| 1 |
Great. This sounds like a major disaster in the making. I'm glad I asked... but I wonder |
| 2 |
how many people running a 2.4 kernel have just hosed their systems? |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
One interesting thing: The version grid for linux-headers on packages.gentoo.org now shows |
| 5 |
version 2.4.22-r1 as the latest available version. The two 2.6 versions are hard masked: |
| 6 |
|
| 7 |
http://packages.gentoo.org/search/?sstring=linux-headers&sourceid=mozilla-search |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
However, I just synced again and emerge still wants to upgrade my linux headers to |
| 10 |
2.6.8.1-r2... even though the website lists this as hard masked! |
| 11 |
|
| 12 |
As far as the make.profile stuff goes, do I have to change to the 2005.0 profile? I was |
| 13 |
never trying to upgrade to a new profile; I just thought it odd that portage wanted to |
| 14 |
emerge what sounded like the wrong headers package for my system (and it turns out I was |
| 15 |
right). I just looked and I'm actually still pointing at the 2004.0 profile. Is this bad? |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
As for rebuilding packages after emerging linux-headers, I don't want to emerge |
| 18 |
linux-headers! Really nice one-liner there though. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
So, I'm figuring I should mask >=linux-headers-2.5 like Sri suggested. But I suppose that |
| 21 |
still leaves me with the question as to what to do about my make.profile. Is it important |
| 22 |
to change that with each new release? (And if so, shouldn't portage remind me if it's so |
| 23 |
important?) What are people running for their make.profile? |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Thanks, |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Ben |
| 28 |
|
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
Kerin Millar wrote: |
| 31 |
> Ben Munat wrote: |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
>> So, you are saying that it is fine to go ahead and emerge |
| 34 |
>> "linux-headers-2.6.8.1-r2" even though I'm running an old 2.4 kernel |
| 35 |
>> (with gss sources, no less)? |
| 36 |
>> |
| 37 |
> |
| 38 |
> Definitely not. It is safe to build applications against 2.4 headers and |
| 39 |
> to run those applications with a 2.6 kernel. The reverse is not the |
| 40 |
> case. There is no specific requirement for you to switch your |
| 41 |
> make.profile at this time. But, in order to protected yourself against |
| 42 |
> future developments, I'd suggest that you do something like this |
| 43 |
> (assuming x86 arch): |
| 44 |
> |
| 45 |
> # cd /etc |
| 46 |
> # rm make.profile |
| 47 |
> # ln -s ../usr/portage/profiles/default-linux/x86/2005.0/2.4 make.profile |
| 48 |
> |
| 49 |
> That should solve the problem (judging by the amount of misguided |
| 50 |
> questions I've seen on IRC, I'm surprised that this hasn't been made |
| 51 |
> clearer). If you need to make any futher customisations to the profile |
| 52 |
> then you should either override it or augment it with a further |
| 53 |
> "cascade" in a PORTDIR_OVERLAY. |
| 54 |
> |
| 55 |
> Aside from all of this, when you change your system headers then it is |
| 56 |
> probably not a bad idea to rebuild any packages that you have installed |
| 57 |
> which are affected by the headers. glibc is by far the most important, |
| 58 |
> but this one-liner will handle the lot (it won't upgrade anthing though): |
| 59 |
> |
| 60 |
> # ls /var/db/pkg/*/*/*.ebuild | xargs grep -l virtual/os-headers | cut |
| 61 |
> -d "/" -f 5,6 | egrep -v "linux(26)?\-headers" | sed -e "s/\(.*\)/=\1/" |
| 62 |
> | xargs emerge --oneshot |
| 63 |
> |
| 64 |
> Regards, |
| 65 |
> |
| 66 |
> --Kerin Francis Millar |
| 67 |
> -- |
| 68 |
> gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |
| 69 |
> |
| 70 |
-- |
| 71 |
gentoo-server@g.o mailing list |
Archives