| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jonathan183
Guru
Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 318
|
 Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 1:55 pm Post subject: Which version of openrc and why |
 |
|
I am currently running openrc-0.17 and was thinking about updating to 0.18 until I read this
Now I'm wondering if I should really pull openrc-0.12.4 and mask further updates of openrc for the moment ... what are others doing and why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54578
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 2:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jonathan183,
I'm sticking to openrc-0.17 until the dust settles around the fstab changes.
In my view, the fstab changes are not a good thing.
The first three attempts at openrc-0.18 had bugs in, which is why its at -r3 now.
That makes me want to question the testing and QA the first tree versions received, if any.
I'm in no hurry to move to later versions of openrc.
If I've screwed up and the fstab changes are in openrc-0.17 too, I'll back out further.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6147
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 2:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm running openrc-0.13.11 without any problems (or blocked packages, at the moment)
From package.mask >=sys-apps/openrc-0.16.4 so I've got it hard masked past that point.
Even prior to 0.13* I was running the old (pre merge /var/run and /run) version with only a couple of packages being blocked.
I just didn't run down as to whether a simple change to the ebuilds (for the blocked packages) would allow them to work with that version.
_________________
UM780, 6.1 zen kernel, gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tld
Veteran
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1845
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | If I've screwed up and the fstab changes are in openrc-0.17 too, I'll back out further. |
I'm running sys-apps/openrc-0.17 and I thought that had the fstab changes...that is the requirement for that "nofail" option. I added that to fstab on my mythtv frontend for an nfs mount.
EDIT: It looks like that was in fact when the news item was added...but the news item specifically says 0.18.
Jeeez...reading that news item again makes me want to smack someone..."The behaviour of localmount and netmount is changing on Linux systems.". On "Linux systems"?...according to what....his ass-backwards view of things?...like how "Linux systems" now use binary logs?
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6147
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't need his brain dead contributions to openrc, so I'll just stay away from them.
_________________
UM780, 6.1 zen kernel, gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrbassie
l33t
Joined: 31 May 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Go past the sign for cope, right at the sign for seethe. If you see the target you've missed it.
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I did a world update last night, 0.18.4 (which is now masked) gifted me the inability to start /etc/init.d/localmount. Those filesystem snapshots are handy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54578
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 6:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I saw the fall out here in response to 0.18-rX.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 7:52 pm Post subject: Re: Which version of openrc and why |
|
|
| jonathan183 wrote: | | I am currently running openrc-0.17 and was thinking about updating to 0.18 until I read this. Now I'm wondering if I should really pull openrc-0.12.4 and mask further updates of openrc for the moment ... what are others doing and why? |
jonathan ... as it was me that posted the above linked post I'm prepared to answer any question put to me on the subject ;) ... only, I can't tell you what you should do, only my reasons for having stayed at 0.12.4, and what problems you might encounter if you did so.
So, what is it you want to know ... that isn't covered in the above linked post (and subsequent posts in that thread)?
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mv
Watchman
Joined: 20 Apr 2005
Posts: 6780
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 8:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | The first three attempts at openrc-0.18 had bugs in, which is why its at -r3 now. |
Edit: Current versoin is openrc-0.18.4 (not -r3).
I was also surprised that it already went stable. However, I have quite a complex setup with / as master transported to some chroot slave, where order and --bind mounts all matter, and I was surprised that the openrc fstab interpretation worked out-of-the-box here - quite in contrast to the systemd one which had needed heavy tuning and overriding of auto(mis)generated mount units (and even then misbehaving due to bugs in every second systemd version).
Thus, although I consider the approach as broken - because mount -a is the correct way of handling fstab, and anything else should be set up by the user directly - I cannot complain that it caused any troubles here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| After all the comments from many people whose ability I respect very much, including SteveL who commented in the link but not in this thread, I have blocked all above 0.17, following NeddySeagoon's advice. Several of you have blocked even further down version, but 0.17 has been working well for me. I was having trouble on my main server that was on 0.18-r3. Some daemons that should have restarted on command required reboot like Windows. Pending a fork, I'm sticking with 0.17 like NeddySeagoon. I don't use LVM or RAID, or even udev. YMMV. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54578
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 9:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tony0945,
I use both LVM and mdadm but not udev as I run Olde Fashioned Gentooee
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tony0945
Watchman
Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 9:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the link! I've bookmarked it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonathan183
Guru
Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 318
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 9:09 pm Post subject: Re: Which version of openrc and why |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | jonathan ... as it was me that posted the above linked post I'm prepared to answer any question put to me on the subject  ... only, I can't tell you what you should do, only my reasons for having stayed at 0.12.4, and what problems you might encounter if you did so.
So, what is it you want to know ... that isn't covered in the above linked post (and subsequent posts in that thread)?
best ... khay |
Thanks khay - I wanted to know what version of openrc people were using, and if they were holding back on some updates what the reasons they had for sticking at a particular version. I thought a thread on systemd was not really the place to ask ... which is why I started this thread.
| Code: | [I] sys-apps/openrc
Available versions: 0.13.11{tbz2} ~0.14 ~0.15 ~0.15.1 ~0.16 ~0.16.1 ~0.16.2 ~0.16.3 0.16.4{tbz2} 0.17{tbz2} **9999 {audit debug ncurses +netifrc newnet pam prefix selinux static-libs tools unicode ELIBC="glibc" KERNEL="FreeBSD linux"}
Installed versions: 0.17{tbz2}(19:38:05 07/05/15)(ncurses netifrc newnet unicode -audit -debug -pam -prefix -selinux -static-libs -tools ELIBC="glibc" KERNEL="linux -FreeBSD")
Homepage: https://www.gentoo.org/proj/en/base/openrc/
Description: OpenRC manages the services, startup and shutdown of a host |
At the moment 0.13.11 is the oldest version in the current tree, I have a copy of 0.12.4 in a local overlay after I got a copy of the ebuild from the attic.
I normally try to keep up with current stable versions of packages ... but I already have a few things which I am not doing that with such as gnupg and I have no intention of running things like systemd/polkit/consolekit and a few other packages on Gentoo.
At this stage I think I am likely to hold openrc to stick with something which is sensible for me ... before I decide which version and fix things to work I was interested in what others have picked and why. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
khayyam
Watchman
Joined: 07 Jun 2012
Posts: 6227
Location: Room 101
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 9:57 pm Post subject: Re: Which version of openrc and why |
|
|
| jonathan183 wrote: | | [...] I wanted to know what version of openrc people were using, and if they were holding back on some updates what the reasons they had for sticking at a particular version. I thought a thread on systemd was not really the place to ask ... which is why I started this thread. |
jonathan ... ok, well, I'm using 0.12.4, I'm sticking with it as I don't care for how the project is being "developed". I had masked > 0.12.4 originally as the 'runscript => openrc-run' move just seemed too ridiculous to believe, its not something I'm going to subject myself to, and as 0.12.4 functions just fine, and I can handle any issues that might encounter with '!<sys-apps/openrc-0.13.11', etc, I see no reason to do otherwise (at least at the present time). So, when I say "not going to subject myself to" I mean, the software I run (particularly key software tasked with initialising the system) is not some toy others can play willy-nilly with ... I expect it doesn't break, or cause disruption, because someone woke up and had a "good idea", or in the case of the 'runscript => openrc-run' move, fixed a corner case (at debian's request) only to cause (ongoing) disruption to the majority of use cases. That is not something I care to overlook, and I'm not inclined to go along with it. If that hurts someones feelings then too bad, my machine is not their toy, they had better do better or loose my support ... its that simple.
best ... khay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
msst
Apprentice
Joined: 07 Jun 2011
Posts: 259
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 06, 2015 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I did a world update last night, 0.18.4 (which is now masked) gifted me the inability to start /etc/init.d/localmount. Those filesystem snapshots are handy. |
Had the same. Was easily fixed by removing an not necessary provisionary mount of dev/sdc which is where the USB stick ends up when I put it in. Works also without, should have removed it before I guess. So no big deal yet, it just could have handled the missing device more gracefully.
Is there somewhere a description of the real fstab changes? I mean without the enormous amounts of political talk, which I do not understand much about... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mrbassie
l33t
Joined: 31 May 2013
Posts: 821
Location: Go past the sign for cope, right at the sign for seethe. If you see the target you've missed it.
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 07, 2015 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mas- wrote: | | Quote: | | I did a world update last night, 0.18.4 (which is now masked) gifted me the inability to start /etc/init.d/localmount. Those filesystem snapshots are handy. |
Had the same. Was easily fixed by removing an not necessary provisionary mount of dev/sdc which is where the USB stick ends up when I put it in. Works also without, should have removed it before I guess. So no big deal yet, it just could have handled the missing device more gracefully.
Is there somewhere a description of the real fstab changes? I mean without the enormous amounts of political talk, which I do not understand much about... |
That's good to know but I'm sticking with 0.17. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonathan183
Guru
Joined: 13 Dec 2011
Posts: 318
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 2:29 am Post subject: Re: Which version of openrc and why |
|
|
| khayyam wrote: | jonathan ... ok, well, I'm using 0.12.4, I'm sticking with it as I don't care for how the project is being "developed". I had masked > 0.12.4 originally as the 'runscript => openrc-run' move just seemed too ridiculous to believe, its not something I'm going to subject myself to, and as 0.12.4 functions just fine, and I can handle any issues that might encounter with '!<sys-apps/openrc-0.13.11', etc, I see no reason to do otherwise (at least at the present time). So, when I say "not going to subject myself to" I mean, the software I run (particularly key software tasked with initialising the system) is not some toy others can play willy-nilly with ... I expect it doesn't break, or cause disruption, because someone woke up and had a "good idea", or in the case of the 'runscript => openrc-run' move, fixed a corner case (at debian's request) only to cause (ongoing) disruption to the majority of use cases. That is not something I care to overlook, and I'm not inclined to go along with it. If that hurts someones feelings then too bad, my machine is not their toy, they had better do better or loose my support ... its that simple.
best ... khay |
Thanks for the information 
For the moment I have rolled back to the currently (as of January 2016) in tree 0.13.11 with the following in package.mask related to openrc
| Code: | #>sys-apps/openrc-0.12.4
#>=sys-apps/kmod-19 - Im actually pulling in kmod-16
#>=net-fs/net-fs-utils-1.3.1-r1
#>sys-apps/busybox-1.21.0
### also requires package.provided of sys-fs/udev-init-scripts-26
### oldest in tree openrc as of Jan 2016
>sys-apps/openrc-0.13.11 |
I have eudev which I think was required to build virtualbox, and have busybox with mdev use flag ...
I have relevant files in a local overlay to switch back to openrc-0.12.4 if I need it, but would then need to fix some permissions stuff which currently uses lsusb but I remember having to fix some time ago. It would have been easier to just mask openrc at the time ... but I guess I did not spot this soon enough so I am going to wait and see how things develop.
I see since I started this thread the discussion has been split from the politics of systemd to its own thread |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyker
Veteran
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 1746
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Are people still holding on 0.17 or is it 'safe' to move on now?
I'm getting blockers from lm_sensors saying it needs >=sys-apps/openrc-0.21.7 - Is this just a lie that is safe to patch around? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54578
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cyker,
If you need modules loaded to drive your sensors, and make your own arrangements for loading them, like list them in /etc/conf.d/modules, its safe to patch around.
New lm_sensors needs newer openrc for its auto module loading.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyker
Veteran
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 1746
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So i.e. if I continue doing things the way I've always done them it's okay?
Since lm_sensors has it's own conf.d/init.d bits for loading its modules and assuming they haven't removed that in the new one, I'm going to go with the patch-around-it route.
Thanks for the help Neddy! o/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cyker
Veteran
Joined: 15 Jun 2006
Posts: 1746
|
| Posted: Tue Oct 03, 2017 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh nutballs, that is in fact what they have removed isn't it!
Pfft, fine, yet again need to allocate more zots to unfix what wasn't broken... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Anon-E-moose
Watchman
Joined: 23 May 2008
Posts: 6147
Location: Dallas area
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 9:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
I had locked >sys-apps/lm_sensors-3.4.0 a while back and had forgotten about it.
I decided that since I hadn't upgraded my hardware in a while I didn't need a newer version anyway as the old version worked perfectly fine, for me.
_________________
UM780, 6.1 zen kernel, gcc 13, profile 17.0 (custom bare multilib), openrc, wayland |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
krinn
Watchman
Joined: 02 May 2003
Posts: 7470
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 04, 2017 11:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| NeddySeagoon wrote: | | New lm_sensors needs newer openrc for its auto module loading. |
Actually not, i'm using sys-apps/openrc-0.29 with INSTALL_MASK="/usr/lib/systemd /etc/systemd /lib/systemd /usr/lib/modules-load.d"
And lm_sensors is working fine.
If !<0.21.7 was set it mean 0.21.7 introduce a feature that <0.21.7 didn't have and lm_sensors need that feature.
I don't think new (shitty) modules handling was add in 0.21.7, and anyway, even with it, it would only mean adding a file in /usr/lib/modules-load.d, something i have myself disable with my mask, and i have no issue with it.
It's a limitation, base only because latest "stable" openrc was 0.21.7 (which is now 0.28 ) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Gentoo Chat
