FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Gentoo > Gentoo User

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-18-2008, 08:28 AM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

On Thu, 17 Apr 2008 21:34:56 +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote:

> > > It would be, but it wasn't removed on any of the three machines I
> > > upgraded.

> > So, I think, that your system is a bit odd.
>
> Maybe I should have specified that the three machines all have very
> different setups.

Fourth time unlucky for me


--
Neil Bothwick

Seduced by the Chocolate side of the Force...
 
Old 04-18-2008, 09:10 AM
Graham Murray
 
Default baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

Roy Wright <roy@wright.org> writes:

> If you use dispatch-conf, check /etc/config-archive for your previous
> version. You might get lucky...

It was not there for me. conf.d/net.example was in there but not
conf.d/net which contained the pre-baselayout-2 network
configuration. My main complaint was that there was, at the time (it has
since been added to the upgrade guide), no warning that /etc/conf.d/net
would be hosed and replaced by a skeleton.
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-18-2008, 10:34 AM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 10:10:59 +0100, Graham Murray wrote:

> > If you use dispatch-conf, check /etc/config-archive for your previous
> > version. You might get lucky...

That won't help because the replacement is done by the ebuild.

> It was not there for me. conf.d/net.example was in there but not
> conf.d/net which contained the pre-baselayout-2 network
> configuration. My main complaint was that there was, at the time (it has
> since been added to the upgrade guide), no warning that /etc/conf.d/net
> would be hosed and replaced by a skeleton.

The upgrade guide makes no mention of this, only of the removal
of /etc/init.d/eth0, which is easily replaced. It is also an apparently
random occurrence, at least in my experience. I upgraded another machine
this morning and the file was untouched.


--
Neil Bothwick

Nice computers don't go down.
 
Old 04-18-2008, 10:38 AM
Justin
 
Default baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

I upgraded another machine
this morning and the file was untouched.





Me too. But I have another problem on two machines. After the upgrade
following message is drop while rebooting:


* Stopping gdm ...
* start-stop-daemon: fopen `/var/run/gdm.pid': No such file or directory
[ ok ]


What does this mean? the pid is there while gdm is running. The only
thing which is stopped befor is the local service.

Any idea?

Thanks,
justin
 
Old 04-18-2008, 11:10 AM
Michael Schmarck
 
Default baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

> So I would upgrade your "extremely stupid" opinion to something more
> like "Ravenous Bluggbatter Beast of Traal level stupidity". Yup, it
> really is that bad and the flood of user support questions from this is
> going to be quite long.

While I agree that this might not have been the most clever
idea "they" ever had, I would like to point your nose to
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselayout-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3

What I'm trying to say is, that the number of user support questions
probably won't be that long.

Michael

--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-18-2008, 11:49 AM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:10:30 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:

> While I agree that this might not have been the most clever
> idea "they" ever had, I would like to point your nose to
> http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselayout-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3

Now it makes sense. If you have not modified conf.d/net since the last
baselayout emerge, portage considers the file to be part of the old
package and removes it. That's why only some machines are affected. It
also shows that this is not a bug with the new baselayout but a time
bomb in the 1.x ebuilds.


--
Neil Bothwick

No maintenance: Impossible to fix.
 
Old 04-18-2008, 05:49 PM
"b.n."
 
Default baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

Neil Bothwick ha scritto:

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 13:10:30 +0200, Michael Schmarck wrote:


While I agree that this might not have been the most clever
idea "they" ever had, I would like to point your nose to
http://sources.gentoo.org/viewcvs.py/gentoo-x86/sys-apps/baselayout/baselayout-2.0.0.ebuild?r1=1.2&r2=1.3


Now it makes sense. If you have not modified conf.d/net since the last
baselayout emerge, portage considers the file to be part of the old
package and removes it. That's why only some machines are affected. It
also shows that this is not a bug with the new baselayout but a time
bomb in the 1.x ebuilds.


Err, how can it make sense?
Does it make sense to have portage *remove* (or substitute silently)
files in /etc? Maybe if I don't modify conf.d/net is because I don't had
the need to modify it...


No flaming intent here, but it does not make sense to me.

m.
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-18-2008, 09:49 PM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default baselayout-2.0.0 surprises

On Fri, 18 Apr 2008 19:49:55 +0200, b.n. wrote:

> > Now it makes sense. If you have not modified conf.d/net since the last
> > baselayout emerge, portage considers the file to be part of the old
> > package and removes it. That's why only some machines are affected. It
> > also shows that this is not a bug with the new baselayout but a time
> > bomb in the 1.x ebuilds.
>
> Err, how can it make sense?
> Does it make sense to have portage *remove* (or substitute silently)
> files in /etc? Maybe if I don't modify conf.d/net is because I don't
> had the need to modify it...

I mean it makes sense how it happens, not that it is sensible to do. It's
not that you haven't modified it, in that case it doesn't matter that the
1.x default is replaced with the 2.0 default. But the way this explains
the 1.x ebuild working means that if you do modify the file under 1.x,
then emerge baselayout 1.x again, the modified file is considered to have
been installed by portage and safe to replace with a later default,
although even that logic is flawed.

It's all academic now, as the bug has been uncovered and fixed, which is
exactly what the testing arches are for.


--
Neil Bothwick

Is fire supposed to shoot out of it like that?
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:23 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org