| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
libertytrek
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 258
|
 Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:35 pm Post subject: Moving from udev (171-r10) to eudev (1.2-r1) |
 |
|
Just wanted to post a thread about my experience, since there is nothing on the eudev homepage about exactly how to move from udev to eudev, and very little anywhere else online (that I could find, which made me very nervous about potentially breaking my system).
First, please do not introduce any udev vs systemd noise. That is not what this thread is about.
I moved from the older/deprecated udev-171-r10 that I had been clinging to while all of the noise about systemd vs udev was going on, so I'm really not sure how applicable this would be to anyone wanting to move from a newer udev.
Anyway, after asking a lot of questions on the gentoo-user list (see this thread), it all boiled down to four simple commands:
| Code: | emerge -Ca udev
emerge -1a eudev
etc-update (accepted all changes)
emerge @preserved-rebuild (to rebuild lvm2) |
Done...
It was really about as uneventful as something could be, considering all of the horror stories and hype surrounding this whole event.
And a special thanks/shout out to Anthony G. Basile (and anyone else involved) for working to keep eudev updated and available to those of us who prefer it to systemd.
Last edited by libertytrek on Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:51 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54889
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 10, 2013 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Moved from Portage & Programming to Documentation, Tips & Tricks.
As its one of those.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddriver
n00b
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 67
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 12:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I would suggest that perhaps a safer way to do this update would be to update lvm2 before unmerging udev. If eudev doesn't work because of some dependency on lvm2, your system might not boot. The time between uninstalling udev and having a fully working eudev is a time when your system is very vulnerable.
I'm just going through the same process because I have decided that I need to avoid systemd, and I have a number of systems that need updating. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddriver
n00b
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 67
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 12:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have a question in return, as you seem to have taken a lot of time to understand the systemd issue...
Having installed eudev in place of udev, is there anything else necessary in order to avoid systemd being used?
Do I need to add systemd to package.mask?
Do I need to add -systemd to the use flags in make.conf? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NeddySeagoon
Administrator
Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 54889
Location: 56N 3W
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 3:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ddriver,
Yes and yes.
The only thing that has a hard dependancy on systemd just now is Gnome 3.8.
_________________
Regards,
NeddySeagoon
Computer users fall into two groups:-
those that do backups
those that have never had a hard drive fail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
libertytrek
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 258
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ddriver wrote: | | I would suggest that perhaps a safer way to do this update would be to update lvm2 before unmerging udev. |
You misunderstood...
lvm2 did not need updating... it simply needed to be *rebuilt*, *after* the switch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ddriver
n00b
Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 67
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 6:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I see. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
libertytrek
Apprentice
Joined: 18 Jul 2007
Posts: 258
|
| Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2013 6:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I didn't mask systemd...
But I did add the following to make.conf:
INSTALL_MASK="/usr/lib/systemd/"
This removes any systemd init files that any packages install...
I don't see any need to mask systemd.. but then, I'm always very careful when updating, and never blindly update world... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sphakka
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Sun Sep 29, 2013 10:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for this post!
As for me, I didn't have to rebuild anything.
Just a note of colour 
| Code: |
>>> Installing (1 of 1) sys-fs/eudev-1.1
* Removing /usr/lib/systemd/
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tvin
n00b
Joined: 15 Sep 2010
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I removed udev, but I can't emerge eudev.
| Code: | # emerge -1a eudev
These are the packages that would be merged, in order:
Calculating dependencies... done!
[ebuild N ] sys-fs/udev-208 USE="acl firmware-loader gudev introspection kmod openrc static-libs -doc (-selinux)" ABI_X86="(64) -32 (-x32)"
[ebuild N ] virtual/udev-206-r3 USE="gudev introspection kmod static-libs (-selinux)" ABI_X86="(64) -32 (-x32)"
[ebuild N ] sys-fs/eudev-1.3 USE="gudev hwdb introspection keymap modutils openrc rule-generator -doc -kmod (-selinux) -static-libs {-test}" ABI_X86="(64) -32 (-x32)"
[blocks B ] sys-fs/udev ("sys-fs/udev" is blocking sys-fs/eudev-1.3)
* Error: The above package list contains packages which cannot be
* installed at the same time on the same system.
(sys-fs/eudev-1.3::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
eudev
(sys-fs/udev-208::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) pulled in by
>=sys-fs/udev-206-r2[abi_x86_32(-)?,abi_x86_64(-)?,abi_x86_x32(-)?,abi_mips_n32(-)?,abi_mips_n64(-)?,abi_mips_o32(-)?,gudev?,introspection?,kmod?,selinux?,static-libs?] (>=sys-fs/udev-206-r2[abi_x86_64(-),gudev,introspection,kmod,static-libs]) required by (virtual/udev-206-r3::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge)
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SamuliSuominen
Retired Dev
Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 2133
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, eudev is a fork of the semi-current udev code so you can use http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Udev/upgrade for it too for most part.
However I'd think twice whether to pick udev-208, or eudev-1.3 which is based on old udev code (206'ish?) and doesn't have anything useful udev doesn't have at this time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SamuliSuominen
Retired Dev
Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 2133
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| libertytrek wrote: | I didn't mask systemd...
But I did add the following to make.conf:
INSTALL_MASK="/usr/lib/systemd/"
This removes any systemd init files that any packages install...
I don't see any need to mask systemd.. but then, I'm always very careful when updating, and never blindly update world... |
But you still delete files blindly by INSTALL_MASK. Bad idea.
/lib/systemd (or /usr/lib/systemd) can have binaries like lvm2-activation-generator which sys-fs/lvm2 deps on, also for non-systemd systems. That was just one example, there are likely to be multiple and with increasing amount. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ssuominen wrote: | But you still delete files blindly by INSTALL_MASK. Bad idea.
/lib/systemd (or /usr/lib/systemd) can have binaries like lvm2-activation-generator which sys-fs/lvm2 deps on, also for non-systemd systems. That was just one example, there are likely to be multiple and with increasing amount. |
Ugh this makes me so annoyed: iirc you were one of the people telling us we can just use INSTALL_MASK and that therefore it's fine for systemd files to be part of every package.
Now you're spreading FUD about how it's going to break the systems of people who don't even have systemd, and in fact have it masked. Or is that what really bothers you?
I mean you're always coming out with nonsense about how eudev is "old" and what's your latest variant on this? code from udev-206 instead of 208. I mean c'mon: that's just pathetic.
FFS if lvm needs something, then it should not require the systemd package in order to get it. Fix it in Gentoo, if nothing else. Or stop pretending to care about users, and just admit that you have another agenda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SamuliSuominen
Retired Dev
Joined: 30 Sep 2005
Posts: 2133
Location: Finland
|
| Posted: Thu Oct 03, 2013 8:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | ssuominen wrote: | But you still delete files blindly by INSTALL_MASK. Bad idea.
/lib/systemd (or /usr/lib/systemd) can have binaries like lvm2-activation-generator which sys-fs/lvm2 deps on, also for non-systemd systems. That was just one example, there are likely to be multiple and with increasing amount. |
Ugh this makes me so annoyed: iirc you were one of the people telling us we can just use INSTALL_MASK and that therefore it's fine for systemd files to be part of every package.
Now you're spreading FUD about how it's going to break the systems of people who don't even have systemd, and in fact have it masked. Or is that what really bothers you?
I mean you're always coming out with nonsense about how eudev is "old" and what's your latest variant on this? code from udev-206 instead of 208. I mean c'mon: that's just pathetic.
FFS if lvm needs something, then it should not require the systemd package in order to get it. Fix it in Gentoo, if nothing else. Or stop pretending to care about users, and just admit that you have another agenda. |
I don't remember ever recommending anyone to use INSTALL_MASK so widely, it's completely different to mask out subdirectories like /lib/systemd/system than complete /lib/systemd. And I don't see anything pathetic
in pointing out installing eudev instead of udev is a downgrade, that has almost no benefits from users point of view at all, it's definately not an plain 'this or that' choice. Multiple grave bugs have been fixed in 208, grave bugs
that would have blocked 206 or 207 stabilization. The same reason those two versions got thrown out of the Portage so fast, to let people know they are not viable alternatives. Grave bugs like wrong network interface
naming, failing to read .rules with missing empty line in end of them, and so forth.
My only agenda is to let people know about the facts and help them make informed decisions. And what the... does lvm2-activation-generator binary which is part of sys-fs/lvm2 have to do with the systemd package? None, whatsoever.
Please get your facts straight before throwing in unfounded accusations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
steveL
Watchman
Joined: 13 Sep 2006
Posts: 5153
Location: The Peanut Gallery
|
| Posted: Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ssuominen wrote: | | Please get your facts straight before throwing in unfounded accusations. |
They're not unfounded. But go ahead with your agenda: after all, you will anyway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
_______0
Guru
Joined: 15 Oct 2012
Posts: 521
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 07, 2013 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I too have systemd folder without having installed systemd :/
/usr/lib/systemd/system/
If I am using eudev, is it safe to rm -rf that directory?
thanks |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sphakka
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 7:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How about this?
| Code: |
# emerge -uDNaq world
[ebuild U ] sys-fs/eudev-1.3 [1.1] USE="gudev hwdb keymap modutils openrc rule-generator -doc -introspection -kmod (-selinux) -static-libs {-test}" ABI_X86="(64%*) (-32) (-x32)" 1,641 kB
[ebuild U ] sys-apps/hwids-20130915.1 [20130329] USE="udev" 1,535 kB
[nomerge ] sys-apps/util-linux-2.22.2 USE="cramfs crypt ncurses nls static-libs suid udev unicode -ddate -old-linux -perl (-selinux) -slang {-test}"
[ebuild N ] virtual/udev-208 USE="gudev kmod -introspection (-selinux) -static-libs" ABI_X86="(64) (-32) (-x32)" 0 kB
Total: 3 packages (2 upgrades, 1 new), Size of downloads: 3,175 kB
* Error: circular dependencies:
(virtual/udev-208::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) depends on
(sys-fs/eudev-1.3::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) (runtime)
(sys-apps/hwids-20130915.1::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) (runtime)
(virtual/udev-208::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) (buildtime)
It might be possible to break this cycle
by applying the following change:
- virtual/udev-208 (Change USE: -kmod)
|
Of course, the '-kmod' tip doesn't work as 'udev' is not installed. I also tried other USE flag combinations on ufed (-kmod -keymap) at no avail.
Any idea?  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
evoweiss
Veteran
Joined: 07 Sep 2003
Posts: 1678
Location: Edinburgh, UK
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 8:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Same thing cropped up here. I'll keep an eye on this thread.
Alex
Last edited by evoweiss on Sun Nov 24, 2013 10:05 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sphakka
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 24 Jun 2003
Posts: 79
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| sphakka wrote: |
| Code: |
...
* Error: circular dependencies:
(virtual/udev-208::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) depends on
(sys-fs/eudev-1.3::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) (runtime)
(sys-apps/hwids-20130915.1::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) (runtime)
(virtual/udev-208::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) (buildtime)
It might be possible to break this cycle
by applying the following change:
- virtual/udev-208 (Change USE: -kmod)
|
|
For the time being, I masked these:
| Code: |
>=sys-fs/eudev-1.3
>virtual/udev-200
>=sys-apps/hwids-20130915.1
|
Bug report here... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
creaker
l33t
Joined: 14 Jul 2012
Posts: 651
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 24, 2013 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| _______0 wrote: | I too have systemd folder without having installed systemd :/
/usr/lib/systemd/system/
If I am using eudev, is it safe to rm -rf that directory?
thanks |
This directory is a part of udev installation, not systemd, and it came with stage3 (as well as udev is). Nevertheless, you can remove this directory even if you use udev.
Probably, on next update it will be re-created by dbus or some other package that will try to access this directory |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tld
Veteran
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1854
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2013 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| steveL wrote: | | ssuominen wrote: | But you still delete files blindly by INSTALL_MASK. Bad idea.
/lib/systemd (or /usr/lib/systemd) can have binaries like lvm2-activation-generator which sys-fs/lvm2 deps on, also for non-systemd systems. That was just one example, there are likely to be multiple and with increasing amount. |
Ugh this makes me so annoyed: iirc you were one of the people telling us we can just use INSTALL_MASK and that therefore it's fine for systemd files to be part of every package.
Now you're spreading FUD about how it's going to break the systems of people who don't even have systemd, and in fact have it masked. Or is that what really bothers you?
I mean you're always coming out with nonsense about how eudev is "old" and what's your latest variant on this? code from udev-206 instead of 208. I mean c'mon: that's just pathetic.
FFS if lvm needs something, then it should not require the systemd package in order to get it. Fix it in Gentoo, if nothing else. Or stop pretending to care about users, and just admit that you have another agenda. |
I was confused by that statement as well. I have no systemd installed anywhere (and probably wouldn't unless my very life depended on it). I'm in the process of converting to eudev...just did so on the machine I'm on right now. My MythTV backend machine uses lvm2. It has a /usr/lib/systemd directory (which I wasn't aware of until reading this thread), however there is no lvm2-activation-generator in there...and no trace of lvm2 here:
| Code: | equery belongs /usr/lib/systemd
* Searching for /usr/lib/systemd ...
media-sound/alsa-utils-1.0.27.1-r1 (/usr/lib/systemd)
net-misc/openssh-5.9_p1-r4 (/usr/lib/systemd)
net-misc/rsync-3.0.9-r3 (/usr/lib/systemd)
net-nds/rpcbind-0.2.0-r1 (/usr/lib/systemd)
net-print/cups-1.6.2-r5 (/usr/lib/systemd)
net-print/cups-filters-1.0.34-r1 (/usr/lib/systemd)
sys-apps/dbus-1.6.12 (/usr/lib/systemd)
sys-auth/polkit-0.110 (/usr/lib/systemd)
sys-libs/gpm-1.20.7-r1 (/usr/lib/systemd)
www-servers/apache-2.2.25 (/usr/lib/systemd)
|
If there were really any such lvm2 dependency, why would I not see it there??
You know, I've been way to busy with work and until recently haven't really been following the whole systemd debacle. I find the whole mess horrific...and avoiding this travesty difficult enough without stuff like this confusing matters.
Oh...and thanks to libertytrek for the original post!...very helpful!
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dmpogo
Advocate
Joined: 02 Sep 2004
Posts: 3474
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2013 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ssuominen wrote: |
My only agenda is to let people know about the facts and help them make informed decisions. And what the... does lvm2-activation-generator binary which is part of sys-fs/lvm2 have to do with the systemd package? None, whatsoever.
Please get your facts straight before throwing in unfounded accusations. |
One second, why on earth lvm2 installs lvm2-activation-generator into /lib/systemd if it needs this binary even without systemd ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tld
Veteran
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1854
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2013 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| dmpogo wrote: | | ssuominen wrote: |
My only agenda is to let people know about the facts and help them make informed decisions. And what the... does lvm2-activation-generator binary which is part of sys-fs/lvm2 have to do with the systemd package? None, whatsoever.
Please get your facts straight before throwing in unfounded accusations. |
One second, why on earth lvm2 installs lvm2-activation-generator into /lib/systemd if it needs this binary even without systemd ? |
As far as I can see it doesn't. It certainly hasn't here and lvm2 doesn't even have a systemd use flag, so I'm guessing it never does. Does *any* version of lvm2 do this or are we all getting side-tracked with FUD here?
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tld
Veteran
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1854
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This conversion went without a hitch on the workstation I'm on right now. In that case I was uninstalling udev-204 and installing eudev-1.1 (the version that was stable at the time). Nothing needed to be recompiled via @preserved-rebuild. Since then, it's been updated to eudev-1.3 without a hitch.
However I just had the switch go very badly on my mythfrontend system. Maybe someone here will have an idea as to why:
In this case, the machine had previously been updated to udev-208, so I was uninstalling udev-208 and installing eudev-1.3, which is now stable. In this case there was also nothing to rebuild.
However, when I rebooted it wasn't able to start eth0. I usually do most stuff on that machine via ssh, so I was stuck working at my TV with a wireless keyboard. Out of desperation I uninstalled eudev and reinstalled udev, and it still couldn't start eth0. Since I had a very recent clonezilla backup of my / partition, I got fed up and just restored. Now I'm back to normal. Not pretty at all. By the way: I have all my Ethernet adapters compiled directly into my kernels.
While writing this I just realized that that frontend machine doesn't have any 70-persistent-net.rules file (and apparently never has), while this machine (and my others) do. I'm guessing that may be related, but why would reverting back to udev not correct it?
EDIT: OK...I'm sure this is related:
https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=453494
...for the love of all that is holy...reading that made me want to cry. I see that that specifically relates to drivers compiled directly into the kernel, which is what I have. However I only have one device. Can someone explain how the above bug affects me in something less than a million words? For one thing, how is it that even with no 70-persistent-net.rules and udev at version 208, I've been reliably getting a name of eth0...that bug doesn't seem to imply that that would work. I don't actually even understand if 70-persistent-net.rules even works any more..seriously confused.
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tld
Veteran
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 1854
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 11, 2013 12:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
I can see now that I seriously dropped the ball when it came to udev updates and network inyterfaces in general. I mistakenly thought that the issues applied strictly to situations with multiple interfaces.
What still has me confused, and I may start a new thread on this, is the fact that I have machines that are successfully using the "unpredictable" name eth0 even though the don't meet any of the criteria listed in the udev upgrade wiki. I just can't make sense out of that.
Tom |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Documentation, Tips & Tricks
