Re: [blfs-dev] systemd latest version 247.1
On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 12:08 -0600, Douglas R. Reno via blfs-dev wrote:
>
> On 12/4/20 11:16 AM, Wayne Blaszczyk via blfs-dev wrote:
> > On Sat, 2020-12-05 at 04:04 +1100, Wayne Blaszczyk wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 09:17 -0600, Douglas R. Reno via blfs-dev wrote:
> > > > On 12/4/20 3:03 AM, Wayne Blaszczyk via blfs-dev wrote:
> > > > > Hi Guys,
> > > > >
> > > > > Spent the last hour racking my brain on why Gentoo, Arch, and Fedora
> > > > > had version 247.1
> > > > > Turns out that they are pulling from
> > > > > https://github.com/systemd/systemd-stable
> > > > > I didn't know this repository existed.
> > > > >
> > > > > Regards,
> > > > > Wayne.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > Hi Wayne,
> > > >
> > > > They started doing that around 243 I think, but started tagging point
> > > > versions around 245.
> > > >
> > > > In LFS, I have a patch that takes care of the changes in 247.1 and some
> > > > other fixes (for systemd-networkd). Generally I just backport fixes that
> > > > are applicable to {,B}LFS systems rather than trying to update it every
> > > > time.
> > > >
> > > > Unfortunately, BLFS will be out of date when it comes to systemd for at
> > > > least the next render. I'm working on that as quickly as I can, but I
> > > > decided to do a full rebuild to see if any issues with udev rules come
> > > > up.
> > > >
> > > > - Doug
> > > >
> > > Thanks Doug,
> > >
> > > My LFS build has just completed and on the reboot, the following failure
> > > occurs:
> > >
> > > Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[212]: systemd-oomd.service: Failed to
> > > determine user credentials: No such process
> > > Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[212]: systemd-oomd.service: Failed at step
> > > USER spawning /lib/systemd/systemd-oomd: No such process
> > > Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[1]: systemd-oomd.service: Main process
> > > exited, code=exited, status=217/USER
> > > Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[1]: systemd-oomd.service: Failed with
> > > result 'exit-code'.
> > > Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[1]: Failed to start Userspace Out-Of-Memory
> > > (OOM) Killer.
> > >
> > > Not sure if you have come across this. I'll investigate in the morning.
> > >
> > > Wayne.
> > >
> > Found that a user systemd-oom is require. However there are still issues:
> >
> > Dec 05 04:13:20 lfs02 systemd-oomd[197]: Pressure Stall Information (PSI)
> > is not supported
> > Dec 05 04:13:20 lfs02 systemd[1]: systemd-oomd.service: Main process
> > exited, code=exited, status=1/FAILURE
> > Dec 05 04:13:20 lfs02 systemd[1]: systemd-oomd.service: Failed with result
> > 'exit-code'.
> > Dec 05 04:13:20 lfs02 systemd[1]: Failed to start Userspace Out-Of-Memory
> > (OOM) Killer.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Wayne.
> >
> >
> >
> Hi Wayne,
>
> Did you build with -Dmode=release? systemd-oomd is classified as
> experimental, so we use -Dmode=release to prevent it from being built
> and installed. We've got -Dmode=release in LFS. In BLFS, we're also
> going to need to add -Dpamconfdir=/etc/pam.d to force the PAM files to
> end up in /etc/pam.d rather than /usr/lib/pam.d.
>
> - Doug
>
No I didn't. I've since added the -Dmode=release and also added the kernel
parameter CONFIG_PSI suggested by Bruce.
The systemd-oom user is still required. I see that there is a -Doomd=false
option to disable this. This and the second issue, I couldn't be
bothered to re build the kernel without CONFIG_PSI to find out if its still
needed when -Dmode=release is set.
I'll let somebody else do that. Thanks for the tip about pam.
Wayne.
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-dev] SCons attempts to overwrite Python easy_install scripts
Another one I noticed when perfroming a PkgUser install Right at the end of the SCons installtion, it reports Installing easy_install script to /usr/bin Installing easy_install-3.8 script to /usr/bin however, the install of python-3.8 had already installed a /usr/bin/easy_install-3.8 Extrapolting from that could see, In a typical deploy-as-root LFS/BLFS build, SCons putting its own easy_install scripts into place, and so overwriting those suppiled by the python package, or is it merely the case that, because of some "python consistency magic", the SCons package ia merely redeploying scripts from the original python build ? Interesting for me, my python install hadn't created a versionless link to /usr/bin/easy_install which may or may not be expected,but maybe I missed that. I note also that the /usr/bin/easy_install-3.8 that my python 3.8.5 had installed, isn't listed in the LFS Book's "Contents of Python 3" section ? Should I have seen that deloyed by the python install ? Kevin -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Berkeley DB library locations
On 12/4/20 2:11 PM, DJ Lucas via blfs-dev wrote: On December 3, 2020 3:18:39 PM CST, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: In some cases PAM may use Berkeley DB libraries. We should probably change the bdb build to move the libraries to /lib: ... I don't think that is necessary, or at least not by FHS if that's what prompted the suggestion. By the time you reach a login prompt, networking should be up, and if it's not, it'll just fail and move on to the next module in the chain (eventually making it's way to using local files), so it doesn't make any difference for the FHS case. I suppose a local db can be a concern (I've never set one up that way), but you are likely in the same boat in either case if /usr is not available at that time, as you are probably wanting to fix the missing /usr. Good point. -- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] Berkeley DB library locations
On December 3, 2020 3:18:39 PM CST, Bruce Dubbs via blfs-dev wrote: >In some cases PAM may use Berkeley DB libraries. We should probably >change the bdb build to move the libraries to /lib: > >... I don't think that is necessary, or at least not by FHS if that's what prompted the suggestion. By the time you reach a login prompt, networking should be up, and if it's not, it'll just fail and move on to the next module in the chain (eventually making it's way to using local files), so it doesn't make any difference for the FHS case. I suppose a local db can be a concern (I've never set one up that way), but you are likely in the same boat in either case if /usr is not available at that time, as you are probably wanting to fix the missing /usr. -- DJ -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] systemd latest version 247.1
On 12/4/20 11:16 AM, Wayne Blaszczyk via blfs-dev wrote: [snip] Found that a user systemd-oom is require. However there are still issues: Dec 05 04:13:20 lfs02 systemd-oomd[197]: Pressure Stall Information (PSI) is not supported Looks like a kernel option: Symbol: PSI [=n] Type : bool Defined at init/Kconfig:596 Prompt: Pressure stall information tracking Location: -> General setup (1) -> CPU/Task time and stats accounting Symbol: PSI_DEFAULT_DISABLED [=n] Type : bool Defined at init/Kconfig:615 Prompt: Require boot parameter to enable pressure stall information tracking Depends on: PSI [=n] Location: -> General setup -> CPU/Task time and stats accounting (2) -> Pressure stall information tracking (PSI [=n] -- Bruce -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] systemd latest version 247.1
On 12/4/20 11:16 AM, Wayne Blaszczyk via blfs-dev wrote:
On Sat, 2020-12-05 at 04:04 +1100, Wayne Blaszczyk wrote:
On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 09:17 -0600, Douglas R. Reno via blfs-dev wrote:
On 12/4/20 3:03 AM, Wayne Blaszczyk via blfs-dev wrote:
Hi Guys,
Spent the last hour racking my brain on why Gentoo, Arch, and Fedora had
version 247.1
Turns out that they are pulling from https://github.com/systemd/systemd-stable
I didn't know this repository existed.
Regards,
Wayne.
Hi Wayne,
They started doing that around 243 I think, but started tagging point
versions around 245.
In LFS, I have a patch that takes care of the changes in 247.1 and some
other fixes (for systemd-networkd). Generally I just backport fixes that
are applicable to {,B}LFS systems rather than trying to update it every
time.
Unfortunately, BLFS will be out of date when it comes to systemd for at
least the next render. I'm working on that as quickly as I can, but I
decided to do a full rebuild to see if any issues with udev rules come up.
- Doug
Thanks Doug,
My LFS build has just completed and on the reboot, the following failure occurs:
Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[212]: systemd-oomd.service: Failed to determine
user credentials: No such process
Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[212]: systemd-oomd.service: Failed at step USER
spawning /lib/systemd/systemd-oomd: No such process
Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[1]: systemd-oomd.service: Main process exited,
code=exited, status=217/USER
Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[1]: systemd-oomd.service: Failed with result
'exit-code'.
Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[1]: Failed to start Userspace Out-Of-Memory (OOM)
Killer.
Not sure if you have come across this. I'll investigate in the morning.
Wayne.
Found that a user systemd-oom is require. However there are still issues:
Dec 05 04:13:20 lfs02 systemd-oomd[197]: Pressure Stall Information (PSI) is
not supported
Dec 05 04:13:20 lfs02 systemd[1]: systemd-oomd.service: Main process exited,
code=exited, status=1/FAILURE
Dec 05 04:13:20 lfs02 systemd[1]: systemd-oomd.service: Failed with result
'exit-code'.
Dec 05 04:13:20 lfs02 systemd[1]: Failed to start Userspace Out-Of-Memory (OOM)
Killer.
Regards,
Wayne.
Hi Wayne,
Did you build with -Dmode=release? systemd-oomd is classified as
experimental, so we use -Dmode=release to prevent it from being built
and installed. We've got -Dmode=release in LFS. In BLFS, we're also
going to need to add -Dpamconfdir=/etc/pam.d to force the PAM files to
end up in /etc/pam.d rather than /usr/lib/pam.d.
- Doug
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] systemd latest version 247.1
On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 09:17 -0600, Douglas R. Reno via blfs-dev wrote:
>
> On 12/4/20 3:03 AM, Wayne Blaszczyk via blfs-dev wrote:
> > Hi Guys,
> >
> > Spent the last hour racking my brain on why Gentoo, Arch, and Fedora had
> > version 247.1
> > Turns out that they are pulling from
> > https://github.com/systemd/systemd-stable
> > I didn't know this repository existed.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Wayne.
> >
> >
> Hi Wayne,
>
> They started doing that around 243 I think, but started tagging point
> versions around 245.
>
> In LFS, I have a patch that takes care of the changes in 247.1 and some
> other fixes (for systemd-networkd). Generally I just backport fixes that
> are applicable to {,B}LFS systems rather than trying to update it every
> time.
>
> Unfortunately, BLFS will be out of date when it comes to systemd for at
> least the next render. I'm working on that as quickly as I can, but I
> decided to do a full rebuild to see if any issues with udev rules come up.
>
> - Doug
>
Thanks Doug,
My LFS build has just completed and on the reboot, the following failure occurs:
Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[212]: systemd-oomd.service: Failed to determine
user credentials: No such process
Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[212]: systemd-oomd.service: Failed at step USER
spawning /lib/systemd/systemd-oomd: No such process
Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[1]: systemd-oomd.service: Main process exited,
code=exited, status=217/USER
Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[1]: systemd-oomd.service: Failed with result
'exit-code'.
Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[1]: Failed to start Userspace Out-Of-Memory (OOM)
Killer.
Not sure if you have come across this. I'll investigate in the morning.
Wayne.
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] systemd latest version 247.1
On Sat, 2020-12-05 at 04:04 +1100, Wayne Blaszczyk wrote:
> On Fri, 2020-12-04 at 09:17 -0600, Douglas R. Reno via blfs-dev wrote:
> >
> > On 12/4/20 3:03 AM, Wayne Blaszczyk via blfs-dev wrote:
> > > Hi Guys,
> > >
> > > Spent the last hour racking my brain on why Gentoo, Arch, and Fedora had
> > > version 247.1
> > > Turns out that they are pulling from
> > > https://github.com/systemd/systemd-stable
> > > I didn't know this repository existed.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Wayne.
> > >
> > >
> > Hi Wayne,
> >
> > They started doing that around 243 I think, but started tagging point
> > versions around 245.
> >
> > In LFS, I have a patch that takes care of the changes in 247.1 and some
> > other fixes (for systemd-networkd). Generally I just backport fixes that
> > are applicable to {,B}LFS systems rather than trying to update it every
> > time.
> >
> > Unfortunately, BLFS will be out of date when it comes to systemd for at
> > least the next render. I'm working on that as quickly as I can, but I
> > decided to do a full rebuild to see if any issues with udev rules come up.
> >
> > - Doug
> >
>
> Thanks Doug,
>
> My LFS build has just completed and on the reboot, the following failure
> occurs:
>
> Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[212]: systemd-oomd.service: Failed to determine
> user credentials: No such process
> Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[212]: systemd-oomd.service: Failed at step USER
> spawning /lib/systemd/systemd-oomd: No such process
> Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[1]: systemd-oomd.service: Main process exited,
> code=exited, status=217/USER
> Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[1]: systemd-oomd.service: Failed with result
> 'exit-code'.
> Dec 05 03:51:14 lfs02 systemd[1]: Failed to start Userspace Out-Of-Memory
> (OOM) Killer.
>
> Not sure if you have come across this. I'll investigate in the morning.
>
> Wayne.
>
Found that a user systemd-oom is require. However there are still issues:
Dec 05 04:13:20 lfs02 systemd-oomd[197]: Pressure Stall Information (PSI) is
not supported
Dec 05 04:13:20 lfs02 systemd[1]: systemd-oomd.service: Main process exited,
code=exited, status=1/FAILURE
Dec 05 04:13:20 lfs02 systemd[1]: systemd-oomd.service: Failed with result
'exit-code'.
Dec 05 04:13:20 lfs02 systemd[1]: Failed to start Userspace Out-Of-Memory (OOM)
Killer.
Regards,
Wayne.
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
Re: [blfs-dev] systemd latest version 247.1
On 12/4/20 3:03 AM, Wayne Blaszczyk via blfs-dev wrote:
Hi Guys,
Spent the last hour racking my brain on why Gentoo, Arch, and Fedora had
version 247.1
Turns out that they are pulling from https://github.com/systemd/systemd-stable
I didn't know this repository existed.
Regards,
Wayne.
Hi Wayne,
They started doing that around 243 I think, but started tagging point
versions around 245.
In LFS, I have a patch that takes care of the changes in 247.1 and some
other fixes (for systemd-networkd). Generally I just backport fixes that
are applicable to {,B}LFS systems rather than trying to update it every
time.
Unfortunately, BLFS will be out of date when it comes to systemd for at
least the next render. I'm working on that as quickly as I can, but I
decided to do a full rebuild to see if any issues with udev rules come up.
- Doug
--
http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev
FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html
Unsubscribe: See the above information page
[blfs-dev] systemd latest version 247.1
Hi Guys, Spent the last hour racking my brain on why Gentoo, Arch, and Fedora had version 247.1 Turns out that they are pulling from https://github.com/systemd/systemd-stable I didn't know this repository existed. Regards, Wayne. -- http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/listinfo/blfs-dev FAQ: http://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/faq.html Unsubscribe: See the above information page
