Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
today updated want to replace udev with systemd
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Portage & Programming
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
mv
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 4349

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

m_lan wrote:
mv wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Alternatively, you can switch to eudev or (if you feel brave) mdev.

No, you cannot if you are a gnome user (here: gdm): Gnome uses all means to force systemd. The only way to remove systemd is to get rid of gnome.


Wait; I'm using GNOME, everything seems fine, packages are up2date.

eix -vle gdm wrote:
[M]~ 3.8.3.1
[...] RDEPEND=[...] >=sys-apps/systemd-186[pam] [...]

ChangeLog wrote:
*gdm-3.8.3.1 (14 Jul 2013)
[...] systemd is required as upstream only cares about it (#463784) and we
will need systemd for other Gnome 3.8 parts (also, logind cannot be run
without systemd from >= 205).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1197

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Isn't this part of the new paradigm:
"The linux desktop is dead, long live the linux powered gadget"

- Gnome cuts down features
- Gnome demands kernel embedded dbus from systemd to better support user apps
- Gnome logind
- Gnomes touch screen layout
... etc

I would expect better desktop support from alternatives like Xfce. What about Mint-gtk3?
Qt based razor-qt, now working together with lxdm-qt, which will provide the long discussed Qt experience without semantic-desktop ...

The fat projects (kde,gnome) soonishly will change their session startup into a systemd-user modular design. This will starve startx without pam. On the server side Kernel developers demand from systemd to provide the only instance for to change cgroup resources of virtual vms. Debian has decided against openrc ("too little too late") and is in preparation of default systemd-init...

Do you think Gentoo maintainers keep up against upstream?
_________________
fun2gen2


Last edited by ulenrich on Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:27 pm; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DaggyStyle
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 22 Mar 2006
Posts: 4971

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 3:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:

DaggyStyle wrote:
seriously? I wrote "unmerge systemd, it is part of udev now." and you read "unmerge udev, it is part of systemd now."?


You may want to revise what systemd and udev are and the relation between them; as a hint, check the DESCRIPTION sections of `man systemd`, `man systemd-udevd` and `man 7 udev`. How can a system and service manager be part of software that does device management? Well, it can; but that wouldn't make much sense. systemd and openrc use udev, not the other way around. If you don't believe me, a simple Google query for "systemd udev" will show that udev's sources merged into systemd, others mentioning that udev became a part of systemd; so, the forks and unbundle efforts have been done to get udev back out of systemd...

strange, I was under the impression that it was the other way around, in that case udev should be gone soon from the tree. maybe it is time to migrate to eudev rather than udev.

I stand corrected regarding my initial comment.
_________________
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the former - Albert Einstein
ProjectFootball
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mv
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 4349

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
Isn't this part of the new paradigm:

It is redhat policy, not a paradigm: It is not accidental that all effects you describe are forced by redhat-payed developers. In fact when I read some "bug reports" concerning some of the feature cuts ("Remove ... it is confusing and unusable" - "I think ... is useful. Would you please explain what is confusing and unusable there?" - "Remove it, it is confusing and unusable" - "OK, I do what you want") it is clear that this has nothing to do with free development - it is just a policy forced by some chiefs from redhat.
Most free developers oppose unless they are too pressed like Debian: If you want to provide a distribution which also wants to offer gnome and you do not have the flexibility with useflags, there is no choice for you. Unless you have enormous resources like Ubuntu does. The lack of resources is also the reason why there are not too much alternatives to gnome.
I am not yet convinced that also KDE will require systemd, although they also might be forced due to limited resources; their bad policy concerning kde4 costed them too many users and possible developers.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Wed Jul 17, 2013 7:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

DaggyStyle wrote:
strange, I was under the impression that it was the other way around, in that case udev should be gone soon from the tree. maybe it is time to migrate to eudev rather than udev.


As long as it satisfies the virtual there is no basis on which the package can be removed from the tree; when it no longer satisfies the virtual and no packages explicitly need it, then there is a chance it could face removal. But in the current situation, that might still take a long time; please note that eudev is not different from udev in terms of its functionality, but rather in the way it is compatible with other things. This is kind of a thing that is not strictly specified as dependencies in the packages oher than the virtual; there are some warnings in place but that's that, the user eventually has to make the decision which combination of packages ends up being installed. Some users need systemd, some users need udev, some users need eudev; some users are able to use multple of those options and can swap one for the other... There is no one size fits all package.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ssuominen
Developer
Developer


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 2133
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
DaggyStyle wrote:
strange, I was under the impression that it was the other way around, in that case udev should be gone soon from the tree. maybe it is time to migrate to eudev rather than udev.


As long as it satisfies the virtual there is no basis on which the package can be removed from the tree; when it no longer satisfies the virtual and no packages explicitly need it, then there is a chance it could face removal. But in the current situation, that might still take a long time; please note that eudev is not different from udev in terms of its functionality, but rather in the way it is compatible with other things. This is kind of a thing that is not strictly specified as dependencies in the packages oher than the virtual; there are some warnings in place but that's that, the user eventually has to make the decision which combination of packages ends up being installed. Some users need systemd, some users need udev, some users need eudev; some users are able to use multple of those options and can swap one for the other... There is no one size fits all package.


There is one size fits all package called sys-fs/udev which works for any init system. However there are issues with systemd maintaining as it's completely needlessly using internal copy of sys-fs/udev. Futhemore sys-fs/eudev doesn't have anything useful sys-fs/udev doesn't have and the sooner it'll be removed from Portage, the better.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TomWij
Developer
Developer


Joined: 04 Jul 2012
Posts: 1551

PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 9:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ssuominen wrote:
There is one size fits all package called sys-fs/udev which works for any init system. However there are issues with systemd maintaining as it's completely needlessly using internal copy of sys-fs/udev. Futhemore sys-fs/eudev doesn't have anything useful sys-fs/udev doesn't have and the sooner it'll be removed from Portage, the better.


Unless there is a language barrier on the meaning of "one size fits all" it seems like you are contradicting yourself; it is not a one size fits all because users switch away from it for that reason and possibly others, and eudev is indeed not necessarily a good example here (yet users switch to it as they are not well informed) but there exist other alternatives like mdev as well more extreme alternatives where you use the old modules in /etc approach or no modules at all and build everything into the kernel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ssuominen
Developer
Developer


Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 2133
Location: Finland

PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 10:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TomWij wrote:
ssuominen wrote:
There is one size fits all package called sys-fs/udev which works for any init system. However there are issues with systemd maintaining as it's completely needlessly using internal copy of sys-fs/udev. Futhemore sys-fs/eudev doesn't have anything useful sys-fs/udev doesn't have and the sooner it'll be removed from Portage, the better.


Unless there is a language barrier on the meaning of "one size fits all" it seems like you are contradicting yourself; it is not a one size fits all because users switch away from it for that reason and possibly others, and eudev is indeed not necessarily a good example here (yet users switch to it as they are not well informed) but there exist other alternatives like mdev as well more extreme alternatives where you use the old modules in /etc approach or no modules at all and build everything into the kernel.


I spoke too much from 'how sys-fs/udev would fit if everything else was packaged correctly' point of view. And I didn't think of anything else than virtual/udev providers, not virtual/dev-manager providers like mdev.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1197

PostPosted: Thu Jul 18, 2013 1:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ssuominen wrote:
there are issues with systemd maintaining as it's completely needlessly using internal copy of sys-fs/udev.

Please keep this copy! It is the way to install systemd-9999.git unchanged.

As the systemd train is fastening and Debian jumps on the waggon (You can expect Ubuntu to follow next year), it is questionable what there is the "copy", when systemd will be the general commodity.
_________________
fun2gen2
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
sporkbox
n00b
n00b


Joined: 11 Sep 2012
Posts: 21
Location: United States

PostPosted: Wed Jul 24, 2013 8:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ssuominen wrote:
TomWij wrote:
DaggyStyle wrote:
strange, I was under the impression that it was the other way around, in that case udev should be gone soon from the tree. maybe it is time to migrate to eudev rather than udev.


As long as it satisfies the virtual there is no basis on which the package can be removed from the tree; when it no longer satisfies the virtual and no packages explicitly need it, then there is a chance it could face removal. But in the current situation, that might still take a long time; please note that eudev is not different from udev in terms of its functionality, but rather in the way it is compatible with other things. This is kind of a thing that is not strictly specified as dependencies in the packages oher than the virtual; there are some warnings in place but that's that, the user eventually has to make the decision which combination of packages ends up being installed. Some users need systemd, some users need udev, some users need eudev; some users are able to use multple of those options and can swap one for the other... There is no one size fits all package.


There is one size fits all package called sys-fs/udev which works for any init system. However there are issues with systemd maintaining as it's completely needlessly using internal copy of sys-fs/udev. Futhemore sys-fs/eudev doesn't have anything useful sys-fs/udev doesn't have and the sooner it'll be removed from Portage, the better.


Forcing the removal of eudev encroaches on the available choices, and Gentoo is primarily about choice. eudev is a legitimate fulfiller of the udev virtual and thus shouldn't go anywhere, as it is a suitable choice. Reliance on systemd is dangerous given their political goal of system unification. eudev allows users to retain the benefits of udev without systemd tainting their installations. One could argue that mdev and possible other pieces of software exist, but what is wrong with keeping something around that's effectively a fork? Should we get rid of Cinnamon and Mate, too?

I think you have a conflict of interest going on. The stench of an agenda is rather obvious to me in your post.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NReale3370
n00b
n00b


Joined: 26 Jul 2013
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ppurka wrote:
mv wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Alternatively, you can switch to eudev or (if you feel brave) mdev.

No, you cannot if you are a gnome user (here: gdm): Gnome uses all means to force systemd. The only way to remove systemd is to get rid of gnome.
Is there anything which can replace networkmanager + nm-applet combo (used with vpn), and which is as easy to use? I don't know of any and I have used wicd, wpa-gui, net.wlan0 in the past.


I use the nm-applet networkmanager combo in Cinnamon and it works great. When Gnome-3.8 was unhardmasked the other day I had to mask a few packages that insisted on systemd and otherwise cause trouble for the current Gentoo version of cinnamon:

>dev-libs/gjs-1.34.0
>=gnome-base/gnome-settings-daemon-3.8.3-r1
>=gnome-base/gsettings-desktop-schemas-3.8.2
>media-libs/clutter-1.12.2
>media-libs/clutter-gtk-1.4.2

but I imagine once Gentoo updates to a newer cinnamon version the gnome packages won't be needed at all, since cinnamon's implemented its own control center. IMO Cinnamon is great for people who want a gnome2-like experience while still using the current gtk3 etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred Krogh
l33t
l33t


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 814
Location: Tujunga, CA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 2:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm running xfce4, but also use a lot of gnome stuff. I tried getting around all the dependency problems before coming across this thread. My inclination is to attempt to get my system working in the way that the world seems to be moving. If I understand things correctly this means using systemd. An attempt to merge systemd gives
Quote:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild N ] sys-apps/systemd-206 USE="acl filecaps firmware-loader gudev introspection kmod openrc pam policykit python tcpd -audit -cryptsetup -doc -gcrypt -http -lzma -qrcode (-selinux) {-test} -vanilla -xattr" PYTHON_SINGLE_TARGET="python2_7" PYTHON_TARGETS="python2_7"
[uninstall ] sys-auth/consolekit-0.4.6
[uninstall ] app-admin/openrc-settingsd-1.0.1
[blocks B ] sys-fs/udev ("sys-fs/udev" is blocking sys-apps/systemd-206)
[blocks B ] >=sys-apps/systemd-197 (">=sys-apps/systemd-197" is blocking sys-auth/nss-myhostname-0.3)
[blocks B ] sys-apps/systemd ("sys-apps/systemd" is blocking sys-fs/udev-206, sys-auth/consolekit-0.4.6, app-admin/openrc-settingsd-1.0.1)
[blocks B ] sys-auth/nss-myhostname ("sys-auth/nss-myhostname" is blocking sys-apps/systemd-206)
So, should I
Quote:
emerge -C sys-fs/udev sys-auth/nss-myhostname sys-auth/consolekit sys-auth/nss-myhostname
full of confidence that my system is still going to boot after emerging other stuff that is blocked? And if the whole things is supposed to work, do I need to say anything special to get booted with the new system? After years of using gentoo this is the most confusing mess I've seen.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NReale3370
n00b
n00b


Joined: 26 Jul 2013
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 3:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This wiki helped when I tested systemd out on another install:

http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Systemd

The really important parts are to make sure your kernel has the right options enabled and the BIG one is to make sure to set the init= value at boot (although if you're using grub you could always add this manually after your system won't boot)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred Krogh
l33t
l33t


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 814
Location: Tujunga, CA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks that link was useful. I'm still not clear if I can uninstall the blockers, and I'm not clear on what needs to be done when using grub2 as opposed to grub.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GFCCAE6xF
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 06 Aug 2012
Posts: 232

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 4:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fred Krogh wrote:
I'm not clear on what needs to be done when using grub2 as opposed to grub.


Same as you would adding any other kernel parameters to grub2, iirc there is a grub file (in /etc/default ??) with a place to add these, then you run the grub make config thingy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred Krogh
l33t
l33t


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 814
Location: Tujunga, CA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 5:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, when all else is cleared up, I'll add this
Quote:
GRUB_CMDLINE_LINUX="init=/usr/lib/systemd/systemd"
to /etc/default/grub and run
Quote:
grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NReale3370
n00b
n00b


Joined: 26 Jul 2013
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you have the multislot flag disabled grub2-mkconfig and /boot/grub2 become grub-mkconfig /boot/grub. I updated that the other day with the new use flag and my system was briefly unbootable! When I did the switch I unmerged those and immediately emerged systemd and did not have trouble. If you're super paranoid have the gentoo livecd on standby and chroot to reinstall udev if something goes badly haywire (also worth keeping one around for accidentally unmerging portage or python. I know when I tried it and I had all that set up I uninstalled udev, installed systemd, then enabled the systemd global use flag and emerge -uDNav @world to recompile packages for the new flag.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred Krogh
l33t
l33t


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 814
Location: Tujunga, CA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 9:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've decided to give this a try, and while I'm in the process of trying emerge things, I've had to emerge -C a few, but now I'm stuck. I get this blocker
Quote:
[blocks B ] sys-apps/systemd ("sys-apps/systemd" is blocking sys-auth/consolekit-0.4.6)
And if I try to mask out consolekit, it complains that consolekit is masked. Other than removing systemd, and I think systemd was the whole point of this exercise, I don't know how to continue. Any ideas? Thanks,
Fred
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NReale3370
n00b
n00b


Joined: 26 Jul 2013
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Fri Jul 26, 2013 11:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just disabled the consolekit use flag, recompiled the stuff that needed it, then emerge -C consolekit. Probably best to do that from outside an X session just in case it makes things go wonky inside a desktop session.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred Krogh
l33t
l33t


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 814
Location: Tujunga, CA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 1:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I bit the bullet and it has bitten me back. My system will boot, and I can startx as root, but the usual start using xdm and slim (as I recall) does not work. Right now a bigger problem is that I have no ethernet. (I'm posting this from a laptop, that was just configured to use the DSL modem.) ifconfig shows only "lo:". If I try to start /etc/init.d/net.eth0 it say net.eth0 is already starting. Apparently this takes forever. I'd really appreciate suggestions on how to track down these problems. Thanks,
Fred
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NReale3370
n00b
n00b


Joined: 26 Jul 2013
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

hmm, I don't use xdm/slim so I don't have anything there, I usually just log in at the command prompt since I like to run updates and other things from there before starting a desktop. eth0 is probably systemd's new network naming scheme. Some time ago they changed the network naming scheme to something that would give persistent names to each NIC (as opposed to just naming them as they found them, which could get complicated if you have multiple network cards). This wiki article explains the scheme:

http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Udev/upgrade

When I got hit with this upgrade i found was to run dmesg, at the bottom they have this: r8169 0000:03:00.0 enp3s0: link down (r8169 being my realtek ethernet). enp3s0 is the new persistent name my network card has instead of eth0/wlan0. Change your symlink from net.eth0 and that should work. That being said if you have networkmanager installed you shouldn't have net.anything in init.d and using systemd to start networkmanager which handles all of that. systemd handles services with the systemctl command so you'd do #systemctl enable NetworkManager.service.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred Krogh
l33t
l33t


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 814
Location: Tujunga, CA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 4:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I've tried to follow instructions, evidently not successfully. ifconfig now shows
Quote:
eth0: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
ether 00:e0:4c:68:e4:0c txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 15 bytes 6030 (5.8 KiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

eth1: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
ether 00:e0:4c:68:e5:12 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 15 bytes 6030 (5.8 KiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

eth2: flags=4163<UP,BROADCAST,RUNNING,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
ether 00:e0:4c:68:e4:0d txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 12 bytes 720 (720.0 B)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 15 bytes 6030 (5.8 KiB)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

eth3: flags=4099<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
ether 00:e0:4c:68:e5:11 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

eth4: flags=4099<UP,BROADCAST,MULTICAST> mtu 1500
ether f4:6d:04:d6:7d:15 txqueuelen 1000 (Ethernet)
RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0

lo: flags=73<UP,LOOPBACK,RUNNING> mtu 65536
inet 127.0.0.1 netmask 255.0.0.0
loop txqueuelen 0 (Local Loopback)
RX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
RX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 frame 0
TX packets 0 bytes 0 (0.0 B)
TX errors 0 dropped 0 overruns 0 carrier 0 collisions 0
So at least something is now there. I've gone through /etc and change eth to net, thus eth0 => net0, etc. I have added the file /etc/udev/rules.d/10-network.rules which contains
Quote:
SUBSYTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", ATTR(address)==00:e0:4c:68:e4:0c, NAME="net0"
SUBSYTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", ATTR(address)==00:e0:4c:68:e5:12, NAME="net1"
SUBSYTEM=="net", ACTION=="add", ATTR(address)==00:e0:4c:68:e4:0d, NAME="net2"
Given that ifconfig still talks about eth0, etc, and gien that cat /sys/net/eth0/address works but with eth0 replaced by net0, it doesn't, I must have missed something. Might it be something with /etc/udev/rules.d/10-network.rules? Helppppp! Thanks.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred Krogh
l33t
l33t


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 814
Location: Tujunga, CA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have removed 10-network-rules, renamed all the netx to ethx in /etc, and now I have a network on my main machine. But shorewall does not start, instead says "shorewall is already starting". I decided to go back to my laptop as I didn't want my main machine running without a firewall. After rebooting my main machine the ethernet ports were scrambled, so something needs to be done to tie them down. And I'd really like some idea of where to start in getting shorewall started. Is there a chance that I need to go back to netx in place of ethx, and just delete /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
NReale3370
n00b
n00b


Joined: 26 Jul 2013
Posts: 11

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 11:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmm don't use shorewall so its beyond me, but are you starting it through init.d scripts or systemctl commands? Init.d doesn't work in systemd you should do everything through systemctl
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fred Krogh
l33t
l33t


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 814
Location: Tujunga, CA

PostPosted: Sat Jul 27, 2013 1:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, I have enabled xdm and shorewall. The system now boots into my normal xfce4 environment -- that's good. Shorewall fails to start, but I think that is due to my network rules being messed up. I think I can get all my services started, but of course still no network.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Portage & Programming All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
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