Gentoo Archives: gentoo-desktop

From: Roman Zilka <zilka@×××××××.cz>
To: gentoo-desktop@l.g.o
Subject: Re: [gentoo-desktop] System problems
Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2011 23:12:11
Message-Id: 20110321001034.42e087b8.zilka@fi.muni.cz
In Reply to: Re: [gentoo-desktop] System problems by Lindsay Haisley
1 > /etc/fstab has been edited several times, as I noted in my post. The
2 > kernel, udev and /etc/fstab have been now been reverted, as I also noted, so
3 > I could get the desktop working. Considering that, posting any of the
4 > information you've asked for would probably be useless.
5
6 OK, so be it, fstab is not that important.
7
8 > Roman, if you don't have any useful insights based on the information I
9 > already posted, then please don't post on thread and leave it to others
10 > who may.
11
12 I may have useful insights that are different from the insights posted
13 previously by other people. But I need your `emerge --info` and kernel
14 conf for that first. To give you a hint of explanation: I need the
15 kernel conf to look for whatever may be wrong in there. There's no
16 point in sending you a working conf for my (i.e., different) machine -
17 there's plenty of those lying around the net, as we both know. I assume
18 you have either already tried one of those or simply don't want to use
19 one for some reason. Thus, it's possible that you keep making a
20 recurring mistake while modifying default / borrowed / your own old
21 configs. And I need to see your conf to discover such potential
22 mistakes. As for `emerge --info`, it may uncover problems relevant in
23 this case too.
24
25 Please, cooperate with those whom you'd asked for help. Writing these
26 several paragraphs worth of e-mail text as a reply was a waste of time
27 for you - it clearly hasn't produced any help at all regarding your
28 booting issue. On the other hand, sending me what I'd asked for right
29 away would not only eat up much less of your time, it might have
30 yielded a solution by now. I suppose you're asking for help because you
31 understand that others may be more knowledgeable than yourself.
32
33 > > Also, by upgrading to a little less ancient versions than 2.6.29
34 > > you won't have the same situation like now boomerang back at you in the
35 > > near future.
36 >
37 > Can you cite a source or sources for this assertion?
38
39 The source is the very reality of change of things in the world over
40 time. Software evolves and because hardly anything in nature has
41 infinite duration, it is only a matter of time before compatibility of
42 udev (or something else) with the 2.6.29 ends. In fact, this is true
43 for any two pieces of software that coexist, not just the
44 kernel+something, of course.
45
46 > Is there a known
47 > problem with kernel 2.6.29, or the portage tree which spec'd that
48 > kernel?
49
50 There are so many known problems with that kernel that it'd take me a
51 lifetime to remember and copy them all. See:
52 ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.6/ChangeLog-2.6.3?*
53
54 And some of those are relatively serious security holes and it'd take a
55 really special handling of the system to avoid them. And I'm talking
56 about handling that'd probably render an Internet-connected desktop box
57 with a web browser unusable. I'm not gonna google those specific ones
58 for you, we don't need that to get ahead; every active admin will
59 remember them.
60
61 And yes, Gentoo devs deem 2.6.29 dangerous too - that's why it isn't in
62 the current Portage tree at all (vanilla-sources and gentoo-sources).
63 Kernel devs themselves deem it dangerous and they don't maintain that
64 branch anymore. Of what's maintained (in terms of security patches),
65 2.6.27 and 2.6.32 are nearest to 2.6.29. And I wouldn't expect at least
66 one of them to linger around for a very long time.
67
68 > In almost every case, I've found that people who lecture me online about
69 > my system admin practices don't really have a handle on the issue about
70 > which I'm writing. Please prove me wrong :-)
71
72 I suppose one can say I've done just that, having written what I've
73 written. At least I hope did so in a sensitive way. There's no need to
74 defend your admin skills in case you happen to feel offended by
75 something above. Why is there no need? Because failing in an honest
76 effort is not a reason for disregard for a human being. So there's
77 actually no harm for you from that.
78
79 Well, in fact, it is a reason for disregard for a few people, but let's
80 not have our lives spoiled by those.:)
81
82 -rz

Replies

Subject Author
Re: [gentoo-desktop] System problems Roman Zilka <zilka@×××××××.cz>
Re: [gentoo-desktop] System problems Lindsay Haisley <fmouse-gentoo@×××.com>