1 |
Alan McKinnon writes: |
2 |
|
3 |
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 16:21:10 +0100 |
4 |
> Alex Schuster <wonko@×××××××××.org> wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > Michael Mol writes: |
7 |
|
8 |
[system does not boot after UDEV upgrade] |
9 |
|
10 |
> > Ran into the same problem, with my sister's PC. Which I had updated |
11 |
> > from remote, so I did not see the elogs. I do not think it is correct |
12 |
> > behaviour to continue building udev although the system wouldn't boot |
13 |
> > with that kernel option missing. I would expect the udev ebuild to |
14 |
> > check the running kernel for that option, and refuse to build until |
15 |
> > it has it set. Or until building is forced by some USE flag or an |
16 |
> > environment variable. |
17 |
> > |
18 |
> > Had these things not been handled better in the past? |
19 |
> |
20 |
> There's a furious debate going on in -dev about this very thing, and |
21 |
> the bottom line is that your statements above are way too simplistic. |
22 |
> |
23 |
> - there is no guarantee that /proc/config.gz represents the kernel the |
24 |
> binary will actually run on (this emerge might well be the last |
25 |
> process you ever run on that kernel) |
26 |
> - there is no guarantee that /usr/src/linux corresponds to anything at |
27 |
> all (it's a symlink and can point to anything, even invalid stuff) |
28 |
> - there is no guarantee that the build host will run the code (think |
29 |
> build farms, crossdev etc, so every available config cannot possibly |
30 |
> be valid) |
31 |
> - and a couple more |
32 |
|
33 |
Sure, all this is not guaranteed. But IF there is a /proc/config.gz and |
34 |
a /usr/src/linux/.config without the DEVTMPFS entry, it is quite probable |
35 |
that the system will not boot. And I think a single line 'DEVTMPFS is not |
36 |
set in this kernel. Udev will not run.' along many others is not enough. |
37 |
|
38 |
> Basically, the only thing left for the ebuild devs is to notify the |
39 |
> user with the important information. |
40 |
|
41 |
That's okay with my PC I am sitting at. But on my sister's PC, I just |
42 |
logged in and started a world update, not monitoring the process all the |
43 |
time. She turned the thing off before I was able to read the elog, and |
44 |
she was surprised when it did not boot the next day. How should I have |
45 |
known what would happen? |
46 |
|
47 |
|
48 |
> The question is not whether to halt the build or not (that cannot and |
49 |
> will not be done) but how to do the communication: |
50 |
> |
51 |
> - news item |
52 |
|
53 |
There is one, from 2013-01-23, ending with 'Apologies if this news came |
54 |
too late for you.' |
55 |
|
56 |
Okay, if that one came a little earlier, I would have been fine. |
57 |
|
58 |
> - elog |
59 |
> - README |
60 |
> - some arb notice on a web site somewhere |
61 |
> ..... |
62 |
> |
63 |
> This is gentoo, the distro that does not hold your hand and gives you |
64 |
> every opportunity to keep both pieces. This is a good example of such. |
65 |
|
66 |
I'm using Gentoo for > 10 years now, and this is the first time such |
67 |
a thing has happened to me. Normally, the devs do quite a good job |
68 |
informing people about such changes that need to be dealt with, but this |
69 |
time I was not pleased. |
70 |
|
71 |
But I'll stop complaining. This incident just seems a little odd to me, |
72 |
unusual for Gentoo. |
73 |
|
74 |
Alex |