[gentoo-user] hardened-sources reverted to 2.6.39-r8 :(

[gentoo-user] hardened-sources reverted to 2.6.39-r8 :(

[Pandu Poluan]

Hmm, just ran eix-sync followed by emerge -pvuD @world...

And I was unpleasantly surprised when I see
sys-kernel/hardened-sources going back from the currently installed
(and booting) 2.6.39-r13 to -r8

Changelog does not described why -r13 is pulled.

So, what should I do now? Should I recompile the kernel to 2.6.39-r8?
Or just use existing kernel? Or just forget 2.6.x completely and go
straight to 3.0.4-r2 ?

Rgds,
-- 
FdS Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~

 • LOPSA Member #15248
 • Blog : http://pepoluan.tumblr.com
 • Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan

Re: [gentoo-user] hardened-sources reverted to 2.6.39-r8 :(

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:15:02 +0700
Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:

> Hmm, just ran eix-sync followed by emerge -pvuD @world...
> 
> And I was unpleasantly surprised when I see
> sys-kernel/hardened-sources going back from the currently installed
> (and booting) 2.6.39-r13 to -r8
> 
> Changelog does not described why -r13 is pulled.

Actually it does :-)

  13 Sep 2011; Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org>
  -hardened-sources-2.6.32-r64.ebuild,
  -hardened-sources-2.6.39-r12.ebuild,
  -hardened-sources-2.6.39-r13.ebuild, -hardened-sources-3.0.3.ebuild:
  Removed deprecated versions


Maybe -r13 just never made it to stable at all?

If it's working fine for you and you are happy with -r13, then leave it
alone. It will continue to boot until you decide to upgrade to
something else. Maybe you should list that version explicitly in world
just in case it accidentally goes away with a hasty --depclean


> So, what should I do now? Should I recompile the kernel to 2.6.39-r8?
> Or just use existing kernel? Or just forget 2.6.x completely and go
> straight to 3.0.4-r2 ?



-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] hardened-sources reverted to 2.6.39-r8 :(

[Pandu Poluan]

On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 19:26, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:15:02 +0700
> Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>
>> Hmm, just ran eix-sync followed by emerge -pvuD @world...
>>
>> And I was unpleasantly surprised when I see
>> sys-kernel/hardened-sources going back from the currently installed
>> (and booting) 2.6.39-r13 to -r8
>>
>> Changelog does not described why -r13 is pulled.
>
> Actually it does :-)
>
>  13 Sep 2011; Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org>
>  -hardened-sources-2.6.32-r64.ebuild,
>  -hardened-sources-2.6.39-r12.ebuild,
>  -hardened-sources-2.6.39-r13.ebuild, -hardened-sources-3.0.3.ebuild:
>  Removed deprecated versions
>
>

Yeah, it's "deprecated", but what does that mean, exactly?

> Maybe -r13 just never made it to stable at all?
>

It's never stable, yes. But somehow I'm more comfortable with -r13
than -r8 (5 revisions).

> If it's working fine for you and you are happy with -r13, then leave it
> alone. It will continue to boot until you decide to upgrade to
> something else. Maybe you should list that version explicitly in world
> just in case it accidentally goes away with a hasty --depclean
>

I see. I'll just keep the -r13 sources then.

Thanks!

Rgds,
-- 
FdS Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~

 • LOPSA Member #15248
 • Blog : http://pepoluan.tumblr.com
 • Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan

Re: [gentoo-user] hardened-sources reverted to 2.6.39-r8 :(

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:34:36 +0700
Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:

> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 19:26, Alan McKinnon
> <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:15:02 +0700
> > Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
> >
> >> Hmm, just ran eix-sync followed by emerge -pvuD @world...
> >>
> >> And I was unpleasantly surprised when I see
> >> sys-kernel/hardened-sources going back from the currently installed
> >> (and booting) 2.6.39-r13 to -r8
> >>
> >> Changelog does not described why -r13 is pulled.
> >
> > Actually it does :-)
> >
> >  13 Sep 2011; Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org>
> >  -hardened-sources-2.6.32-r64.ebuild,
> >  -hardened-sources-2.6.39-r12.ebuild,
> >  -hardened-sources-2.6.39-r13.ebuild,
> > -hardened-sources-3.0.3.ebuild: Removed deprecated versions
> >
> >
> 
> Yeah, it's "deprecated", but what does that mean, exactly?

Nobody knows what deprecated means. Usually it's developer whim...

Like "synergy", nobody on the planet know what that means either

> > Maybe -r13 just never made it to stable at all?
> >
> 
> It's never stable, yes. But somehow I'm more comfortable with -r13
> than -r8 (5 revisions).

I tend to agree. Higher -r numbers include more kernel bugfixes and
Linus has a very long history of being correct about fixes with not many
wrong calls. 

I wish people wouldn't just remove stuff without full details. If
there's an issue with that code, there should be a bug at b.g.o. and
the Changelog should mention it.

Then folks like yourself can read it and make informed decisions.
As it stands, you have nothing but mystery. Argggg.

> 
> > If it's working fine for you and you are happy with -r13, then
> > leave it alone. It will continue to boot until you decide to
> > upgrade to something else. Maybe you should list that version
> > explicitly in world just in case it accidentally goes away with a
> > hasty --depclean
> >
> 
> I see. I'll just keep the -r13 sources then.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Rgds,



-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] hardened-sources reverted to 2.6.39-r8 :(

[Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2144 bytes --]

El 21/09/11 15:48, Alan McKinnon escribió:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 19:34:36 +0700
> Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Sep 21, 2011 at 19:26, Alan McKinnon
>> <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 12:15:02 +0700
>>> Pandu Poluan <pandu@poluan.info> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hmm, just ran eix-sync followed by emerge -pvuD @world...
>>>>
>>>> And I was unpleasantly surprised when I see
>>>> sys-kernel/hardened-sources going back from the currently installed
>>>> (and booting) 2.6.39-r13 to -r8
>>>>
>>>> Changelog does not described why -r13 is pulled.
>>> Actually it does :-)
>>>
>>>  13 Sep 2011; Anthony G. Basile <blueness@gentoo.org>
>>>  -hardened-sources-2.6.32-r64.ebuild,
>>>  -hardened-sources-2.6.39-r12.ebuild,
>>>  -hardened-sources-2.6.39-r13.ebuild,
>>> -hardened-sources-3.0.3.ebuild: Removed deprecated versions
>>>
>>>
>> Yeah, it's "deprecated", but what does that mean, exactly?
> Nobody knows what deprecated means. Usually it's developer whim...
>
> Like "synergy", nobody on the planet know what that means either
>
>>> Maybe -r13 just never made it to stable at all?
>>>
>> It's never stable, yes. But somehow I'm more comfortable with -r13
>> than -r8 (5 revisions).
> I tend to agree. Higher -r numbers include more kernel bugfixes and
> Linus has a very long history of being correct about fixes with not many
> wrong calls. 
>
> I wish people wouldn't just remove stuff without full details. If
> there's an issue with that code, there should be a bug at b.g.o. and
> the Changelog should mention it.
>
> Then folks like yourself can read it and make informed decisions.
> As it stands, you have nothing but mystery. Argggg.
Well deprecated version removal tends to happen because we are not going
to aim for those versions stabilization AND there is a newer version
available AND upstream tends to ignore bugs happening on older versions.

What this means for you is that we are not going to force you to upgrade
but if something fails you are in your own ;)

PS: Next time come by #gentoo-hardened we won't bite you, I promise ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] hardened-sources reverted to 2.6.39-r8 :(

[Pandu Poluan]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1252 bytes --]

On Sep 21, 2011 9:13 PM, "Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)" <
klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Well deprecated version removal tends to happen because we are not going
> to aim for those versions stabilization AND there is a newer version
> available AND upstream tends to ignore bugs happening on older versions.
>

Aha, thanks for the explanation.

I do agree with the stance to not push for stabilization if older versions
will not be supported by upstream. However, since -r13 is by definition 5
revisions later than -r8, and to the best of my knowledge has no
show-stopping bugs (at least, none on my systems -- touch wood!), IMHO -r13
shouldn't be removed. Just remove the intermediate revisions.

Especially since going from 2.6.x to 3.x exposed a LOT of package breakages
(e.g., packages hard-coded to expect exactly /^2\.6/), I'm still not
comfortable enough using 3.x. Maybe later in December.

> What this means for you is that we are not going to force you to upgrade
> but if something fails you are in your own ;)
>

Fair enough. But now I have to do additional acrobatics for new systems ;-)

> PS: Next time come by #gentoo-hardened we won't bite you, I promise ;)
>

Proomiiiise...? (in the voice of a little girl)

:-D

Rgds,

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1475 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] hardened-sources reverted to 2.6.39-r8 :(

[Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1613 bytes --]

El 21/09/11 18:39, Pandu Poluan escribió:
>
>
> On Sep 21, 2011 9:13 PM, "Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)"
> <klondike@gentoo.org <mailto:klondike@gentoo.org>> wrote:
> >
> > Well deprecated version removal tends to happen because we are not going
> > to aim for those versions stabilization AND there is a newer version
> > available AND upstream tends to ignore bugs happening on older versions.
> >
>
> Aha, thanks for the explanation.
>
> I do agree with the stance to not push for stabilization if older
> versions will not be supported by upstream. However, since -r13 is by
> definition 5 revisions later than -r8, and to the best of my knowledge
> has no show-stopping bugs (at least, none on my systems -- touch
> wood!), IMHO -r13 shouldn't be removed. Just remove the intermediate
> revisions.
>
There is a show stopping bug
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=378731 :P
>
> Especially since going from 2.6.x to 3.x exposed a LOT of package
> breakages (e.g., packages hard-coded to expect exactly /^2\.6/), I'm
> still not comfortable enough using 3.x. Maybe later in December.
>
> > What this means for you is that we are not going to force you to upgrade
> > but if something fails you are in your own ;)
> >
>
> Fair enough. But now I have to do additional acrobatics for new
> systems ;-)
>
Well you can always use an overlay I think the package wasn't removed.
>
> > PS: Next time come by #gentoo-hardened we won't bite you, I promise ;)
> >
>
> Proomiiiise...? (in the voice of a little girl)
>
Well just don't get to near of Aleister :P

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2722 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] hardened-sources reverted to 2.6.39-r8 :(

[Manuel McLure]

On Sep 21, 2011 9:13 PM, "Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)"
<klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
> Well deprecated version removal tends to happen because we are not
> going
> to aim for those versions stabilization AND there is a newer version
> available AND upstream tends to ignore bugs happening on older
> versions.

I myself am a little miffed that all gentoo-sources between 2.6.33 and
2.6.37 inclusive were removed from the tree. My MythTV box was running
2.6.35 because it was the highest kernel I could use without having to
move to lirc-0.9.0 (which I have been unable to make work correctly in
multiple attempts.) I had a complete disk failure (LVM won't even
succeed in doing "vgchange -ay") and had to rebuild the system, now
I'm stuck back at 2.6.32 :(

I suppose it's time to again see if I can figure out the magic to get
lirc-0.9.0 to work.
-- 
Manuel A. McLure WW1FA <manuel@mclure.org> <http://www.mclure.org>
...for in Ulthar, according to an ancient and significant law,
no man may kill a cat.                       -- H.P. Lovecraft

Re: [gentoo-user] hardened-sources reverted to 2.6.39-r8 :(

[Alan McKinnon]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:09:14 +0200
"Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)" <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:

> > I wish people wouldn't just remove stuff without full details. If
> > there's an issue with that code, there should be a bug at b.g.o. and
> > the Changelog should mention it.
> >
> > Then folks like yourself can read it and make informed decisions.
> > As it stands, you have nothing but mystery. Argggg.  
> Well deprecated version removal tends to happen because we are not
> going to aim for those versions stabilization AND there is a newer
> version available AND upstream tends to ignore bugs happening on
> older versions.
> 
> What this means for you is that we are not going to force you to
> upgrade but if something fails you are in your own ;)
> 
> PS: Next time come by #gentoo-hardened we won't bite you, I promise ;)

My comment wasn't really directed at -hardened specifically. I've just
had a belly-full lately of $STUFF being changed at $RANDOM times by arb
$PEOPLE, and not specifically Gentoo either.

SO I sounded off a bit and let off some steam. Sorry if it came across
as directed at your team, that wasn't the intent.

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] hardened-sources reverted to 2.6.39-r8 :(

[Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1228 bytes --]

El 22/09/11 22:07, Manuel McLure escribió:
> On Sep 21, 2011 9:13 PM, "Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)"
> <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
>> Well deprecated version removal tends to happen because we are not
>> going
>> to aim for those versions stabilization AND there is a newer version
>> available AND upstream tends to ignore bugs happening on older
>> versions.
> I myself am a little miffed that all gentoo-sources between 2.6.33 and
> 2.6.37 inclusive were removed from the tree. My MythTV box was running
> 2.6.35 because it was the highest kernel I could use without having to
> move to lirc-0.9.0 (which I have been unable to make work correctly in
> multiple attempts.) I had a complete disk failure (LVM won't even
> succeed in doing "vgchange -ay") and had to rebuild the system, now
> I'm stuck back at 2.6.32 :(
Or you can just get the ebuilds for CVS:
http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/sys-kernel/hardened-sources/?hideattic=0
the patches for all those kernels are still there and we won't remove
them in the near future:
http://dev.gentoo.org/~blueness/hardened-sources/hardened-patches/

Thank blueness for this answer, I'm only being the mailman here ;)


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] hardened-sources reverted to 2.6.39-r8 :(

[Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1653 bytes --]

El 22/09/11 22:30, Alan McKinnon escribió:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:09:14 +0200
> "Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)" <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
>
>>> I wish people wouldn't just remove stuff without full details. If
>>> there's an issue with that code, there should be a bug at b.g.o. and
>>> the Changelog should mention it.
>>>
>>> Then folks like yourself can read it and make informed decisions.
>>> As it stands, you have nothing but mystery. Argggg.  
>> Well deprecated version removal tends to happen because we are not
>> going to aim for those versions stabilization AND there is a newer
>> version available AND upstream tends to ignore bugs happening on
>> older versions.
>>
>> What this means for you is that we are not going to force you to
>> upgrade but if something fails you are in your own ;)
>>
>> PS: Next time come by #gentoo-hardened we won't bite you, I promise ;)
> My comment wasn't really directed at -hardened specifically. I've just
> had a belly-full lately of $STUFF being changed at $RANDOM times by arb
> $PEOPLE, and not specifically Gentoo either.
>
> SO I sounded off a bit and let off some steam. Sorry if it came across
> as directed at your team, that wasn't the intent
Nothing to be sorry about, you really raised a valid point as is that
our teams deprecation policies may not be the clearest out there. And as
a user you deserved an explanation. I'd really hope all the projects
(and not only in Gentoo) tried to justify their decisions when somebody
couldn't understand them.

Anyway even if that wasn't the case, constructive criticism is always
welcome here :D


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] hardened-sources reverted to 2.6.39-r8 :(

[Alan McKinnon]

On Thu, 22 Sep 2011 23:32:07 +0200
"Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)" <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:

> El 22/09/11 22:30, Alan McKinnon escribió:
> > On Wed, 21 Sep 2011 16:09:14 +0200
> > "Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera (klondike)" <klondike@gentoo.org>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>> I wish people wouldn't just remove stuff without full details. If
> >>> there's an issue with that code, there should be a bug at b.g.o.
> >>> and the Changelog should mention it.
> >>>
> >>> Then folks like yourself can read it and make informed decisions.
> >>> As it stands, you have nothing but mystery. Argggg.  
> >> Well deprecated version removal tends to happen because we are not
> >> going to aim for those versions stabilization AND there is a newer
> >> version available AND upstream tends to ignore bugs happening on
> >> older versions.
> >>
> >> What this means for you is that we are not going to force you to
> >> upgrade but if something fails you are in your own ;)
> >>
> >> PS: Next time come by #gentoo-hardened we won't bite you, I
> >> promise ;)
> > My comment wasn't really directed at -hardened specifically. I've
> > just had a belly-full lately of $STUFF being changed at $RANDOM
> > times by arb $PEOPLE, and not specifically Gentoo either.
> >
> > SO I sounded off a bit and let off some steam. Sorry if it came
> > across as directed at your team, that wasn't the intent
> Nothing to be sorry about, you really raised a valid point as is that
> our teams deprecation policies may not be the clearest out there. And
> as a user you deserved an explanation. I'd really hope all the
> projects (and not only in Gentoo) tried to justify their decisions
> when somebody couldn't understand them.
> 
> Anyway even if that wasn't the case, constructive criticism is always
> welcome here :D

My favoured deprecation notification is a deprecation bug in the
bugzilla with the bug # listed in the Changelog.

The plus side is that the record stay in public view for ever and you
no longer have to explain yourself repeatedly, just link to the bug

-- 
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] hardened-sources reverted to 2.6.39-r8 :(

[Manuel McLure]

On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Francisco Blas Izquierdo Riera
(klondike) <klondike@gentoo.org> wrote:
> Or you can just get the ebuilds for CVS:
> http://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/sys-kernel/hardened-sources/?hideattic=0
> the patches for all those kernels are still there and we won't remove
> them in the near future:
> http://dev.gentoo.org/~blueness/hardened-sources/hardened-patches/

Now why didn't I think of that? Thanks (to you and blueness)!
-- 
Manuel A. McLure WW1FA <manuel@mclure.org> <http://www.mclure.org>
...for in Ulthar, according to an ancient and significant law,
no man may kill a cat.                       -- H.P. Lovecraft