Gentoo Forums :: View topic - Why stable downgrade, from kernel-4.4.6 to 4.1.15

Why stable downgrade, from kernel-4.4.6 to 4.1.15

View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Gentoo Forums Forum Index

Kernel & Hardware

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

gordonp
Tux's lil' helper

Joined: 23 May 2005
Posts: 102

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 11:25 pm Post subject: Why stable downgrade, from kernel-4.4.6 to 4.1.15

I sync'd, went to update world..... WHOA! What is going on - I'm running the "stable" desktop kernel, with desktop/Gnome/systemd profile, which up until a short while ago was kernel-4.4.6 Suddenly, portage wants me to downgrade to 4.1.15. This just doesn't smell right.... anyone have any insight as to what's going on? TIA!

Tony0945
Watchman

Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA

Posted: Sat Aug 20, 2016 11:37 pm Post subject:

According to this page: https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-kernel/gentoo-sources

Quote:

sys-kernel/gentoo-sources: Remove old, unsupported versions.
Mike Pagano, Sat, 20 Aug 2016 13:02, commit 6a950de9
gentoo-sources-4.4.6.ebuild, gentoo-sources-4.6.3.ebuild, gentoo-sources-4.6.4.ebuild, gentoo-sources-4.6.5.ebuild, gentoo-sources-4.6.6-r1.ebuild, gentoo-sources-4.6.6.ebuild, gentoo-sources-4.6.7.ebuild

Some devs are very quick to drop packages. Sometimes they even drop the only stable package.

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll move 4.4.6 to local overlay before syncing.

EDIT:
Looks like I was too late to save the patches and sources. Maybe I have them on another machine.

Why did he drop stable 4.4.6 as "old and unsupported" but keep unstable 3.4.112 ?

ian.au
l33t
l33t

Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 606
Location: Australia

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 2:33 am Post subject:

Tony0945 wrote:

According to this page: https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-kernel/gentoo-sources

Quote:

Some devs are very quick to drop packages. Sometimes they even drop the only stable package.

Thanks for the heads-up. I'll move 4.4.6 to local overlay before syncing.

++ Thanks also, I'll put off syncing for a couple of days. It's a PITA when this happens.

asturm
Developer

Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 9320

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 6:52 am Post subject:

I don't quite see why it matters. Add the version you want to keep to the world file so depclean won't remove it, work done. You don't need your kernel in tree to use it.

dantrell
l33t
l33t

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Posts: 915
Location: Earth

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 7:22 am Post subject:

genstorm wrote:

I don't quite see why it matters. Add the version you want to keep to the world file so depclean won't remove it, work done. You don't need your kernel in tree to use it.

That's not how it works.

If the related packages were already installed, they don't need to be in the tree to be used, however, at that point you will not be able to reinstall those packages and eclean (on the default settings) will delete any related binaries.

Let's be frank, the issue with stabilizing kernel release versions in a timely manner aside, they were overzealous in selecting the versions they choose to remove. If it's listed in the overview of the Linux Kernel site, it's should be in portage. Anything marked as EOL is a notification until it actually disappears from the overview (and if memory serves, some versions marked as EOL have had that status reverted when a qualified maintainer stepped up).

Also, while the Linux Kernel itself encourages you to move to the latest stable line, that's not always immediately possible depending on your hardware (or other) needs. For instance, anyone using the NVIDIA drivers, the Broadcom STA Wireless drivers or ZFS still require the 4.6.x line.

If you don't see the point, then I don't think this matter is very relevant to you and what you are saying isn't really helpful.

To those it does impact, you can comment on Gentoo bug #591758 but ultimately, you will probably want to utilize a local overlay (which after more than a decade of Gentoo, I can say is a must).

P.S. For the record, the latest stable 4.6 release is 4.6.7 so if you require this line, use that version. You can find that ebuild here.

Edit: s/depclean/eclean/
_________________
Dantrell B.

Last edited by dantrell on Sun Aug 21, 2016 9:07 am; edited 2 times in total

ian.au
l33t
l33t

Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 606
Location: Australia

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 7:29 am Post subject:

genstorm wrote:

I don't quite see why it matters. Add the version you want to keep to the world file so depclean won't remove it, work done. You don't need your kernel in tree to use it.

Because it's sloppy? And because some old installs with 32mb /boot sectors can only hold 2 kernels?

asturm
Developer

Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 9320

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 7:44 am Post subject:

@dantrell: Then someone should step up and help with kernel maintenance. First thing would be backporting CVE-2016-5696 which concerns <4.7 kernels and is probably the reason why any previous kernel version that is EOL was removed. As it is now there seems to be no room for backporting extra patches to EOL'd kernels.

Admittedly I'm in the fine position to not use any binary blobs. But I've been affected by kernel bugs in the past that had me drop back to an older, but LTS maintained kernel version for a long time (you hear me, 3.4.105). That's what you do...

dantrell wrote:

If the related packages were already installed, they don't need to be in the tree to be used, however, at that point you will not be able to reinstall those packages and depclean (on the default settings) will delete any related binaries.

--depclean does not remove kernel binaries you compiled, only the sources. And other packages that need kernel sources around for build do just need these sources pointed at by your linux symlink and can use them as long as you do not --depclean them.

ian.au wrote:

And because some old installs with 32mb /boot sectors can only hold 2 kernels?

What's /boot got to do with it? Nothing.

dantrell
l33t
l33t

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Posts: 915
Location: Earth

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 8:13 am Post subject:

genstorm wrote:

I meant the binary packages in PKGDIR if you have FEATURES="buildpkg" enabled.

By default, eclean will only protect distfiles and binary packages that have a corresponding ebuild available.

Edit: s/depclean/eclean/
_________________
Dantrell B.

Last edited by dantrell on Sun Aug 21, 2016 9:06 am; edited 1 time in total

asturm
Developer

Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 9320

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 8:22 am Post subject:

dantrell wrote:

I meant the binary packages in PKGDIR if you have FEATURES="buildpkg" enabled.

By default, depclean will only protect distfiles and binary packages that have a corresponding ebuild available.

Availability of ebuild has nothing to do with it:

Code:

# equery l -iop gentoo-sources
* Searching for gentoo-sources ...
[I--] [??] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-4.6.7:4.6.7
[IP-] [ ~] sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-4.7.2:4.7.2

Code:

# emerge --noreplace =gentoo-sources-4.6.7
Calculating dependencies... done!
>>> Recording sys-kernel/gentoo-sources:4.6.7 in "world" favorites file...
>>> Auto-cleaning packages...

>>> No outdated packages were found on your system.

Code:

# emerge -cp gentoo-sources

Calculating dependencies... done!
>>> Calculating removal order...

>>> These are the packages that would be unmerged:

sys-kernel/gentoo-sources
selected: 4.7.2
protected: none
omitted: 4.6.7

All selected packages: =sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-4.7.2

>>> 'Selected' packages are slated for removal.
>>> 'Protected' and 'omitted' packages will not be removed.

Distfiles/Binary packages are cleaned by eclean, not --depclean? And last time I checked, they are kept for installed packages even if they are unavailable.

tberger2
Tux's lil' helper

Joined: 05 Feb 2013
Posts: 83

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 8:57 am Post subject:

Quote:

https://sources.gentoo.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/gentoo-x86/sys-kernel/gentoo-sources/?hideattic=0

dantrell
l33t
l33t

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Posts: 915
Location: Earth

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 8:59 am Post subject:

genstorm wrote:

Distfiles/Binary packages are cleaned by eclean, not --depclean? And last time I checked, they are kept for installed packages even if they are unavailable.

I was thinking of eclean the whole time. I'd strikethrough the text but apparently that bbcode isn't available.

My point stands though: there are reasons why it matters (to others, if not yourself).

That's all I have to say about that.
_________________
Dantrell B.

Last edited by dantrell on Sun Aug 21, 2016 9:10 am; edited 2 times in total

ian.au
l33t
l33t

Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 606
Location: Australia

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 9:06 am Post subject:

genstorm wrote:

ian.au wrote:

And because some old installs with 32mb /boot sectors can only hold 2 kernels?

What's /boot got to do with it? Nothing.

Because for me, managing those systems it determines my procedure for adding / removing sources from world - which I usually do remotely --depcleaning the old after a successful build of the new.
Yes, it's easy enough to work around, I just don't think it should be necessary to.

Is it really so hard to stabilize a newer kernel before retiring the current one?

asturm
Developer

Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 9320

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 2:07 pm Post subject:

dantrell wrote:

genstorm wrote:

Distfiles/Binary packages are cleaned by eclean, not --depclean? And last time I checked, they are kept for installed packages even if they are unavailable.

I was thinking of eclean the whole time. I'd strikethrough the text but apparently that bbcode isn't available.

Not for nitpicking, but just for completeness if others are following the discussion:

Code:

# eclean -d distfiles
* Building file list for distfiles cleaning...

The following unavailable installed packages were found
sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-4.6.7

Code:

# ls -1 /var/lib/portage/distfiles/gen*-4.6*
/var/lib/portage/distfiles/genpatches-4.6-9.base.tar.xz
/var/lib/portage/distfiles/genpatches-4.6-9.extras.tar.xz
/var/lib/portage/distfiles/gentoo-headers-4.6-1.tar.xz
/var/lib/portage/distfiles/gentoo-headers-base-4.6.tar.xz

So there's no reason to be afraid of losing distfiles either. I'm on the same side, btw, because it turns out 4.7.2 is just one of those kernels that introduce a surprise kernel panic on my aging system. So i can't use it right now.

And @ian.au, there's no reason to take *any* action in /boot just because your current kernel is leaving tree. It is entirely your own decision when you switch. To me this is very similar to the recent discussion about whether it would be better for Gentoo to take on a different approach for [replacing, not installing side-by-side] new kernel sources [or keep the one in use - just, which one exactly?]. Which in the end came down to no, this is one area where you do the manual work, kernel sources handling is simply different to other packages in the tree.

ian.au wrote:

Is it really so hard to stabilize a newer kernel before retiring the current one?

Apparently it is hard to stabilise anything at this point. But what does a stable kernel mean, anyway, for your Gentoo system? It is not like any other package in tree, it is impossible for arch teams to test even a tiny part of all hardware that is supported, so whatever gets stabilised just didn't have too many bugs reported in bugzilla. And when that happens, it is actually already obsolete by at least several upstream releases that are much more recommended for use. Two years of stable kernels didn't work for my particular corner case, I wouldn't have dared trying to argue to block stabilisation because of that.

Tony0945
Watchman

Joined: 25 Jul 2006
Posts: 5127
Location: Illinois, USA

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 3:50 pm Post subject:

dantrell wrote:

P.S. For the record, the latest stable 4.6 release is 4.6.7 so if you require this line, use that version. You can find that ebuild here.
Edit: s/depclean/eclean/

According to https://packages.gentoo.org/packages/sys-kernel/gentoo-sources, the latest gentoo stable is now 4.1.15-r1, not 4.6.7 which is not available. You are perhaps talking about vanilla-sources. (EDIT: I see there was a link, my screen has poor contrast. However, the ebuild is not the problem, the distfile and patches are the problem.)

It does matter to keep the sources around if you need to change a configuration option or emerge a later version of an out of kernel driver like r8168.

I understand the reasons for removing old versions. I'm wondering why the latest stable was removed (a mistake? a bug?). My big gripe was the lack of notice. I sync daily, yet I find out about this on Sunday morning from another user posting a question on the forum.

Gentoo devs used to give 30 day notices of removal and when you logged in at the forum, you saw the notices immediately.

asturm
Developer

Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 9320

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:06 pm Post subject:

30 day notices are for removal of an entire package, not a single version.

Tony0945 wrote:

It does matter to keep the sources around if you need to change a configuration option or emerge a later version of an out of kernel driver like r8168.

You are completely in control of that, if you read my posts.

Caleb9
Tux's lil' helper

Joined: 22 Nov 2005
Posts: 79
Location: PL & DK

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 4:56 pm Post subject:

4.4.6 is back as stable

ian.au
l33t
l33t

Joined: 07 Apr 2011
Posts: 606
Location: Australia

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 5:09 pm Post subject:

genstorm wrote:

ian.au wrote:

Is it really so hard to stabilize a newer kernel before retiring the current one?

Well I wasn't suggesting blocking stabilisation, quite the contrary, but I take your point.

Upstream were indicating LTS for 4.4.6 back when it was stabilised. Clearly they've had some issues, and moved LTS to 4.4.19 on 4.4.x, then I see the tree has moved back to 4.1.15-r1 yet upstream LTS on 4.1.x is currently 4.1.30. So to me that's all a bit of a pig's breakfast.

Anyway, I'll follow upstream and fix on 4.4.19. I prefer to follow stable here, just to cut down on shooting out corner-cases and staying reasonably current. I don't need cutting-edge, but I have some ARM devices which benefit from the 4.4.x branch, so the drop to stable (as far as the tree is concerned) isn't an option this time. I don't wan't to stay on a superceded source.

Bigun
Advocate

Joined: 21 Sep 2003
Posts: 2198

Posted: Sun Aug 21, 2016 5:30 pm Post subject:

Caleb9 wrote:

4.4.6 is back as stable

Or be patient... that's another option.
_________________
"It's ok, they might have guns but we have flowers." - Perpetual Victim

dantrell
l33t
l33t

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Posts: 915
Location: Earth

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 1:41 am Post subject:

genstorm wrote:

Not for nitpicking, but just for completeness if others are following the discussion:

Code:

# eclean -d distfiles
* Building file list for distfiles cleaning...

The following unavailable installed packages were found
sys-kernel/gentoo-sources-4.6.7

Code:

You are nitpicking but that's fine.

I wasn't talking about eclean distfiles because the results are not always immediately obvious since there is often multiple corresponding ebuilds for a particular distfile. In this case, it's:

aufs-sources-4.6.x
hardened-sources-4.6.x

So naturally, the related distfiles wouldn't be removed just yet. However, with eclean packages the binary packages (i.e. PKGDIR) would immediately be removed because it corresponds directly to the removed ebuild.

For reinstallation purposes, having the distfiles don't matter if the ebuild isn't present. You also can't reinstall the package directly through a stored binary package because it would have been removed as well. Basically it blocks reinstallations and new installations which is what I was initially trying to say.

genstorm wrote:

ian.au wrote:

Is it really so hard to stabilize a newer kernel before retiring the current one?

Others have been mentioning stabilization and they have a point. However, that's a more widespread issue with deeper roots and less of a priority than actually having the ebuilds available in the first place.

My argument is against the removal of ebuilds, for good reason.

Tony0945 wrote:

dantrell wrote:

P.S. For the record, the latest stable 4.6 release is 4.6.7 so if you require this line, use that version. You can find that ebuild here.
Edit: s/depclean/eclean/

For me, the removal of the ebuild is the issue.

You are thinking of something else. Your packages will not be uninstalled if the ebuilds are removed so the installed kernel sources will remain. This is what genstorm was initially explaining but I wasn't disputing that.

Bigun wrote:

Caleb9 wrote:

4.4.6 is back as stable

Or be patient... that's another option.

I'm sure this had more to do with the activity on Gentoo bug #591758 than patience.

That said, restoring the 4.6 line is a good first step but the 4.6.7 release version should have been stablized instead. It contains quite a few fixes and it's not impacted by CVE-2016-5696 as the related patch for the 4.7 line was backported. You can verify this by checking the ChangeLog.

Someone should probably request immediate restoration and stabilization of 4.6.7 with the fix for that CVE being backported as the reason, as well as mention the build failures for NVIDIA drivers, Broadcom STA drivers and ZFS on the 4.7 line.

Edit: So as it turns out, I just noticed that it was 4.4.6 which was restored. I had that swapped with the 4.6 line (simple enough of a mistake to make).

It looks like stabilization (as it pertains to Gentoo) is more of an issue than I thought. 4.4.6 is quite a few releases behind 4.4.19 and if anything, 4.4.18 should be in stable right now while 4.4.19 is marked as ~.

4.6.6 (stable) and 4.6.7 (~), which I wanted restored are still missing but granted, Gentoo bug #591758 wasn't about that.

Given my past experience with Gentoo developers, I think I will just maintain my local overlays and go about my way.
_________________
Dantrell B.

asturm
Developer

Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 9320

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 5:09 am Post subject:

dantrell wrote:

I wasn't talking about eclean distfiles because the results are not always immediately obvious since there is often multiple corresponding ebuilds for a particular distfile. In this case, it's:

aufs-sources-4.6.x
hardened-sources-4.6.x

...but why would you make binary packages out of kernel *sources*?

dantrell
l33t
l33t

Joined: 01 Jun 2007
Posts: 915
Location: Earth

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 5:23 am Post subject:

genstorm wrote:

dantrell wrote:

I wasn't talking about eclean distfiles because the results are not always immediately obvious since there is often multiple corresponding ebuilds for a particular distfile. In this case, it's:

aufs-sources-4.6.x
hardened-sources-4.6.x

...but why would you make binary packages out of kernel *sources*?

Consistency. Ease of deployment. Other reasons which don't apply to me but might to someone else.

It you can't think of one, then maybe it's not relevant to your interests. Or perhaps... you want company under that bridge?

_________________
Dantrell B.

asturm
Developer

Joined: 05 Apr 2007
Posts: 9320

Posted: Mon Aug 22, 2016 5:36 am Post subject:

Nah, certainly not :p I am distributing binary packages myself, locally, but kernel sources are always kept as distfiles, because that's what they are. Basically, one might as well distribute them out-of-tree. However, I have often thought about how nice it would be to distribute the actual kernel binaries to the weaker machines as well over regular emerge. Which would need quite some changes...

Display posts from previous:

	Gentoo Forums Forum Index Kernel & Hardware	All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Copyright 2001-2024 Gentoo Foundation, Inc. Designed by Kyle Manna © 2003; Style derived from original subSilver theme. | Hosting by Gossamer Threads Inc. © | Powered by phpBB 2.0.23-gentoo-p11 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Privacy Policy