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 04-25-2008, 09:59 PM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default Very old machine blocking/update questions

On Friday 25 April 2008, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Hi,
> OK, so this machine I Was speaking of earlier seems ot have a
> number of issues created by a profile update. I'm attempting to move
> from 2005.0 to 2007.0. I'm using these documents as reference:

Ooooh, this is gonna be fun!

> http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml#doc_chap3
> http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/portage/doc/manually-fixing-portage.xml
>
> The second document is referenced because no version of portage in
> the library matches up with the version of python on this system.
> I've followed the instructions and now portage seems to work except I
> see this message which looks more like a warning than anything. Can I
> safely ignore it?
>
> myth11 ~ # emerge -pv system >>EmergeSystem.txt
> !!! Problem with sandbox binary. Disabling...
>
> !!! Problem with sandbox binary. Disabling...

Yeah, I think you can disable it for long enough so that you can remerge
sandbox. Or just take it out of FEATURES till the upgrade is complete


> myth11 ~ #
>
>
> More important are some blocking issues. From the text file I saved
> in the step above I have these blocks:
>
>
> These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
>
> Calculating system dependencies .^H^H... done!
> [blocks B ] <dev-lang/python-2.3.6-r2 (is blocking
> app-admin/python-updater-0.2)
> [blocks B ] <sys-apps/util-linux-2.13 (is blocking
> sys-apps/coreutils-6.10-r2)
> [blocks B ] sys-apps/pam-login (is blocking
> sys-apps/shadow-4.0.18.2)
>
>
> Are these blocks safe to remove? I assume they are system stuff and
> hence the system might break.

Here's a mail I sent to my colleagues about the python blocks. I'm sure
there's any easier way, I just didn't find it at the time:

=====================
Upgrading python on stable x86 boxes is a pain in the you know what.
This time it is worse than usual. Just like the usual bootstrap problem
of "you need a compiled compiler to compile a compiler so how do you
compile a compiler?" on Gentoo portage is written in python so if you
unmerge python to resolve a blocker, how do you then update python?

Most of our boxes will have python in SLOTS 2.2 and 2.3 and 2.4
This is a waste, you only need one. Hence the existence of
python-updater. It works like revdep-rebuild, and finds stuff using
python then rebuilds then to link to the most recent version. Latest
python DEPENDS on python-updater.

However, python-updater blocks <=python-2.3.something, so portage is
going to bitch about those SLOTS. I can think of 2 procedures to
resolve this, only one is tested (credit to Stef for this)

run 'emerge --nodeps python-updater'
run 'python-updater'
This will take a while usually.
Use eix to find all merged versions of python. Unmerge all SLOTS <2.4.
DO NOT UNMERGE PYTHON-2.4!!!!
Now run any portage tool. It will fail with "/usr/bin/python - no such
file". Mwahahaha.
Relax, python is not borked. The last unmerge will have deleted a
symlink. Put it back:

ln -s /usr/bin/python2.4 /usr/bin/python

Portage will now work again.
=================


util-linux needs to be removed to build coreutils as there is duplicate
functionality.

DO NOT UNMERGE COREUTILS!!!!!!!! Just don't even try....

emerge -C util-linux ; emerge coreutils ; emerge util-linux

I prefer to get these done and out of the way asap, rather than
unmerging a blocker and hoping emerge world will fix stuff as it runs
it's course. What is it doesn't and the box is left inconsistent?

pam-login no longer exists and it's functionality is replaced by shadow:

emerge -C pam-login ; emerge shadow

While doing this, keep a second root shell open. After the merge,
confirm you can log out of the original shell and correctly log back
in. If the shadow merged went wrong somehow, or your pam is funny, you
still have a working shell running to fix it. Otherwise, time to fetch
the trusty LiveCD

> thanks in advance,
> Mark



--
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-25-2008, 10:09 PM
"Mark Knecht"
 
Default Very old machine blocking/update questions

Thanks Alan,
Sorry for top posting. I noticed these very old machine have only
8GB drives in them. Looks like I'm actually going to replace the
drives and then do new installs from scratch.

Thanks for your help!

Cheers,
Mark

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 2:59 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday 25 April 2008, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > Hi,
> > OK, so this machine I Was speaking of earlier seems ot have a
> > number of issues created by a profile update. I'm attempting to move
> > from 2005.0 to 2007.0. I'm using these documents as reference:
>
> Ooooh, this is gonna be fun!
>
>
> > http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/gentoo-upgrading.xml#doc_chap3
> > http://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/portage/doc/manually-fixing-portage.xml
> >
> > The second document is referenced because no version of portage in
> > the library matches up with the version of python on this system.
> > I've followed the instructions and now portage seems to work except I
> > see this message which looks more like a warning than anything. Can I
> > safely ignore it?
> >
> > myth11 ~ # emerge -pv system >>EmergeSystem.txt
> > !!! Problem with sandbox binary. Disabling...
> >
> > !!! Problem with sandbox binary. Disabling...
>
> Yeah, I think you can disable it for long enough so that you can remerge
> sandbox. Or just take it out of FEATURES till the upgrade is complete
>
>
>
> > myth11 ~ #
> >
> >
> > More important are some blocking issues. From the text file I saved
> > in the step above I have these blocks:
> >
> >
> > These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
> >
> > Calculating system dependencies .^H^H... done!
> > [blocks B ] <dev-lang/python-2.3.6-r2 (is blocking
> > app-admin/python-updater-0.2)
> > [blocks B ] <sys-apps/util-linux-2.13 (is blocking
> > sys-apps/coreutils-6.10-r2)
> > [blocks B ] sys-apps/pam-login (is blocking
> > sys-apps/shadow-4.0.18.2)
> >
> >
> > Are these blocks safe to remove? I assume they are system stuff and
> > hence the system might break.
>
> Here's a mail I sent to my colleagues about the python blocks. I'm sure
> there's any easier way, I just didn't find it at the time:
>
> =====================
> Upgrading python on stable x86 boxes is a pain in the you know what.
> This time it is worse than usual. Just like the usual bootstrap problem
> of "you need a compiled compiler to compile a compiler so how do you
> compile a compiler?" on Gentoo portage is written in python so if you
> unmerge python to resolve a blocker, how do you then update python?
>
> Most of our boxes will have python in SLOTS 2.2 and 2.3 and 2.4
> This is a waste, you only need one. Hence the existence of
> python-updater. It works like revdep-rebuild, and finds stuff using
> python then rebuilds then to link to the most recent version. Latest
> python DEPENDS on python-updater.
>
> However, python-updater blocks <=python-2.3.something, so portage is
> going to bitch about those SLOTS. I can think of 2 procedures to
> resolve this, only one is tested (credit to Stef for this)
>
> run 'emerge --nodeps python-updater'
> run 'python-updater'
> This will take a while usually.
> Use eix to find all merged versions of python. Unmerge all SLOTS <2.4.
> DO NOT UNMERGE PYTHON-2.4!!!!
> Now run any portage tool. It will fail with "/usr/bin/python - no such
> file". Mwahahaha.
> Relax, python is not borked. The last unmerge will have deleted a
> symlink. Put it back:
>
> ln -s /usr/bin/python2.4 /usr/bin/python
>
> Portage will now work again.
> =================
>
>
> util-linux needs to be removed to build coreutils as there is duplicate
> functionality.
>
> DO NOT UNMERGE COREUTILS!!!!!!!! Just don't even try....
>
> emerge -C util-linux ; emerge coreutils ; emerge util-linux
>
> I prefer to get these done and out of the way asap, rather than
> unmerging a blocker and hoping emerge world will fix stuff as it runs
> it's course. What is it doesn't and the box is left inconsistent?
>
> pam-login no longer exists and it's functionality is replaced by shadow:
>
> emerge -C pam-login ; emerge shadow
>
> While doing this, keep a second root shell open. After the merge,
> confirm you can log out of the original shell and correctly log back
> in. If the shadow merged went wrong somehow, or your pam is funny, you
> still have a working shell running to fix it. Otherwise, time to fetch
> the trusty LiveCD
>
> > thanks in advance,
> > Mark
>
>
>
> --
> Alan McKinnon
> alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com
>
> --
> gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
>
>
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-25-2008, 10:28 PM
Alan McKinnon
 
Default Very old machine blocking/update questions

On Saturday 26 April 2008, Mark Knecht wrote:
> Thanks Alan,
> Sorry for top posting. I noticed these very old machine have only
> 8GB drives in them. Looks like I'm actually going to replace the
> drives and then do new installs from scratch.

8G drives!!!!!!!!!! Wow, that comes from the previous millenium....

Today I worked on a machine with a 40G 7200rpm Barracuda (the office
sounded like it had a Boeing in it taking off!) and I thought they were
old. Now it looks like a young spring chicken in comparison...


--
Alan McKinnon
alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com

--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-25-2008, 11:11 PM
"Mark Knecht"
 
Default Very old machine blocking/update questions

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday 26 April 2008, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > Thanks Alan,
> > Sorry for top posting. I noticed these very old machine have only
> > 8GB drives in them. Looks like I'm actually going to replace the
> > drives and then do new installs from scratch.
>
> 8G drives!!!!!!!!!! Wow, that comes from the previous millenium....
>
> Today I worked on a machine with a 40G 7200rpm Barracuda (the office
> sounded like it had a Boeing in it taking off!) and I thought they were
> old. Now it looks like a young spring chicken in comparison...
>
Yeah, it's pretty insane. We were using these machines only as MythTV
frontend boxes so basically they boot, start mythfrontend, spin down
the drive and then talk to the backend over the network. They didn't
need much space so I probably bought the smallest thing I could find 4
years ago when I first built them.

As with everything, technology marches forward. A terabyte for a
couple hundred bucks now...

Cheers,
Mark
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-26-2008, 07:13 AM
Uwe Thiem
 
Default Very old machine blocking/update questions

On Friday 25 April 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote:
> On Saturday 26 April 2008, Mark Knecht wrote:
> > Thanks Alan,
> > Sorry for top posting. I noticed these very old machine have
> > only 8GB drives in them. Looks like I'm actually going to replace
> > the drives and then do new installs from scratch.
>
> 8G drives!!!!!!!!!! Wow, that comes from the previous millenium....

I still have a DEC Alpha 500 with 3 x 4GB SCSI drives standing around
here. ;-) It doesn't do anything, and I should have thrown it way
long ago. But at one point in the development cycle of KDE 1, it was
the fastest box within the KDE community. Somehow I can't bring
myself to dump it.

Uwe

--
Informal Linux Group Namibia:
http://www.linux.org.na/
SysEx (Pty) Ltd.:
http://www.SysEx.com.na/
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-26-2008, 07:32 AM
Neil Bothwick
 
Default Very old machine blocking/update questions

On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:11:41 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:

> Yeah, it's pretty insane. We were using these machines only as MythTV
> frontend boxes so basically they boot, start mythfrontend, spin down
> the drive and then talk to the backend over the network. They didn't
> need much space so I probably bought the smallest thing I could find 4
> years ago when I first built them.

I've given up on hard drives for MythTV frontends, too much noise, heat,
power and space. I tried flash storage for a while but now network boot.


--
Neil Bothwick

All generalizations are false, including this one.
 
Old 04-26-2008, 04:30 PM
"Mark Knecht"
 
Default Very old machine blocking/update questions

On Sat, Apr 26, 2008 at 12:32 AM, Neil Bothwick <neil@digimed.co.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Apr 2008 16:11:41 -0700, Mark Knecht wrote:
>
> > Yeah, it's pretty insane. We were using these machines only as MythTV
> > frontend boxes so basically they boot, start mythfrontend, spin down
> > the drive and then talk to the backend over the network. They didn't
> > need much space so I probably bought the smallest thing I could find 4
> > years ago when I first built them.
>
> I've given up on hard drives for MythTV frontends, too much noise, heat,
> power and space. I tried flash storage for a while but now network boot.
>
>
> --
> Neil Bothwick

On these Pundit-R machines I tried to get network booting working but
never did. Actually that whole idea still eludes me. I did spin the
drives down to reduce noise as these old 8GB drives are actually
*very* noisy and it's a really ugly high-pitched whine. The worst part
of noise from these little boxes now turns out to be the processor fan
and since it's a non-standard form factor I haven't found a quiet fan
to do a replacement.

- Mark
--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-26-2008, 11:25 PM
Mark Kirkwood
 
Default Very old machine blocking/update questions

The machine I'm typing this on has 2 of these (Barracuda 7200.7's)- they
are absolutely silent...so that machine's one might be ready to throw
its bearings!


Cheers

Mark


Alan McKinnon wrote:


Today I worked on a machine with a 40G 7200rpm Barracuda (the office
sounded like it had a Boeing in it taking off!) and I thought they were
old. Now it looks like a young spring chicken in comparison...






--
gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
 
Old 04-28-2008, 02:14 AM
"Mark Shields"
 
Default Very old machine blocking/update questions

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 6:28 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:

On Saturday 26 April 2008, Mark Knecht wrote:

> Thanks Alan,

> * *Sorry for top posting. I noticed these very old machine have only

> 8GB drives in them. Looks like I'm actually going to replace the

> drives and then do new installs from scratch.



8G drives!!!!!!!!!! Wow, that comes from the previous millenium....



Today I worked on a machine with a 40G 7200rpm Barracuda (the office

sounded like it had a Boeing in it taking off!) and I thought they were

old. Now it looks like a young spring chicken in comparison...





--

Alan McKinnon

alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com



--

gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list




I obtained, free of charge, an iMac G3 (400 mhz?) with a 1 GB of RAM installed about 6 months ago.* About a year ago, I got a free Compaq mini tower with a regular cd-rom, 64 MB of PC100 RAM (1 stick), but 4 MB had to be dedicated to video (could dedicate 2, 4, or 8).* I took it to my work for a project (my manager couldn't get approved to use a PC for this manner), installed 2 256 MB PC133 sticks a coworker gave me that he had in the trunk of his car from cleaning out his storage.* It's running Gentoo with a 10 GB hard drive.* No GUI, but eh, who needs that?* Runs like a champ.*

--
- Mark Shields
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 09:21 PM.

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