Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
udev 070 segfaults
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

 
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Portage & Programming
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
sl70
Guru
Guru


Joined: 18 Jun 2002
Posts: 397
Location: Chicago, USA

PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 3:27 pm    Post subject: udev 070 segfaults Reply with quote

After updating udev to 070 I found that I couldn't sync my Palm using gpilotd. I got the cannot bind to port message. When I did udevstart it told me ``segmentation fault.'' I went back down to udev-068-r1 and things are fine. Should I file a bug report?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Romses
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 257
Location: Frankfurt

PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have the same problem.
i cannot boot, without udevstart, i do not have any harddisk-devive nodes :(

can anybody help me?

my udev-version is 070...

Greetings
Romses
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nxsty
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Jun 2004
Posts: 1556
Location: .se

PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You need to update to udev 070-r1 to fix the segfaults.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Romses
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Jan 2004
Posts: 257
Location: Frankfurt

PostPosted: Wed Oct 19, 2005 7:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

it works...
thanx
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ahubu
Guru
Guru


Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Posts: 400
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands

PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 2:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I had this too, I b0rked my system more or less... after emerging and doing some udev-rule-writing, I saw that it segfaulted and I though, HEY: let's reboot and see... BAD choice. It went nuts. So I booted from a x86 gentoo cd, mounted root and copied the udevstart file over from /mnt/livecd/sbin. luckily, that went fine and I could reboot safe and sound.

Phoei, that was close. At least for me.
_________________
Anne // Light travels faster than sound. That's why people appear bright until
you hear them speak.
-Unknown
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
red-wolf76
l33t
l33t


Joined: 13 Apr 2005
Posts: 714
Location: Rhein-Main Area

PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[AOL]Me too![/AOL]

How did this yellow rubbery piece of s*@t make it into stable after all? I update a box and next thing it won't boot? Does this happen on obscure setups only or why did this escape testing? Upgrading to 070-r1 worked like a charm, but this is really annoying...
_________________
0mFg, G3nt00 r0X0r$ T3h B1g!1111 ;)

Use sane CFLAGS! If for no other reason, do it for the lulz!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
alistair
Retired Dev
Retired Dev


Joined: 15 Jul 2005
Posts: 869

PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 12:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

it can't be obscure setups because mine was the default from 068-r1 (i believe)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ribx
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2003
Posts: 219
Location: germany

PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2005 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i had the same problem (t_T) but a livecd fixes all you problems :) nevertheless: this should never happen :(
_________________
The adopt an unanswered post initiative
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
guyr
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 17 Aug 2004
Posts: 237

PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 5:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Forums to the rescue again. I'm setting up a pretty vanilla P4 system (Dell 9100) and this just happened to me. Was running fine, then I did an emerge sync and got the udev segmentation fault. Was trying all sorts of odd things until I found this message thread. Thanks. I'd second the opinion that this was a pretty significant QA oops.
_________________
Guy Rouillier
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ahubu
Guru
Guru


Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Posts: 400
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands

PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 11:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well maybe I just don't understand the portage policy, but I don't understand why 0.70 is still in portage, since it breaks so badly. I could actually see no harm in deleting it completely from the portage tree (since it has been replaced by 0.70-r1). Maybe someone could clarify that. This would rule out the possibility of people downgrading to this b0rked version (for some reason or another).
_________________
Anne // Light travels faster than sound. That's why people appear bright until
you hear them speak.
-Unknown
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bob P
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs

PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

guyr wrote:
I'd second the opinion that this was a pretty significant QA oops.

yeah, it was a good example of a QA slip. :oops: its always noteworthy when a "stable" branch package causes showstopper errors like that.

on the bright side, it was a critical error that was so flagrant that it was stomped-out in short order. :wink:
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wyv3rn
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 154
Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 3:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ahubu wrote:
Well maybe I just don't understand the portage policy, but I don't understand why 0.70 is still in portage, since it breaks so badly. I could actually see no harm in deleting it completely from the portage tree (since it has been replaced by 0.70-r1). Maybe someone could clarify that. This would rule out the possibility of people downgrading to this b0rked version (for some reason or another).


Probably (I'm guessing because I've seen them do this before) because -70 is has been changed to be exactly like 70-r1 now. They only made a -r1 release so that all those who already upgraded to -70 before the fix see that there is a new update as well. They did the same thing with texinfo-4.8-r1 (made a -r2 release that fixed segfaults but -r1 got the same patch injected).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bob P
Advocate
Advocate


Joined: 20 Oct 2004
Posts: 3355
Location: Jackass! Development Labs

PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

yep, that's the programming equivalent of sweeping a problem under the rug -- when a package like 70 is b0rken, the fix is applied in a release like 70-r1. then the fix is applied retroactively from 70-r1 to 70, thereby erasing the evidence of the problem.

this type of patching is the norm rather than the exception. as a result, people who don't have their ear to the ground won't notice how frequently little problems like these are quietly and discretely stomped out, and the entire system appears on the surface to be more stable than it actually is. as we've discussed in the other thread on this subject, whether or not you notice a problem like this with an ebuild is largely a matter of timing.
_________________
.
Stage 1/3 | Jackass! | Rockhopper! | Thanks | Google Sucks
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wyv3rn
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 154
Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 8:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Personally I think it is the right thing to do. Bugs like this should not be left behind for someone else to trip on later. Let the bean counters complain.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ahubu
Guru
Guru


Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Posts: 400
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands

PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 9:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bob P wrote:
yep, that's the programming equivalent of sweeping a problem under the rug -- when a package like 70 is b0rken, the fix is applied in a release like 70-r1. then the fix is applied retroactively from 70-r1 to 70, thereby erasing the evidence of the problem.

this type of patching is the norm rather than the exception. as a result, people who don't have their ear to the ground won't notice how frequently little problems like these are quietly and discretely stomped out, and the entire system appears on the surface to be more stable than it actually is. as we've discussed in the other thread on this subject, whether or not you notice a problem like this with an ebuild is largely a matter of timing.


Hmm, I don't really like that way. I think 0.70 should be removed, so people will know there was something wrong with that ebuild. What's the use of having 2 duplicate ebuilds around. you can't just change 0.70 into a working one, thats what the r1-x system is for. Its a bit like changing history.
_________________
Anne // Light travels faster than sound. That's why people appear bright until
you hear them speak.
-Unknown
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wyv3rn
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 154
Location: USA

PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2005 10:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I disagree. No one is trying to change history or deny the past existance of a bug. There are still entries in the Changelog. The broken ebuilds have been fixed, as they should be and a -r1 release was made to flag all those who upgraded to -70 before the fix got in. A good reason to leave the previously-broken-but-now-fixed ebuild is so that tools like revdep-rebuild will work properly. Otherwise they complain about not being able to rebuild the package because the ebuild is missing and it stops the whole thing until that is resolved.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ahubu
Guru
Guru


Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Posts: 400
Location: Groningen, The Netherlands

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

wyv3rn wrote:
A good reason to leave the previously-broken-but-now-fixed ebuild is so that tools like revdep-rebuild will work properly. Otherwise they complain about not being able to rebuild the package because the ebuild is missing and it stops the whole thing until that is resolved.


I understand your point and that is a good one, about the changelog. But it _should_ not be a problem for revdep-rebuild, because essentially, a r1-ebuild is still the same version. So if revdep-rebuild was constructed that if it cant find the original, the last r-release is used, wouldn't that solve the problem? So maybe this change would break revdep-rebuild, but not in a way that it can't be fixed correctly. But maybe I'm wrong, I'm not that deep into portage to know for sure.
_________________
Anne // Light travels faster than sound. That's why people appear bright until
you hear them speak.
-Unknown
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wyv3rn
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 18 Aug 2005
Posts: 154
Location: USA

PostPosted: Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I believe (maybe wrong) revdep-rebuild will only attempt to use the exact version already installed. I know it won't jump from something like 6.8.1 to 6.8.2, it will just stop until you fix it. Maybe -r1 to -r2 but I don't think it does. Yes it is an easy fix. It is still annoying to run revdep-rebuild, have a large list of rebuilds, leave your computer and come back only to find it failed a few packages in because the ebuild was missing. I just don't see any good reason to leave major bugs (like segmentation faults) in packages except for perhaps statistical purposes. It would be stupid IMO to allow statistics to trump actual system stability and usability. On top of that it would make portage bigger. In the case of texinfo-4.8-r1 and -r2 they would have to include the broken patch and the correct patch to keep it the same. Multiply that policy by thousands of packages and thousands of users and that's A LOT of wasted bandwidth and processing time all for the purpose of keeping statistics which can be kept via Changelog if you care that much anyway.
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
Page 1 of 1

 
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