baselayout2 stabilization

Message

neil_leathers · Post by **neil_leathers** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:36 pm

I see that the dependencies for the tracker bug for baselayout2 stabilization are all closed.
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=295613

Are we now just waiting on the documentation?
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=213988

Is it likely that we are going to see baselayout2 released soon?

Post by **asturm** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 7:48 pm

Yes, I'd say

Post by **NeddySeagoon** » Fri Apr 29, 2011 8:02 pm

From the gentoo-dev-announce mailing list.

williamh wrote:All,

The openrc stable candidate is now openrc-0.8.2-r1.

The changes between it and the previous stable candidates are small, so
the news item date and stable request date are still 2011/05/01 and
2011/05/08 respectively.

The more important part of this test is that we need some users to
migrate from baselayout-1 to openrc-0.8.2-r1 and be sure that is
successful.

As usual, let me know if there are any issues.

William

ppurka · Post by **ppurka** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 2:29 am

I did migrate from baselayout-1 to openrc-0.6.5 twice over the past two months. It is all pretty painless, as long as you follow the migration guide. Later I migrated from 0.6.5 to 0.8.2 in both the systems,- again a painless procedure.

charles17 · Post by **charles17** » Sat Apr 30, 2011 3:52 pm

ppurka wrote:I did migrate from baselayout-1 to openrc-0.6.5 twice over the past two months. It is all pretty painless, as long as you follow the migration guide. Later I migrated from 0.6.5 to 0.8.2 in both the systems,- again a painless procedure.

Just worked through the Baselayout and OpenRC Migration Guide on my laptop where everything is amd64 stable except icedtea, baselayout-2.02 and openrc-0.8.2-r1.
Following the migration guide is straightforward but after reboot I am having problems with a one minute delay waiting for uevents being processed. The message is

Code: Select all

udevadm settle - timeout of 60 seconds reached, the event queue contains
/sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1c.0/0000:08:00.0/ieee80211/phy0/rfkill0
/sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1c.0/0000:08:00.0/ieee80211/phy0/rfkill0
/sys/devices/pci0000:00/0000:00:1c.0/0000:08:00.0/ieee80211/phy0/rfkill0

Disabling CONFIG_RFKILL in the kernel-2.6.36-8 solves this problem, but then my WLAN button does no longer work.

Could somebody please tell me how to solve this udevadm settle problem?

saellaven · Post by **saellaven** » Mon May 02, 2011 4:09 am

after seeing the eselect news item tonight, I preemptively migrated from baselayout-1 to sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.2 and sys-apps/openrc-0.8.2-r1 while I had the time to sit down and go through the migration guide. No real problems to report, after converting a few files by hand to the new format per the guide, the only thing that caught my eye was

WARNING: rc_sys not defined in rc.conf. Falling back to automatic detection

which is apparently normal since my box isn't virtualized, but it did stick out rather boldly to me for being the normal behavior.

platojones · Post by **platojones** » Mon May 02, 2011 4:18 am

saellaven wrote:after seeing the eselect news item tonight, I preemptively migrated from baselayout-1 to sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.2 and sys-apps/openrc-0.8.2-r1 while I had the time to sit down and go through the migration guide. No real problems to report, after converting a few files by hand to the new format per the guide, the only thing that caught my eye was

WARNING: rc_sys not defined in rc.conf. Falling back to automatic detection

which is apparently normal since my box isn't virtualized, but it did stick out rather boldly to me for being the normal behavior.

If you're not virtualized, you should set rc_sys="", which will skip automatic detection and get rid of the warning.

saellaven · Post by **saellaven** » Mon May 02, 2011 4:24 am

platojones wrote:
saellaven wrote:after seeing the eselect news item tonight, I preemptively migrated from baselayout-1 to sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.2 and sys-apps/openrc-0.8.2-r1 while I had the time to sit down and go through the migration guide. No real problems to report, after converting a few files by hand to the new format per the guide, the only thing that caught my eye was

WARNING: rc_sys not defined in rc.conf. Falling back to automatic detection

which is apparently normal since my box isn't virtualized, but it did stick out rather boldly to me for being the normal behavior.
If you're not virtualized, you should set rc_sys="", which will skip automatic detection and get rid of the warning.

missed the default comment hash at the beginning of the line, thanks for the tip.

Clad in Sky · Post by **Clad in Sky** » Mon May 02, 2011 3:18 pm

There was a news about baselayout-2 today.
Perhaps there should be a sticky topic somewhere about that, too? And a link to the migration guide?

For some reason or other people often fail to read the news.

Anon-E-moose · Post by **Anon-E-moose** » Mon May 02, 2011 5:35 pm

Just did the migration from bl 1 to bl 2 following the aforementioned guide.

Went smooth, with the exception of reiser (root) not cleaning up the transactions when it shut down.
Not a big deal as it cleaned it up when I booted back up.

depontius · Post by **depontius** » Mon May 02, 2011 6:32 pm

Is it clear yet just what the stable revisions of baselayout and openrc are going to be?

I've migrated several of my systems, and at least one is at sys-apps/openrc-0.7.0 and sys-apps/baselayout-2.0.1-r1. Like others, I'd prefer to migrate the others myself, instead of having it happen when I may not have time/inclination to handle all of the details. If I were doing it yesterday, I would have moved those systems to the same level of openrc/baselayout I've already been using. Now I'd rather move them to the level that's about to become stable. I'll just let my systems currently on baselayout-2 upgrade normally, since that won't be as involved.

Post by **asturm** » Mon May 02, 2011 6:52 pm

depontius wrote:Is it clear yet just what the stable revisions of baselayout and openrc are going to be?

Latest one for openrc (being 0.8.1-r2) and I believe the same for baselayout too (2.0.2).

Anon-E-moose · Post by **Anon-E-moose** » Mon May 02, 2011 7:02 pm

genstorm wrote:
depontius wrote:Is it clear yet just what the stable revisions of baselayout and openrc are going to be?
Latest one for openrc (being 0.8.1-r2) and I believe the same for baselayout too (2.0.2).

From what Neddy posted earlier, The openrc stable candidate is now openrc-0.8.2-r1

The latest on my system (synced a/o 3 this morning) was openrc-0.8.2-r1 and baselayout-2.0.2

Post by **asturm** » Mon May 02, 2011 7:20 pm

oops, typo.

Yamakuzure · Post by **Yamakuzure** » Tue May 03, 2011 10:20 am

Strange... I synced but did not get a news item concerning openrc. Doesn't it show up if one is already using it?

btw.: Painless baselayout-2 + openrc user for over a year now, no problems on two laptops, two desktops and 3 virtual machines, both 32 and 64 bit.

forkboy · Post by **forkboy** » Tue May 03, 2011 2:24 pm

Yamakuzure wrote:Strange... I synced but did not get a news item concerning openrc. Doesn't it show up if one is already using it?

Correct.

figueroa · Post by **figueroa** » Thu May 05, 2011 5:35 pm

Although my 1000 UTC sync did not brig me the new baselayout and openrc, I went ahead and forced the upgrade by going ~x86 on both packages. The upgrade was pretty seamless on this Gateway EC1803 (oversize netbook).

dispatch-conf was pretty straight forward, though it tried to wipe out the local network entries from my /etc/hosts file, tried to set my default editor to nano (ugh). The install of openrc also added lvm and device-manager to my boot run level though I do not use them. I also uncommented rc_sys="" as noted here.

The developers have done a good job making this as painless as possible.

The reboot went quickly without any strange error messages. Speed was good.

I agree, the details on this upgrade should be included in a sticky, perhaps in more than one forum, notably the Portage forum.

Post by **NeddySeagoon** » Thu May 05, 2011 7:43 pm

I'm sure we will have a sticky as soon as baselayout2 is stabilised and a few problems have been posted.
If early adopters post bugs things may get delayed and having a sticky would just get people excited for no reason.

Post by **asturm** » Sun May 08, 2011 10:00 pm

Woohoo!

depontius · Post by **depontius** » Sun May 08, 2011 10:09 pm

Just a thought...

I've moved all but one of my systems over to baselayout2, and there's one thread that is warned about in the upgrade guide, and I believe it's happened to me every time but once. The net.eth0 (and also net.eth1 on my server) symlink gets lost. Not that it's a big deal, it's easily fixed. But since it seems to be so common, isn't there a way to fix it?

I first took two systems to baselayout2 several months ago, and as a preliminary step brought those up to the current level. At this point I don't remember if I lost net.ethX again, but if so, that clearly shouldn't be happening. Perhaps it's a bit like my "favorite Gentoo annoyance", the fact that with openssh updates, etc-update ALWAYS want to go back to "permit root login=yes". I understand that that setting is pretty much necessary for installation, but afterward its one of the first things in the security list that needs to go. I've seen etc-update be remarkably smart about updating some things, but not this one.

cboldt · Post by **cboldt** » Mon May 09, 2011 11:51 am

depontius wrote:Just a thought...

The net.eth0 (and also net.eth1 on my server) symlink gets lost. Not that it's a big deal, it's easily fixed. But since it seems to be so common, isn't there a way to fix it?

Using that remark to note my experience.

Made the net.eth1 softlink for my wireless, but still no network. The /etc/conf.d/wireless.example and /etc/conf.d/net.example files said that iwconfig was the default, not wpa-supplicant, for initializing the hardware and establishing the connection. I think those assertions are false. The system attempted to use the (non-existent for me) pa-supplicant programs.

The repair was to insert 'modules=( "!wpa_supplicant" )'
to /etc/conf.d.net

cmaurand · Post by **cmaurand** » Tue May 10, 2011 10:35 pm

I've been using Gentoo for a number of years. Several times in the past the baselayout has changed rendering my systems unbootable and unrecoverable in a timely fashion. I ended up re-installing. I don't mind doing the migration and I don't do anything fancy in my startups. They're straight forward web/database/mail servers. In the interests of stability, are we going to stick with this system for a while? I don't want to do a migration and then have to do another migration 6 months down the road.

Post by **NeddySeagoon** » Tue May 10, 2011 10:59 pm

cmaurand,

There are no plans for baselayout3 yet and baselayout2 was over four years in getting to stable.
I've been using baselayout2 since mid 2007 anyway.

disi · Post by **disi** » Thu May 12, 2011 1:27 am

http://znurt.org/sys-apps/baselayout << arm?!?

Post by **John R. Graham** » Thu May 12, 2011 2:10 am

NeddySeagoon wrote:I've been using baselayout2 since mid 2007 anyway.

Checked my emerge.log; I've been using it since April, 2008. Even argued with Roy a few times.

- John