xfsprogs -- vital to xfs?

thechris · Veteran Joined: 12 Oct 2003 Posts: 1203

i can't emerge xfsprogs. not the x86 or ~x86 version. both cite syntax errors in the code. i've tried with -O1 as my cflags, as wel as my other -O2 -fblah... set. neither work. without attempting to re-write code, what can i do? wait a week and try again?

i have xfs on / and /home. how vital are xfsprogs to the continued use of xfs?

stahlsau · Posted: Sat Jul 10, 2004 8:34 am Post subject:

very vital, i think. I don´t believe you can run your machine without it.
Better try to compile them, there is more likely a problem with your setup than with the ebuild ;-)

Since they compile fine here, what gcc do you use? I´m on 3.4.1 atm.

thechris · Veteran Joined: 12 Oct 2003 Posts: 1203

yeah, that's what makes me mad -- i did an install with gcc 3.4.0-r6. it had issues with xine (segfaults, apparently an alsa bug even though i hadn't installed it yet...), entrance failed to emerge, and a couple other things. so now i reinstall thinking that it was gcc's fault and now i have MORE issues! xine still segfaults, entrance still won't emerge, things are a lot slower (ximian OOO took 30 seconds to load), my old /etc/hosts file that i've used flawlessly for months isn't right anymore, i had to reboot to get a mouse working, i had to reboot because the computer slows down (memory leak?). in gcc3.4 xfsprogs compiled fine. gcc3.3 -- not a chance. also now KDE apps don't work.

I should just go for gcc3.5. it seems the more stable i try to make the system the less stable it gets. i'm losing interest in gentoo though. portage seems not to work as much as it used to, and i'm still upset over kernel 2.6.7 making it to x86 before nvidia kernel mods that worked with 2.6.7 did...

wow, my background just randomly changed while i was typing this. goody...

stahlsau · Posted: Sun Jul 11, 2004 11:42 am Post subject:

mmh..i don´t think gcc 3.5 is stable. I believe it´s the opposite. I´ve set-up my box complete with 3.4, and had no severe issues (i use those oo-binaries since oo won´t compile with 3.4).
Probably it´s not gentoo´s fault if you get an unstable system while using unstable-marked versions.

thechris · Veteran Joined: 12 Oct 2003 Posts: 1203

well, the "stable" version is more unstable then the "unstable" version...

in anycase xfsprogs decided to compile. no idea what changed to make it work all of a sudden.

ohyeah1942 · n00b Joined: 21 Mar 2004 Posts: 68

unless there is something you have left out, it sounds like either you have flaky ram, or a cpu that is overclocked to much, or isn't getting enough cooling.

I dont know of anything else that will cause something to only occasionally compile.

Although, if that were the case you would probably have lots of other problems with other ebuilds also.

thechris · Veteran Joined: 12 Oct 2003 Posts: 1203

well, i have an update on that. even with xfsprogs it didn't give me fsck.xfs. so i went for the ~x86 version and now fsck.xfs is here. like i said, i don't think its the hardware -- this was an extrodinarily solid winXP computer a few months ago that only went down from virii. really, i gained a lot of respect for xp becuase it was so stable on my PC. thats one of the things that's bugged me about linux is how unstable and slow it seems in comparison. but i'm working on those issues.

MrApples · Guru Joined: 13 Dec 2002 Posts: 511

not to get off topic, but its only as unstable as you make it

thechris · Veteran Joined: 12 Oct 2003 Posts: 1203

so far my most stable attempts have been a full reiser4 install and a gcc3.4 install...

these should mark the system as unstable right? well as it turns out the more conservative i go, the more problems i get. and of course there was the 2.6.7 "how did it get stable?" issue. using the install docs i know it wouldn't have worked -- 2.6.7 wasn't working with the stable nvidia kernel mods...

oberyno · Guru Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 467 Location: /bin/zsh

Well, there are two ways of looking at it. If you choose the "stable" route, you're hopefully choosing something that's been tested. It will probably still have bugs, but usually there's a bug report around explaining what is wrong. In fact if you look at bugzilla, there are a couple bugs about emerging xfsprogs. I'm not sure if any are about your specific problem, but they are there.

With "unstable" packages, these bugs have often been fixed upstream. On the other hand you get new bugs that tend to be harder to find/fix. You do get more advanced software though. Edit: And remember that when a package enters portage, it starts out as unstable. It could be the most stable release yet, but it's still marked unstable. Well, there probably are some exceptions to that.

This coming from a ~x86 user with gcc-3.4.1, reiser4 and all the other fun little goodies I can find.

On a side note, you should think about having two compilers. Gcc-3.4 still doesn't compile everything. You can switch between compilers with gcc-config, i.e.

stahlsau · Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 5:50 am Post subject:

you must have made some really bad experiencies calling 2.6.7 "evil" ;-)

For me, it´s one of the most stable and fast kernels i´ve ever had the pleasure to use :-)

thechris · Veteran Joined: 12 Oct 2003 Posts: 1203

not an nvida user i guess.

2.6.6 had issues with nvidia. firstly they added 2 kernel options -- 1 on by default -- that broke the nvidia kernel modules. secondly, 2.6.6 would have issues with "invalid module format".

the latter was fixed for 2.6.7, but now the stable modules wouldn't work at all... only unstable worked, and still without 4k stack or regparm.

and then they put 2.6.7 into stable without putting the current unstable nvidia kernel mods into stable as well...

that and alsa doesn't work for me anymore. i've had other terrible experiences with 2.6.7.

stahlsau · Posted: Tue Jul 13, 2004 8:08 am Post subject:

I AM an nvidia-user ;-)

all i did was installing 2.6.7, doing a "emerge nvidia-kernel && modprobe nvidia" and everything works.
I´m using nvidia-1.0.6106 with 4k-stacks enabled. Sorry if you have a problem with that driver, but not everyone has, so maybe you misconfigured s/t :-)

oberyno · Guru Joined: 15 Feb 2004 Posts: 467 Location: /bin/zsh

*shrug* I do have a nvidia card and my problems were the exact reverse. I've been using 2.6.7-rc3-love2 for quite a while and it's been just fine with nvidia and reiser4.

My main problem with the 2.6.7 series was the lack of a reiser4 kernel with badram support. I tried xx-sources; hung on boot. Love hasn't had it recently. I tried patching it myself over love; hunk failed, tried to fix, got a kernel panic. Tried patching over mm-7, patch applied cleanly, but it still panicked

.

Anyway, I'm using vivid-sources at the moment and they seem to be pretty stable. Not based off of mm though, if that matters to you.

Edit: get kernel version right