[gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Dale]

Howdy,

I did some googling and a search on the forums on this.  It seems eject
is part of util-linux now but something just won't let me get past this
blocker.  Here is what I get, after updating everything else by hand:

root@fireball / # emerge -uvaDN world

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild  N     ] sys-block/eject-2.1.5-r2::gentoo  USE="nls" 121 KiB
[ebuild     UD ] sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3::gentoo [2.26.1::gentoo]
USE="bash-completion%* cramfs ncurses nls pam static-libs* suid udev
unicode -caps -cytune% -fdformat -python (-selinux) -slang {-test}
-tty-helpers (-systemd%)" ABI_X86="(64) (-32) (-x32)"
PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET="python2_7 -python3_3 -python3_4"
PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_3 -python3_4" 0 KiB
[blocks B      ] sys-block/eject ("sys-block/eject" is blocking
sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3)

Total: 2 packages (1 downgrade, 1 new), Size of downloads: 121 KiB
Conflict: 1 block (1 unsatisfied)

 * Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be
 * installed at the same time on the same system.

  (sys-block/eject-2.1.5-r2:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
pulled in by
    sys-block/eject required by (virtual/eject-0:0/0::gentoo, installed)

  (sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for
merge) pulled in by
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.13 required by
(www-plugins/nspluginwrapper-1.4.4-r3:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    <sys-apps/util-linux-2.25[static-libs] required by
(sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.13 required by
(sys-power/pm-utils-1.4.1-r6:0/0::gentoo, installed)
   
>=sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,abi_ppc_32(-)?,abi_ppc_64(-)?,abi_s390_32(-)?,abi_s390_64(-)?]
(>=sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3[abi_x86_64(-)]) required by
(x11-libs/libSM-1.2.2-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.20 required by
(sys-fs/eudev-2.1.1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.21 required by
(sys-kernel/dracut-041:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.20.1-r2 required by
(sys-fs/udisks-2.1.3:2/2::gentoo, installed)
    sys-apps/util-linux required by
(app-text/build-docbook-catalog-1.19.1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
   
>=sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,abi_ppc_32(-)?,abi_ppc_64(-)?,abi_s390_32(-)?,abi_s390_64(-)?]
(>=sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3[abi_x86_64(-)]) required by
(net-libs/gupnp-0.20.13:0/4::gentoo, installed)
    sys-apps/util-linux required by
(sys-apps/gptfdisk-0.8.10:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.16 required by
(sys-fs/mdadm-3.3.1-r2:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.16 required by
(sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.42.12:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    sys-apps/util-linux required by (app-text/xmlto-0.0.26:0/0::gentoo,
installed)
    sys-apps/util-linux required by
(app-text/rarian-0.8.1-r2:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.19 required by
(dev-libs/rasqal-0.9.29:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.20 required by
(sys-block/gparted-0.21.0:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    sys-apps/util-linux required by @system
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.16 required by
(sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.22 required by (virtual/eject-0:0/0::gentoo,
installed)


For more information about Blocked Packages, please refer to the following
section of the Gentoo Linux x86 Handbook (architecture is irrelevant):

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook:X86/Working/Portage#Blocked_packages

root@fireball / #

I've tried a few things to get past it, keywording newer versions etc
but still no change.  It seems to be seriously wanting to downgrade
util-linux no matter what I do too.  Anyone run into this and find a way
past it?  Any clues? 

Thanks

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Walter Dnes]

On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 09:08:40AM -0500, Dale wrote

> Total: 2 packages (1 downgrade, 1 new), Size of downloads: 121 KiB
> Conflict: 1 block (1 unsatisfied)
> 
>  * Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be
>  * installed at the same time on the same system.
> 
>   (sys-block/eject-2.1.5-r2:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
> pulled in by
>     sys-block/eject required by (virtual/eject-0:0/0::gentoo, installed)

  Here's your problem... there's a virtual/eject-0.ebuild that can be
satisfied by any of 3 different ebuilds, as per the line...

RDEPEND="|| ( >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.22 sys-block/eject sys-block/eject-bsd )"

  Any one of them satisfies the virtual, but as the movies say,
"there can only be one".  To solve your problem...

emerge --unmerge sys-block/eject
emerge -1 sys-apps/util-linux
emerge -uvaDN world

  Comments;

1) You must specify "sys-block/eject" on the unmerge, so it doesn't
unmerge "virtual/eject" instead. (That's a different kind of
"OOPS programming" <G>)

2) manually "emerge -1 sys-apps/util-linux" so that util-linux gets in
ahead of "sys-block/eject" to satisfy "virtual/eject".

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

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Dale]

Walter Dnes wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 09:08:40AM -0500, Dale wrote
>
>> Total: 2 packages (1 downgrade, 1 new), Size of downloads: 121 KiB
>> Conflict: 1 block (1 unsatisfied)
>>
>>  * Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be
>>  * installed at the same time on the same system.
>>
>>   (sys-block/eject-2.1.5-r2:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
>> pulled in by
>>     sys-block/eject required by (virtual/eject-0:0/0::gentoo, installed)
>   Here's your problem... there's a virtual/eject-0.ebuild that can be
> satisfied by any of 3 different ebuilds, as per the line...
>
> RDEPEND="|| ( >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.22 sys-block/eject sys-block/eject-bsd )"
>
>   Any one of them satisfies the virtual, but as the movies say,
> "there can only be one".  To solve your problem...
>
> emerge --unmerge sys-block/eject
> emerge -1 sys-apps/util-linux
> emerge -uvaDN world
>
>   Comments;
>
> 1) You must specify "sys-block/eject" on the unmerge, so it doesn't
> unmerge "virtual/eject" instead. (That's a different kind of
> "OOPS programming" <G>)
>
> 2) manually "emerge -1 sys-apps/util-linux" so that util-linux gets in
> ahead of "sys-block/eject" to satisfy "virtual/eject".
>

I thought you were on to something but the version is different, which
seems to make emerge behave different.  I added -t this time.  Maybe
that will help.


root@fireball / # emerge -uvaDN world -t

These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[nomerge       ] lxde-base/lxde-meta-0.5.5-r4::gentoo
[nomerge       ]  x11-misc/pcmanfm-1.2.3::gentoo  USE="-debug"
[ebuild  N     ]   virtual/eject-0::gentoo  0 KiB
[ebuild     UD ]    sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3::gentoo
[2.26.1::gentoo] USE="bash-completion%* cramfs ncurses nls pam
static-libs* suid udev unicode -caps -cytune% -fdformat -python
(-selinux) -slang {-test} -tty-helpers (-systemd%)" ABI_X86="(64) (-32)
(-x32)" PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET="python2_7 -python3_3 -python3_4"
PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_3 -python3_4" 0 KiB
[ebuild  N     ]    sys-block/eject-2.1.5-r2::gentoo  USE="nls" 121 KiB
[blocks B      ] sys-block/eject ("sys-block/eject" is blocking
sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3)

Total: 3 packages (1 downgrade, 2 new), Size of downloads: 121 KiB
Conflict: 1 block (1 unsatisfied)

 * Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be
 * installed at the same time on the same system.

  (sys-block/eject-2.1.5-r2:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
pulled in by
    sys-block/eject required by (virtual/eject-0:0/0::gentoo, ebuild
scheduled for merge)

  (sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for
merge) pulled in by
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.13 required by
(www-plugins/nspluginwrapper-1.4.4-r3:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    <sys-apps/util-linux-2.25[static-libs] required by
(sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.13 required by
(sys-power/pm-utils-1.4.1-r6:0/0::gentoo, installed)
   
>=sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,abi_ppc_32(-)?,abi_ppc_64(-)?,abi_s390_32(-)?,abi_s390_64(-)?]
(>=sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3[abi_x86_64(-)]) required by
(x11-libs/libSM-1.2.2-r1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.20 required by
(sys-fs/eudev-2.1.1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.21 required by
(sys-kernel/dracut-041:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.20.1-r2 required by
(sys-fs/udisks-2.1.3:2/2::gentoo, installed)
    sys-apps/util-linux required by
(app-text/build-docbook-catalog-1.19.1:0/0::gentoo, installed)
   
>=sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,abi_ppc_32(-)?,abi_ppc_64(-)?,abi_s390_32(-)?,abi_s390_64(-)?]
(>=sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3[abi_x86_64(-)]) required by
(net-libs/gupnp-0.20.13:0/4::gentoo, installed)
    sys-apps/util-linux required by
(sys-apps/gptfdisk-0.8.10:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.16 required by
(sys-fs/mdadm-3.3.1-r2:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.22 required by (virtual/eject-0:0/0::gentoo,
ebuild scheduled for merge)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.16 required by
(sys-fs/e2fsprogs-1.42.12:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    sys-apps/util-linux required by (app-text/xmlto-0.0.26:0/0::gentoo,
installed)
    sys-apps/util-linux required by
(app-text/rarian-0.8.1-r2:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.19 required by
(dev-libs/rasqal-0.9.29:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.20 required by
(sys-block/gparted-0.21.0:0/0::gentoo, installed)
    sys-apps/util-linux required by @system
    >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.16 required by
(sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109:0/0::gentoo, installed)


For more information about Blocked Packages, please refer to the following
section of the Gentoo Linux x86 Handbook (architecture is irrelevant):

https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Handbook:X86/Working/Portage#Blocked_packages

root@fireball / #

It seems lxde is pulling in something that is triggering a blocker. 
Part of me thinks that doing a emerge -C util-linux and then doing the
upgrade will make it fix itself.  Thing is, looking at some of the
commands that that package provides, unmerging that may not be a good
idea.  What is also puzzling, it wants to downgrade util-linux, not
upgrade.  It seems it wants to go back to using the eject package which
is currently not needed since util-linux provides the eject command.  . 

I seem to be going in circles here.  I may have to keyword something to
get past this blocker.  Sort of make it not want to downgrade util-linux. 

Open to ideas.  I'll post if I luck up on a solution. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Alan McKinnon]

On 17/03/2015 03:43, Dale wrote:

[...snip]

> root@fireball / # emerge -uvaDN world -t
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order:
> 
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [nomerge       ] lxde-base/lxde-meta-0.5.5-r4::gentoo
> [nomerge       ]  x11-misc/pcmanfm-1.2.3::gentoo  USE="-debug"
> [ebuild  N     ]   virtual/eject-0::gentoo  0 KiB
> [ebuild     UD ]    sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3::gentoo
> [2.26.1::gentoo] USE="bash-completion%* cramfs ncurses nls pam
> static-libs* suid udev unicode -caps -cytune% -fdformat -python
> (-selinux) -slang {-test} -tty-helpers (-systemd%)" ABI_X86="(64) (-32)
> (-x32)" PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET="python2_7 -python3_3 -python3_4"
> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_3 -python3_4" 0 KiB
> [ebuild  N     ]    sys-block/eject-2.1.5-r2::gentoo  USE="nls" 121 KiB
> [blocks B      ] sys-block/eject ("sys-block/eject" is blocking
> sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3)
> 
> Total: 3 packages (1 downgrade, 2 new), Size of downloads: 121 KiB
> Conflict: 1 block (1 unsatisfied)
> 
>  * Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be
>  * installed at the same time on the same system.
> 
>   (sys-block/eject-2.1.5-r2:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
> pulled in by
>     sys-block/eject required by (virtual/eject-0:0/0::gentoo, ebuild
> scheduled for merge)
> 
>   (sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for
> merge) pulled in by
>     >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.13 required by
> (www-plugins/nspluginwrapper-1.4.4-r3:0/0::gentoo, installed)
>     <sys-apps/util-linux-2.25[static-libs] required by
> (sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109:0/0::gentoo, installed)


Looks like this is the source of your problem. When dealing with
blocking downgrades I like to search for the "<" character to find what
other package is limiting the highest version. The above is the only one.

The DEPEND for lvm2 looks like this:

RDEPEND="${DEPEND_COMMON}
	...
        >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.16
	...
DEPEND="${DEPEND_COMMON}
        static? (
                selinux? ( sys-libs/libselinux[static-libs] )
                udev? ( >=virtual/libudev-208:=[static-libs] )
                <sys-apps/util-linux-2.25[static-libs]
        )"


Do you have lvm2 built with USE=static?



Second question is why will portage not upgrade lvm2 for you? What do
you get from this:

emerge -pv lvm2


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 17/03/2015 03:43, Dale wrote:
>
> [...snip]
>
>> root@fireball / # emerge -uvaDN world -t
>>
>> These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order:
>>
>> Calculating dependencies... done!
>> [nomerge       ] lxde-base/lxde-meta-0.5.5-r4::gentoo
>> [nomerge       ]  x11-misc/pcmanfm-1.2.3::gentoo  USE="-debug"
>> [ebuild  N     ]   virtual/eject-0::gentoo  0 KiB
>> [ebuild     UD ]    sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3::gentoo
>> [2.26.1::gentoo] USE="bash-completion%* cramfs ncurses nls pam
>> static-libs* suid udev unicode -caps -cytune% -fdformat -python
>> (-selinux) -slang {-test} -tty-helpers (-systemd%)" ABI_X86="(64) (-32)
>> (-x32)" PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET="python2_7 -python3_3 -python3_4"
>> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_3 -python3_4" 0 KiB
>> [ebuild  N     ]    sys-block/eject-2.1.5-r2::gentoo  USE="nls" 121 KiB
>> [blocks B      ] sys-block/eject ("sys-block/eject" is blocking
>> sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3)
>>
>> Total: 3 packages (1 downgrade, 2 new), Size of downloads: 121 KiB
>> Conflict: 1 block (1 unsatisfied)
>>
>>  * Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be
>>  * installed at the same time on the same system.
>>
>>   (sys-block/eject-2.1.5-r2:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
>> pulled in by
>>     sys-block/eject required by (virtual/eject-0:0/0::gentoo, ebuild
>> scheduled for merge)
>>
>>   (sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for
>> merge) pulled in by
>>     >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.13 required by
>> (www-plugins/nspluginwrapper-1.4.4-r3:0/0::gentoo, installed)
>>     <sys-apps/util-linux-2.25[static-libs] required by
>> (sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109:0/0::gentoo, installed)
>
> Looks like this is the source of your problem. When dealing with
> blocking downgrades I like to search for the "<" character to find what
> other package is limiting the highest version. The above is the only one.
>
> The DEPEND for lvm2 looks like this:
>
> RDEPEND="${DEPEND_COMMON}
> 	...
>         >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.16
> 	...
> DEPEND="${DEPEND_COMMON}
>         static? (
>                 selinux? ( sys-libs/libselinux[static-libs] )
>                 udev? ( >=virtual/libudev-208:=[static-libs] )
>                 <sys-apps/util-linux-2.25[static-libs]
>         )"
>
>
> Do you have lvm2 built with USE=static?
>
>
>
> Second question is why will portage not upgrade lvm2 for you? What do
> you get from this:
>
> emerge -pv lvm2
>
>

This lead me down a path.  Here is the info you requested:

root@fireball / # emerge -pv lvm2

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild     UD ] sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3::gentoo [2.26.1::gentoo]
USE="bash-completion%* cramfs ncurses nls pam static-libs* suid udev
unicode -caps -cytune% -fdformat -python (-selinux) -slang {-test}
-tty-helpers (-systemd%)" ABI_X86="(64) (-32) (-x32)"
PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET="python2_7 -python3_3 -python3_4"
PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_3 -python3_4" 0 KiB
[ebuild   R    ] sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109::gentoo  USE="readline static thin
udev (-clvm) (-cman) -device-mapper-only -lvm1 -lvm2create_initrd
(-selinux) -static-libs -systemd" 0 KiB

Total: 2 packages (1 downgrade, 1 reinstall), Size of downloads: 0 KiB

The following USE changes are necessary to proceed:
 (see "package.use" in the portage(5) man page for more details)
# required by sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109::gentoo[static]
# required by @selected
# required by @world (argument)
=sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3 static-libs
root@fireball / #

It seems at some point, I did have a USE flag in package.use that was
version specific.  I usually remove the version stuff and let it apply
to all version.  Usually if you need a USE flag for one version, you
will need it for the upgrade as well.  So, after removing the version
info, I try again.  Similar message tho.  I then keyword lvm2, thinking
it may need a newer version.  Then I get this crypted message. 

root@fireball / # emerge -uvaDN world -t

These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order:

Calculating dependencies \

!!! Problem resolving dependencies for sys-fs/lvm2 from @selected
... done!

!!! The ebuild selected to satisfy "sys-fs/lvm2" has unmet requirements.
- sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.110::gentoo USE="readline static thin udev -clvm
-cman -device-mapper-only -lvm1 -lvm2create_initrd (-selinux)
-static-libs -systemd" ABI_X86="64"

  The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
    static? ( !udev )

  The above constraints are a subset of the following complete expression:
    device-mapper-only? ( !clvm !cman !lvm1 !lvm2create_initrd !thin )
systemd? ( udev ) static? ( !udev )

(dependency required by "@selected" [set])
(dependency required by "@world" [argument])
root@fireball / # emerge -vp eudev

These are the packages that would be merged, in order:

Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild   R   ~] sys-fs/eudev-2.1.1::gentoo  USE="gudev hwdb
introspection keymap kmod modutils rule-generator static-libs -doc
(-selinux) {-test}" ABI_X86="(64) -32 (-x32)" 0 KiB

Total: 1 package (1 reinstall), Size of downloads: 0 KiB
root@fireball / #

I included emerge -vp eudev as well.  It seems it doesn't like something
about its USE flag.  I see static-libs in the USE list tho.  I had to do
that a while back.  I think it had something to do with me having a
seperate /usr and trying to avoid the init thingy.  I think. 

Jeepers. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Alan McKinnon]

On 17/03/2015 19:01, Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> On 17/03/2015 03:43, Dale wrote:
>>
>> [...snip]
>>
>>> root@fireball / # emerge -uvaDN world -t
>>>
>>> These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order:
>>>
>>> Calculating dependencies... done!
>>> [nomerge       ] lxde-base/lxde-meta-0.5.5-r4::gentoo
>>> [nomerge       ]  x11-misc/pcmanfm-1.2.3::gentoo  USE="-debug"
>>> [ebuild  N     ]   virtual/eject-0::gentoo  0 KiB
>>> [ebuild     UD ]    sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3::gentoo
>>> [2.26.1::gentoo] USE="bash-completion%* cramfs ncurses nls pam
>>> static-libs* suid udev unicode -caps -cytune% -fdformat -python
>>> (-selinux) -slang {-test} -tty-helpers (-systemd%)" ABI_X86="(64) (-32)
>>> (-x32)" PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET="python2_7 -python3_3 -python3_4"
>>> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_3 -python3_4" 0 KiB
>>> [ebuild  N     ]    sys-block/eject-2.1.5-r2::gentoo  USE="nls" 121 KiB
>>> [blocks B      ] sys-block/eject ("sys-block/eject" is blocking
>>> sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3)
>>>
>>> Total: 3 packages (1 downgrade, 2 new), Size of downloads: 121 KiB
>>> Conflict: 1 block (1 unsatisfied)
>>>
>>>  * Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be
>>>  * installed at the same time on the same system.
>>>
>>>   (sys-block/eject-2.1.5-r2:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
>>> pulled in by
>>>     sys-block/eject required by (virtual/eject-0:0/0::gentoo, ebuild
>>> scheduled for merge)
>>>
>>>   (sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3:0/0::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for
>>> merge) pulled in by
>>>     >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.13 required by
>>> (www-plugins/nspluginwrapper-1.4.4-r3:0/0::gentoo, installed)
>>>     <sys-apps/util-linux-2.25[static-libs] required by
>>> (sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109:0/0::gentoo, installed)
>>
>> Looks like this is the source of your problem. When dealing with
>> blocking downgrades I like to search for the "<" character to find what
>> other package is limiting the highest version. The above is the only one.
>>
>> The DEPEND for lvm2 looks like this:
>>
>> RDEPEND="${DEPEND_COMMON}
>> 	...
>>         >=sys-apps/util-linux-2.16
>> 	...
>> DEPEND="${DEPEND_COMMON}
>>         static? (
>>                 selinux? ( sys-libs/libselinux[static-libs] )
>>                 udev? ( >=virtual/libudev-208:=[static-libs] )
>>                 <sys-apps/util-linux-2.25[static-libs]
>>         )"
>>
>>
>> Do you have lvm2 built with USE=static?
>>
>>
>>
>> Second question is why will portage not upgrade lvm2 for you? What do
>> you get from this:
>>
>> emerge -pv lvm2
>>
>>
> 
> This lead me down a path.  Here is the info you requested:
> 
> root@fireball / # emerge -pv lvm2
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> 
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild     UD ] sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3::gentoo [2.26.1::gentoo]
> USE="bash-completion%* cramfs ncurses nls pam static-libs* suid udev
> unicode -caps -cytune% -fdformat -python (-selinux) -slang {-test}
> -tty-helpers (-systemd%)" ABI_X86="(64) (-32) (-x32)"
> PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET="python2_7 -python3_3 -python3_4"
> PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7 python3_3 -python3_4" 0 KiB
> [ebuild   R    ] sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109::gentoo  USE="readline static thin
> udev (-clvm) (-cman) -device-mapper-only -lvm1 -lvm2create_initrd
> (-selinux) -static-libs -systemd" 0 KiB
> 
> Total: 2 packages (1 downgrade, 1 reinstall), Size of downloads: 0 KiB
> 
> The following USE changes are necessary to proceed:
>  (see "package.use" in the portage(5) man page for more details)
> # required by sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109::gentoo[static]
> # required by @selected
> # required by @world (argument)
> =sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3 static-libs
> root@fireball / #
> 
> It seems at some point, I did have a USE flag in package.use that was
> version specific.  I usually remove the version stuff and let it apply
> to all version.  Usually if you need a USE flag for one version, you
> will need it for the upgrade as well.  So, after removing the version
> info, I try again.  Similar message tho.  I then keyword lvm2, thinking
> it may need a newer version.  Then I get this crypted message. 
> 
> root@fireball / # emerge -uvaDN world -t
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in reverse order:
> 
> Calculating dependencies \
> 
> !!! Problem resolving dependencies for sys-fs/lvm2 from @selected
> ... done!
> 
> !!! The ebuild selected to satisfy "sys-fs/lvm2" has unmet requirements.
> - sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.110::gentoo USE="readline static thin udev -clvm
> -cman -device-mapper-only -lvm1 -lvm2create_initrd (-selinux)
> -static-libs -systemd" ABI_X86="64"
> 
>   The following REQUIRED_USE flag constraints are unsatisfied:
>     static? ( !udev )
> 
>   The above constraints are a subset of the following complete expression:
>     device-mapper-only? ( !clvm !cman !lvm1 !lvm2create_initrd !thin )
> systemd? ( udev ) static? ( !udev )
> 
> (dependency required by "@selected" [set])
> (dependency required by "@world" [argument])
> root@fireball / # emerge -vp eudev
> 
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> 
> Calculating dependencies... done!
> [ebuild   R   ~] sys-fs/eudev-2.1.1::gentoo  USE="gudev hwdb
> introspection keymap kmod modutils rule-generator static-libs -doc
> (-selinux) {-test}" ABI_X86="(64) -32 (-x32)" 0 KiB
> 
> Total: 1 package (1 reinstall), Size of downloads: 0 KiB
> root@fireball / #
> 
> I included emerge -vp eudev as well.  It seems it doesn't like something
> about its USE flag.  I see static-libs in the USE list tho.  I had to do
> that a while back.  I think it had something to do with me having a
> seperate /usr and trying to avoid the init thingy.  I think. 
> 
> Jeepers. 


Your basic problem is that you have static and static-libs in USE. When
applied to lvm, a whole bunch of blockers kick in and you get what you
got. So take them out of USE.

USE="static static-libs" has it's uses, it's great for building rescue
disks, busybox and maybe some disk repair utils, but makes very little
sense on a regular workstation. If you break your workstation, you'll
boot off a rescue disk and use the tools on it to fix your install, so
you don't need it on the main system.

There is nothing wrong with your eudev.
lvm2 is bitching about blockers between lvm2 built with "USE=static" and
udev - there's some incompatibility there and the ebuild knows about them


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
>
> Your basic problem is that you have static and static-libs in USE. When
> applied to lvm, a whole bunch of blockers kick in and you get what you
> got. So take them out of USE.
>
> USE="static static-libs" has it's uses, it's great for building rescue
> disks, busybox and maybe some disk repair utils, but makes very little
> sense on a regular workstation. If you break your workstation, you'll
> boot off a rescue disk and use the tools on it to fix your install, so
> you don't need it on the main system.
>
> There is nothing wrong with your eudev.
> lvm2 is bitching about blockers between lvm2 built with "USE=static" and
> udev - there's some incompatibility there and the ebuild knows about them
>
>

I went through the package.use file and commented out the static and
static-libs stuff.  It seems happy but thing is, when I put them there,
they were needed for some reason.  Actually, all the parts I found had
the output of where emerge said those were needed.  Maybe the reason
they were needed then has changed and they are no longer needed.  I hope
anyway.  ;-)

Thanks.  I'm not sure I would have ever figured out that it was that
causing the problem.  That got pretty deep. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Mike Gilbert]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>
>> Your basic problem is that you have static and static-libs in USE. When
>> applied to lvm, a whole bunch of blockers kick in and you get what you
>> got. So take them out of USE.
>>
>> USE="static static-libs" has it's uses, it's great for building rescue
>> disks, busybox and maybe some disk repair utils, but makes very little
>> sense on a regular workstation. If you break your workstation, you'll
>> boot off a rescue disk and use the tools on it to fix your install, so
>> you don't need it on the main system.
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with your eudev.
>> lvm2 is bitching about blockers between lvm2 built with "USE=static" and
>> udev - there's some incompatibility there and the ebuild knows about them
>>
>>
>
> I went through the package.use file and commented out the static and
> static-libs stuff.  It seems happy but thing is, when I put them there,
> they were needed for some reason.  Actually, all the parts I found had
> the output of where emerge said those were needed.  Maybe the reason
> they were needed then has changed and they are no longer needed.  I hope
> anyway.  ;-)

I know there were some guides for doing LVM root that used to advise
building stuff statically, probably because of some problem with
genkernel.

With a modern initramfs (dracut, and possible recent genkernel),
shared libs work just as well, so there should be no need.

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Alan McKinnon]

On 17/03/2015 20:10, Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>
>> Your basic problem is that you have static and static-libs in USE. When
>> applied to lvm, a whole bunch of blockers kick in and you get what you
>> got. So take them out of USE.
>>
>> USE="static static-libs" has it's uses, it's great for building rescue
>> disks, busybox and maybe some disk repair utils, but makes very little
>> sense on a regular workstation. If you break your workstation, you'll
>> boot off a rescue disk and use the tools on it to fix your install, so
>> you don't need it on the main system.
>>
>> There is nothing wrong with your eudev.
>> lvm2 is bitching about blockers between lvm2 built with "USE=static" and
>> udev - there's some incompatibility there and the ebuild knows about them
>>
>>
> 
> I went through the package.use file and commented out the static and
> static-libs stuff.  It seems happy but thing is, when I put them there,
> they were needed for some reason.  Actually, all the parts I found had
> the output of where emerge said those were needed.  Maybe the reason
> they were needed then has changed and they are no longer needed.  I hope
> anyway.  ;-)
> 
> Thanks.  I'm not sure I would have ever figured out that it was that
> causing the problem.  That got pretty deep. 

I've gotten to the point where I can make sense of portage output (it
took a while!) but I have no idea how to explain how I do it :-)

Portage makes a very fundamental blunder - it exposes the underlying
implementation in the output. The odds are very slim the average user
will ever make reasonable sense of it.




-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Dale]

Mike Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>> Your basic problem is that you have static and static-libs in USE. When
>>> applied to lvm, a whole bunch of blockers kick in and you get what you
>>> got. So take them out of USE.
>>>
>>> USE="static static-libs" has it's uses, it's great for building rescue
>>> disks, busybox and maybe some disk repair utils, but makes very little
>>> sense on a regular workstation. If you break your workstation, you'll
>>> boot off a rescue disk and use the tools on it to fix your install, so
>>> you don't need it on the main system.
>>>
>>> There is nothing wrong with your eudev.
>>> lvm2 is bitching about blockers between lvm2 built with "USE=static" and
>>> udev - there's some incompatibility there and the ebuild knows about them
>>>
>>>
>> I went through the package.use file and commented out the static and
>> static-libs stuff.  It seems happy but thing is, when I put them there,
>> they were needed for some reason.  Actually, all the parts I found had
>> the output of where emerge said those were needed.  Maybe the reason
>> they were needed then has changed and they are no longer needed.  I hope
>> anyway.  ;-)
> I know there were some guides for doing LVM root that used to advise
> building stuff statically, probably because of some problem with
> genkernel.
>
> With a modern initramfs (dracut, and possible recent genkernel),
> shared libs work just as well, so there should be no need.
>
>

Well, in package.use, it has some output of emerge that said it needed. 
Here is a snippet:

# required by sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109[static]
# required by @selected
# required by @world (argument)
#=sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3 static-libs

# required by virtual/udev-208-r2
# required by @selected
# required by @world (argument)
#virtual/libudev static-libs

# required by virtual/udev-208-r2[gudev]
# required by @selected
# required by @world (argument)
#virtual/libgudev static-libs

There's a couple more but you get the idea.  I don't use genkernel,
tried it but never got a working kernel from it so I do them by hand. 
Everything built OK with no more complaining so I guess whatever it is
has changed.  Still weird tho. 

Dale

:-)  :-)

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> I've gotten to the point where I can make sense of portage output (it
> took a while!) but I have no idea how to explain how I do it :-)
> Portage makes a very fundamental blunder - it exposes the underlying
> implementation in the output. The odds are very slim the average user
> will ever make reasonable sense of it. 

You prolly got good at it because of so many people on here asking what
those crpytic messages are saying.  Very few people can figure out what
they are trying to say.  Every once in a while, I get lucky and can
keyword a package or something and get past a blocker but sometimes, it
may as well spit out Greek characters. 

What gets me on this one, it really didn't give a clue what the real
problem is.  If it did, I missed it. 

I just wonder, is there some way they can make emerge spit out something
that makes sense or is that something that can not be done?

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Alan McKinnon]

On 17/03/2015 22:16, Dale wrote:
> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>> Your basic problem is that you have static and static-libs in USE. When
>>>> applied to lvm, a whole bunch of blockers kick in and you get what you
>>>> got. So take them out of USE.
>>>>
>>>> USE="static static-libs" has it's uses, it's great for building rescue
>>>> disks, busybox and maybe some disk repair utils, but makes very little
>>>> sense on a regular workstation. If you break your workstation, you'll
>>>> boot off a rescue disk and use the tools on it to fix your install, so
>>>> you don't need it on the main system.
>>>>
>>>> There is nothing wrong with your eudev.
>>>> lvm2 is bitching about blockers between lvm2 built with "USE=static" and
>>>> udev - there's some incompatibility there and the ebuild knows about them
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I went through the package.use file and commented out the static and
>>> static-libs stuff.  It seems happy but thing is, when I put them there,
>>> they were needed for some reason.  Actually, all the parts I found had
>>> the output of where emerge said those were needed.  Maybe the reason
>>> they were needed then has changed and they are no longer needed.  I hope
>>> anyway.  ;-)
>> I know there were some guides for doing LVM root that used to advise
>> building stuff statically, probably because of some problem with
>> genkernel.
>>
>> With a modern initramfs (dracut, and possible recent genkernel),
>> shared libs work just as well, so there should be no need.
>>
>>
> 
> Well, in package.use, it has some output of emerge that said it needed. 
> Here is a snippet:
> 
> # required by sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109[static]
> # required by @selected
> # required by @world (argument)
> #=sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3 static-libs


You are reading it wrong. That means:
util-linux needs to be built with USE="static-libs"
because
lvm2 is already built with USE="static"

None of which explains why you originally built lvm2 that way.

> 
> # required by virtual/udev-208-r2
> # required by @selected
> # required by @world (argument)
> #virtual/libudev static-libs
> 
> # required by virtual/udev-208-r2[gudev]
> # required by @selected
> # required by @world (argument)
> #virtual/libgudev static-libs
> 
> There's a couple more but you get the idea.  I don't use genkernel,
> tried it but never got a working kernel from it so I do them by hand. 
> Everything built OK with no more complaining so I guess whatever it is
> has changed.  Still weird tho. 


This has nothing to do with genkernel.
More than likely, you followed some daft advice on teh intarwebz saying
you need a static lvm to be able to boot / on lvm.





-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Alan McKinnon]

On 17/03/2015 22:20, Dale wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> I've gotten to the point where I can make sense of portage output (it
>> took a while!) but I have no idea how to explain how I do it :-)
>> Portage makes a very fundamental blunder - it exposes the underlying
>> implementation in the output. The odds are very slim the average user
>> will ever make reasonable sense of it. 
> 
> You prolly got good at it because of so many people on here asking what
> those crpytic messages are saying.  Very few people can figure out what
> they are trying to say.  Every once in a while, I get lucky and can
> keyword a package or something and get past a blocker but sometimes, it
> may as well spit out Greek characters.

Well.... it's because I understand data structures as used in
programming. Things like linked lists and
assoc-arrays/dictionaries/hashmaps. I'v also had to support enough
programmers over the years and get their stuff to work so I know how
their minds work.

It's like anything else, if you do it in your line of work, you get to
understand it after a while :-)

> 
> What gets me on this one, it really didn't give a clue what the real
> problem is.  If it did, I missed it.

To help folks out, I'll walk through the thought process:

The give-away was that util-linux needed to be downgraded, this is very
unusual. I figured it was so unusual that finding out why would show me
your real problem. And it wasn't a case of the version you have has been
removed from the tree. I knew that the only thing that can trigger a
downgrade is a DEPENDS that requires some version or lower, and that
must start with a "<" or "<=".

So I searched your mail looking for "<" and there was only one :-) This one:

    <sys-apps/util-linux-2.25[static-libs] required by
(sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109:0/0::gentoo, installed)

That's the only line in the entire output that can downgrade util-linux.
I looked in the lvm2 ebuild and there's only one DEPEND
on <sys-apps/util-linux-2.25 and it is only used when USE=static

After that the rest was easy


> I just wonder, is there some way they can make emerge spit out something
> that makes sense or is that something that can not be done?

I'm sure there is a way to do it. Some portage output is very useful,
like conflicting USE. Portage tells you what you can enable or disable
to proceed. And the colorized arrow-heads one line below is really
helpful in following version numbers.

But proper output messages isn't just a case of translate gobbledy-gook
into English. One has to understand what the conditions mean, parse the
data portage has inside, and then figure out something meaningful. That
is not easy, and probably requires custom code for each different kind
of error.

Programmers hate writing error code that has to do that, which is
probably why no-one has ever done it through portage's entire life so
far....

-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Dale]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On 17/03/2015 22:16, Dale wrote:
>> Mike Gilbert wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>>>>> Your basic problem is that you have static and static-libs in USE. When
>>>>> applied to lvm, a whole bunch of blockers kick in and you get what you
>>>>> got. So take them out of USE.
>>>>>
>>>>> USE="static static-libs" has it's uses, it's great for building rescue
>>>>> disks, busybox and maybe some disk repair utils, but makes very little
>>>>> sense on a regular workstation. If you break your workstation, you'll
>>>>> boot off a rescue disk and use the tools on it to fix your install, so
>>>>> you don't need it on the main system.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is nothing wrong with your eudev.
>>>>> lvm2 is bitching about blockers between lvm2 built with "USE=static" and
>>>>> udev - there's some incompatibility there and the ebuild knows about them
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I went through the package.use file and commented out the static and
>>>> static-libs stuff.  It seems happy but thing is, when I put them there,
>>>> they were needed for some reason.  Actually, all the parts I found had
>>>> the output of where emerge said those were needed.  Maybe the reason
>>>> they were needed then has changed and they are no longer needed.  I hope
>>>> anyway.  ;-)
>>> I know there were some guides for doing LVM root that used to advise
>>> building stuff statically, probably because of some problem with
>>> genkernel.
>>>
>>> With a modern initramfs (dracut, and possible recent genkernel),
>>> shared libs work just as well, so there should be no need.
>>>
>>>
>> Well, in package.use, it has some output of emerge that said it needed. 
>> Here is a snippet:
>>
>> # required by sys-fs/lvm2-2.02.109[static]
>> # required by @selected
>> # required by @world (argument)
>> #=sys-apps/util-linux-2.24.1-r3 static-libs
>
> You are reading it wrong. That means:
> util-linux needs to be built with USE="static-libs"
> because
> lvm2 is already built with USE="static"
>
> None of which explains why you originally built lvm2 that way.


It was because emerge told me it needed it for some reason.  It is very
rare that I just put something in package.use on my own.  On the rare
times I have done it, it is on a package that I use and I need to enable
something but don't want to enable it globally or only that one package
has that USE flag.  A couple examples, gimp, nut, gtkam is a few that I
have in there because of some option I need to enable/disable. 


>> # required by virtual/udev-208-r2
>> # required by @selected
>> # required by @world (argument)
>> #virtual/libudev static-libs
>>
>> # required by virtual/udev-208-r2[gudev]
>> # required by @selected
>> # required by @world (argument)
>> #virtual/libgudev static-libs
>>
>> There's a couple more but you get the idea.  I don't use genkernel,
>> tried it but never got a working kernel from it so I do them by hand. 
>> Everything built OK with no more complaining so I guess whatever it is
>> has changed.  Still weird tho. 
>
> This has nothing to do with genkernel.
> More than likely, you followed some daft advice on teh intarwebz saying
> you need a static lvm to be able to boot / on lvm.
>
>

I don't have / on lvm.  /boot and / are on regular partitions. 
Everything else, /usr, /var and /home, are on lvm.  Keep in mind, I was
trying to avoid that init thingy. 

I mentioned genkernel because Mike mentioned it.  I tried it ages ago
and never got a kernel that would boot.  I don't even have it installed
here.  I started doing them by hand and have been pretty good at it ever
since.  Odd I know. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Peter Humphrey]

On Tuesday 17 March 2015 16:07:29 Dale wrote:

> I don't have / on lvm.  /boot and / are on regular partitions.
> Everything else, /usr, /var and /home, are on lvm.  Keep in mind, I
> was trying to avoid that init thingy.

I remember something of that discussion, but not why you wanted to keep /usr 
on a separate partition. Why is that? Is it one of those sacred cows that 
"just growed" like Topsy?    :)

-- 
Rgds
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 865 bytes --]

On Wed, 18 Mar 2015 08:54:40 +0000, Peter Humphrey wrote:

> > I don't have / on lvm.  /boot and / are on regular partitions.
> > Everything else, /usr, /var and /home, are on lvm.  Keep in mind, I
> > was trying to avoid that init thingy.  
> 
> I remember something of that discussion, but not why you wanted to
> keep /usr on a separate partition. Why is that? Is it one of those
> sacred cows that "just growed" like Topsy?    :)

In order to avoid an "init thingy"[tm]. If you want root on LVM you need
a thingy thingy, a separate root avoids that. I used to run a similar
configuration for the same reason, separate /root on ext4 but no
separate /boot.

Nowadays, I don't use LVM and I've grown to like dracut.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

If someone with multiple personalities threatens to kill himself, is it
considered a hostage situation?

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

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Dale]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Tuesday 17 March 2015 16:07:29 Dale wrote:
>
>> I don't have / on lvm.  /boot and / are on regular partitions.
>> Everything else, /usr, /var and /home, are on lvm.  Keep in mind, I
>> was trying to avoid that init thingy.
> I remember something of that discussion, but not why you wanted to keep /usr 
> on a separate partition. Why is that? Is it one of those sacred cows that 
> "just growed" like Topsy?    :)
>


Well, /boot doesn't change to much, plus it is fairly small anyway.  The
root partition doesn't change a whole lot either.  /usr tho, it tends to
grow.  If nothing else, it grows as KDE grows but it grows with the
number of kernels I have too.  Of course, other packages grows too. 
/var is good to have on a separate partition since sometimes a log file
can grow to some outrageous sizes.  I've actually had that happen twice
over the years.  Something goes goofy and fills up a log file until it
is seriously huge and fills up /var.  /home is separate for obvious
reasons plus mine is really huge.  1.8TBs right now. 

It started out that it was advised to set up partitions like this.  Then
LVM came along and made it even more reasonable since I can grow the
partitions that need it.  The init thingy because of some packages being
moved to /usr didn't hurt the cause I guess either. 

So, I have it set up the way I do because for my setup, it is the best
way.  I can adjust things without having to have spare drives to move
things around with.

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 18 March 2015 04:33:18 Dale wrote:

> Well, /boot doesn't change to much, plus it is fairly small anyway.  The
> root partition doesn't change a whole lot either.  /usr tho, it tends to
> grow.  If nothing else, it grows as KDE grows but it grows with the
> number of kernels I have too.  Of course, other packages grows too.
> /var is good to have on a separate partition since sometimes a log file
> can grow to some outrageous sizes.  I've actually had that happen twice
> over the years.  Something goes goofy and fills up a log file until it
> is seriously huge and fills up /var.  /home is separate for obvious
> reasons plus mine is really huge.  1.8TBs right now.
> 
> It started out that it was advised to set up partitions like this.  Then
> LVM came along and made it even more reasonable since I can grow the
> partitions that need it.  The init thingy because of some packages being
> moved to /usr didn't hurt the cause I guess either.
> 
> So, I have it set up the way I do because for my setup, it is the best
> way.  I can adjust things without having to have spare drives to move
> things around with.

Yes, I see all that, except for /usr. It does grow, but under some sort of 
control, which (it seems to me) isn't enough cause to submit to all the 
indignities involved in getting your init thingy working.

Here's the relevant part of my fstab:

/dev/sda1          /boot                  ext2 relatime,noauto 1 2
/dev/md5           /                      ext4 relatime        1 1
/dev/vg7/home      /home                  ext4 relatime        1 2
/dev/vg7/common    /home/prh/common       ext4 relatime        1 3
/dev/vg7/boinc     /home/prh/boinc        ext4 relatime        1 2
/dev/vg7/virt      /home/prh/.VirtualBox  ext4 relatime        1 3
/dev/vg7/portage   /var/portage           ext4 relatime        1 2
/dev/vg7/packages  /usr/portage/packages  ext4 relatime        1 3
/dev/vg7/distfiles /usr/portage/distfiles ext4 relatime        1 3
/dev/vg7/local     /usr/local             ext4 relatime        1 3
/dev/vg7/opt       /opt                   ext4 relatime        1 2
/dev/vg7/tmp       /tmp                   ext2 relatime        1 2
/dev/vg7/vartmp    /mnt/scratch/          ext2 relatime        1 2

I ought to move /var to its own partition, for the reason you gave, and it's
also time I put /boot back on /dev/md1 where it used to be (/dev/sda1 &
/dev/sdb1).

-- 
Rgds
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Dale]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 March 2015 04:33:18 Dale wrote:
>
>> Well, /boot doesn't change to much, plus it is fairly small anyway.  The
>> root partition doesn't change a whole lot either.  /usr tho, it tends to
>> grow.  If nothing else, it grows as KDE grows but it grows with the
>> number of kernels I have too.  Of course, other packages grows too.
>> /var is good to have on a separate partition since sometimes a log file
>> can grow to some outrageous sizes.  I've actually had that happen twice
>> over the years.  Something goes goofy and fills up a log file until it
>> is seriously huge and fills up /var.  /home is separate for obvious
>> reasons plus mine is really huge.  1.8TBs right now.
>>
>> It started out that it was advised to set up partitions like this.  Then
>> LVM came along and made it even more reasonable since I can grow the
>> partitions that need it.  The init thingy because of some packages being
>> moved to /usr didn't hurt the cause I guess either.
>>
>> So, I have it set up the way I do because for my setup, it is the best
>> way.  I can adjust things without having to have spare drives to move
>> things around with.
> Yes, I see all that, except for /usr. It does grow, but under some sort of 
> control, which (it seems to me) isn't enough cause to submit to all the 
> indignities involved in getting your init thingy working.
>
> Here's the relevant part of my fstab:
>
> /dev/sda1          /boot                  ext2 relatime,noauto 1 2
> /dev/md5           /                      ext4 relatime        1 1
> /dev/vg7/home      /home                  ext4 relatime        1 2
> /dev/vg7/common    /home/prh/common       ext4 relatime        1 3
> /dev/vg7/boinc     /home/prh/boinc        ext4 relatime        1 2
> /dev/vg7/virt      /home/prh/.VirtualBox  ext4 relatime        1 3
> /dev/vg7/portage   /var/portage           ext4 relatime        1 2
> /dev/vg7/packages  /usr/portage/packages  ext4 relatime        1 3
> /dev/vg7/distfiles /usr/portage/distfiles ext4 relatime        1 3
> /dev/vg7/local     /usr/local             ext4 relatime        1 3
> /dev/vg7/opt       /opt                   ext4 relatime        1 2
> /dev/vg7/tmp       /tmp                   ext2 relatime        1 2
> /dev/vg7/vartmp    /mnt/scratch/          ext2 relatime        1 2
>
> I ought to move /var to its own partition, for the reason you gave, and it's
> also time I put /boot back on /dev/md1 where it used to be (/dev/sda1 &
> /dev/sdb1).
>


Well, since I set this rig up, I have had to grow /usr twice.  The only
reason I have not had to grow it recently is because I moved all the
portage stuff to /var.  In the past, I had to move everything to another
drive, rework the partitions, move everything back and then hope for the
best.  With my current setup, I just grow the partition and carry on as
usual, generally while I am doing stuff on the system since I don't
think I even have to unmount the partitions. 

As I said, this is what works best for me.  As long as it works, it is
the way it is.  I may later switch to the new btrfs, (sp?), but that may
be a while. 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Rich Freeman]

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 5:07 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> You are reading it wrong. That means:
>> util-linux needs to be built with USE="static-libs"
>> because
>> lvm2 is already built with USE="static"
>>
>> None of which explains why you originally built lvm2 that way.
>
> It was because emerge told me it needed it for some reason.  It is very
> rare that I just put something in package.use on my own.

This was probably required by some script for mounting /usr or by some
initramfs you were using before you switched to dracut.

Dracut is pretty advanced by initramfs standards.  It handles dynamic
linking just fine (bundling libraries/etc as needed).  Simpler
initramfs tools and such don't, and to make things easier there is a
tendency to build anything needed to mount root/usr static so that it
is certain to run correctly.

You can look inside an initramfs by doing the following:
mkdir /tmp/ext
cd /tmp/ext
zcat /boot/initramfs-3.18.9-gentoo.img | cpio -i
find usr
find lib64
...

There is quite a bit of dynamic linking going on in a typical dracut
initramfs, and quite a bit of stuff installed in /usr it utilizes
either to mount root/usr or just for operator convenience (it is nice
to be able to use less in an emergency shell, and so on).  It is also
really easy to tell dracut to add stuff to an initramfs.  I tweaked my
btrfs module to add btrfstune to the initramfs so that I could easily
enable skinny metadata without a boot CD.  In some sense, you could
think of an initramfs as the rescue CD you always have ready (though I
also keep systemrescuecd handy on a USB stick).

--
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 18 March 2015 11:14:43 Dale wrote:

> Well, since I set this rig up, I have had to grow /usr twice.  The only
> reason I have not had to grow it recently is because I moved all the
> portage stuff to /var.  In the past, I had to move everything to another
> drive, rework the partitions, move everything back and then hope for the
> best.  With my current setup, I just grow the partition and carry on as
> usual, generally while I am doing stuff on the system since I don't
> think I even have to unmount the partitions.

Seems I'm not getting through. Never mind - doesn't matter.

> As I said, this is what works best for me.  As long as it works, it is
> the way it is.

Indeed. To each his own.

-- 
Rgds
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Poncho]

On 18.03.2015 17:37, Rich Freeman wrote:

> [...]
> You can look inside an initramfs by doing the following:
> mkdir /tmp/ext
> cd /tmp/ext
> zcat /boot/initramfs-3.18.9-gentoo.img | cpio -i
> find usr
> find lib64
> ...
> [...]

dracut comes with the /usr/bin/lsinitrd tool. pretty convenient.
With the -f option, you can print the contents of file as well.

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Dale]

Poncho wrote:
> On 18.03.2015 17:37, Rich Freeman wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> You can look inside an initramfs by doing the following:
>> mkdir /tmp/ext
>> cd /tmp/ext
>> zcat /boot/initramfs-3.18.9-gentoo.img | cpio -i
>> find usr
>> find lib64
>> ...
>> [...]
> dracut comes with the /usr/bin/lsinitrd tool. pretty convenient.
> With the -f option, you can print the contents of file as well.
>
>

I thought there was a tool that just lists the contents.  Things is, I'm
not sure what I would be looking at.  I figure the contents of some of
the files is more important than whether it is there or not.  I guess. 
I have a bad history with these init thingys.  It was one reason I
switched to Gentoo.  Keep in mind, I switched way back in 2003 when it
was rare that a init thingy was needed in Gentoo.  It seems someone
screwed that up. 

Anyway.  I try to keep a few fall back plans around.  Spare kernels
etc.  ;-)

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Rich Freeman]

On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:12 PM, Dale <rdalek1967@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I thought there was a tool that just lists the contents.  Things is, I'm
> not sure what I would be looking at.

An initramfs is just a root filesystem.  init is /sbin/init unless the
kernel is told otherwise.

If you took your entire root filesystem, compressed it into a cpio
archive, and put that in grub as your initramfs, then your entire
distro would run from a ramdisk and you might not even notice the
difference (well, assuming you had enough RAM).

The only real "magic" with an initramfs is that it mounts your real
root somewhere, then swaps it out for the real root:
http://manpages.courier-mta.org/htmlman8/switch_root.8.html

This is a bit like chroot, but the old root filesystem is deleted in
the process (so that your initramfs does not consume any RAM once the
system actually boots).  I'm not sure exactly how dracut does it with
systemd, since my understanding is that during shutdown systemd
actually pivots back to the initramfs (which allows all filesystems to
be cleanly unmounted instead of merely being mounted read-only).

-- 
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 18 March 2015 13:12:47 Dale wrote:

> I switched way back in 2003 when it was rare that a init thingy was needed
> in Gentoo.  It seems someone screwed that up.

I still don't have one, nor do I foresee a need.
 
> I try to keep a few fall back plans around.  Spare kernels etc.

One old kernel has always been enough for me, together with the current one 
of course.

-- 
Rgds
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Dale]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 March 2015 13:12:47 Dale wrote:
>
>> I switched way back in 2003 when it was rare that a init thingy was needed
>> in Gentoo.  It seems someone screwed that up.
> I still don't have one, nor do I foresee a need.

I didn't have one until I recently rebooted and got a bunch of errors. 
After posting those here, it seems I need to have one.  I don't like it
one bit tho. 


>  
>> I try to keep a few fall back plans around.  Spare kernels etc.
> One old kernel has always been enough for me, together with the current one 
> of course.
>

Well, I clean them out every once in a while.  I don't have a issue with
having a plan G just in case.  ;-) 

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Peter Humphrey]

On Wednesday 18 March 2015 23:14:20 Dale wrote:
> Peter Humphrey wrote:
> > On Wednesday 18 March 2015 13:12:47 Dale wrote:
> >> I switched way back in 2003 when it was rare that a init thingy was
> >> needed in Gentoo.  It seems someone screwed that up.
> > 
> > I still don't have one, nor do I foresee a need.
> 
> I didn't have one until I recently rebooted and got a bunch of errors.
> After posting those here, it seems I need to have one.

ONLY if you have /usr on a separate partition!

> I don't like it one bit tho.

Me neither. That's why my /usr is on the root partition.

    :)

-- 
Rgds
Peter.

Re: [gentoo-user] eject and util-linux blocker

[Dale]

Peter Humphrey wrote:
> On Wednesday 18 March 2015 23:14:20 Dale wrote:
>> Peter Humphrey wrote:
>>> On Wednesday 18 March 2015 13:12:47 Dale wrote:
>>>> I switched way back in 2003 when it was rare that a init thingy was
>>>> needed in Gentoo.  It seems someone screwed that up.
>>> I still don't have one, nor do I foresee a need.
>> I didn't have one until I recently rebooted and got a bunch of errors.
>> After posting those here, it seems I need to have one.
> ONLY if you have /usr on a separate partition!

Yes but as I have explained a few times, I have a reason/need for having
it on a separate partition. 


>
>> I don't like it one bit tho.
> Me neither. That's why my /usr is on the root partition.
>
>     :)
>

Well, that won't work well here. 

Dale

:-)  :-)