Re: [gentoo-user] dev-libs/folks-0.4.3 fails to emerge

On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 09:49:57PM -0500, Andrew Hoffman wrote > I have also rebuilt telepathy-glib debus-glib and gio with no change > in folks. gee does not appear to be a package. I tried... USE="vala vapigen introspection" emerge -pv folks on my system. It gives... These are the package

Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev

On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 10:30:10AM -0600, Joseph wrote > In my opinion this new udev-200 naming port is a big screw-up; I > wouldn't be surprised if few months down the road we will go back > to old naming because of misunderstandings. Some time ago, after udevd was subsumed into the systemd ta

Re: [gentoo-user] dev-libs/folks-0.4.3 fails to emerge

On 8 April 2013, at 03:49, Andrew Hoffman wrote: > I have been having several issues with libraries on my system and have been > attempting to use revdep-rebuild to resolve them but have been having some > issues. > ... > > Build log of folks: > http://bpaste.net/show/89761/ > Revdep-Rebuild o

Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev

On 7 April 2013, at 16:35, Pandu Poluan wrote: > On Apr 7, 2013 3:56 PM, "Stroller" wrote: > >> AIUI the motive for these changes are so that you can unpack an >> enterprise-type server, the ones with two NICs on the motherboard, and >> always know which NIC is which. You can then unpack a pal

Re: [gentoo-user] mdev and lvm2

Alan Mackenzie wrote: >Hi, Dan. > >On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 02:34:16PM +0200, Dan Johansson wrote: >> Hello List, > >> What is the status of using mdev (instead the ever "growing" udev) >> together with lvm2? Reason for my question is that at >> https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev it says " One bet

[gentoo-user] dev-libs/folks-0.4.3 fails to emerge

I have been having several issues with libraries on my system and have been attempting to use revdep-rebuild to resolve them but have been having some issues. I have been able to resolve many issues by re-emerging mesa and manualy listing the packages RR wants to emerge but i have now just Folks le

Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On Apr 7, 2013 8:13 AM, "William Kenworthy" wrote: > > On 07/04/13 01:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > > 'Evening, Alan. > > > > On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 06:36:07PM +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: > >> On 06/04/2013 17:57, Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Please excuse me, I am running back and forth from the s

[gentoo-user] gcc-4.5.4 failed (install phase)

I'm getting an error re-compiling gcc-4.5.4 o _dim_i16.o _dim_r4.o _dim_r8.o _dim_r10.o _dim_r16.o _atan2_r4.o _atan2_r8.o _atan2_r10.o _atan2_r16.o _mod_i4.o _mod_i8.o _mod_i16.o _mod_r4.o _mod_r8.o _mod_r10.o _mod_r16.o misc_specifics.o dprod_r8.o f2c_specifics.o libtool: link: /usr/i686-pc-l

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 22:20:51 +0100, Mick wrote: > > Where does this come from? Udev renames the interfaces when it > > initialises them, what difference does it make where it loads the > > driver code from? I am seeing consistent behaviour across machines > > with drivers built in and as modules.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 21:25:48 Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:14:36 +0100, Mick wrote: > > Rebuild your kernel with the drivers for the NICs as modules. The > > kernel *should* rename them to what they were before. I can't vouch > > for this, but NICs which are not built in here wer

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 02:04:35PM -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: > Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? No, it isn't. There are several ways to name your interfaces. They are discussed on the freedesktop.org wiki page linked in the news item. William pgp6UzYmzHCN8.pgp Descript

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 13:16:45 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: > "If /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules is an empty file or a > symlink to /dev/null," > > The first can obviously be taken quite literally, while the second just > might actually require a tiny bit of thought - ie, 'hmmm, wonder if > t

Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 12:03:21 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: > > But not actually empty. If you are correct, and I suspect you are, > > then the news item is poorly worded. No effective content is not the > > same as no content at all. > > Oh, I agree that it was poorly worded, I was just pointing out

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 19:14:36 +0100, Mick wrote: > Rebuild your kernel with the drivers for the NICs as modules. The > kernel *should* rename them to what they were before. I can't vouch > for this, but NICs which are not built in here were not renamed by udev. Where does this come from? Udev ren

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 14:04:35 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: > Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? No, it's like reading the news item. Either symlink the file mentioned to /dev/null or add the kernel boot option it recommends. The default is the new behaviour, as you should expect.

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes

On 2013-04-07 4:09 PM, William Hubbs wrote: On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:25:50AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-04-05 4:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote: Do you have your network interface drivers built into the kernel or are they modules? I'm very interested in the significance of this question..

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes

On Sat, Apr 06, 2013 at 10:25:50AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2013-04-05 4:11 PM, William Hubbs wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 05, 2013 at 02:38:21PM -0500, Bruce Hill wrote: > >> Just dealing with one server and my Linux router, they've been updated to > >> sys-fs/udev-200 and are both still using the

[gentoo-user] perl-core/Version-Requirements is it or is it not installed?

I am getting confused with 'perl-core/Version-Requirements' which emerge -- depclean wants to unmerge, eix does not show as installed and emerge -C is happy to uninstall ... Why is this? == # emerge --depclean -a Calculating dependencies...

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 19:48:13 Nick Khamis wrote: > Oooops, I meant option 3.1: > > 3.1 Create a new empty file: > > touch /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules > > and reboot. The kernel will rename the interfaces hopefully as they were > before. > > N. > > On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis wrote:

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

Oooops, I meant option 3.1: 3.1 Create a new empty file: touch /etc/udev/rules.d/80-net-name-slot.rules and reboot. The kernel will rename the interfaces hopefully as they were before. N. On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis wrote: > I went into the kernel, rebuilt it with no changes (network driver was >

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

I went into the kernel, rebuilt it with no changes (network driver was already built as a module), rebooted and nothing changed. Option 2 worked ok. As for the x86 machines, they were also updated blindly (94 packages udev 200) included... 70-presistent file in rules.d and no problems. eth0 was st

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

Am 07.04.2013 20:08, schrieb Nick Khamis: > For those that have an error compiling udev 200: > > # emerge -1 XML-Parser > # perl-cleaner --all > > There was not mention of this in the news. Nor will the package pull > them in as a > dependency. > > N. > > On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis wrote: >> Is ch

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 18:48:02 Nick Khamis wrote: > I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news: > > 1. tempfs in kernel I guess you're talking about: CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y > 2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d That's OK. > 3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel Good. > 4) check

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

For those that have an error compiling udev 200: # emerge -1 XML-Parser # perl-cleaner --all There was not mention of this in the news. Nor will the package pull them in as a dependency. N. On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis wrote: > Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? > > N > > On 4/

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

Is changing it back to eth0 and eth1 like pulling teeth? N On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis wrote: > Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0 > and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as > modules. > > N > > On 4/7/13, Tanstaafl wrote: >> On 2013-04-07 1

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

Ooops I should have been more specific the net cards are not esp5s0 and esp6s0. And the drivers for the network cards are built as modules. N On 4/7/13, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2013-04-07 1:48 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: >> I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news: >> >> 1. tempf

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On 2013-04-07 1:48 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news: 1. tempfs in kernel 2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d 3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel 4) check fstab for the /tmp And it changed! WHAT changed???

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

I just did got udev updated. Did all the steps in the news: 1. tempfs in kernel 2. nothing in /etc/udev/rules.d 3. removed udev-postmount from runlevel 4) check fstab for the /tmp And it changed! This is the pits dude... N. On 4/7/13, Michael Hampicke wrote: > Am 07.04.2013 16:32, sch

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

Am 07.04.2013 16:32, schrieb Nick Khamis: > No... I'm stumped. I really don't want it in there either... I will > attempt removing it once finished updating the system. > > N. > > On 4/7/13, Michael Mol wrote: >> Are you using 802.1x or wireless on that machine? If not, I can't think >> of a rea

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

After psyching myself and everyone else for the udev 200 update, it failed on compile phase! We are using hardened server, and error message (which I am transferring over manually) is: The specific snippet of code: die econf failed This thing is not going easy N. On 4/

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On 2013-04-07 9:38 AM, Nick Khamis wrote: Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. Well, hopefully you learned a valuable lesson. I cannot even *fathom* the *idea* of doing a world update on

Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On 2013-04-07 12:18 PM, Jarry wrote: On 07-Apr-13 18:03, Tanstaafl wrote: Every sysadmin knows (or should know) that a config file full of nothing but comments isn't going to do *anything* other than provide whatever defaults the program is designed to use in such a case. True, but only if ad

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On 2013-04-07 1:00 PM, Grant Edwards wrote: OK, so parts of the news item are not to be taken literally, and other parts are. Perhaps it would be wise to mark the sections so we can tell the difference? ;) Context is everything. You can't equate "Remove the udev-postmount init script from

[gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On 2013-04-07, Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: >> On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: >> Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty, nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE, >>> >>> Well... even I know

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 17:37:00 Tanstaafl wrote: > On 2013-04-07 12:11 PM, Mick wrote: > > if there is a /dev entry in your /etc/fstab, then it must have > > devtmpfs as its fs type. Most installations would not have such an > > entry in /etc/fstab - but better check to be safe. > > I've heard th

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On 2013-04-07 12:11 PM, Mick wrote: if there is a /dev entry in your /etc/fstab, then it must have devtmpfs as its fs type. Most installations would not have such an entry in /etc/fstab - but better check to be safe. I've heard this many times, but can anyone explain just *when* you would wa

Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev

On 04/07/13 22:35, Pandu Poluan wrote: [snip] AFAICT, on-board NICs have sequential MAC Adresses, with the one labeled "Port 1" has the smallest MAC Address. So far, *all* Linux distros I've used on a server will reliably name "Port X" as "eth$((X-1))". So it's never a puzzle as to whic

Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On 07-Apr-13 18:03, Tanstaafl wrote: On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty, nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE, Well... even I know enough to reas

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On 4/7/13, Mick wrote: > On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 17:00:24 Nick Khamis wrote: >> >> You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum >> >> amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a >> >> pessimist... >> >> >> >> PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on this

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On Sunday 07 Apr 2013 17:00:24 Nick Khamis wrote: > >> You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum > >> amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a pessimist... > >> > >> PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on this list. > > Makes sense and I apolo

Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On 2013-04-07 6:55 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty, nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE, Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

>> You should do udev first, that way if it breaks you have the maximum >> amount of time to get things working again. Not that I'm a pessimist... >> PS Please don't top-post, it is frowned upon on this list. Makes sense and I apologize for the top posts. Have everything up to date with udev in t

Re: [gentoo-user] mdev and lvm2

On Sunday 07 April 2013 13.47:55 Alan Mackenzie wrote: > Hi, Dan. > > On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 02:34:16PM +0200, Dan Johansson wrote: > > Hello List, > > > What is the status of using mdev (instead the ever "growing" udev) > > together with lvm2? Reason for my question is that at > > https://wiki

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 22:26:52 +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote: > > udev has broken nothing, it is avoiding the breakage caused by a > > fundamentally flawed renaming procedure. Or does mdev have some magic > > for for renaming eth0 to eth1 while eth1 already exists? > > > > "Broken" or not is totally d

Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev

On Apr 7, 2013 3:56 PM, "Stroller" wrote: > > > On 7 April 2013, at 07:00, Joseph wrote: > > ... > > Are these new udev rules going across all Linux distros or this is something specific to Gentoo? > > I would assume across all distros. > > Gentoo generally makes a policy of just packaging whateve

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes

On Apr 7, 2013 5:59 PM, "Neil Bothwick" wrote: > > On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:34:03 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > > > > Now I only had to figure out how to rename eth[0-9]+ to the custom > > > naming scheme when using mdev. > > > > ***UDEV*** has broken using "eth[0-9]". mdev works just fine, thank >

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 10:20:02 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: > I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and > potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and > gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare You should do udev first, that way if it brea

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

No... I'm stumped. I really don't want it in there either... I will attempt removing it once finished updating the system. N. On 4/7/13, Michael Mol wrote: > Are you using 802.1x or wireless on that machine? If not, I can't think > of a reason you'd need it, outside of it being a hard dependency

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

Are you using 802.1x or wireless on that machine? If not, I can't think of a reason you'd need it, outside of it being a hard dependency of some other package. On 04/07/2013 10:22 AM, Nick Khamis wrote: > Installing wpa_supplicant got the network scripts working again. Not > sure why. Does any

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

Installing wpa_supplicant got the network scripts working again. Not sure why. Does anyone know why we need wpa_supplication now? On 4/7/13, Nick Khamis wrote: > I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and > potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

I am upgrading each package (25) one by one, and leaving the meat and potatoes (udev) for last. I am really sorry about the noise guys and gals. It's been a while since I had such a scare There are 4500 people coming into work tomorrow morning, and this machine also happens to be our LDAP serve

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:38:23 -0400, Nick Khamis wrote: > Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we > should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked > away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related > package, which was odd since ap

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On 04/07/2013 10:01 AM, Nick Khamis wrote: > Manually bringing up eth0 using ifconfig got me up and running. It's > quite shaky though. net.eth0 does not work any more and of course > neither does sshd or any other service that requires net.eth*. Thanks > Michael. > >>> If they're supposed to be c

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

Manually bringing up eth0 using ifconfig got me up and running. It's quite shaky though. net.eth0 does not work any more and of course neither does sshd or any other service that requires net.eth*. Thanks Michael. >> If they're supposed to be configured via DHCP, try "dhclient >> $interface_name".

Re: [gentoo-user] mdev and lvm2

Hi, Dan. On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 02:34:16PM +0200, Dan Johansson wrote: > Hello List, > What is the status of using mdev (instead the ever "growing" udev) > together with lvm2? Reason for my question is that at > https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev it says " One beta tester reports > getting close

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

Double checking the udevd version we are running 171. Not sure if we should be effected yet? I confess, I did a world upgrade and walked away. For some reason it was stuck on ipr.h for some apache related package, which was odd since apache is not installed on the machine. I reset the system and po

[gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On 06.04.2013 21:11, Jörg Schaible wrote: Jarry wrote: On 06-Apr-13 19:10, Alan Mackenzie wrote: STOP SPREADING THIS FUD It did not happen to pretty much everybody. It happened to people who blindly updated thignsd and walked away, who did not read the news announcement, who did not re

[gentoo-user] mdev and lvm2

Hello List, What is the status of using mdev (instead the ever "growing" udev) together with lvm2? Reason for my question is that at https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Mdev it says " One beta tester reports getting close with lvm2, but it's not there yet.". Regards, -- Dan Johansson,

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

Am Sat, 06 Apr 2013 23:23:04 -0400 schrieb Michael Mol : > On 04/06/2013 11:19 PM, Nick Khamis wrote: > > Hello Michael, > > > >>> Is it because you disabled udev's renaming entirely via the kernel > >>> command-line parameter? >> Because you've done some magic in > >>> /etc/udev/rules.d/? > >

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 00:34:03 -0400, Walter Dnes wrote: > > Now I only had to figure out how to rename eth[0-9]+ to the custom > > naming scheme when using mdev. > > ***UDEV*** has broken using "eth[0-9]". mdev works just fine, thank > you. udev has broken nothing, it is avoiding the breakage

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Udev update and persistent net rules changes

On Sun, 7 Apr 2013 03:06:30 + (UTC), Grant Edwards wrote: > Wha? I swear I was told that you could not reliably name the > iterfaces eth[0-n] using udev rules (which is what I've always done > without problems) because of "race conditions". So I changed over to > net[0-n] on one machine, and

Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On Sat, 06 Apr 2013 17:14:00 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: > > Well, in my case 80-net-names-slot.rules was neither empty, > > nor symlink to dev null, but FULL OF COMMENTS AND NOTING ELSE, > > Well... even I know enough to reason that 'empty' in this context means > no UNcommented lines. Comments a

Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev that little slut!!!!!

On Sun, 07 Apr 2013 09:12:15 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote: > I didnt get hit either either, but ("STRONG" hint") ... I use eudev, so > dies Dale and I believe Walt uses mdev. Time for those in server > environments to jump ship? Except the problems that udev is trying to avoid are more likely

Re: [gentoo-user] Eth0 interface not found - udev

On 7 April 2013, at 07:00, Joseph wrote: > ... > Are these new udev rules going across all Linux distros or this is something > specific to Gentoo? I would assume across all distros. Gentoo generally makes a policy of just packaging whatever upstream offers. In fact, the origins of the ebuil