| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
FastTurtle
Guru
Joined: 03 Sep 2002
Posts: 481
Location: Flakey Shake & Bake Caliornia, USA
|
 Posted: Sun May 26, 2024 1:44 pm Post subject: Wiki Guide to building Gentoo on WSL and Rant |
 |
|
Not sure if it's worth the effort/aggravation but I'm looking into the Wiki Guide and thinking about using WSL to complete my Gentoo build. I've already gotten to the point that it boots but having issues with many circular deps and the 17.1 profile (base) deciding it wanted to use split-usr for everything! Why?? What did the devs do that fragged the default behaviour of the minimal base profile? 
Seriously, I'm currently looking at using the March (2403xx Stage3) tarball and starting over though using the working Binary Dist Kernel in boot. Might be easiest to solve many of the idiot problems being caused by the sudden need for Splt-USR that's occured and I sure havent figured that issue out since I tend to prefer the base profile and all of the split-usr profiles are listed as that so the question is, what in "Freya's" name got changed in the base profile to require split-usr or is it because of the Gentoo-Dist-Binary kernel that's causing this issue? If that's the case, it's just one more reason for me not to want an initramfs since it's not meeting the "KISS" principle as it should 
_________________
AsRock B550 Phantom Gaming 4
128GB 3200 Mhz memory
4x 4TB Sata - 2x 2TB Sata SSD - 4x 450GB SaS - 3x 900GB SaS - 72GB SaS for Boot
LSI 9211-8i in HBA mode for all of the SaS drives
Radeon 6800 (Non XT) for GPU |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Hu
Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 21920
|
| Posted: Sun May 26, 2024 2:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FastTurtle wrote: | | Not sure if it's worth the effort/aggravation but I'm looking into the Wiki Guide and thinking about using WSL to complete my Gentoo build. |
From what I know of WSL, adding that is a way to complicate the problem, not simplify it. There may exist circumstances where WSL is the least bad option, but I expect they are uncommon, and so likely do not apply to you. | FastTurtle wrote: | | I've already gotten to the point that it boots but having issues with many circular deps and the 17.1 profile (base) deciding it wanted to use split-usr for everything! |
Why are you on 17.1 for a new install? | FastTurtle wrote: | | Why?? What did the devs do that fragged the default behaviour of the minimal base profile? |
Without any error messages, or even program output, I have no way to answer this. I do not recall any other threads reporting this type of problem, so it seems that it is not a widespread issue caused by a developer error. | FastTurtle wrote: | | Seriously, I'm currently looking at using the March (2403xx Stage3) tarball and starting over though using the working Binary Dist Kernel in boot. Might be easiest to solve many of the idiot problems being caused by the sudden need for Splt-USR |
Do you realize that split-usr has been the default (and only) option for years, and is only now exposed because systemd is forcing people over to merged-usr, so now people need to decide whether to be split-usr or not, rather than the decision being made for them? | FastTurtle wrote: | | I sure havent figured that issue out since I tend to prefer the base profile and all of the split-usr profiles are listed as that so the question is, what in "Freya's" name got changed in the base profile to require split-usr or is it because of the Gentoo-Dist-Binary kernel that's causing this issue? |
I have not experienced or seen reports of any problems consistent with this vague description. I am comfortable saying that the gentoo-dist kernel is not the cause of your problems, and that they seem likely to be self-inflicted. Beyond that, I suggest that you follow Guidelines item #4 and show us a specific actionable error message. | FastTurtle wrote: | | If that's the case, it's just one more reason for me not to want an initramfs since it's not meeting the "KISS" principle as it should |
Excluding an initramfs is your choice, if you want to use a system that can be used without one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FastTurtle
Guru
Joined: 03 Sep 2002
Posts: 481
Location: Flakey Shake & Bake Caliornia, USA
|
| Posted: Wed May 29, 2024 12:33 pm Post subject: Lost the Battle |
|
|
Going back to the /rant - Turns out that the 2405xx stage3 file is already on the 23.0 profile. Didn't realize this as when I ran eselect profile list, there were over 50 coming up. The first 20 are for 17.1 and none are selected.
Now if the damn stage3 is already using the 23 profile, why are the 17.1 still listed when you run eselect profile list? The first thing you assume is that the profile has not been set so you configure it to use the 17.1 profile and as all of the warnings/articles note, going from 17.1 to 23.0 creates a lot of problem such as I encountered. As soon as I stuck with the profile that the stage3 was built with, I had no issues getting it to build.
Continuing the rant - Grub is a steaming PoS. I spent an entire holiday weekend (4 days )  and only had grub install itself once without error. That was with a Binary Dist Kernel and due to all the blasted modules loaded and poor config choices, it's impossible to get x11 running. Seems there are several frame buffers loading, including legacy and everyone of them conflict/fight with each other enough that x11 throws its hands up and leaves the damn building and yes this is on a clean system.
I even went so far as to see if a legacy build using Lilo would work and all I got for my efforts were kernel panics. Lilo did install and actually worked but all I got for my efforts were lots of kernel panics about VFS not syncing. Once I figure those out, I may actually be able to get things to boot.
Even gave Refind a try and it got to the point that kernel booting - not sure how long an efistub kernel takes to boot initially - seens reports anywhere from 10 to 120 minutes so I'll have to see if that solves the problem if I configure the CSM to UEFI mode - needed to see the HBA card as it does not have a UEFI firmware as yet. Next on my update list 
_________________
AsRock B550 Phantom Gaming 4
128GB 3200 Mhz memory
4x 4TB Sata - 2x 2TB Sata SSD - 4x 450GB SaS - 3x 900GB SaS - 72GB SaS for Boot
LSI 9211-8i in HBA mode for all of the SaS drives
Radeon 6800 (Non XT) for GPU |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hu
Administrator
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
Posts: 21920
|
| Posted: Wed May 29, 2024 3:39 pm Post subject: Re: Lost the Battle |
|
|
| FastTurtle wrote: | Going back to the /rant - Turns out that the 2405xx stage3 file is already on the 23.0 profile. Didn't realize this as when I ran eselect profile list, there were over 50 coming up. The first 20 are for 17.1 and none are selected.
Now if the damn stage3 is already using the 23 profile, why are the 17.1 still listed when you run eselect profile list? |
Why should they not be? You can switch to a 17.1 profile and make it work, if you are determined enough. I would not recommend that. | FastTurtle wrote: | | The first thing you assume is that the profile has not been set |
Was the profile actually unset, or did you just not see it in the list? | FastTurtle wrote: | | so you configure it to use the 17.1 profile |
Why would you do that? The Gentoo developers are pushing people not to use the 17.x profiles anymore, so if in doubt, you should pick a 23.0 profile. | FastTurtle wrote: | | and as all of the warnings/articles note, going from 17.1 to 23.0 creates a lot of problem such as I encountered. |
I switched all my systems from 17.1 to 23.0 without issue, using only the basic instructions in the news item. | FastTurtle wrote: | | Continuing the rant - Grub is a steaming PoS. I spent an entire holiday weekend (4 days ) and only had grub install itself once without error. |
I abandoned Grub and switched to syslinux, because grub2 looked over-engineered for my needs. | FastTurtle wrote: | | That was with a Binary Dist Kernel and due to all the blasted modules loaded and poor config choices, it's impossible to get x11 running. Seems there are several frame buffers loading, including legacy and everyone of them conflict/fight with each other enough that x11 throws its hands up and leaves the damn building and yes this is on a clean system. |
If you still need help with this, please post a separate thread about it and follow the standard troubleshooting instructions.
The use of grub versus another bootloader probably has no impact on your framebuffer problem though. Framebuffers are purely a kernel issue, independent of how you loaded the kernel (unless your kernel needs an initramfs, your bootloader failed to provide it, and you happened to have enough built into the kernel that it booted anyway). | FastTurtle wrote: | | I even went so far as to see if a legacy build using Lilo would work and all I got for my efforts were kernel panics. Lilo did install and actually worked but all I got for my efforts were lots of kernel panics about VFS not syncing. Once I figure those out, I may actually be able to get things to boot. |
Perhaps this is what I reference in the preceding paragraph: an initramfs is mandatory, and your bootloader is not supplying one. This is pure speculation though, as I have not looked at the kernel you are using. | FastTurtle wrote: | | Even gave Refind a try and it got to the point that kernel booting - not sure how long an efistub kernel takes to boot initially |
Mine boots in seconds, and most of that is hardware discovery. EFI stub kernels should boot about as fast as kernels brought up through a separate bootloader. You might save a tiny amount of time from not going through the Grub menu or equivalent. | FastTurtle wrote: | | - seens reports anywhere from 10 to 120 minutes so I'll have to see if that solves the problem if I configure the CSM to UEFI mode - needed to see the HBA card as it does not have a UEFI firmware as yet. Next on my update list |
A kernel boot above tens of seconds seems very wrong to me. The only legitimate way I can imagine a system needing minutes to become available is if someone incorrectly included the time of a filesystem check (which is a userspace step, but done before interactive logins are allowed) in their "boot" report. A full check of a large spinning disk can be slow. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
Other Things Gentoo
