[gentoo-user] What is the best way forward?
I need to update a system that hasn't been updated in 337 days (March 24th 2020. -- Life has been ... trying. What is the best way forward? It seems as if there have been a lot of changes in the interim; glibc, Python 2.7 being deprecated, default Python going to 3.7(?), other breaking changes Is there a way that I can sync portage to something from April, May, or even June of 2020, do a full update (including "-DUNe @world")? Iterating through multiple rounds to get current? Any help would be appreciated. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
Re: [gentoo-user] What is the best way forward?
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 20:43:39 -0500, Grant Taylor wrote: > > I need to update a system that hasn't been updated in 337 days > (March 24th 2020. -- Life has been ... trying. > > What is the best way forward? > > It seems as if there have been a lot of changes in the interim; > glibc, Python 2.7 being deprecated, default Python going to > 3.7(?), other breaking changes > > Is there a way that I can sync portage to something from April, > May, or even June of 2020, do a full update (including "-DUNe > @world")? Iterating through multiple rounds to get current? > > Any help would be appreciated. What you could try to do, if you are syncing using git, is to roll it back to those dates by checking out a commit each time and doing an update. I don't guarantee it would work, but its worth a shot, otherwise reinstall time. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici wb2una cov...@ccs.covici.com
Re: [gentoo-user] What is the best way forward?
On 2/24/21 6:48 PM, John Covici wrote: What you could try to do, if you are syncing using git, is to roll it back to those dates by checking out a commit each time and doing an update. I don't guarantee it would work, but its worth a shot, otherwise reinstall time. And what if I was still using rsync? I'm currently doing a git clone of the gentoo-mirror/gentoo.git repository in another directory. Once that finishes, I'll see if I can list the commits in it from March and see if I can work my way forward. Does it /actually/ matter how I get the portage repository as long as it's one from a time close enough that "emerge -DUN @world" will succeed in small increments? Even if I have to automate stepping through hundreds of them. My understanding is that emerge works against the contents of the PORTDIR, usually /usr/portage. So as long as I get ... let's call it ... a compatible version That's my hope anyway. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
Re: [gentoo-user] What is the best way forward?
On 2/24/21 6:48 PM, John Covici wrote: What you could try to do, if you are syncing using git, is to roll it back to those dates by checking out a commit each time and doing an update. I don't guarantee it would work, but its worth a shot, otherwise reinstall time. I hit send too soon. Thank you for the reply John. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
Re: [gentoo-user] Why do we add the local host name to the 127.0.0.1 / ::1 entry in the /etc/hosts file?
On Sunday, 21 February 2021 22:23:00 GMT Grant Taylor wrote: > Hi, > > I'm reading Kerberos - The Definitive Guide[1] and it makes the > > following comment: > > And to make matters worse, some Unix systems map their own hostname > > to 127.0.0.1 (the loopback IP address). > > This makes me think that the local host name /shouldn't/ be included in > the 127.0.0.1 (or ::1) entry in the /etc/hosts file. > > However, according to the Gentoo AMD64 Handbook[2], we are supposed to > add the local host name to the 127.0.0.1 (and ::1) entry in the > /etc/hosts file. > > Will someone please explain why the Gentoo AMD64 Handbook ~> Gentoo (at > large) says to add the local host name to the 127.0.0.1 (or ::1) entry > in the /etc/hosts file? What was the thought process behind that? > > Incidentally, adding the local host name to the 127.0.0.1 (or ::1) entry > in the /etc/hosts file causes "hostname -i" to return 127.0.0.1 instead > of the IP address bound to the network interface. Isn't it a matter of simple logic? The loopback address is just that: the machine talking to itself, with no reference to the outside world. Whereas, while talking to other machines on the network its address is that of the interface. There's no connection between those two. -- Regards, Peter.
Re: [gentoo-user] Why do we add the local host name to the 127.0.0.1 / ::1 entry in the /etc/hosts file?
On 2/24/21 7:37 PM, Peter Humphrey wrote: Isn't it a matter of simple logic? No. It is not. Consider my question to be calling the logic into question. Or at least asking for what the logic was to be explained. The loopback address is just that: the machine talking to itself, with no reference to the outside world. Whereas, while talking to other machines on the network its address is that of the interface. There's no connection between those two. That doesn't explain /why/ the local host name is added to the line containing 127.0.0.1 and / or ::1. Remember, that /all/ traffic to a local IP, of any interface, runs through the loopback interface. Try pinging your Ethernet / WiFi IP address in one window and then shutting the lo interface down. The pings will stop responding. Then they will start again when you turn the lo interface back up. So, even if you do (questionably) connect to the IP address of the Ethernet / WiFi adapter instead of 127.0.0.1 / ::1 you are still going through the lo interface. So, again, will someone please explain why the Gentoo AMD64 Handbook ~> Gentoo (at large) says to add the local host name to the 127.0.0.1 (or ::1) entry in the /etc/hosts file? What was the thought process behind that? -- Grant. . . . unix || die
Re: [gentoo-user] What is the best way forward?
On Wed, 24 Feb 2021 21:20:05 -0500, Grant Taylor wrote: > > On 2/24/21 6:48 PM, John Covici wrote: > > What you could try to do, if you are syncing using git, is to > > roll it back to those dates by checking out a commit each time > > and doing an update. I don't guarantee it would work, but its > > worth a shot, otherwise reinstall time. > > I hit send too soon. > > Thank you for the reply John. > The portdir has to be the one gotten from git, not rsync, and remember I think there was a major profile change during that time period along with changes in the C compiler. Unless you have a lot of customizations, reinstall would be much better. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici wb2una cov...@ccs.covici.com
Re: [gentoo-user] What is the best way forward?
On 2/24/21 9:16 PM, John Covici wrote: The portdir has to be the one gotten from git, not rsync, ACK I'm currently doing an "emerge -DUNe @system" on the restore of /usr/portage (typical PORTDIR) from prior to messing with things today. I've got multiple GB of git data. It looks like there are ~568 thousand commits between March 24th last year and now. Once that's good, and I'm back at a stable place, I'll try changing PORTDIR to be the git repo and telling git to switch to the commit that's from March 25th. Then I'll see if anything needs to be updated, doing so as necessary. Then I'll leap frog a week at a time seeing what needs to be updated, doing so as necessary. /Hopefully/ I can slowly walk forward. Time will tell. and remember I think there was a major profile change during that time period along with changes in the C compiler. If I can slowly make my way forward in time via git commit points, I /think/ that I /should/ be able to deal with profile and / or compiler and / or glibc changes just like I would have X number of months ago. I /think/! Unless you have a lot of customizations, reinstall would be much better. I'd really rather not do that. I'm more likely to leave this system as it is and plan on upgrading it some time in '21. There's considerably more to it than I want to wholesale replace. Besides, wouldn't each of the incremental processes over the last year have been possible? ;-) -- Grant. . . . unix || die
Re: [gentoo-user] Why do we add the local host name to the 127.0.0.1 / ::1 entry in the /etc/hosts file?
On Thu, 25 Feb 2021 at 03:50, Grant Taylor wrote: > > The loopback address is just that: the machine talking to itself, with > > no reference to the outside world. Whereas, while talking to other > > machines on the network its address is that of the interface. There's > > no connection between those two. > > That doesn't explain /why/ the local host name is added to the line > containing 127.0.0.1 and / or ::1. I don't think that was the question Peter sought to answer, but rather that 'hostname -i' returns the loopback address either way. Might still defy logic depending on the way you look at it, but that's a different question. Regards, Arve
Re: [gentoo-user] Why do we add the local host name to the 127.0.0.1 / ::1 entry in the /etc/hosts file?
On 2/25/21 12:02 AM, Arve Barsnes wrote: I don't think that was the question Peter sought to answer, but rather that 'hostname -i' returns the loopback address either way. But 'hostname -i' /doesn't/ return the 127.0.0.1 or ::1 if the hostname isn't on lines with 127.0.0.1 or ::1. Might still defy logic depending on the way you look at it, but that's a different question. Hence why I'm seeking the logic behind what was done. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
