >> /proc/mounts:/dev/root / ext4 rw,relatime,data=ordered 0 0
> > I see exactly the same and didn't even notice until you mentioned
> > it. Did /dev/root really exist in the /dev/ directory in the past?
> > Can't remember.
> >
> 
> It does here:
> 
> root@fireball / # ls -al /dev/root
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jan 10 07:12 /dev/root -> sda6
> root@fireball / #
> 
> Since this appears to be a issue now, I'm switching to eudev.  For
> some reason, I can't mask enough to keep it as it is now.  I hope I
> don't loose my uptime. 
> 
> root@fireball / # uptime
>  18:16:17 up 120 days, 11:25,  9 users,  load average: 0.25, 0.63,
> 1.09 root@fireball / #

So you are not doing kernel updates anymore. Interesting.

Perhaps you do not realize just how much information you leaked right
there :-)


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:17:04 -0600
> Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> walt wrote:
>>> On 01/20/2013 01:29 AM, victor romanchuk wrote:
>>>> just migrated to sys-fs/udev-197 - everything went smoothly and
>>>> seems to work. the only observation at this time is absence of
>>>> device file /dev/root whilst both /etc/mtab and /proc/mounts are
>>>> referring to that device node:
>>>>
>>>> # grep root /etc/mtab /proc/mounts
>>>> /etc/mtab:/dev/root / ext4 rw,relatime,commit=0 0 0
>>>> /proc/mounts:rootfs / rootfs rw 0 0
>>>> /proc/mounts:/dev/root / ext4 rw,relatime,data=ordered 0 0
>>> I see exactly the same and didn't even notice until you mentioned
>>> it. Did /dev/root really exist in the /dev/ directory in the past?
>>> Can't remember.
>>>
>> It does here:
>>
>> root@fireball / # ls -al /dev/root
>> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 4 Jan 10 07:12 /dev/root -> sda6
>> root@fireball / #
>>
>> Since this appears to be a issue now, I'm switching to eudev.  For
>> some reason, I can't mask enough to keep it as it is now.  I hope I
>> don't loose my uptime. 
>>
>> root@fireball / # uptime
>>  18:16:17 up 120 days, 11:25,  9 users,  load average: 0.25, 0.63,
>> 1.09 root@fireball / #
> So you are not doing kernel updates anymore. Interesting.
>
> Perhaps you do not realize just how much information you leaked right
> there :-)
>
>


Well, I have seen servers run for YEARS with no reboots.  Most of those
admit, they don't upgrade them at all.  One several years ago said he
hadn't even blew out the dust in that time.  It was over 5 years since
he even logged into it.  He kept his in a closet.  One of those was on
the old show TheScreenSavers on Tech TV. 

So, I do a LOT more to mine than most.  Given my connection to the
internet, the fact that I update everything I can short of a reboot, I'm
not worried one bit. 

May have found a bug for eudev tho.  It seems that you have to unmerge
dracut since it had a hard dependency on the udev package instead of the
virtual.  Going to test that now.  Been chatting on the eudev list. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Alan McKinnon]

On Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:36:55 -0600
Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, I have seen servers run for YEARS with no reboots.  Most of
> those admit, they don't upgrade them at all.  One several years ago
> said he hadn't even blew out the dust in that time.  It was over 5
> years since he even logged into it.  He kept his in a closet.  One of
> those was on the old show TheScreenSavers on Tech TV. 



Oh don't get me wrong I have servers with 5 year uptimes too. And they
don't get kernel upgrades, so whatever security fixes have been done in
the past 5 years those machines do not have. Uptime is not a ragging
point anymore :-)

Sadly, I *can't* reboot them. I can only replace them in the hardware
replace cycle - the change manager wants to know from me what the risk
is of doing the change. I tell him honestly there's an elevated risk of
the drives not spinning up and <highly critical system> stops working.

He just smiles and clicks the "deny" button on my change form  :-)


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 01:36:55PM -0600, Dale wrote

> Well, I have seen servers run for YEARS with no reboots.  Most of those
> admit, they don't upgrade them at all.  One several years ago said he
> hadn't even blew out the dust in that time.  It was over 5 years since
> he even logged into it.  He kept his in a closet.  One of those was on
> the old show TheScreenSavers on Tech TV. 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/12/missing_novell_server_discovered_after/

  Straight from Edgar Allen Poe

-- 
Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1011 bytes --]

On Jan 22, 2013 11:07 AM, "Walter Dnes" <waltdnes@waltdnes.org> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 01:36:55PM -0600, Dale wrote
>
> > Well, I have seen servers run for YEARS with no reboots.  Most of those
> > admit, they don't upgrade them at all.  One several years ago said he
> > hadn't even blew out the dust in that time.  It was over 5 years since
> > he even logged into it.  He kept his in a closet.  One of those was on
> > the old show TheScreenSavers on Tech TV.
>
>
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/12/missing_novell_server_discovered_after/
>
>   Straight from Edgar Allen Poe
>
> --
> Walter Dnes <waltdnes@waltdnes.org>
> I don't run "desktop environments"; I run useful applications
>

The headline is misleading and too sensationalist...

The server had been performing well for years, so nobody actually missed
the server. Only after a network audit been performed did they realize that
the server -- which might even still be happily serving clients -- is
nowhere to be found.

Rgds,
--

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1443 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Dale]

Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 01:36:55PM -0600, Dale wrote
>
>> Well, I have seen servers run for YEARS with no reboots.  Most of those
>> admit, they don't upgrade them at all.  One several years ago said he
>> hadn't even blew out the dust in that time.  It was over 5 years since
>> he even logged into it.  He kept his in a closet.  One of those was on
>> the old show TheScreenSavers on Tech TV. 
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2001/04/12/missing_novell_server_discovered_after/
>
>   Straight from Edgar Allen Poe
>

Dang, I was hoping for pics.  LOL 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

-- 
I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words!

[gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[»Q«]

On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:57:59 +0000
Peter Humphrey <peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> wrote:

> On Sunday 20 January 2013 08:51:43 Philip Webb wrote:
> > I just tried upgrading to  udev-197 , which is supposed to be
> > stable. There were multiple problems & I'm now back with  udev-171 .
> 
> My daily update pulled in udev-197-r3. The installation went smoothly
> but I decided I ought to reboot to check that I could. I couldn't.
> Udev couldn't start because my kernel config didn't have
> CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y. So I booted my rescue system on the same disk,
> chrooted in and built a new kernel with that option. On rebooting
> everything was fine.
> 
> Just a note for anyone else who may not have that kernel option.

This got me too.  Now there's a discussion in -dev about making config
warnings fatal.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Matthias Hanft]

»Q« wrote:
> Peter Humphrey <peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> wrote:
>> My daily update pulled in udev-197-r3. The installation went smoothly
>> but I decided I ought to reboot to check that I could. I couldn't.
>> Udev couldn't start because my kernel config didn't have
>> CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y. So I booted my rescue system on the same disk,
>> chrooted in and built a new kernel with that option. On rebooting
>> everything was fine.
> 
> This got me too.  Now there's a discussion in -dev about making config
> warnings fatal.

Good idea, but as I updated udev yesterday on one of my Gentoo systems,
in the usual after-update messages there was a line in red, telling me
"You don't have CONFIG_DEVTMPFS enabled. udev will not start." So it's
not really a surprise, is it? Hence, I built a new kernel *before*
rebooting :-)

-Matt

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 967 bytes --]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:29:19 +0100, Matthias Hanft wrote:

> > This got me too.  Now there's a discussion in -dev about making config
> > warnings fatal.  
> 
> Good idea, but as I updated udev yesterday on one of my Gentoo systems,
> in the usual after-update messages there was a line in red, telling me
> "You don't have CONFIG_DEVTMPFS enabled. udev will not start." So it's
> not really a surprise, is it? Hence, I built a new kernel *before*
> rebooting :-)

That's fine if you see the message, which you should, and the system
does not suffer an unplanned reboot, which it shouldn't. But leaving a
system in a state that won't reboot following a crash or power failure is
not particularly clever, making the warnings fatal sounds a safe default
to me. As this is Gentoo there will always be a way to turn the airbags
off and even disable the brakes :)


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Some cause happiness wherever they go. Others whenever they go.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Gregory Shearman]

In linux.gentoo.user, you wrote:
>
> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:29:19 +0100, Matthias Hanft wrote:
>
>> Good idea, but as I updated udev yesterday on one of my Gentoo systems,
>> in the usual after-update messages there was a line in red, telling me
>> "You don't have CONFIG_DEVTMPFS enabled. udev will not start." So it's
>> not really a surprise, is it? Hence, I built a new kernel *before*
>> rebooting :-)
>
> That's fine if you see the message, which you should, and the system
> does not suffer an unplanned reboot, which it shouldn't. But leaving a
> system in a state that won't reboot following a crash or power failure is
> not particularly clever, making the warnings fatal sounds a safe default
> to me. As this is Gentoo there will always be a way to turn the airbags
> off and even disable the brakes :)

A similar message has been shown after quite a few previous udev
updates, not just this last one. I remember having to add the
CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y option to my gentoo kernels at least 6 months ago
after seeing a message telling me that this option must be enabled for
udev or there'll be big problems later on.

I have all update messages emailed to me using:

PORTAGE_ELOG_*=<blah>

In my /etc/portage/make.conf

After every update I read every message that portage sends me and I act
appropriately upon them.

BTW, My udev update went without a hitch. I had a revdep-rebuild to do
for a libudev update and that was about it.

Even if you didn't see the message and your system didn't boot then you
could still fix things by using your Minimal Install CD to start up,
then chroot into your normal system and rebuild your kernel.

-- 
Regards,
Gregory.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Thanasis]

on 01/23/2013 04:41 AM »Q« wrote the following:
> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:57:59 +0000
> Peter Humphrey <peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> wrote:
> 
>> On Sunday 20 January 2013 08:51:43 Philip Webb wrote:
>>> I just tried upgrading to  udev-197 , which is supposed to be
>>> stable. There were multiple problems & I'm now back with  udev-171 .
>>
>> My daily update pulled in udev-197-r3. The installation went smoothly
>> but I decided I ought to reboot to check that I could. I couldn't.
>> Udev couldn't start because my kernel config didn't have
>> CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y. So I booted my rescue system on the same disk,
>> chrooted in and built a new kernel with that option. On rebooting
>> everything was fine.
>>
>> Just a note for anyone else who may not have that kernel option.
> 
> This got me too.  Now there's a discussion in -dev about making config
> warnings fatal.
> 

It hit me too, as I hadn't noticed any warning messages..., maybe the
messages were added afterwards..., or I was not careful enough...

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Thanasis]

on 01/23/2013 01:10 PM Thanasis wrote the following:
> on 01/23/2013 04:41 AM »Q« wrote the following:
>> On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:57:59 +0000
>> Peter Humphrey <peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sunday 20 January 2013 08:51:43 Philip Webb wrote:
>>>> I just tried upgrading to  udev-197 , which is supposed to be
>>>> stable. There were multiple problems & I'm now back with  udev-171 .
>>>
>>> My daily update pulled in udev-197-r3. The installation went smoothly
>>> but I decided I ought to reboot to check that I could. I couldn't.
>>> Udev couldn't start because my kernel config didn't have
>>> CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y. So I booted my rescue system on the same disk,
>>> chrooted in and built a new kernel with that option. On rebooting
>>> everything was fine.
>>>
>>> Just a note for anyone else who may not have that kernel option.
>>
>> This got me too.  Now there's a discussion in -dev about making config
>> warnings fatal.
>>
> 
> It hit me too, as I hadn't noticed any warning messages..., maybe the
> messages were added afterwards..., or I was not careful enough...
> 

Looking at the log, I can see now, that there *was* a warning..., but I
only noticed the suggestion about "revdep-rebuild..." near the end. :\

INFO: setup
Package:    sys-fs/udev-197-r3
Repository: gentoo
Maintainer: udev-bugs@gentoo.org
USE:        acl amd64 elibc_glibc gudev hwdb kernel_linux keymap kmod
openrc userland_GNU
FEATURES:   sandbox
Package:    sys-fs/udev-197-r3
Repository: gentoo
Maintainer: udev-bugs@gentoo.org
USE:        acl amd64 elibc_glibc gudev hwdb kernel_linux keymap kmod
openrc userland_GNU
FEATURES:   sandbox
Determining the location of the kernel source code
Found kernel source directory:
    /usr/src/linux
Found kernel object directory:
    /usr/src/linux
Found sources for kernel version:
    3.6.11-gentoo
Checking for suitable kernel configuration options...
ERROR: setup
  DEVTMPFS is not set in this kernel. Udev will not run.
WARN: setup
Please check to make sure these options are set correctly.
Failure to do so may cause unexpected problems.
INFO: setup
Determining the location of the kernel source code
Found kernel source directory:
    /usr/src/linux-3.6.11-gentoo
Found kernel object directory:
    /usr/src/linux
Found sources for kernel version:
    3.6.11-gentoo
INFO: prepare
Applying various patches (bugfixes/updates) ...
  0001-udev-net_id-skip-stacked-network-devices.patch ...
  0006-udev-don-t-call-fclose-on-NULL-in-is_pci_multifuncti.patch ...
Done with patching
Running elibtoolize in: systemd-197/build-aux/
  Applying portage/1.2.0 patch ...
  Applying sed/1.5.6 patch ...
  Applying as-needed/2.4.2 patch ...
INFO: install
Removing unnecessary /usr/lib64/libgudev-1.0.la (requested)
Removing unnecessary /usr/lib64/libudev.la (requested)
Removing unnecessary /usr/lib64/libsystemd-daemon.la (requested)
WARN: postinst

Upstream has removed the persistent-cd rules
generator. If you need persistent names for these devices,
place udev rules for them in /etc/udev/rules.d.

udev-197 and newer introduces a new method of naming network
interfaces. The new names are a very significant change, so
they are disabled by default on live systems.
Please see the contents of /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules for more
information on this feature.

You need to restart udev as soon as possible to make the upgrade go
into effect.
The method you use to do this depends on your init system.

Old versions of installed libraries were detected on your system.
In order to avoid breaking packages that depend on these old libs,
the libraries are not being removed.  You need to run revdep-rebuild
in order to remove these old dependencies.  If you do not have this
helper program, simply emerge the 'gentoolkit' package.

  # revdep-rebuild --library '/lib64/libudev.so.0' && rm
'/lib64/libudev.so.0'
LOG: postinst

For more information on udev on Gentoo, writing udev rules, and
         fixing known issues visit:
         http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/udev-guide.xml

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 13:10:44 +0200
Thanasis <thanasis@asyr.hopto.org> wrote:

> on 01/23/2013 04:41 AM »Q« wrote the following:
> > On Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:57:59 +0000
> > Peter Humphrey <peter@humphrey.ukfsn.org> wrote:
> > 
> >> On Sunday 20 January 2013 08:51:43 Philip Webb wrote:
> >>> I just tried upgrading to  udev-197 , which is supposed to be
> >>> stable. There were multiple problems & I'm now back with
> >>> udev-171 .
> >>
> >> My daily update pulled in udev-197-r3. The installation went
> >> smoothly but I decided I ought to reboot to check that I could. I
> >> couldn't. Udev couldn't start because my kernel config didn't have
> >> CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y. So I booted my rescue system on the same disk,
> >> chrooted in and built a new kernel with that option. On rebooting
> >> everything was fine.
> >>
> >> Just a note for anyone else who may not have that kernel option.
> > 
> > This got me too.  Now there's a discussion in -dev about making
> > config warnings fatal.
> > 
> 
> It hit me too, as I hadn't noticed any warning messages..., maybe the
> messages were added afterwards..., or I was not careful enough...


A news item about this is coming down the wire very soon now (aka
within hours judging by the thread on -dev).

Unfortunately, it's too late for you now but at least many other users
will see the message before they emerge world and save them some pain


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

[gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[»Q«]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:45:33 +0200
Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

[about udev and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y] 
> A news item about this is coming down the wire very soon now (aka
> within hours judging by the thread on -dev).

It's there now.  Among other things, it mentions checking the /dev
entry in fstab, if there is one.  I don't have one, but I'm curious. Is
it the udev-mount service in my default runlevel that makes it
unnecessary to have /dev in fstab?  Also, what would be the reasons
for adding a /dev entry? 

> Unfortunately, it's too late for you now but at least many other users
> will see the message before they emerge world and save them some pain

Yeah.  I use elogv to look at anything with warnings or errors after
an emerge, and I can't explain how I overlooked the bright red notice
this time.  

Normally, I follow this group and know what has come up for people
running ~arch (or if I don't *know*, I at least remember there's to
keep my eyes open for).  But I've given up on following udev threads
here, which tend to get pretty noisy.

Of course there's no substitute for paying attention, but it's nice to
get a news item, even nicer if it comes before things hit stable.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1665 bytes --]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:06:17 +1100, Gregory Shearman wrote:

> > That's fine if you see the message, which you should, and the system
> > does not suffer an unplanned reboot, which it shouldn't. But leaving a
> > system in a state that won't reboot following a crash or power
> > failure is not particularly clever, making the warnings fatal sounds
> > a safe default to me. As this is Gentoo there will always be a way to
> > turn the airbags off and even disable the brakes :)  

> I have all update messages emailed to me using:
> 
> PORTAGE_ELOG_*=<blah>

As do I.

> After every update I read every message that portage sends me and I act
> appropriately upon them.

As do I.

> BTW, My udev update went without a hitch. I had a revdep-rebuild to do
> for a libudev update and that was about it.

As did mine, but none of that has any real relevance to my previous
point. What if you have an unintentional reboot before you have had a
chance to read on and act on the message.

The point is that this update can render your machine unbootable, until
you take remedial action that you are only informed about after the
update. Effectively, that elog message is saying "I have just broken
your computer, you'd better fix it before you reboot!". 

> Even if you didn't see the message and your system didn't boot then you
> could still fix things by using your Minimal Install CD to start up,
> then chroot into your normal system and rebuild your kernel.

That remedy should be reserved for unforseen circumstances, not used as
an excuse for casual breakage.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

why do kamikazee pilots wear helmets?

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 23 January 2013 11:06:17 Gregory Shearman wrote:

> Even if you didn't see the message

...as I didn't...

> and your system didn't boot

...as mine didn't...

> then you could still fix things by using your Minimal Install CD to start
> up, then chroot into your normal system and rebuild your kernel.

...as I did. I described this in my message of Sunday last.

Anyway, my point is that I didn't see any warnings of what was about to 
happen, and I don't expect to find myself with an unbootable, supposedly 
stable system, i.e. without setting ~amd64. Something went wrong here.

Mind you, it was nothing like the mayhem caused by the latest kmail.

-- 
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 23 January 2013 20:10:45 »Q« wrote:

> Of course there's no substitute for paying attention, but it's nice to
> get a news item, even nicer if it comes before things hit stable.

Indeed.

-- 
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:10:45 -0600
»Q« <boxcars@gmx.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 17:45:33 +0200
> Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> [about udev and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y] 
> > A news item about this is coming down the wire very soon now (aka
> > within hours judging by the thread on -dev).
> 
> It's there now.  Among other things, it mentions checking the /dev
> entry in fstab, if there is one.  I don't have one, but I'm curious.
> Is it the udev-mount service in my default runlevel that makes it
> unnecessary to have /dev in fstab?  Also, what would be the reasons
> for adding a /dev entry? 

yes it's udev-mount:

        if ! grep -qs devtmpfs /proc/filesystems; then
                eerror "CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y is required in your kernel
        configuration" eerror "for this version of udev to run
        successfully." eerror "This requires immediate attention."
                if ! mountinfo -q /dev; then
                        mount -n -t tmpfs dev /dev
                        busybox mdev -s
                        mkdir /dev/pts
                fi


I don't see any good reason whatsoever to add /dev to fstab, unless you
want to change the default mount options for some reason

> 
> > Unfortunately, it's too late for you now but at least many other
> > users will see the message before they emerge world and save them
> > some pain
> 
> Yeah.  I use elogv to look at anything with warnings or errors after
> an emerge, and I can't explain how I overlooked the bright red notice
> this time.  
> 
> Normally, I follow this group and know what has come up for people
> running ~arch (or if I don't *know*, I at least remember there's to
> keep my eyes open for).  But I've given up on following udev threads
> here, which tend to get pretty noisy.
> 
> Of course there's no substitute for paying attention, but it's nice to
> get a news item, even nicer if it comes before things hit stable.

:-)

I seem to have lost my virtual consoles recently, courtesy of
udev-197 :-(

Haven't figured out why yet, I suppose I'll have to read all those
noisy udev threads again




-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev-197 : 4 show-stoppers

[Daniel Wagener]

On Wed, 23 Jan 2013 22:06:17 +1100
Gregory Shearman <zekeyg@gmail.com> wrote:
> Even if you didn't see the message and your system didn't boot then you
> could still fix things by using your Minimal Install CD to start up,
> then chroot into your normal system and rebuild your kernel.

Well, you could…

But as i dropped out of bed less than two hours ago and found my workstation in a stuck booting process I never ordered, I actuall could not.
No time, no coffee, no Black Metal on my Teufel connected to that workstation…
Im afraid the machine will stay this way until… February, when i can spend ore than ten Minutes on it?