Alan McKinnon writes:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 16:21:10 +0100
> Alex Schuster <wo...@wonkology.org> wrote:
>
> > Michael Mol writes:
[system does not boot after UDEV upgrade]
> > Ran into the same problem, with my sister's PC. Which I had updated
> > from remote, so I did not see the elogs. I do not think it is correct
> > behaviour to continue building udev although the system wouldn't boot
> > with that kernel option missing. I would expect the udev ebuild to
> > check the running kernel for that option, and refuse to build until
> > it has it set. Or until building is forced by some USE flag or an
> > environment variable.
> >
> > Had these things not been handled better in the past?
>
> There's a furious debate going on in -dev about this very thing, and
> the bottom line is that your statements above are way too simplistic.
>
> - there is no guarantee that /proc/config.gz represents the kernel the
> binary will actually run on (this emerge might well be the last
> process you ever run on that kernel)
> - there is no guarantee that /usr/src/linux corresponds to anything at
> all (it's a symlink and can point to anything, even invalid stuff)
> - there is no guarantee that the build host will run the code (think
> build farms, crossdev etc, so every available config cannot possibly
> be valid)
> - and a couple more
Sure, all this is not guaranteed. But IF there is a /proc/config.gz and
a /usr/src/linux/.config without the DEVTMPFS entry, it is quite probable
that the system will not boot. And I think a single line 'DEVTMPFS is not
set in this kernel. Udev will not run.' along many others is not enough.
> Basically, the only thing left for the ebuild devs is to notify the
> user with the important information.
That's okay with my PC I am sitting at. But on my sister's PC, I just
logged in and started a world update, not monitoring the process all the
time. She turned the thing off before I was able to read the elog, and
she was surprised when it did not boot the next day. How should I have
known what would happen?
> The question is not whether to halt the build or not (that cannot and
> will not be done) but how to do the communication:
>
> - news item
There is one, from 2013-01-23, ending with 'Apologies if this news came
too late for you.'
Okay, if that one came a little earlier, I would have been fine.
> - elog
> - README
> - some arb notice on a web site somewhere
> .....
>
> This is gentoo, the distro that does not hold your hand and gives you
> every opportunity to keep both pieces. This is a good example of such.
I'm using Gentoo for > 10 years now, and this is the first time such
a thing has happened to me. Normally, the devs do quite a good job
informing people about such changes that need to be dealt with, but this
time I was not pleased.
But I'll stop complaining. This incident just seems a little odd to me,
unusual for Gentoo.
Alex
