Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
absolute terror
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
albright
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 16 Nov 2003
Posts: 2109
Location: Near Toronto

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 6:42 pm    Post subject: absolute terror Reply with quote

I guess everybody but me knew about this,
but rebooting today system stopped at udev
with: config_systmpfs needs to be set in kernel
for this version of udev

thanks be for the rescue cd!! :wink:
_________________
.... there is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth
doing as simply messing about with Linux ...
(apologies to Kenneth Graeme)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GFCCAE6xF
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Posts: 229
Location: England, UK

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Did portage not throw out a message/warning after installing? I usually see things about kernel settings fr various packages piped out after updates.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
albright
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 16 Nov 2003
Posts: 2109
Location: Near Toronto

PostPosted: Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the only message udev gives out, so far as I can tell,
is this:

Code:
* Messages for package sys-fs/udev-197-r3:

 *
 * udev-197 and newer introduces a new method of naming network
 * interfaces. The new names are a very significant change, so
 * they are disabled by default on live systems.
 * Please see the contents of /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules for more
 * information on this feature.
 *
 * You need to restart udev as soon as possible to make the upgrade go
 * into effect.
 * The method you use to do this depends on your init system.
 *
 * Old versions of installed libraries were detected on your system.
 * In order to avoid breaking packages that depend on these old libs,
 * the libraries are not being removed.  You need to run revdep-rebuild
 * in order to remove these old dependencies.  If you do not have this
 * helper program, simply emerge the 'gentoolkit' package.
 *
 *   # revdep-rebuild --library '/lib64/libudev.so.0' && rm '/lib64/libudev.so.0'
 *
 * For more information on udev on Gentoo, writing udev rules, and
 *          fixing known issues visit:
 *          http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/udev-guide.xml


No mention of config_tmpfs ... (perhaps /usr/src/linux/.config should be checked?)
_________________
.... there is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth
doing as simply messing about with Linux ...
(apologies to Kenneth Graeme)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
smartass
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 04 Jul 2011
Posts: 189
Location: right behind you ... (you did turn around, didn't you?)

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 6:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

did you mean CONFIG_SYSFS or CONFIG_DEVTMPFS?

Code:
grep -C 2 CONFIG_CHECK /usr/portage/sys-fs/udev/*
shows that DEVTMPFS is required, but doesn't mention SYSFS, only that the non-deprecated version should be used. So maybe SYSFS is taken as a standard. If you're sure it wants SYSFS, file a bug, but it's possible that someone will tell you that SYSFS is a standard of some sort today.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
albright
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 16 Nov 2003
Posts: 2109
Location: Near Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
did you mean CONFIG_SYSFS or CONFIG_DEVTMPFS?


sorry, that's right CONFIG_DEVTMPFS;

I see on another computer that a message pops right up, forbidding
udev installing if that kernel switch is off - but it seems that was
not there yesterday ...
_________________
.... there is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth
doing as simply messing about with Linux ...
(apologies to Kenneth Graeme)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
smartass
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 04 Jul 2011
Posts: 189
Location: right behind you ... (you did turn around, didn't you?)

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Code:
grep -C 1 CONFIG_CHECK /usr/portage/sys-fs/udev/udev-197-r3.ebuild
shows it's there, so that's strange.
You could try re-emerging it on the same computer, if it doesn't pop up again, you should file a bug.

Another option is that your /usr/src/linux symlink is wrong or .config is not there.

Also, compare the eclass and portage versions on the two computers. However, make sure you are checking for the version during the udev upgrade, it's possible portage was upgraded after that.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
albright
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 16 Nov 2003
Posts: 2109
Location: Near Toronto

PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 4:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think /usr/src/linux/.config is being checked since changing
that file does not trigger the message refusing to install udev
on either computer.

It's not worth downgrading udev to investigate this further
to me ... though I am left with the mystery of how udev got
installed at all on the computer missing DEVTMPFS?
_________________
.... there is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth
doing as simply messing about with Linux ...
(apologies to Kenneth Graeme)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
smartass
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 04 Jul 2011
Posts: 189
Location: right behind you ... (you did turn around, didn't you?)

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

possibly it's checking the running kernel in /proc/config.gz
If you don't have that, then it could fail silently.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
666threesixes666
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 31 May 2011
Posts: 1241
Location: 42.68n 85.41w

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

i first experienced this problem over a month ago. 6 weeks ago... get a flash drive, install unetbootin, and make a bootable usb flash key.... smash your cd, i dont trust nor like optical media, flash drives so quick and so handy :D
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
albright
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 16 Nov 2003
Posts: 2109
Location: Near Toronto

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
possibly it's checking the running kernel in /proc/config.gz
If you don't have that, then it could fail silently.


true, but I do have /proc/config.gz in place
_________________
.... there is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth
doing as simply messing about with Linux ...
(apologies to Kenneth Graeme)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
depontius
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 2583

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 1:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

666threesixes666 wrote:
i first experienced this problem over a month ago. 6 weeks ago... get a flash drive, install unetbootin, and make a bootable usb flash key.... smash your cd, i dont trust nor like optical media, flash drives so quick and so handy :D


Can you point to a HowTo on this? I've always used SystemRescueCD, and never fiddled much with bootable flash. (I have one non-functional bootable flash I created as part of security procedures called for by my employer, and haven't had time to bug it out.)
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
666threesixes666
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 31 May 2011
Posts: 1241
Location: 42.68n 85.41w

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

unetbootin is very simple to use. my main problem was not having ext2/3/4 on my system (not having the file system it wants to use,) its as easy as selecting "iso" loading an iso into unetbootin and pointing it at the flash drive and hitting "ok" i have not used it since ubuntu (almost 9 months ago for me)

(i have not had a job since before bush)

ill start a unetbootin gentoo wiki page for you.... found here https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Unetbootin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
smartass
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 04 Jul 2011
Posts: 189
Location: right behind you ... (you did turn around, didn't you?)

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 6:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Right, so if you have /proc/config.gz, what about
Code:
zgrep DEVTMPFS /proc/config.gz
?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eccerr0r
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 4003
Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes this is absolute terror, I wish it would not let you upgrade udev (say, with premerge checks) until after the kernel has been upgraded (since it appears the kernel is more forgiving than udev - meaning you can use DEVTMPFS without newer udev?).

I'm beginning to really hate udev...
_________________
Intel Core i7 2700K@ 4.1GHz/HD3000 graphics/8GB DDR3/180GB SSD
What am I supposed to be advocating?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
666threesixes666
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 31 May 2011
Posts: 1241
Location: 42.68n 85.41w

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 7:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ill second the hatred for udev.... before all this noise it would block and block and block and block, backward and forward in versions block block block block, i was about to uninstall gentoo over it, but after 2-3 weeks it stopped breaking and blocking my system
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eccerr0r
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 4003
Location: USA

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Wonderful, I think I broke all my fast machines. Well, they do have something in common - they use initramfs. Looks like initramfs and busybox mdev has some bad interaction with DEVTMPFS...
_________________
Intel Core i7 2700K@ 4.1GHz/HD3000 graphics/8GB DDR3/180GB SSD
What am I supposed to be advocating?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ssuominen
Developer
Developer


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 2131
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

666threesixes666 wrote:
ill second the hatred for udev.... before all this noise it would block and block and block and block, backward and forward in versions block block block block, i was about to uninstall gentoo over it, but after 2-3 weeks it stopped breaking and blocking my system


Blockers are normal Portage behavior and does not indicate anything being broken. It's like calling steering wheel in a car a bug.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
666threesixes666
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 31 May 2011
Posts: 1241
Location: 42.68n 85.41w

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 12:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

lol it was blocking version up and blocking version down, like serious wrench in the gears style conflicting with over 15 packages both ways
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
aidanjt
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 20 Feb 2005
Posts: 1102
Location: Rep. of Ireland

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ssuominen wrote:
Blockers are normal Portage behavior and does not indicate anything being broken. It's like calling steering wheel in a car a bug.

A more accurate analogy is having to pull the spanner out of the gearbox to get the machine going again.
_________________
juniper wrote:
you experience political reality dilation when travelling at american political speeds. it's in einstein's formulas. it's not their fault.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eccerr0r
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 4003
Location: USA

PostPosted: Wed Jan 23, 2013 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't think there really is a good car analogy to the Gentoo blockers issue...

It's more like when the rules change from underneath you, a lot of the times... The tools suddenly want to do something else when your system was working just fine albeit out of date...

Maybe if you need to upgrade a particular part but you need this other part with it, but this third related part can't work with the second part after it's been upgraded?

Update: I restored two of my fast machines (my i7 and i5) to working condition: one was bad kernel build and bad initramfs, other was... simply running the wrong kernel (I thought I patched my 3.5.7 but I actually built 3.6.11 with the correct options) :o
_________________
Intel Core i7 2700K@ 4.1GHz/HD3000 graphics/8GB DDR3/180GB SSD
What am I supposed to be advocating?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
albright
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 16 Nov 2003
Posts: 2109
Location: Near Toronto

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 1:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eselect news now has a notice about the devtempfs issue

the last line of the news item:

Quote:
Apologies if this news came too late for you.


:lol:
_________________
.... there is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth
doing as simply messing about with Linux ...
(apologies to Kenneth Graeme)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eccerr0r
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 4003
Location: USA

PostPosted: Thu Jan 24, 2013 4:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just don't get why devfs was removed for udev, and now udev requires devtmpfs ... what gives...
_________________
Intel Core i7 2700K@ 4.1GHz/HD3000 graphics/8GB DDR3/180GB SSD
What am I supposed to be advocating?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
depontius
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 2583

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 3:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

eccerr0r wrote:
I just don't get why devfs was removed for udev, and now udev requires devtmpfs ... what gives...


Despite the similarity of sound, devfs and devtmpfs are two very different things. There are 2 issues here, the lower-level issue is simply a place to hang device nodes, and the higher-level issue is how to manage policy - naming and permissions being 2 pieces of policy - on those nodes. Once upon a time those 2 issues weren't separate, and that's when devfs was around, doing both. The argument against devfs was that it place policy in the kernel instead of in userspace, and Linus really doesn't like having policy in the kernel. With udev that policy is pushed into userspace.

As for separating hanging device nodes and policy, that may have been a piece of cleanup, if I remember correctly. When the kernel first boots, it needs a place to hang those device nodes - before the root filesystem is mounted. After all, you have to have /dev/sda and /dev/sda5 before you can mount /dev/sda5 as "/". I believe that the old ways of doing this were considered ugly hacks, and devtmpfs is the cleanup.
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
eccerr0r
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 01 Jul 2004
Posts: 4003
Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Devtmpfs appears to prepopulate some nodes, which is very similar to devfs. If it's just null, root, and console, then maybe it's helpful but there already have been many workarounds with user space to generate these. I'll need to play with this and see what it *really* does...

But the kernel never needed any device nodes in /dev to boot... it's just the user applications that need it. The machine worked just fine before this udev update too, which I don't get. Unless this was to help a user diagnose the machine so you don't need to mknod?

Anyone know of a specific example where the new system is better?

I still have a few machines to upgrade... :( haven't had to compile so many kernels in a long while, at least they're all getting upgraded to 3.5.7 or newer...
_________________
Intel Core i7 2700K@ 4.1GHz/HD3000 graphics/8GB DDR3/180GB SSD
What am I supposed to be advocating?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
depontius
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 05 May 2004
Posts: 2583

PostPosted: Fri Jan 25, 2013 6:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm doing a quick check, and so far the discussion seems to be spending a lot of time back in 2009. I believe that prior to devtmpfs your choices were devfs or static device nodes. As I said, I believe that the kernel developers didn't like devfs bringing policy into the kernel, and felt that the alternative, though working, was a kludge. I seem to remember once upon a time seeing /dev populated by a pile of device nodes that I didn't have installed, and I believe embedded people didn't like that.
_________________
.sigs waste space and bandwidth
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Gentoo Chat All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum