[gentoo-user] OpenRC update to 0.11.5 - safe if using older udev (pinned to udev-181)?

[gentoo-user] OpenRC update to 0.11.5 - safe if using older udev (pinned to udev-181)?

[Tanstaafl]

Anyone?

I don't see any news blurbs warning about it, but with everything going 
on with udev, systemd, etc, I'm not risking updating unless/until I know 
it is safe.

Tia...

Charles

Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRC update to 0.11.5 - safe if using older udev (pinned to udev-181)?

[Markos Chandras]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> Anyone?
>
> I don't see any news blurbs warning about it, but with everything going on
> with udev, systemd, etc, I'm not risking updating unless/until I know it is
> safe.
>
> Tia...
>
> Charles
>

The ebuild will usually take care of dependency versions. So unless
the ebuild restricts it, I see no reason to stay with the old udev.
OpenRC maintainers are very careful in this area as they are well
aware of the problems a new udev can cause.

-- 
Regards,
Markos Chandras / Gentoo Linux Developer / Key ID: B4AFF2C2

Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRC update to 0.11.5 - safe if using older udev (pinned to udev-181)?

[Tanstaafl]

On 2012-11-20 9:36 AM, Markos Chandras <hwoarang@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 1:46 PM, Tanstaafl<tanstaafl@libertytrek.org>  wrote:
>> Anyone?
>>
>> I don't see any news blurbs warning about it, but with everything going on
>> with udev, systemd, etc, I'm not risking updating unless/until I know it is
>> safe.

> The ebuild will usually take care of dependency versions. So unless
> the ebuild restricts it, I see no reason to stay with the old udev.
> OpenRC maintainers are very careful in this area as they are well
> aware of the problems a new udev can cause.

I am staying with  the old udev because I have /usr on a separate 
partition, and have no desire to bugger my system because of the 
machinations of the systemd/udev maintainers.

I would have already migrated to mdev if I were a more capable linux 
admin, but I'm only barely passable.

But as it is, I'm simply avoiding the whole mess unless/until I have to 
do a reinstall from scratch - which may be soon, since I need more disk 
space anyway (just wish I had a decent guide on installing gentoo in a 
vmware esxi server VM)...

Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRC update to 0.11.5 - safe if using older udev (pinned to udev-181)?

[Bruce Hill]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:46:59AM -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
> Anyone?
> 
> I don't see any news blurbs warning about it, but with everything going 
> on with udev, systemd, etc, I'm not risking updating unless/until I know 
> it is safe.
> 
> Tia...
> 
> Charles

Have you read the requirements in
/usr/portage/sys-apps/openrc/openrc-0.11.5.ebuild ?

Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRC update to 0.11.5 - safe if using older udev (pinned to udev-181)?

[Tanstaafl]

On 2012-11-20 12:05 PM, Bruce Hill <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:46:59AM -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
>> Anyone?
>>
>> I don't see any news blurbs warning about it, but with everything going
>> on with udev, systemd, etc, I'm not risking updating unless/until I know
>> it is safe.

> Have you read the requirements in
> /usr/portage/sys-apps/openrc/openrc-0.11.5.ebuild ?

I don't see anything in there labeled 'requirements'...

All I found was:

RDEPEND="virtual/init
         kernel_FreeBSD? ( || ( >=sys-freebsd/freebsd-ubin-9.0_rc 
sys-process/fuser-bsd ) )
         elibc_glibc? ( >=sys-libs/glibc-2.5 )
         ncurses? ( sys-libs/ncurses )
         pam? ( sys-auth/pambase )
         >=sys-apps/baselayout-2.1-r1
         kernel_linux? (
                 sys-process/psmisc
         )
         !<sys-fs/udev-133"

So, *maybe* the last line means it needs a udev not less than 133 - but 
I don't know enough about how ebuilds to work to risk an unbootable 
system if it doesn't mean what I think it means.

Sorry, I'm not a programmer and don't know what to look for (or even 
where to look until you pointed me to the file), so how about just a 
simple answer?

Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRC update to 0.11.5 - safe if using older udev (pinned to udev-181)?

[Alan McKinnon]

On Tue, 20 Nov 2012 14:17:17 -0500
Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:

> On 2012-11-20 12:05 PM, Bruce Hill <daddy@happypenguincomputers.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 08:46:59AM -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
> >> Anyone?
> >>
> >> I don't see any news blurbs warning about it, but with everything
> >> going on with udev, systemd, etc, I'm not risking updating
> >> unless/until I know it is safe.
> 
> > Have you read the requirements in
> > /usr/portage/sys-apps/openrc/openrc-0.11.5.ebuild ?
> 
> I don't see anything in there labeled 'requirements'...
> 
> All I found was:
> 
> RDEPEND="virtual/init
>          kernel_FreeBSD? ( || ( >=sys-freebsd/freebsd-ubin-9.0_rc 
> sys-process/fuser-bsd ) )
>          elibc_glibc? ( >=sys-libs/glibc-2.5 )
>          ncurses? ( sys-libs/ncurses )
>          pam? ( sys-auth/pambase )
>          >=sys-apps/baselayout-2.1-r1
>          kernel_linux? (
>                  sys-process/psmisc
>          )
>          !<sys-fs/udev-133"
> 
> So, *maybe* the last line means it needs a udev not less than 133 -
> but I don't know enough about how ebuilds to work to risk an
> unbootable system if it doesn't mean what I think it means.
> 
> Sorry, I'm not a programmer and don't know what to look for (or even 
> where to look until you pointed me to the file), so how about just a 
> simple answer?

He probably means all the elogs and ewarns in there - that ebuild is
littered with the things. View the ebuild in less and search on
"equire", you'll see what I mean.

"!<sys-fs/udev-133" does indeed mean the ebuild requires udev that is
not less than 133. or put another way, it wants udev version 133 or
higher.




-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRC update to 0.11.5 - safe if using older udev (pinned to udev-181)?

[Bruce Hill]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:17:17PM -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:
> 
> RDEPEND="virtual/init
>          kernel_FreeBSD? ( || ( >=sys-freebsd/freebsd-ubin-9.0_rc 
> sys-process/fuser-bsd ) )
>          elibc_glibc? ( >=sys-libs/glibc-2.5 )
>          ncurses? ( sys-libs/ncurses )
>          pam? ( sys-auth/pambase )
>          >=sys-apps/baselayout-2.1-r1
>          kernel_linux? (
>                  sys-process/psmisc
>          )
>          !<sys-fs/udev-133"
> 
> So, *maybe* the last line means it needs a udev not less than 133 - but 
> I don't know enough about how ebuilds to work to risk an unbootable 
> system if it doesn't mean what I think it means.
> 
> Sorry, I'm not a programmer and don't know what to look for (or even 
> where to look until you pointed me to the file), so how about just a 
> simple answer?

You are correct in that it requires !<sys-fs/udev-133, where ! means "not" and
< means "less than", so "not less than sys-fs/udev-133". The lowest version in
portage atm is 141-r1, so unless you had an extremely old udev and masked it,
you won't have trouble there.

If you continue to read the ebuild, using less as someone suggested, use the
slash (/) which searches, such as /openrc and /udev to read what the ebuild
will do. That ebuild is an awk script which is going to execute the commands
as you see them. This section, for instance:

# >=OpenRC-0.11.3 requires udev-mount to be in the sysinit runlevel with udev.
migrate_udev_mount_script() {
        if [ -e "${EROOT}"etc/runlevels/sysinit/udev -a \
                ! -e "${EROOT}"etc/runlevels/sysinit/udev-mount ]; then
                add_boot_init udev-mount sysinit
        fi
        return 0
}

Since sys-apps/openrc-0.11.5 is still ~arch (where arch is architecture, such
as x86, amd64; and ~ means unstable), you might find bugs. It has been
submittied for stable request https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435756
but not yet approved as stable.

Do you mind asking why you want to use unstable openrc? Is there some feature
you need?
-- 
Happy Penguin Computers               >')
126 Fenco Drive                       ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801                       ^^
support@happypenguincomputers.com
662-269-2706 662-205-6424
http://happypenguincomputers.com/

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

Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRC update to 0.11.5 - safe if using older udev (pinned to udev-181)?

[Bruce Hill]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 02:17:17PM -0500, Tanstaafl wrote:

Hey, should be no worries now ... openrc-0.11.5 got moved to stable today, so
it should work fine with >=sys-fs/udev-181 (stable udev atm).
-- 
Happy Penguin Computers               >')
126 Fenco Drive                       ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801                       ^^
support@happypenguincomputers.com
662-269-2706 662-205-6424
http://happypenguincomputers.com/

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

Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRC update to 0.11.5 - safe if using older udev (pinned to udev-181)?

[Mark Knecht]

On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> wrote:
> Anyone?
>
> I don't see any news blurbs warning about it, but with everything going on
> with udev, systemd, etc, I'm not risking updating unless/until I know it is
> safe.
>
> Tia...
>
> Charles
>

I took one stable machine with almost no ~amd64 packages and updated.
No problems here. YMMV.

HTH,
Mark

Re: [gentoo-user] OpenRC update to 0.11.5 - safe if using older udev (pinned to udev-181)?

[Mick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: Text/Plain, Size: 591 bytes --]

On Tuesday 20 Nov 2012 19:38:40 Mark Knecht wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 5:46 AM, Tanstaafl <tanstaafl@libertytrek.org> 
wrote:
> > Anyone?
> > 
> > I don't see any news blurbs warning about it, but with everything going
> > on with udev, systemd, etc, I'm not risking updating unless/until I know
> > it is safe.
> > 
> > Tia...
> > 
> > Charles
> 
> I took one stable machine with almost no ~amd64 packages and updated.
> No problems here. YMMV.

Ditto.  Just rebooted after updating /etc/rc.conf and all is good.  Now I'm 
updating a x86 box.

-- 
Regards,
Mick

[-- Attachment #2: This is a digitally signed message part. --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]