[gentoo-user] baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[gentoo-user] baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Helmut Jarausch]

Hi,

after upgrading to  baselayout-2.0.0  ( and openrc ) I've got some
unpleasant surprises.
Is there an upgrade guide anywhere ?

Maybe some problems are causes by myself (accidently)

/etc/conf.d/rc  seems to have gone  (now /etc/rc.conf ?)

/etc/conf.d/net seems to have gone
  this inhibited my network after reboot
  Has it really gone or did I delete by accident ?
  After I have replaced /etc/conf.d/net from a backup
  the network came up on the next boot.

While the init scripts is running, I get the following
messages never seen before

- cruft in proc

- net.ppp0 not under our control, aborting
  Fortunately it didn't abort my ppp connection
  (otherwise there wouldn't been this email)

Are there more problems to be expected?

Many thanks for your help,

Helmut Jarausch

Lehrstuhl fuer Numerische Mathematik
RWTH - Aachen University
D 52056 Aachen, Germany
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[forgottenwizard]

On 16:03 Thu 17 Apr     , Helmut Jarausch wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> after upgrading to  baselayout-2.0.0  ( and openrc ) I've got some
> unpleasant surprises.
> Is there an upgrade guide anywhere ?
> 
> Maybe some problems are causes by myself (accidently)
> 
> /etc/conf.d/rc  seems to have gone  (now /etc/rc.conf ?)
> 
> /etc/conf.d/net seems to have gone
>   this inhibited my network after reboot
>   Has it really gone or did I delete by accident ?
>   After I have replaced /etc/conf.d/net from a backup
>   the network came up on the next boot.
> 
> While the init scripts is running, I get the following
> messages never seen before
> 
> - cruft in proc
> 
> - net.ppp0 not under our control, aborting
>   Fortunately it didn't abort my ppp connection
>   (otherwise there wouldn't been this email)
> 
> Are there more problems to be expected?
> 
> Many thanks for your help,
> 
> Helmut Jarausch
> 
> Lehrstuhl fuer Numerische Mathematik
> RWTH - Aachen University
> D 52056 Aachen, Germany
> -- 
> gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
> 
> 

There is also a thread discussing the new baselayout.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 612 bytes --]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:03:09 +0200 (CEST), Helmut Jarausch wrote:

> after upgrading to  baselayout-2.0.0  ( and openrc ) I've got some
> unpleasant surprises.

Because you didn't read the elog messages.

> Is there an upgrade guide anywhere ?

Yes, and emerge tells you to read it:

You should now update all files in /etc, using etc-update
or equivalent before restarting any services or this host.

Please read the migration guide available at:
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml


-- 
Neil Bothwick

We are THOR of Borg... your RFC compliant mailbox has been assimilated

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 16:03:09 +0200 (CEST), Helmut Jarausch wrote:
> > after upgrading to  baselayout-2.0.0  ( and openrc ) I've got some
> > unpleasant surprises.
>
> Because you didn't read the elog messages.

it is still not ok to remove /etc/conf.d/net. That is extremly stupid.

Oh, and another stupid think.

fsck runs with the -p option.  -p for prune. But xfs does not now the -p 
option and reiser4 lists all plugins.

The smart thing would be changing -p to -a - but our beloved devs don't like 
intelligent solutions, instead there are patches for xfs and reiser4progs - 
which are not in the tree - fucking up systems with these fs.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Dirk Heinrichs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 227 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag, den 17.04.2008, 17:23 +0200 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
> fsck runs with the -p option.  -p for prune. But xfs does not now the
> -p option

Just set fsck to 0 in fstab for xfs volumes.

Bye...

	Dirk

[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 17.04.2008, 17:23 +0200 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
> > fsck runs with the -p option.  -p for prune. But xfs does not now the
> > -p option
>
> Just set fsck to 0 in fstab for xfs volumes.
>
> Bye...
>
> 	Dirk

no, the thing is, -p for 'automatic check&repair' is just wrong. -a would be 
better. Because -a is understood by a lot more fscks.

-p as prune/automatic repair is only understood by ext2/3 and reiserfsck. 
-a is there for a reason. A good one.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Dirk Heinrichs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 759 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag, den 17.04.2008, 20:36 +0200 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
> On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 17.04.2008, 17:23 +0200 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
> > > fsck runs with the -p option.  -p for prune. But xfs does not now the
> > > -p option
> >
> > Just set fsck to 0 in fstab for xfs volumes.
>
> no, the thing is, -p for 'automatic check&repair' is just wrong. -a would be 
> better. Because -a is understood by a lot more fscks.
> 
> -p as prune/automatic repair is only understood by ext2/3 and reiserfsck. 
> -a is there for a reason. A good one.

Both of them have no effect on fsck.xfs, because no matter what options
you give to a dummy, it will stay a dummy.

Bye...

	Dirk

[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 17.04.2008, 20:36 +0200 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
> > On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > > Am Donnerstag, den 17.04.2008, 17:23 +0200 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
> > > > fsck runs with the -p option.  -p for prune. But xfs does not now the
> > > > -p option
> > >
> > > Just set fsck to 0 in fstab for xfs volumes.
> >
> > no, the thing is, -p for 'automatic check&repair' is just wrong. -a would
> > be better. Because -a is understood by a lot more fscks.
> >
> > -p as prune/automatic repair is only understood by ext2/3 and reiserfsck.
> > -a is there for a reason. A good one.
>
> Both of them have no effect on fsck.xfs, because no matter what options
> you give to a dummy, it will stay a dummy.
>
> Bye...
>
> 	Dirk

yeah, xfs is double fucked ;)

but there are more fs than xfs, reiser(fs/4) and ext2/3.

If you look into man fsck you find -a but not -p.

So no matter what, -a is wrong and patching the tools instead of just 
replacing a letter is IMHO stupid&dangerous.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Dirk Heinrichs]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 915 bytes --]

Am Donnerstag, den 17.04.2008, 20:36 +0200 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
> On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Dirk Heinrichs wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 17.04.2008, 17:23 +0200 schrieb Volker Armin Hemmann:
> > > fsck runs with the -p option.  -p for prune. But xfs does not now the
> > > -p option
> >
> > Just set fsck to 0 in fstab for xfs volumes.

> no, the thing is, -p for 'automatic check&repair' is just wrong. -a would be 
> better. Because -a is understood by a lot more fscks.
> 
> -p as prune/automatic repair is only understood by ext2/3 and reiserfsck. 
> -a is there for a reason. A good one.

Not using fsck for xfs also has a reason. A good one. From "man
fsck.xfs":

XFS is a journaling filesystem and performs recovery at mount(8) time if
necessary,  so  fsck.xfs simply exits with a zero exit status.

So whatever option you give to it, it doesn't matter.

Bye...

	Dirk

[-- Attachment #2: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 450 bytes --]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:23:18 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:

> > Because you didn't read the elog messages.  
> 
> it is still not ok to remove /etc/conf.d/net. That is extremly stupid.

It would be, but it wasn't removed on any of the three machines I
upgraded. /etc/init.d/net.eth0 was removed on all of them, but that is
documented in the upgrade guide.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

"I need your clothes, your boots, and your tagline!"

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Michael Schmarck]

· Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>:

> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:23:18 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> 
>> > Because you didn't read the elog messages.  
>> 
>> it is still not ok to remove /etc/conf.d/net. That is extremly stupid.
> 
> It would be, but it wasn't removed on any of the three machines I
> upgraded. 

Armin has at least one machine and I've got 2 were this happened and
there are reports in the forum discussion thread reg. disappearance
of /etc/conf.d/net (or rather, that it was replaced with a
basically blank default file).

So, I think, that your system is a bit odd.

Michael Schmarck
-- 
"Turn on, tune up, rock out."
-- Billy Gibbons


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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Daniel Pielmeier]

Michael Schmarck schrieb:
> · Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk>:
> 
>> On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:23:18 +0200, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>
>>>> Because you didn't read the elog messages.  
>>> it is still not ok to remove /etc/conf.d/net. That is extremly stupid.
>> It would be, but it wasn't removed on any of the three machines I
>> upgraded. 
> 
> Armin has at least one machine and I've got 2 were this happened and
> there are reports in the forum discussion thread reg. disappearance
> of /etc/conf.d/net (or rather, that it was replaced with a
> basically blank default file).
> 
> So, I think, that your system is a bit odd.
> 
> Michael Schmarck


http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselayout-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:

>
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselay
>out-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3

oh great, changes without a rX bump. I hate that.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Daniel Pielmeier]

Volker Armin Hemmann schrieb:
> On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> 
>> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselay
>> out-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3
> 
> oh great, changes without a rX bump. I hate that.

No need for a rev bump here i guess! Anybody who runs into this will not 
benefit from a rev bump, as the files were gone and are not restored by 
the bump.

Also this package is in ~arch and left package.mask recently, so it is 
under testing and you have to expect problems!

I use openrc since it's first days in the openrc-overlay and migration 
went smooth! I had only problems after the transition were i was left 
with an unbootable system because of some bad changes in the 
git-repository of openrc, but this was resolvable with a live-cd.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> Volker Armin Hemmann schrieb:
> > On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:
> >> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/base
> >>lay out-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3
> >
> > oh great, changes without a rX bump. I hate that.
>
> No need for a rev bump here i guess! Anybody who runs into this will not
> benefit from a rev bump, as the files were gone and are not restored by
> the bump.

yes, need for a rev bump. If one person has a problem and another person does 
not have the problem, it is helpfull to be able to determine the exact 
version of the packet installed. Not bumping revs makes that harder. 
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

[gentoo-user] Versioning scheme (was: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises)

[Michael Schmarck]

Volker Armin Hemmann <volker.armin.hemmann@tu-clausthal.de> wrote:

> yes, need for a rev bump. If one person has a problem and another person
> does not have the problem, it is helpfull to be able to determine the
> exact version of the packet installed. Not bumping revs makes that harder.

Exactly. There should be a way to specify what "version" of a
package someone is using. Maybe something like a "sub-rev".
And changed sub-rev's should not cause automatic upgrade.

Michael

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Volker Armin Hemmann]

On Donnerstag, 17. April 2008, Daniel Pielmeier wrote:

> Also this package is in ~arch and left package.mask recently, so it is
> under testing and you have to expect problems!

problems, yes. The nuking of important config files and non-boot: no.

That is complety inacceptable for something that is not package.masked. 
Especially in the second case where a simple replace of a single letter could 
have avoided them. 
That the problem is known since Octobre does not make that better in any way.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 595 bytes --]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:45:53 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:

> > It would be, but it wasn't removed on any of the three machines I
> > upgraded.   
> 
> Armin has at least one machine and I've got 2 were this happened and
> there are reports in the forum discussion thread reg. disappearance
> of /etc/conf.d/net (or rather, that it was replaced with a
> basically blank default file).
> 
> So, I think, that your system is a bit odd.

Maybe I should have specified that the three machines all have very
different setups.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

It's not a bug, it's tradition!

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 410 bytes --]

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:34:56 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> > > It would be, but it wasn't removed on any of the three machines I
> > > upgraded.     

> > So, I think, that your system is a bit odd.  
> 
> Maybe I should have specified that the three machines all have very
> different setups.

Fourth time unlucky for me :(


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Seduced by the Chocolate side of the Force...

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thursday 17 April 2008, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
> > Because you didn't read the elog messages.
>
> it is still not ok to remove /etc/conf.d/net. That is extremly
> stupid.

This one caught me too, and I DID read the elog message plus the upgrade 
guide. /etc/conf.d/net is not mentioned anywhere. And there was nothing 
in conf-update either. I most certainly would have spotted it if there 
were.

I can recreate the settings easily enough, except for the wireless keys 
that used to be in the old file.....

So I would upgrade your "extremely stupid" opinion to something more 
like "Ravenous Bluggbatter Beast of Traal level stupidity". Yup, it 
really is that bad and the flood of user support questions from this is 
going to be quite long.

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

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

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Roy Wright]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Thursday 17 April 2008, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote:
>>> Because you didn't read the elog messages.
>> it is still not ok to remove /etc/conf.d/net. That is extremly
>> stupid.
> 
> This one caught me too, and I DID read the elog message plus the upgrade 
> guide. /etc/conf.d/net is not mentioned anywhere. And there was nothing 
> in conf-update either. I most certainly would have spotted it if there 
> were.
> 
> I can recreate the settings easily enough, except for the wireless keys 
> that used to be in the old file.....

If you use dispatch-conf, check /etc/config-archive for your previous
version.  You might get lucky...

HTH,
Roy
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Graham Murray]

Roy Wright <roy@wright.org> writes:

> If you use dispatch-conf, check /etc/config-archive for your previous
> version.  You might get lucky...

It was not there for me. conf.d/net.example was in there but not
conf.d/net which contained the pre-baselayout-2 network
configuration. My main complaint was that there was, at the time (it has
since been added to the upgrade guide), no warning that /etc/conf.d/net
would be hosed and replaced by a skeleton.
-- 
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 880 bytes --]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:10:59 +0100, Graham Murray wrote:

> > If you use dispatch-conf, check /etc/config-archive for your previous
> > version.  You might get lucky...  

That won't help because the replacement is done by the ebuild.

> It was not there for me. conf.d/net.example was in there but not
> conf.d/net which contained the pre-baselayout-2 network
> configuration. My main complaint was that there was, at the time (it has
> since been added to the upgrade guide), no warning that /etc/conf.d/net
> would be hosed and replaced by a skeleton.

The upgrade guide makes no mention of this, only of the removal
of /etc/init.d/eth0, which is easily replaced. It is also an apparently
random occurrence, at least in my experience. I upgraded another machine
this morning and the file was untouched.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Nice computers don't go down.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Justin]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 472 bytes --]


> I upgraded another machine
> this morning and the file was untouched.
>
>
>   

Me too. But I have another problem on two machines. After the upgrade 
following message is drop while rebooting:

 * Stopping gdm ...
 * start-stop-daemon: fopen `/var/run/gdm.pid': No such file or directory
 [ ok ]


What does this mean? the pid is there while gdm is running. The only 
thing which is stopped befor is the local service.
Any idea?

Thanks,
justin


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

[gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Michael Schmarck]

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> So I would upgrade your "extremely stupid" opinion to something more
> like "Ravenous Bluggbatter Beast of Traal level stupidity". Yup, it
> really is that bad and the flood of user support questions from this is
> going to be quite long.

While I agree that this might not have been the most clever
idea "they" ever had, I would like to point your nose to
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselayout-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3

What I'm trying to say is, that the number of user support questions
probably won't be that long.

Michael

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 668 bytes --]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:10:30 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:

> While I agree that this might not have been the most clever
> idea "they" ever had, I would like to point your nose to
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselayout-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3

Now it makes sense. If you have not modified conf.d/net since the last
baselayout emerge, portage considers the file to be part of the old
package and removes it. That's why only some machines are affected. It
also shows that this is not a bug with the new baselayout but a time
bomb in the 1.x ebuilds.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

No maintenance: Impossible to fix.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[b.n.]

Neil Bothwick ha scritto:
> On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:10:30 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:
> 
>> While I agree that this might not have been the most clever
>> idea "they" ever had, I would like to point your nose to
>> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselayout-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3
> 
> Now it makes sense. If you have not modified conf.d/net since the last
> baselayout emerge, portage considers the file to be part of the old
> package and removes it. That's why only some machines are affected. It
> also shows that this is not a bug with the new baselayout but a time
> bomb in the 1.x ebuilds.

Err, how can it make sense?
Does it make sense to have portage *remove* (or substitute silently) 
files in /etc? Maybe if I don't modify conf.d/net is because I don't had 
the need to modify it...

No flaming intent here, but it does not make sense to me.

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

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1264 bytes --]

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:49:55 +0200, b.n. wrote:

> > Now it makes sense. If you have not modified conf.d/net since the last
> > baselayout emerge, portage considers the file to be part of the old
> > package and removes it. That's why only some machines are affected. It
> > also shows that this is not a bug with the new baselayout but a time
> > bomb in the 1.x ebuilds.  
> 
> Err, how can it make sense?
> Does it make sense to have portage *remove* (or substitute silently) 
> files in /etc? Maybe if I don't modify conf.d/net is because I don't
> had the need to modify it...

I mean it makes sense how it happens, not that it is sensible to do. It's
not that you haven't modified it, in that case it doesn't matter that the
1.x default is replaced with the 2.0 default. But the way this explains
the 1.x ebuild working means that if you do modify the file under 1.x,
then emerge baselayout 1.x again, the modified file is considered to have
been installed by portage and safe to replace with a later default,
although even that logic is flawed.

It's all academic now, as the bug has been uncovered and fixed, which is
exactly what the testing arches are for.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Is fire supposed to shoot out of it like that?

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 197 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

[Andrés Becerra Sandoval]

On 4/17/08, Helmut Jarausch <jarausch@igpm.rwth-aachen.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>  after upgrading to  baselayout-2.0.0  ( and openrc ) I've got some
>  unpleasant surprises.
>  Is there an upgrade guide anywhere ?
>
>  Maybe some problems are causes by myself (accidently)
>
>  /etc/conf.d/rc  seems to have gone  (now /etc/rc.conf ?)
>
>  /etc/conf.d/net seems to have gone
>   this inhibited my network after reboot
>   Has it really gone or did I delete by accident ?
>   After I have replaced /etc/conf.d/net from a backup
>   the network came up on the next boot.
>
>  While the init scripts is running, I get the following
>  messages never seen before
>
>  - cruft in proc
>
>  - net.ppp0 not under our control, aborting
>   Fortunately it didn't abort my ppp connection
>   (otherwise there wouldn't been this email)
>
>  Are there more problems to be expected?
>
>  Many thanks for your help,
>
>  Helmut Jarausch
>
>  Lehrstuhl fuer Numerische Mathematik
>  RWTH - Aachen University
>  D 52056 Aachen, Germany
>
> --
>  gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
>

Hello,

The migration guide is here:

http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/openrc-migration.xml

I think it will help you solve your problems.

-- 
  Andrés