| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
iKiddo
Guru
Joined: 27 Jun 2002
Posts: 341
Location: Europe?
|
 Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 8:55 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| darktux wrote: | I got so angry by having portage consuming all of my resources, making me reboot the machine several times, that I did:
Why was I allowed to do that? Self-Destruction mode set? *g*
How do I get it back? 
How does Gentoo want to get on the servers if things like this happen? I was considering putting it on a new server for a new company, but now I'm having serious second thoughts.. |
Figure out in which subdir portage resides (sys-devel I think) and go to that dir in /usr/portage. Then go into the portage dir and into the files dir. Here you will find a rescue-portage-x.y.z.tbz2 file amonsgt others. There is also a help file. Basically you want to extract the portage-rescue file with the -C / option (I think, can't remember exactly, was some time ago), so that it will extract it to your root partition. It's all documented, but what you need is the "/usr/portage/x-y/portage/files" directory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
darktux
Veteran
Joined: 16 Nov 2002
Posts: 1086
Location: Coimbra, Portugal
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iKiddo wrote: | | darktux wrote: | I got so angry by having portage consuming all of my resources, making me reboot the machine several times, that I did:
Why was I allowed to do that? Self-Destruction mode set? *g*
How do I get it back?
How does Gentoo want to get on the servers if things like this happen? I was considering putting it on a new server for a new company, but now I'm having serious second thoughts.. |
Figure out in which subdir portage resides (sys-devel I think) and go to that dir in /usr/portage. Then go into the portage dir and into the files dir. Here you will find a rescue-portage-x.y.z.tbz2 file amonsgt others. There is also a help file. Basically you want to extract the portage-rescue file with the -C / option (I think, can't remember exactly, was some time ago), so that it will extract it to your root partition. It's all documented, but what you need is the "/usr/portage/x-y/portage/files" directory. |
| Quote: | bash-2.05b$ pwd
/usr/portage/sys-apps/portage/files
bash-2.05b$ ls
digest-portage-2.0.45-r5 digest-portage-2.0.46_pre1 portage-2.0.45-r7.tar.bz2 portage-rescue-2.0.44-x86.tbz2
digest-portage-2.0.45-r7 digest-portage-2.0.46_pre2 portage-rescue-2.0.44-ppc.tbz2 README.RESCUE |
Thanks! 
_________________
Lego my ego, and I'll lego your knowledge
www.tuxslare.org - My reborn website  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NePhie
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
first of all, i don't think portage registers the size of files generated
second of all, rebuilding the gcc would anyway be the best thing to do, so it was built with your flags
and lastly : after reading that link, i think cardoe has absolutely no idea what this thread is about, this thread is NOT about a gcc upgrade, the gcc package itself was UNTOUCHED
what caused the problem here is a PORTAGE upgrade, i repeat, portage, not gcc
A portage update which is now masked, but WASN'T when i encountered it
A portage update which replaced the gcc binary with some script that merely opened a lot of files, and thus hogging everything
now, can anyone of the developers spare some time and give a decent answer ?
_________________
.:: $witty_statement ::. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iKiddo
Guru
Joined: 27 Jun 2002
Posts: 341
Location: Europe?
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NePhie wrote: | first of all, i don't think portage registers the size of files generated
[...]
what caused the problem here is a PORTAGE upgrade, i repeat, portage, not gcc [...] A portage update which replaced the gcc binary with some script that merely opened a lot of files, and thus hogging everything[...] |
1) Oh, but it does.
2) Don't forget to mention the typo in /usr/sbin/ebuild.sh I still think that might be the cause of this. And the change of structure around gcc at least has something to do with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NePhie
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yes, i too think that it has something to do with it
as you can read somewhere in this thread were i wonder wehter it could be because they want to make that change
BUT ... the solutions that are given by the developers here, asume that we just upgraded to gcc3.2.1-r6 or gcc2.95.3-r8 , in which they apply that change
HOWEVER, we did not ... we upgraded portage, we don't have that new structure ... would env-update magicly make the lost gcc binary re-appear ?
i'm sure that in the new structure these things would work, but we DO NOT HAVE that new structure, we still have the old one
see the whole problem ? the developers treat this problem as one caused by migrating from the old to the new structure, but it's one caused by NOT doing that ... and the portage update needing it, and imho that's why that update is now masked
_________________
.:: $witty_statement ::. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zadeh
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 31 Oct 2002
Posts: 131
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Cardoe wrote: | The whole copy and replace a gcc technique is wrong. You should only have to do
env-update; source /etc/profile; hash -r
That is the proper way.
You can check https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12246 for more info. |
Perhaps I missed something but that bug report has to do with a specific problem in gcc-3.2.1-r6. I don't see how that is supposed to turn a shell script (/usr/bin/gcc, after being overwritten by portage-2.0.45-r6) into a working binary.
Last edited by Zadeh on Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:48 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iKiddo
Guru
Joined: 27 Jun 2002
Posts: 341
Location: Europe?
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| It doesn't, Cardoe must have got mixed up, due to fact that the symptoms seem to be the same. Please use the directions stated in the beginning of the thread if you want to know how to fix this. They work. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lion
Apprentice
Joined: 23 Jun 2002
Posts: 207
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NePhie wrote: | and lastly : after reading that link, i think cardoe has absolutely no idea what this thread is about, this thread is NOT about a gcc upgrade, the gcc package itself was UNTOUCHED
what caused the problem here is a PORTAGE upgrade, i repeat, portage, not gcc
A portage update which is now masked, but WASN'T when i encountered it
A portage update which replaced the gcc binary with some script that merely opened a lot of files, and thus hogging everything
now, can anyone of the developers spare some time and give a decent answer ? |
I'm not one of the developers, but what I understood from the link to the bug article is this:
In the new gcc-structure, several different gcc compilers can be installed, each in its own directory. Portage expects gcc to be in /usr/bin/gcc. It isn't there any more, so we need a placeholder.
This is what the shell script is supposed to do. It just calls the true gcc (but without specifying the full path). This will only work when the true gcc is in the path before the /usr/bin/gcc. That is what the env-update is meant to fix, just make sure that the gcc binary is in the path before /usr/bin.
In this case, the 'true' gcc was not in the path before /usr/bin/gcc, probably ecause the new gcc structure is not effective yet, so this script just calls itself recursively, eating all available resources.
The problem seemed to be that the new portage made some invalid assumption about the structure around gcc, therefore it thought the shell script stub was necessary, whereas it only caused problems.
Just my 0.02. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mandr4ke
Apprentice
Joined: 25 Jul 2002
Posts: 214
Location: Chicago, IL
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| well this might be related but i've been trying to do a fresh install since this past friday.. and 1.4 and 1.2 i can't get anything to emerge successfully.. even the bootstrap in 1.2 fails with perl scripts errors.. i'm going insane.. i love gentoo, and 4-5 months ago compiled my whole system from stage 1 a couple times with no problems.. now nothing works.. 1.4, or 1.2... someones needs to die! eheh |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NePhie
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 01 Sep 2002
Posts: 82
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 9:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
but the env-update will not work if you do not have that new structure, which we don't
that is the point ... none of the solutions offered by the developers can work, since they assume the wrong problem
_________________
.:: $witty_statement ::. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
seemant
Retired Dev
Joined: 16 Nov 2002
Posts: 61
Location: Oakland, CA
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 17, 2002 11:05 pm Post subject: Instructions and binary tarballs available! |
|
|
Sorry for the delay in posting here. I was hoping someone from the irc channels would update this thread. Please go to http://cvs.gentoo.org/~seemant
I have some instructions and links to binary tarballs of gcc for all the x86 based architectures as well as sparc64
If there are ppc people who are experiencing this, shoot me or gerk a quick e-mail and we'll make those tarballs available as well.
Fair enough?
Again, sorry for the inconvenience. At the very least, we've learned the power of the space bar! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
col
l33t
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 820
Location: Melbourne - Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| One of my servers was damaged as well ..... luckily I did a backup just before I did emerge -u world. I have now gone back to my previous copy which is working fine. I assume this has been fixed by now ? If I do an emerge -u world it will work with any problems ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Azarah
Retired Dev
Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Posts: 81
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
col
l33t
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 820
Location: Melbourne - Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 5:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ok I read those links but still not clear whether this has been fixed....I will wait a couple of week for my next -u world attempt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Azarah
Retired Dev
Joined: 20 Jun 2002
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 7:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
It should be fixed with -r7. I just need to check with Nick first if he want
to change anything.. Will keep you informed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
echto
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 30 Jun 2002
Posts: 108
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What a headache.. but fixable.
I want to thank everyone on this forum for their participation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
col
l33t
Joined: 08 May 2002
Posts: 820
Location: Melbourne - Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 18, 2002 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| damn ....turns out I had 3 gentoo installs damaged by this.... I was able to fix 2 of them but one of them (a high volume server) I had to restore from backup because something was eating all its resources .... I kept getting "To many files open" ....I could not emerge or gunzip anything .... what are you supposed to do in this situation ? ... yes I tried to increase the file limits which caused most of the processes on the server to die !! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wzzrd
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Jul 2002
Posts: 245
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 20, 2002 7:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| col wrote: | | damn ....turns out I had 3 gentoo installs damaged by this.... I was able to fix 2 of them but one of them (a high volume server) I had to restore from backup because something was eating all its resources .... I kept getting "To many files open" ....I could not emerge or gunzip anything .... what are you supposed to do in this situation ? ... yes I tried to increase the file limits which caused most of the processes on the server to die !! |
Have you actually read this thread? The 'Too many files open' was caused by a faulty gcc. Someone posted a working one on the first page of this thread. Download it, copy it over the old one and you´re ready to re-emerge your gcc (and all other things f00ked).
EDIT: WAIT! before you flame me Sorry, m8, it was me who hadn't read good enough |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tsigo
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 2:58 am Post subject: Bloody freaking hell |
|
|
Ok I followed all of the steps here: http://cvs.gentoo.org/~seemant/
And I now have a working gcc, but every time I try to emerge something, I get this
| Code: |
(root@tsigo) tsigo $ emerge -p portage
These are the packages that I would merge, in order.
Calculating dependencies
emerge: all ebuilds that could satisfy "portage" have been masked. |
For every thing I try to emerge. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
iKiddo
Guru
Joined: 27 Jun 2002
Posts: 341
Location: Europe?
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 1:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does it also do that if you don't use --pretend/-p ?? If so, you will want to re-emerge portage by giving emerge a full path:
| Code: | | emerge /usr/portage/xxx-yyy/portage/portage-2.0.46-r1 |
Browse to the directoy, check what's the newest version and be sure you type in everything correctly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tsigo
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 09 Jul 2002
Posts: 122
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| iKiddo wrote: | Does it also do that if you don't use --pretend/-p ?? If so, you will want to re-emerge portage by giving emerge a full path:
| Code: | | emerge /usr/portage/xxx-yyy/portage/portage-2.0.46-r1 |
Browse to the directoy, check what's the newest version and be sure you type in everything correctly. |
Huzzah.
Went here: http://www.ibiblio.org/pub/Linux/distributions/gentoo/distfiles/
Got portage-2.0.46-r2.tar.bz2, put it in /usr/portage/distfiles, then went to /usr/portage/sys-apps/portage and did emerge portage-2.0.46-r2 and it looks like I'm back up and running.
Phew. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m1kee
n00b
Joined: 17 Dec 2002
Posts: 9
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 21, 2002 9:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm sorry. I didn't mention that after using my `method of recovery' (grabbing gcc and cc from the install cd) one could `emerge gcc' as to restore the previous state of the machine and wait for the broken portage to get masked, or the entire situation to be resolved.
@Devheads, thanks for the quick response, one of the reasons why I became addicted to Gentoo Cheers 
_________________
delirium tremens |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schleppy
n00b
Joined: 22 Nov 2002
Posts: 16
|
| Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2003 1:32 am Post subject: gcc 3.2 for athlon |
|
|
Hi all,
Could someone please point me in the direction of a tbz2 binary for athlon or at least not optimized for other architectures? The link on Seemant's page appears to be dead. Thanks,
Schleppy |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Portage & Programming
