[gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Peter Humphrey]

Hello list,

After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of gentoo-sources 
have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the server chain? I get the 
same with UK and US sync servers.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>
> After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of gentoo-sources
> have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the server chain? I get the
> same with UK and US sync servers.
>

No idea, but upstream is up to 4.4.19, and 4.6.7 (which is now EOL).
So, those are pretty old versions.  I see 4.4.19 in the Gentoo repo,
and 4.7.2 (which is probably where 4.6 users should be moving to).

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Sunday 21 Aug 2016 05:55:06 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> 
wrote:
> > After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of
> > gentoo-sources have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the
> > server chain? I get the same with UK and US sync servers.
> 
> No idea, but upstream is up to 4.4.19, and 4.6.7 (which is now EOL).
> So, those are pretty old versions.  I see 4.4.19 in the Gentoo repo,
> and 4.7.2 (which is probably where 4.6 users should be moving to).

Yes, this ~amd64 box is now at 4.7.2, but I have an amd64 and two x86 
systems and they both want to downgrade to 4.1.15-r1, which eix shows as the 
latest stable version.

I thought 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 were both pretty stable; was I wrong?

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sunday 21 Aug 2016 05:55:06 Rich Freeman wrote:
>> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk>
> wrote:
>> > After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of
>> > gentoo-sources have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the
>> > server chain? I get the same with UK and US sync servers.
>>
>> No idea, but upstream is up to 4.4.19, and 4.6.7 (which is now EOL).
>> So, those are pretty old versions.  I see 4.4.19 in the Gentoo repo,
>> and 4.7.2 (which is probably where 4.6 users should be moving to).
>
> Yes, this ~amd64 box is now at 4.7.2, but I have an amd64 and two x86
> systems and they both want to downgrade to 4.1.15-r1, which eix shows as the
> latest stable version.
>
> I thought 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 were both pretty stable; was I wrong?
>

I'm sure they both work.  However, upstream has released numerous
fixes since 4.4.6, and they will not be releasing security/bug/etc
fixes for 4.6.x.

As long as there are no critical issues there is no issue with not
being completely up-to-date with the kernel's stable releases, and I'm
sure the Gentoo kernel team is tracking these sorts of issues.
However, it isn't a surprise that they dropped 4.6.  If they
downgraded 4.1 I suspect that was a mistake somewhere along the ways -
I could see them upgrading it to something more recent.

And there is nothing wrong with having some internal QA on kernel
releases.  4.1 had a nasty memory leak a release or two ago that was
killing my system after only an hour or two uptime.  They took over a
week to stabilize the fix as well (though a patch was out fairly
quickly).  So, I'm not in nearly the rush to update kernels as I used
to be (granted, unless you read all the lists it is easy to miss this
sort of thing).  I really wish the kernel had separate
announce/discussion/patch lists.  It is really annoying that there is
no way to get official notices up upstream updates without subscribing
to lkml and such.  Is Linux the only FOSS project that has never heard
of -announce lists?

I ended up bailing on gentoo-sources all the same.  Not that there was
really anything wrong with it, but since I'm running btrfs and they've
had a history of nasty regressions that tend to show up MONTHS later
I've been a lot more picky about my kernel updates.  I'm currently
tracking 4.1.  I might think about moving to 4.4 in a little while.  I
tend to stay on the next-to-most-recent longterm not long after a new
longterm is announced.  That tends to give them enough time to work
out the bugs.  Plus, I spend a lot less time playing with
configuration options this way (they don't change within a minor
version).

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Sunday 21 Aug 2016 07:28:17 Rich Freeman wrote:

> ... there is nothing wrong with having some internal QA on kernel
> releases.  4.1 had a nasty memory leak a release or two ago that was
> killing my system after only an hour or two uptime.  They took over a
> week to stabilize the fix as well (though a patch was out fairly quickly).
> So, I'm not in nearly the rush to update kernels as I used to be

I've formed the impression that a good many kernel updates are mainly just 
to incorporate code for new devices, so I don't rush into it normally 
either. However, this box does have some hardware that's not yet a year old, 
so I do keep this one up to date.

> (granted, unless you read all the lists it is easy to miss this sort of
> thing).

Do you recommend any in particular for this? Gentoo-dev, perhaps?

--->8

> I ended up bailing on gentoo-sources all the same.  Not that there was
> really anything wrong with it, but since I'm running btrfs and they've
> had a history of nasty regressions that tend to show up MONTHS later
> I've been a lot more picky about my kernel updates.  I'm currently
> tracking 4.1.  I might think about moving to 4.4 in a little while.

Well, according to eix, there's only 4.4.19 between 4.1.30 and 4.7.2.

> I tend to stay on the next-to-most-recent longterm not long after a new
> longterm is announced.  That tends to give them enough time to work
> out the bugs.  Plus, I spend a lot less time playing with
> configuration options this way (they don't change within a minor
> version).

Sound policy, I'm sure. How does an ordinary mortal know which versions are 
here for the long term?

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Alarig Le Lay]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 244 bytes --]

On Sun Aug 21 15:23:42 2016, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Sound policy, I'm sure. How does an ordinary mortal know which versions are 
> here for the long term?

It’s referenced on https://www.kernel.org/category/releases.html

-- 
alarig

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Rich Freeman]

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Sunday 21 Aug 2016 07:28:17 Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> ... there is nothing wrong with having some internal QA on kernel
>> releases.  4.1 had a nasty memory leak a release or two ago that was
>> killing my system after only an hour or two uptime.  They took over a
>> week to stabilize the fix as well (though a patch was out fairly quickly).
>> So, I'm not in nearly the rush to update kernels as I used to be
>
> I've formed the impression that a good many kernel updates are mainly just
> to incorporate code for new devices, so I don't rush into it normally
> either. However, this box does have some hardware that's not yet a year old,
> so I do keep this one up to date.

The 3rd decimal almost never has code for new devices.  It is intended
to be 100% bugfixes.  So, you generally don't want to be too far
behind on that.

>
>> (granted, unless you read all the lists it is easy to miss this sort of
>> thing).
>
> Do you recommend any in particular for this? Gentoo-dev, perhaps?

Nope.  That memory leak was on lkml I think.  Only reason I spotted it
was that I searched for it after getting bitten by it.  I doubt I'd
have even noticed the thread but for looking for it.  I do tend to
search the btrfs lists before switching between series, because that
is the thing I figure is most likely to break.

Honestly, kernel QA could be better in some ways.  When some crippling
bug comes along they don't always rush to release fixes, and they
don't have any way to communicate with end-users.  They just assume
that distros are paying attention to that sort of thing.  And most
probably are (probably including Gentoo, but I'm not running a Gentoo
kernel since the Gentoo kernels aren't really going to be optimized
for btrfs stability).

>
>> I ended up bailing on gentoo-sources all the same.  Not that there was
>> really anything wrong with it, but since I'm running btrfs and they've
>> had a history of nasty regressions that tend to show up MONTHS later
>> I've been a lot more picky about my kernel updates.  I'm currently
>> tracking 4.1.  I might think about moving to 4.4 in a little while.
>
> Well, according to eix, there's only 4.4.19 between 4.1.30 and 4.7.2.

Those are just the versions packaged for Gentoo.
kernel.org has 4.4.19 as the only non-EOL version in-between, and it
is longterm (I think 4.7 is too, but it isn't marked as such yet).

>
> Sound policy, I'm sure. How does an ordinary mortal know which versions are
> here for the long term?
>

kernel.org

The Gentoo team will not let down ordinary users.  If you're using
semi-experimental features then you're best off keeping a close eye on
upstream no matter what distro you use.

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Sunday 21 Aug 2016 10:50:55 Rich Freeman wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> 
wrote:
> > On Sunday 21 Aug 2016 07:28:17 Rich Freeman wrote:
> >> ... there is nothing wrong with having some internal QA on kernel
> >> releases.  4.1 had a nasty memory leak a release or two ago that was
> >> killing my system after only an hour or two uptime.  They took over a
> >> week to stabilize the fix as well (though a patch was out fairly
> >> quickly). So, I'm not in nearly the rush to update kernels as I used
> >> to be> 
> > I've formed the impression that a good many kernel updates are mainly
> > just to incorporate code for new devices, so I don't rush into it
> > normally either. However, this box does have some hardware that's not
> > yet a year old, so I do keep this one up to date.
> 
> The 3rd decimal almost never has code for new devices.  It is intended
> to be 100% bugfixes.  So, you generally don't want to be too far
> behind on that.
> 
> >> (granted, unless you read all the lists it is easy to miss this sort of
> >> thing).
> > 
> > Do you recommend any in particular for this? Gentoo-dev, perhaps?
> 
> Nope.  That memory leak was on lkml I think.  Only reason I spotted it
> was that I searched for it after getting bitten by it.  I doubt I'd
> have even noticed the thread but for looking for it.  I do tend to
> search the btrfs lists before switching between series, because that
> is the thing I figure is most likely to break.
> 
> Honestly, kernel QA could be better in some ways.  When some crippling
> bug comes along they don't always rush to release fixes, and they
> don't have any way to communicate with end-users.  They just assume
> that distros are paying attention to that sort of thing.  And most
> probably are (probably including Gentoo, but I'm not running a Gentoo
> kernel since the Gentoo kernels aren't really going to be optimized
> for btrfs stability).
> 
> >> I ended up bailing on gentoo-sources all the same.  Not that there was
> >> really anything wrong with it, but since I'm running btrfs and they've
> >> had a history of nasty regressions that tend to show up MONTHS later
> >> I've been a lot more picky about my kernel updates.  I'm currently
> >> tracking 4.1.  I might think about moving to 4.4 in a little while.
> > 
> > Well, according to eix, there's only 4.4.19 between 4.1.30 and 4.7.2.
> 
> Those are just the versions packaged for Gentoo.
> kernel.org has 4.4.19 as the only non-EOL version in-between, and it
> is longterm (I think 4.7 is too, but it isn't marked as such yet).
> 
> > Sound policy, I'm sure. How does an ordinary mortal know which versions
> > are here for the long term?
> 
> kernel.org
> 
> The Gentoo team will not let down ordinary users.  If you're using
> semi-experimental features then you're best off keeping a close eye on
> upstream no matter what distro you use.

OK. Thanks for your advice, Rich, as always. Also to Alarig.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Tom H]

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:50 AM, Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:23 AM, Peter Humphrey <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Well, according to eix, there's only 4.4.19 between 4.1.30 and 4.7.2.
>
> Those are just the versions packaged for Gentoo.
>
> kernel.org has 4.4.19 as the only non-EOL version in-between, and it
> is longterm (I think 4.7 is too, but it isn't marked as such yet).

4.9:

https://plus.google.com/+gregkroahhartman/posts/DjCWwSo7kqY

[gentoo-user] Re: What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Kai Krakow]

Am Sun, 21 Aug 2016 07:28:17 -0400
schrieb Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>:

> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 6:20 AM, Peter Humphrey
> <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> > On Sunday 21 Aug 2016 05:55:06 Rich Freeman wrote:  
> >> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Peter Humphrey
> >> <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk>  
> > wrote:  
>  [...]  
> >>
> >> No idea, but upstream is up to 4.4.19, and 4.6.7 (which is now
> >> EOL). So, those are pretty old versions.  I see 4.4.19 in the
> >> Gentoo repo, and 4.7.2 (which is probably where 4.6 users should
> >> be moving to).  
> >
> > Yes, this ~amd64 box is now at 4.7.2, but I have an amd64 and two
> > x86 systems and they both want to downgrade to 4.1.15-r1, which eix
> > shows as the latest stable version.
> >
> > I thought 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 were both pretty stable; was I wrong?
> >  
> 
> I'm sure they both work.  However, upstream has released numerous
> fixes since 4.4.6, and they will not be releasing security/bug/etc
> fixes for 4.6.x.
> 
> As long as there are no critical issues there is no issue with not
> being completely up-to-date with the kernel's stable releases, and I'm
> sure the Gentoo kernel team is tracking these sorts of issues.
> However, it isn't a surprise that they dropped 4.6.  If they
> downgraded 4.1 I suspect that was a mistake somewhere along the ways -
> I could see them upgrading it to something more recent.
> 
> And there is nothing wrong with having some internal QA on kernel
> releases.  4.1 had a nasty memory leak a release or two ago that was
> killing my system after only an hour or two uptime.  They took over a
> week to stabilize the fix as well (though a patch was out fairly
> quickly).  So, I'm not in nearly the rush to update kernels as I used
> to be (granted, unless you read all the lists it is easy to miss this
> sort of thing).

Surprise surprise, 4.7 has this (still not fully fixed) oom-killer bug.
When I'm running virtual machines, it still kicks in. I wanted to stay
on 4.6.x until 4.8 is released, and only then switch to 4.7. Now I was
forced early (I'm using btrfs), and was instantly punished by doing so:

The bfq patches I used were unstable (IO ops froze during boot, I was
forced to hard-reset the system) and as a consequence btrfs eventually
broke down a few hours later after the kernel booted without using bfq.

I had to restore from backup. Gentoo could have simply masked 4.6.x
with a masking message instead of removing it completely without
warning. I'm now using deadline instead of bfq, and I'm not using cfq
because it is everything else but running an interactive system
regarding IO: have some more than normal background IO and desktop
becomes unusable, audio and video apps starts skipping, games start
freezing up to a minute.

I'm now on 4.7.2 and I'm not happy due to the oom-killer mess. And
going back to 4.4 or even 4.1 is probably an unrealistic option when
using btrfs - at least I don't want to test it.

> I really wish the kernel had separate
> announce/discussion/patch lists.  It is really annoying that there is
> no way to get official notices up upstream updates without subscribing
> to lkml and such.  Is Linux the only FOSS project that has never heard
> of -announce lists?
> 
> I ended up bailing on gentoo-sources all the same.  Not that there was
> really anything wrong with it, but since I'm running btrfs and they've
> had a history of nasty regressions that tend to show up MONTHS later
> I've been a lot more picky about my kernel updates.  I'm currently
> tracking 4.1.  I might think about moving to 4.4 in a little while.  I
> tend to stay on the next-to-most-recent longterm not long after a new
> longterm is announced.  That tends to give them enough time to work
> out the bugs.  Plus, I spend a lot less time playing with
> configuration options this way (they don't change within a minor
> version).

This is why I wanted to stay major version behind currently stable -
I'm using btrfs, too. And history shows that especially 4.x.{0,1} may
introduce some nasty bugs if you are using edge technology like btrfs.

As I said, I'm not happy with this situation currently but I arranged
to live with it for the time being.

With btrfs gaining no must-have features lately, I'm considering to
stay with stable gentoo-sources when it switches to the unstable
version I'm currently using - which might be 4.7 or 4.8, I'm not sure.
I don't trust 4.7 currently, so I hope it will be 4.8.

-- 
Regards,
Kai

Replies to list-only preferred.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 742 bytes --]

On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:34:55 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:

> Surprise surprise, 4.7 has this (still not fully fixed) oom-killer bug.
> When I'm running virtual machines, it still kicks in. I wanted to stay
> on 4.6.x until 4.8 is released, and only then switch to 4.7. Now I was
> forced early (I'm using btrfs), and was instantly punished by doing so:

No one forced you to do anything. You 4.6 kernel was still in boot, your
4.6 sources were still installed. The ebuild was only removed fro the
portage tree, nothing was uninstalled from your system unless you did it.
Even the ebuild was still on your computer in /var/db/pkg.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

The cow is nothing but a machine which makes grass fit for us people to
eat.

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Kai Krakow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2107 bytes --]

Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:47:22 +0100
schrieb Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>:

> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:34:55 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:
> 
> > Surprise surprise, 4.7 has this (still not fully fixed) oom-killer
> > bug. When I'm running virtual machines, it still kicks in. I wanted
> > to stay on 4.6.x until 4.8 is released, and only then switch to
> > 4.7. Now I was forced early (I'm using btrfs), and was instantly
> > punished by doing so:  
> 
> No one forced you to do anything. You 4.6 kernel was still in boot,
> your 4.6 sources were still installed. The ebuild was only removed
> fro the portage tree, nothing was uninstalled from your system unless
> you did it. Even the ebuild was still on your computer in /var/db/pkg.

Of course nobody forced me. I just can't follow how the 4.7 ebuild
kind-of replaced the 4.6 (and others) ebuild in face of this pretty
mature oom-killer problem.

Removal of a 4.6 series ebuild also means there would follow no updates
- so my next upgrade would "force" me into deciding going way down
(probably a bad idea) or up into unknown territory (and this showed:
can also be a problem). Or I can stay with 4.6 until depclean removed
it for good (which will, by the way, remove the files from /usr/src).

I think masking had been a much more fair option, especially because
portage has means of displaying me the reasoning behind masking it.

In the end, I simply was really unprepared for this - and this is
usually not how Gentoo works and always worked for me. I'm used to
Gentoo doing better.

Even if the 4.6 series were keyworded - in case of kernel packages they
should not be removed without masking first. I think a lot of people
like to stay - at least temporary - close to kernel mainline because
they want to use the one or other feature.

And then my workflow is always like this: If an ebuild is removed, it's
time to also remove it from my installation and replace it with another
version or an alternative. I usually do this during the masking phase.

-- 
Regards,
Kai

Replies to list-only preferred.

[-- Attachment #2: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Alan McKinnon]

On 01/09/2016 22:08, Kai Krakow wrote:
> Am Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:47:22 +0100
> schrieb Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>:
>
>> On Tue, 30 Aug 2016 08:34:55 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:
>>
>>> Surprise surprise, 4.7 has this (still not fully fixed) oom-killer
>>> bug. When I'm running virtual machines, it still kicks in. I wanted
>>> to stay on 4.6.x until 4.8 is released, and only then switch to
>>> 4.7. Now I was forced early (I'm using btrfs), and was instantly
>>> punished by doing so:
>>
>> No one forced you to do anything. You 4.6 kernel was still in boot,
>> your 4.6 sources were still installed. The ebuild was only removed
>> fro the portage tree, nothing was uninstalled from your system unless
>> you did it. Even the ebuild was still on your computer in /var/db/pkg.
>
> Of course nobody forced me. I just can't follow how the 4.7 ebuild
> kind-of replaced the 4.6 (and others) ebuild in face of this pretty
> mature oom-killer problem.
>
> Removal of a 4.6 series ebuild also means there would follow no updates
> - so my next upgrade would "force" me into deciding going way down
> (probably a bad idea) or up into unknown territory (and this showed:
> can also be a problem). Or I can stay with 4.6 until depclean removed
> it for good (which will, by the way, remove the files from /usr/src).
>
> I think masking had been a much more fair option, especially because
> portage has means of displaying me the reasoning behind masking it.
>
> In the end, I simply was really unprepared for this - and this is
> usually not how Gentoo works and always worked for me. I'm used to
> Gentoo doing better.
>
> Even if the 4.6 series were keyworded - in case of kernel packages they
> should not be removed without masking first. I think a lot of people
> like to stay - at least temporary - close to kernel mainline because
> they want to use the one or other feature.
>
> And then my workflow is always like this: If an ebuild is removed, it's
> time to also remove it from my installation and replace it with another
> version or an alternative. I usually do this during the masking phase.
>

Was the ebuild removed from arch or ~arch?

If arch, then you have a point.
If ~arch, then you don't have a point. Gentoo has pretty much always 
expected you to deal with $WHATEVER_HAPPENS on ~arch. There has never 
been a guarantee (not even a loose one) that anything will ever stick 
around in ~arch.

Alan

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1704 bytes --]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:08:19 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:

> > No one forced you to do anything. You 4.6 kernel was still in boot,
> > your 4.6 sources were still installed. The ebuild was only removed
> > fro the portage tree, nothing was uninstalled from your system unless
> > you did it. Even the ebuild was still on your computer
> > in /var/db/pkg.  
> 
> Of course nobody forced me. I just can't follow how the 4.7 ebuild
> kind-of replaced the 4.6 (and others) ebuild in face of this pretty
> mature oom-killer problem.
> 
> Removal of a 4.6 series ebuild also means there would follow no updates

Are there any updates to the 4.6 series or was is 4.7 considered its
successor by the kernels devs? If the former, I can understand your
point. If the latter, there would be no updates so there is no point.

> - so my next upgrade would "force" me into deciding going way down
> (probably a bad idea) or up into unknown territory (and this showed:
> can also be a problem). Or I can stay with 4.6 until depclean removed
> it for good (which will, by the way, remove the files from /usr/src).

Depclean won't remove it if you add it to world. Or you can add this
to /etc/portage/sets.conf to prevent depclean removing any kernels

[kernels]
class = portage.sets.dbapi.OwnerSet
world-candidate = False
files = /usr/src

Running old or out of date kernels is not an issue with Gentoo. I had a
machine running the same kernel for at least a year, long after it was
removed from the tree, because I had some hardware for which the driver
wouldn't compile with newer kernels.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

[unwieldy legal disclaimer would go here - feel free to type your own]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Kai Krakow]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2106 bytes --]

Am Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:56:31 +0100
schrieb Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>:

> > - so my next upgrade would "force" me into deciding going way down
> > (probably a bad idea) or up into unknown territory (and this showed:
> > can also be a problem). Or I can stay with 4.6 until depclean
> > removed it for good (which will, by the way, remove the files
> > from /usr/src).  
> 
> Depclean won't remove it if you add it to world.

Multi-slot packages ARE removed by depclean except the last stable
version - which jumped backwards for me because I used an ~arch kernel
that was removed from portage.

The following happened:

# emerge -DNua world

Reinstalled 4.4 for me. Problem here: I didn't exactly distinguish that
4.4.something is not 4.6.something in the result list. So I continued
with:

# emerge --depclean -a
# cd /usr/src/linux && make oldconfig && ... the usual stuff

Wow, that went fast. Then, I realized why: I just depcleaned my 4.6 and
4.4 compile objects were still there, I tried to reinstall 4.6,
it failed - of course: The package is no longer in portage.

I thought: Okay, there's probably a reason, let's get to 4.7.2 then -
what should possibly go wrong? It's not 4.7.0 and I still have 4.6
in /boot. Yeah, what should go wrong... I shouldn't have asked. TL;DR:
I restored from backup.

This must be coincidence. I wanted to go to stable kernel at next
opportunity. But forward in version, not backward. ;-)

But let's get back to the point:

Depclean does remove multi-slotted kernel sources. It does it with
every multislot package except there's an explicit slot dependency or
you explicitly mention the slot in the world file.

Since I cannot remember such a surprise-removal* happened anytime
before and put me in such a situation, this was completely new to me.
(10+ years of Gentoo usage)

Lesson learned: Keep your eyes open. Maybe I put the kernel slot
into my world file, with the opposite downside this has. (note to
myself)


*: This is subjective, I know.

-- 
Regards,
Kai

Replies to list-only preferred.

[-- Attachment #2: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 181 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1218 bytes --]

On Fri, 2 Sep 2016 02:33:12 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:

> Am Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:56:31 +0100
> schrieb Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>:
> 
> > > - so my next upgrade would "force" me into deciding going way down
> > > (probably a bad idea) or up into unknown territory (and this showed:
> > > can also be a problem). Or I can stay with 4.6 until depclean
> > > removed it for good (which will, by the way, remove the files
> > > from /usr/src).    
> > 
> > Depclean won't remove it if you add it to world.  
> 
> Multi-slot packages ARE removed by depclean except the last stable
> version - which jumped backwards for me because I used an ~arch kernel
> that was removed from portage.

Not if you specify the version.

> Lesson learned: Keep your eyes open. Maybe I put the kernel slot
> into my world file, with the opposite downside this has. (note to
> myself)

That's exactly what I did before I started using sets.conf. There is no
downside because I don't want depclean to remove a kernel source package,
that's for me to decide on.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity;
 and I'm not sure about the the universe."
 (Albert Einstein)

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 163 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[»Q«]

On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:56:31 +0100
Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:

> On Thu, 1 Sep 2016 22:08:19 +0200, Kai Krakow wrote:
 
> > Removal of a 4.6 series ebuild also means there would follow no
> > updates  
> 
> Are there any updates to the 4.6 series or was is 4.7 considered its
> successor by the kernels devs? If the former, I can understand your
> point. If the latter, there would be no updates so there is no point.

The latter.  The announcement of that is probably what prompted the
tree-cleaning.
<http://lkml.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/1608.2/00687.html>

[gentoo-user] Re: What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Kai Krakow]

Am Sun, 21 Aug 2016 05:55:06 -0400
schrieb Rich Freeman <rich0@gentoo.org>:

> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:12 AM, Peter Humphrey
> <peter@prh.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of
> > gentoo-sources have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the
> > server chain? I get the same with UK and US sync servers.
> >  
> 
> No idea, but upstream is up to 4.4.19, and 4.6.7 (which is now EOL).
> So, those are pretty old versions.  I see 4.4.19 in the Gentoo repo,
> and 4.7.2 (which is probably where 4.6 users should be moving to).
             ^...
No, until the oom-killer bug has been completely resolved. Still
kicking in for me, killing my Chromium tabs while using VirtualBox. And
I'm having 16GB of RAM and the killer kicks in while the kernel still
reports 50% free.

-- 
Regards,
Kai

Replies to list-only preferred.

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Alarig Le Lay]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 966 bytes --]

On Sun Aug 21 10:12:59 2016, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Hello list,
> 
> After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of gentoo-sources 
> have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the server chain? I get the 
> same with UK and US sync servers.

I use webrsync and I’m also seeing this.

Trying to retrieve 20160820 snapshot from ftp://ftp.free.fr/mirrors/ftp.gentoo.org ...

[?]   == sys-kernel/gentoo-sources (4.4.6(4.4.6)@28/05/2016;
3.10.95(3.10.95)^bs 3.12.52-r1(3.12.52-r1)^bs 3.14.58-r1(3.14.58-r1)^bs 3.18.25-r1(3.18.25-r1)^bs 4.1.15-r1(4.1.15-r1)^bs 4.4.6(4.4.6)^bs ->
3.10.95(3.10.95)^bs 3.12.52-r1(3.12.52-r1)^bs 3.14.58-r1(3.14.58-r1)^bs 3.18.25-r1(3.18.25-r1)^bs 4.1.15-r1(4.1.15-r1)^bs)
Full sources including the Gentoo patchset for the 4.7 kernel tree

[ebuild  NS    ] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-4.1.15-r1:4.1.15-r1::gentoo [4.4.6:4.4.6::gentoo] USE="symlink -build -experimental -kdbus" 81 531 KiB

-- 
alarig

[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 473 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Peter.

On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:12:59AM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Hello list,

> After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of gentoo-sources 
> have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the server chain? I get the 
> same with UK and US sync servers.

I restrict myself (mostly) to stable releases, and there hasn't been one
for gentoo-sources for a very long time.  The latest stable kernel I see
(with $ eshowkw gentoo-sources) is 4.1.15-r1, although 4.4.6 was stable
and available at one stage  :-(.

> -- 
> Rgds
> Peter

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Peter Humphrey]

Hello Alan,

On Monday 22 Aug 2016 11:19:07 Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:12:59AM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of
> > gentoo-sources have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the
> > server chain? I get the same with UK and US sync servers.
> 
> I restrict myself (mostly) to stable releases, and there hasn't been one
> for gentoo-sources for a very long time.

Indeed, I've found the same on my stable systems.

> The latest stable kernel I see (with $ eshowkw gentoo-sources) is 4.1.15-
> r1, although 4.4.6 was stable and available at one stage  :-(.

My x86 box is still running 4.4.6 because I don't want to plunge all the way 
back to 4.1.45-r1. This box needs to be ~amd64 to get the latest NVMe and 
amdgpu drivers.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Alan Mackenzie]

Hello, Peter.

On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 02:23:25PM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Monday 22 Aug 2016 11:19:07 Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 10:12:59AM +0100, Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > > After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of
> > > gentoo-sources have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the
> > > server chain? I get the same with UK and US sync servers.

> > I restrict myself (mostly) to stable releases, and there hasn't been one
> > for gentoo-sources for a very long time.

> Indeed, I've found the same on my stable systems.

> > The latest stable kernel I see (with $ eshowkw gentoo-sources) is 4.1.15-
> > r1, although 4.4.6 was stable and available at one stage  :-(.

> My x86 box is still running 4.4.6 because I don't want to plunge all the way 
> back to 4.1.45-r1. This box needs to be ~amd64 to get the latest NVMe and 
> amdgpu drivers.

I never did get around to configuring and building 4.4.6.  Maybe I
should.  But my box is now pushing 7 years old and seems built like a
tank (albeit one that needed a new power supply after just over a year).

I'm hoping that when the time comes, I'll still be able to buy a
motherboard that will allow Gentoo to be installed on it.  I can't see
myself doing that any time soon.  The only real reason to get a more
powerful machine would be to be able to build libreoffice in a sensible
amount of time.  If that were a priority, I could just upgrade to 16 GB
RAM and build LO in a ramdisk.

> -- 
> Rgds
> Peter

-- 
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[J. Roeleveld]

On Sunday, August 21, 2016 10:12:59 AM Peter Humphrey wrote:
> Hello list,
> 
> After this morning's sync, both versions 4.4.6 and 4.6.4 of gentoo-sources
> have disappeared. Is this just finger trouble in the server chain? I get the
> same with UK and US sync servers.

Strange, I just resynced:

# eix gentoo-sources                                                             
[?] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources
     Available versions:  
     (3.4.112) ~3.4.112^bs
     (3.4.9999) **3.4.9999^bs
     (3.10.95) 3.10.95^bs
     (3.10.101) ~3.10.101^bs
     (3.10.102) ~3.10.102^bs
     (3.12.52-r1) 3.12.52-r1^bs
     (3.12.60) ~3.12.60^bs
     (3.12.61) ~3.12.61^bs
     (3.12.62) ~3.12.62^bs
     (3.12.9999) **3.12.9999^bs
     (3.14.58-r1) 3.14.58-r1^bs
     (3.14.73) ~3.14.73^bs
     (3.14.74) ~3.14.74^bs
     (3.14.75) ~3.14.75^bs
     (3.14.76) ~3.14.76^bs
     (3.14.77) ~3.14.77^bs
     (3.18.25-r1) 3.18.25-r1^bs
     (3.18.36) ~3.18.36^bs
     (3.18.38) ~3.18.38^bs
     (3.18.39) ~3.18.39^bs
     (3.18.40) ~3.18.40^bs
     (4.1.15-r1) 4.1.15-r1^bs{tbz2}
     (4.1.27) ~4.1.27^bs
     (4.1.29) ~4.1.29^bs
     (4.1.30) ~4.1.30^bs
     (4.4.6) 4.4.6^bs{tbz2}
     (4.4.19) ~4.4.19^bs
     (4.7.2) ~4.7.2^bs

--
Joost

PS. I use "git" to sync.

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday 23 Aug 2016 09:25:32 J. Roeleveld wrote:

> Strange, I just resynced:
> 
> # eix gentoo-sources
> [?] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources
>      Available versions:
--->8
>      (4.4.6) 4.4.6^bs{tbz2}
>      (4.4.19) ~4.4.19^bs
>      (4.7.2) ~4.7.2^bs

Same here today, not using git. Looks like it's been put back. Thanks Joost.

-- 
Rgds
Peter

Re: [gentoo-user] What's happened to gentoo-sources?

[J. Roeleveld]

On Tuesday, August 23, 2016 09:30:27 AM Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Tuesday 23 Aug 2016 09:25:32 J. Roeleveld wrote:
> > Strange, I just resynced:
> > 
> > # eix gentoo-sources
> > [?] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources
> > 
> >      Available versions:
> --->8
> 
> >      (4.4.6) 4.4.6^bs{tbz2}
> >      (4.4.19) ~4.4.19^bs
> >      (4.7.2) ~4.7.2^bs
> 
> Same here today, not using git. Looks like it's been put back. Thanks Joost.

Using git, it didn't actually disappear...
Tried a few times in last few days. 

--
Joost