Re: [gentoo-user] Re: RFC : fast copying of a whole directory tree
Am 13.02.2012 16:31, schrieb Grant Edwards: On 2012-02-13, Michael Orlitzky mich...@orlitzky.com wrote: On 02/13/12 05:49, Helmut Jarausch wrote: I've written a small Python program which outputs the file names in i-node order. If this is fed into tar or cpio nearly no seeks are required during copying. What makes you think the inodes are sequential on-disk? Even if the i-nodes are sequential on-disk, there's no reason to think that the data blocks associated with the inodes are in any particular order with respect to the i-nodes themselves. You could probably find the intended order by using debugfs (at least for ext*). The following command should output the first physical block of every file: find /var/db/portage/ -type f -printf 'bmap %i 0\n' | sudo debugfs /dev/mapper/vg-portage Todo left as an exercise to the reader: - Clean debugfs output - Map inodes back to file names (hint: don't use debugfs's 'ncheck') - sort | cut | xargs cp Possible further improvement: Sort the files so that the first block of the next file is close to the last block of the previous file. Regards, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: RFC : fast copying of a whole directory tree
Florian Philipp li...@binarywings.net wrote: Even if the i-nodes are sequential on-disk, there's no reason to think that the data blocks associated with the inodes are in any particular order with respect to the i-nodes themselves. You could probably find the intended order by using debugfs (at least for ext*). The following command should output the first physical block of every file: find /var/db/portage/ -type f -printf 'bmap %i 0\n' | sudo debugfs /dev/mapper/vg-portage This kind of order is not important for copy speed. Copy speed is dominated by write speed and write speed is dominated by seeks that are a result of keeping meta data up to date. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
[gentoo-user] Switching to clocksource tsc: takes AGES on boot
Hi, How do i get rid of that? It takes one minute on boot, that is awful. PS: How do i deamonize a service on startup? DHCPCD for example? Thanks in advance!
[gentoo-user] Re: Switching to clocksource tsc: takes AGES on boot
On 14/02/12 12:48, LK wrote: Hi, How do i get rid of that? It takes one minute on boot, that is awful. If you boot with acpi=off, does the problem go away? What kernel version are you using? PS: How do i deamonize a service on startup? DHCPCD for example? It has a service. You add it to the default runlevel: rc-update add dhcpcd default Next time you boot, it will be started automatically. You can also control it manually: /etc/init.d/dhcpcd start /etc/init.d/dhcpcd stop /etc/init.d/dhcpcd restart
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Switching to clocksource tsc: takes AGES on boot
On 120214, at 13:01, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: On 14/02/12 12:48, LK wrote: How do i get rid of that? It takes one minute on boot, that is awful. If you boot with acpi=off, does the problem go away? What kernel version are you using? No it does not. After the root=/dev/sda5, in grub menu.lst, right ? Kernel version 3.2.1-r2 Maybe some setting in kernel settings? PS: How do i deamonize a service on startup? DHCPCD for example? It has a service. You add it to the default runlevel: rc-update add dhcpcd default It is started automatically, but cant it be ran in the background? It takes some time which isnt necessary. Thanks so far anyway.
[gentoo-user] Re: Switching to clocksource tsc: takes AGES on boot
On 14/02/12 14:15, LK wrote: On 120214, at 13:01, Nikos Chantziaras wrote: On 14/02/12 12:48, LK wrote: How do i get rid of that? It takes one minute on boot, that is awful. If you boot with acpi=off, does the problem go away? What kernel version are you using? No it does not. After the root=/dev/sda5, in grub menu.lst, right ? Yep. Kernel version 3.2.1-r2 Maybe some setting in kernel settings? You might want to post to LKML about this. There was a related problem in 2.6.39, but you're using a recent kernel which has already fixed that problem. So you're seeing something new. You can also try the Linux kernel bugtracker: https://bugzilla.kernel.org/ PS: How do i deamonize a service on startup? DHCPCD for example? It has a service. You add it to the default runlevel: rc-update add dhcpcd default It is started automatically, but cant it be ran in the background? It takes some time which isnt necessary. Thanks so far anyway. Reading the dhcpcd man page says: -b, --background Background immediately. This is useful for startup scripts which don't disable link messages for carrier status. So to use that option, edit /etc/conf.d/net and use: dhcpcd_eth0=--background and see if it helps.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: RFC : fast copying of a whole directory tree
On 13 February 2012 22:11, Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: Nikos Chantziaras rea...@arcor.de wrote: This works because there are two decoupled processes, shared memory between them and the fact that star reads names from directories in one big chunk. Honestly, that's news to me. Which package has star? eix -e star To help star to buffer, give star a large fifo size that is up to haslf of the RAM in your machine, e.g. fs=1000m To make sure that star gives fast file creation (unpacking of archives) on filesystems that do not support fast verified transactions, you need to make star as insecure as other software to get comparable results, so add: -no-fsync Jörg The problem with star is that when I need to copy a large number of files, it isn't on the DVD I boot from. That's why most people use cp since it is on every bootable media I have ever booted. That includes the Gentoo bootable media. Since star is so good, why not get them to include it on the bootable media? Is it to large a package or what? It used to be in the Knoppix package list, but alas it is no more. :-( I still keep my old copy somewhere just for this reason. -- Regards, Mick
[gentoo-user] Failing to compile hydrogen
Hi,
I tried to compile hydrogen and it fails with this:
/rootemerge hydrogen
Calculating dependencies... done!
Verifying ebuild manifests
Emerging (1 of 1) media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5
* hydrogen-0.9.5.tar.gz RMD160 SHA1 SHA256 size ;-) ...
[ ok ]
Unpacking source...
Unpacking hydrogen-0.9.5.tar.gz to
/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/work
Source unpacked in /var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/work
Preparing source in
/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/work/hydrogen-0.9.5 ...
* Applying portaudio.patch ...
[ ok ]
* Applying hydrogen-0.9.5-use_lrdf_pkgconfig.patch ...
[ ok ]
Source prepared.
Configuring source in
/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/work/hydrogen-0.9.5 ...
Source configured.
Compiling source in
/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/work/hydrogen-0.9.5 ...
scons: Reading SConscript files ...
Exception: Platform 'linux3' not supported:
File
/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/work/hydrogen-0.9.5/Sconstruct,
line 378:
includes, a , b = get_platform_flags( opts )
File
/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/work/hydrogen-0.9.5/Sconstruct,
line 103:
raise Exception( Platform '%s' not supported % sys.platform )
* ERROR: media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5 failed (compile phase):
* (no error message)
*
* Call stack:
* ebuild.sh, line 85: Called src_compile
* environment, line 2435: Called die
* The specific snippet of code:
* scons prefix=/usr DESTDIR=${D} optflags=${CXXFLAGS} ${myconf} ||
die
*
* If you need support, post the output of 'emerge --info
=media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5',
* the complete build log and the output of 'emerge -pqv
=media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5'.
* The complete build log is located at
'/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/temp/build.log'.
* The ebuild environment file is located at
'/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/temp/environment'.
* S: '/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/work/hydrogen-0.9.5'
Failed to emerge media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5, Log file:
'/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/temp/build.log'
if needed I will post the additional files mentioned by the output
above later.
How can I circumvent the problem?
Best regards,
mcc
Re: [gentoo-user] Failing to compile hydrogen
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:58:49 +0100
meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote:
Hi,
I tried to compile hydrogen and it fails with this:
/rootemerge hydrogen
Calculating dependencies... done!
Verifying ebuild manifests
Emerging (1 of 1) media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5
* hydrogen-0.9.5.tar.gz RMD160 SHA1 SHA256
size ;-) ...
[ ok ]
Unpacking source...
Unpacking hydrogen-0.9.5.tar.gz
to /var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/work Source
unpacked in /var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/work
Preparing source
in /var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/work/hydrogen-0.9.5 ...
* Applying portaudio.patch ...
[ ok ]
* Applying hydrogen-0.9.5-use_lrdf_pkgconfig.patch ...
[ ok ]
Source prepared.
Configuring source
in /var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/work/hydrogen-0.9.5 ...
Source configured. Compiling source
in /var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/work/hydrogen-0.9.5 ...
scons: Reading SConscript files ...
Exception: Platform 'linux3' not supported:
File
/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/work/hydrogen-0.9.5/Sconstruct,
line 378: includes, a , b = get_platform_flags( opts ) File
/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/work/hydrogen-0.9.5/Sconstruct,
line 103: raise Exception( Platform '%s' not supported %
sys.platform )
* ERROR: media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5 failed (compile phase):
* (no error message)
*
* Call stack:
* ebuild.sh, line 85: Called src_compile
* environment, line 2435: Called die
* The specific snippet of code:
* scons prefix=/usr DESTDIR=${D} optflags=${CXXFLAGS}
${myconf} || die
*
* If you need support, post the output of 'emerge --info
=media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5',
* the complete build log and the output of 'emerge -pqv
=media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5'.
* The complete build log is located at
'/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/temp/build.log'.
* The ebuild environment file is located at
'/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/temp/environment'.
* S:
'/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/work/hydrogen-0.9.5'
Failed to emerge media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5, Log file:
'/var/tmp/portage/media-sound/hydrogen-0.9.5/temp/build.log'
if needed I will post the additional files mentioned by the output
above later.
How can I circumvent the problem?
Best regards,
mcc
My first gut reaction is to observe
Exception: Platform 'linux3' not supported:
and say that you are running a 3.x kernel. In which case you are SOL
assuming hydrogen only supports kernel-2.x
Your choices are to file bugs with upstream or (better) submit patches
to upstream.
Perhaps someone else has done this already.
--
Alan McKinnnon
alan.mckin...@gmail.com
[gentoo-user] Re: Failing to compile hydrogen
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:58:49 +0100 meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote: How can I circumvent the problem? I can't vouch for it, but there's a patch attached to the bug. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=372003
[gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
Googling around, I get the impression that 'grub' is now grub 2. Is that correct? In portage I see grub-static (GRUB Legacy boot loader) with version numbers that coincide with grub (grub2 ?). If grub2 has replaced grub-1 what (gentoo) version number did grub2 first take take? What was the last (gentoo) version number for grub 1 that was actually grub1 , or have I confused these details? I cannot seem to find these details in the release notes or as part of the sourcecode. Any suggestions on that would be keen. James
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: RFC : fast copying of a whole directory tree
Am 14.02.2012 10:57, schrieb Joerg Schilling: Florian Philipp li...@binarywings.net wrote: Even if the i-nodes are sequential on-disk, there's no reason to think that the data blocks associated with the inodes are in any particular order with respect to the i-nodes themselves. You could probably find the intended order by using debugfs (at least for ext*). The following command should output the first physical block of every file: find /var/db/portage/ -type f -printf 'bmap %i 0\n' | sudo debugfs /dev/mapper/vg-portage This kind of order is not important for copy speed. Copy speed is dominated by write speed and write speed is dominated by seeks that are a result of keeping meta data up to date. Jörg I cannot verify that hypothesis. Test setup: 1x 7200rpm 2,5 HDD /var/db/portage is my portage tree, ext4 /dev/mapper/vg-portage is its block device /tmp is ext4 First test --- copy whole tree just with `cpio` (performance tested and similar to `cp -a`): $ echo 1 /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches $ time find /var/db/portage/ -type f -print0 | $ cpio -p0 --make-directories /tmp/portage/ real11m52.657s user0m1.848s sys 0m19.802s Second test --- Sort by starting physical block number: $ echo 1 /proc/sys/vm/drop_caches $ FIFO=/tmp/$(uuidgen).fifo $ mkfifo $FIFO $ time find /var/db/portage/ -type f \ $ -fprintf $FIFO 'bmap %i 0\n' -print0 | $ tr '\n\0' '\0\n' | paste ( $ debugfs -f $FIFO /dev/mapper/vg-portage | $ grep -E '^[[:digit:]]+') - | $ sort -k 1,1n | cut -f 2- | tr '\n\0' '\0\n' | $ cpio -p0 --make-directories /tmp/portage/ $ unlink $FIFO real2m8.400s user0m1.888s sys 0m15.417s Using `xargs -0 cat /dev/null` instead of `cpio` yields 9m27.745s and 1m11.087s, respectively. Some comments to the sorting script: - Using a fifo instead of a pipe for issuing commands to debugfs is faster. - If it is not obvious, the two `tr` commands are there because `paste` and `cut` cannot handle zero-terminated lines but file names might contain line breaks. - `grep` is there because `debugfs` echoes all commands. Filtering every odd numbered line should also work. - A production-ready script should probably use `join` instead of `paste` to deal with read errors of `debugfs` (for example if files are removed between `find` and `debugfs`). Currently, this leads to misaligned output. BTW: I wanted to test it with `star -copy` but this resulted in buffer overflows similar to these: http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.comp.archivers.star.user/752 Regards, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
Am 14.02.2012 18:36, schrieb james: Googling around, I get the impression that 'grub' is now grub 2. Is that correct? In portage I see grub-static (GRUB Legacy boot loader) with version numbers that coincide with grub (grub2 ?). If grub2 has replaced grub-1 what (gentoo) version number did grub2 first take take? What was the last (gentoo) version number for grub 1 that was actually grub1 , or have I confused these details? I cannot seem to find these details in the release notes or as part of the sourcecode. Any suggestions on that would be keen. James sys-boot/grub has two slots. The default slot 0 with version numbers around 0.92-0.97 is grub-1 (or grub legacy). Slot 2 with version numbers around 1.99 is grub-2. Because it is still in development hell, it has not reached version 2.00. IIRC, sys-boot/grub-static is mostly there for systems that cannot compile grub, for example AMD64 no-multilib profiles. Hope this helps, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
Il giorno Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:36:28 + (UTC) james wirel...@tampabay.rr.com ha scritto: Googling around, I get the impression that 'grub' is now grub 2. Is that correct? In portage I see grub-static (GRUB Legacy boot loader) with version numbers that coincide with grub (grub2 ?). If grub2 has replaced grub-1 what (gentoo) version number did grub2 first take take? What was the last (gentoo) version number for grub 1 that was actually grub1 , or have I confused these details? I cannot seem to find these details in the release notes or as part of the sourcecode. Any suggestions on that would be keen. James If I understand correctly your question, versions 0.9x are grub 1, while versions 1.9x are grub 2. You can also distinguish them according to their slots: grub 1 ebuilds have slot 0, while grub 2 ebuilds have slot 2. Stefano
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
On 120214, at 18:53, Florian Philipp wrote: Am 14.02.2012 18:36, schrieb james: Googling around, I get the impression that 'grub' is now grub 2. Is that correct? [...] Because it is still in development hell, it has not reached version 2.00. BTW: So is grub0 still supported by gentoo / maintained by themselves? Does that matter(it is boot, no network stuff) ?
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
On 02/14/2012 01:08 PM, LK wrote: BTW: So is grub0 still supported by gentoo / maintained by themselves? Does that matter(it is boot, no network stuff) ? GRUB Legacy (that is, GRUB versions 0.xx) is still the default in Gentoo. In order to use GRUB 2 (that is, GRUB version 1.99 in Portage) you'll have to unmask sys-boot/grub-1.99-r2. GRUB 2 is significantly more convenient and powerful and does not require the nearly 80 patches that the legacy version does in order to work properly on the system. It can also manage its own configuration file using its new grub-mkconfig (grub2-mkconfig in Gentoo) program, which supports the use of scripts/programs to generate grub.cfg entries for booting the kernel and other operating systems. However (at least on my primary workstation) Portage now always removes grub:0 at depclean time, and always pulls it back in at emerge -DNua world time. It's harmless, though inefficient, and I haven't figured out how to prevent it from happening. I have even masked grub:0 and it still pulls it in and installs it, despite being masked. --- Mike -- A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense. --- Carveth Read, “Logic” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
On 120214, at 19:24, m...@trausch.us wrote: On 02/14/2012 01:08 PM, LK wrote: BTW: So is grub0 still supported by gentoo / maintained by themselves? Does that matter(it is boot, no network stuff) ? GRUB Legacy (that is, GRUB versions 0.xx) is still the default in Gentoo. In order to use GRUB 2 (that is, GRUB version 1.99 in Portage) you'll have to unmask sys-boot/grub-1.99-r2. The thing is, IMO grub0 is better / simplier. GRUB 2 is significantly more convenient and powerful and does not require the nearly 80 patches that the legacy version does in order to work properly on the system. It can also manage its own configuration file using its new grub-mkconfig (grub2-mkconfig in Gentoo) program, which supports the use of scripts/programs to generate grub.cfg entries for booting the kernel and other operating systems. As you read above, I prefer grub0.* because it has config files, not commands which will automize it. For ubuntu I can understand that, but configuring boot is too simple to require automisation. When now automatic script fails, is there a way to do it by hand? Ubuntu disallows editing it by hand. Now I am confused by the 80 patches for legacy grub =( afaik. PS: If you know how to get rid of any background image, could you say how? THX + TIA.
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
On Feb 14, 2012 1:41 PM, LK linuxrocksrul...@googlemail.com wrote: On 120214, at 19:24, m...@trausch.us wrote: On 02/14/2012 01:08 PM, LK wrote: BTW: So is grub0 still supported by gentoo / maintained by themselves? Does that matter(it is boot, no network stuff) ? GRUB Legacy (that is, GRUB versions 0.xx) is still the default in Gentoo. In order to use GRUB 2 (that is, GRUB version 1.99 in Portage) you'll have to unmask sys-boot/grub-1.99-r2. The thing is, IMO grub0 is better / simplier. GRUB 2 is significantly more convenient and powerful and does not require the nearly 80 patches that the legacy version does in order to work properly on the system. It can also manage its own configuration file using its new grub-mkconfig (grub2-mkconfig in Gentoo) program, which supports the use of scripts/programs to generate grub.cfg entries for booting the kernel and other operating systems. As you read above, I prefer grub0.* because it has config files, not commands which will automize it. For ubuntu I can understand that, but configuring boot is too simple to require automisation. When now automatic script fails, is there a way to do it by hand? Ubuntu disallows editing it by hand. Now I am confused by the 80 patches for legacy grub =( afaik. PS: If you know how to get rid of any background image, could you say how? THX + TIA. Yes, you can edit the grub2 boot config files by hand, I do this myself in Gentoo (and the last time I used Ubuntu you could still edit them, but that was a while ago). You're not tied to the automation. I prefer grub2 config files, personally. Definitely not as simple, of course, but that hardly makes a difference to me.
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
On 02/14/2012 01:40 PM, LK wrote: On 120214, at 19:24, m...@trausch.us wrote: On 02/14/2012 01:08 PM, LK wrote: BTW: So is grub0 still supported by gentoo / maintained by themselves? Does that matter(it is boot, no network stuff) ? GRUB Legacy (that is, GRUB versions 0.xx) is still the default in Gentoo. In order to use GRUB 2 (that is, GRUB version 1.99 in Portage) you'll have to unmask sys-boot/grub-1.99-r2. The thing is, IMO grub0 is better / simplier. I disagree. GRUB Legacy is not the same in any two distributions because every single distribution patches it differently because it hasn't had core functionality updated in a very long time. It's pretty much abandoned by upstream, as well. I'm not saying that it is bad, but I _am_ saying that it has outlived its usefulness. GRUB 2 follows an entirely different architecture. GRUB 2 is significantly more convenient and powerful and does not require the nearly 80 patches that the legacy version does in order to work properly on the system. It can also manage its own configuration file using its new grub-mkconfig (grub2-mkconfig in Gentoo) program, which supports the use of scripts/programs to generate grub.cfg entries for booting the kernel and other operating systems. As you read above, I prefer grub0.* because it has config files, not commands which will automize it. For ubuntu I can understand that, but configuring boot is too simple to require automisation. When now automatic script fails, is there a way to do it by hand? Ubuntu disallows editing it by hand. Now I am confused by the 80 patches for legacy grub =( afaik. Nothing requires you to use the scripts; they simply provide assistance. If you want, you can absolutely manage your configuration file by hand. Why you'd want to is beyond me, but it's a choice that you do in fact have. I use them, because it simplifies my life and it means that I can easily manage systems' boot loader configuration without having to resort to forcing all the environments to use the same filenames and layouts---compile kernel, install kernel, run grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub2/grub.cfg. Simple. I have too many systems to worry about messing with configuration files by hand! If you need to customize the process, you can add, remove, and re-order scripts in /etc/grub.d. They are named like xx-name, where xx is a number from 00 to 99. Of course, if for some reason one of those scripts did break, you can still boot your system by hand as you were able to do in GRUB Legacy, with the added bonus that the GRUB 2 environment is much easier to work in. It also supports partition schemes other than MBR, which is useful since I use GPT on my systems. It can also natively boot 64-bit kernels via Multiboot. PS: If you know how to get rid of any background image, could you say how? For GRUB Legacy? I'm sorry, but it has been long enough since I have used it that I couldn't help; there is a configuration directive in the menu.lst file that you should be able to delete that will get rid of it, but I don't remember what it was called. THX + TIA. --- Mike -- A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense. --- Carveth Read, “Logic” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:52 PM, m...@trausch.us m...@trausch.us wrote: On 02/14/2012 01:40 PM, LK wrote: On 120214, at 19:24, m...@trausch.us wrote: On 02/14/2012 01:08 PM, LK wrote: BTW: So is grub0 still supported by gentoo / maintained by themselves? Does that matter(it is boot, no network stuff) ? GRUB Legacy (that is, GRUB versions 0.xx) is still the default in Gentoo. In order to use GRUB 2 (that is, GRUB version 1.99 in Portage) you'll have to unmask sys-boot/grub-1.99-r2. The thing is, IMO grub0 is better / simplier. I disagree. GRUB Legacy is not the same in any two distributions because every single distribution patches it differently because it hasn't had core functionality updated in a very long time. It's pretty much abandoned by upstream, as well. I'm not saying that it is bad, but I _am_ saying that it has outlived its usefulness. GRUB 2 follows an entirely different architecture. A detailed elaboration would be nice. A contrasting migration guide, complete with the how's, where's and why's would be awesome. (Once one's invested in understanding a tool, a 1-2-3-itsmagic walkthrough is very discomforting.) -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
PS: If you know how to get rid of any background image, could you say how? Remove or comment out any splashimage directives from the config file. *** Re grub2: as long as grub0 works, I really don't care if grub2 is better, cleaner, shinier, more modern or anything else. I don't need a freakin' whole OS to boot linux, and having a configuration that is so convoluted that it *has to* be generated by running a set of scripts makes no sense at all. I thought the days of m4 and sendmail.cf were over a long time ago... I am sure grub2 can be made to work, but for a piece of software as vital as a boot loader, that level of complexity in my opinion is totally unreasonable and impossible to justify. andrea
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub2
On 120214, at 20:29, Andrea Conti wrote: PS: If you know how to get rid of any background image, could you say how? Remove or comment out any splashimage directives from the config file. I meant in GRUB2. I have another box with linux mint using GRUB2, and splash backgrounds in GRUB / lowlevel menus or anywhere (branding) reminds me of commercialism like Apple putting their logo onto every product. (They are good, tho, the apple logo is stylish. Now imagine the iPhone would have a rectangle-like icon with bad proportions) Re grub2: as long as grub0 works, I really don't care if grub2 is better, cleaner, shinier, more modern or anything else. I don't need a freakin' whole OS to boot linux, and having a configuration that is so convoluted that it *has to* be generated by running a set of scripts makes no sense at all. I thought the days of m4 and sendmail.cf were over a long time ago... I am sure grub2 can be made to work, but for a piece of software as vital as a boot loader, that level of complexity in my opinion is totally unreasonable and impossible to justify. I agree to you in a big part. Thanks. Big companies like Microsoft or Apple are doing a thing i simply call Similarisation of features for new/unknowledged users, which always goes in the reverse direction on long-term. Sample situation: Microsoft Repair CD: You can select to partition your disk appropiate to how the assistant will like it. You are being hid from all the details, as you wont understand them any way. Once you try to do something special, you get problems bigger than without this 'improvement for new ones'. This is because less work is being done to the detailed way of doing it, and more to the simple, which is made to just do one or two things. Essence: The system is hidden, you only see actions what you can do (update-grub in our case) instead of the system. This is obviously wrong because the system, the back-end, takes more than the front-end. Now the front-end should represent the back-end in a human readable form and not simplify to fit the least knowledged. BUT, i guess (from what ive heard) grub2 is fine with editing it by hand. And the command does really only assist in the simpliest matter, only combines all actions you'd have to take yourself. Thanks for the clearance. (If you want to criticise the above big block of text, I always fail to express myself well.)
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub2
You can't edit /etc/default/grub to customize how grub-mkconfig generates grub.cfg. Mint probably has update-grub like Ubuntu does which just allows you to use that command instead of grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg On Feb 14, 2012 2:55 PM, LK linuxrocksrul...@googlemail.com wrote: On 120214, at 20:29, Andrea Conti wrote: PS: If you know how to get rid of any background image, could you say how? Remove or comment out any splashimage directives from the config file. I meant in GRUB2. I have another box with linux mint using GRUB2, and splash backgrounds in GRUB / lowlevel menus or anywhere (branding) reminds me of commercialism like Apple putting their logo onto every product. (They are good, tho, the apple logo is stylish. Now imagine the iPhone would have a rectangle-like icon with bad proportions) Re grub2: as long as grub0 works, I really don't care if grub2 is better, cleaner, shinier, more modern or anything else. I don't need a freakin' whole OS to boot linux, and having a configuration that is so convoluted that it *has to* be generated by running a set of scripts makes no sense at all. I thought the days of m4 and sendmail.cf were over a long time ago... I am sure grub2 can be made to work, but for a piece of software as vital as a boot loader, that level of complexity in my opinion is totally unreasonable and impossible to justify. I agree to you in a big part. Thanks. Big companies like Microsoft or Apple are doing a thing i simply call Similarisation of features for new/unknowledged users, which always goes in the reverse direction on long-term. Sample situation: Microsoft Repair CD: You can select to partition your disk appropiate to how the assistant will like it. You are being hid from all the details, as you wont understand them any way. Once you try to do something special, you get problems bigger than without this 'improvement for new ones'. This is because less work is being done to the detailed way of doing it, and more to the simple, which is made to just do one or two things. Essence: The system is hidden, you only see actions what you can do (update-grub in our case) instead of the system. This is obviously wrong because the system, the back-end, takes more than the front-end. Now the front-end should represent the back-end in a human readable form and not simplify to fit the least knowledged. BUT, i guess (from what ive heard) grub2 is fine with editing it by hand. And the command does really only assist in the simpliest matter, only combines all actions you'd have to take yourself. Thanks for the clearance. (If you want to criticise the above big block of text, I always fail to express myself well.)
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub2
LK writes: On 120214, at 20:29, Andrea Conti wrote: PS: If you know how to get rid of any background image, could you say how? Remove or comment out any splashimage directives from the config file. I meant in GRUB2. I have another box with linux mint using GRUB2, and splash backgrounds in GRUB / lowlevel menus or anywhere (branding) reminds me of commercialism like Apple putting their logo onto every product. (They are good, tho, the apple logo is stylish. Now imagine the iPhone would have a rectangle-like icon with bad proportions) Look in /etc/default/grub, there is one setting to switch to text mode. GRUB_TERMINAL=console I think. Run update-grub to regenerate the grub.cfg applying these settings. BTW, this took me quite some time to find out. I had to find out about the /etc/default/ directory first, and then I didn't use update-grub, but grub-setup or something like that. So I like the old grub, where I simply edit its config file, instead of having to find out which of the config files I have to edit where and how to apply the changes. Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
On 02/14/2012 02:04 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
A detailed elaboration would be nice.
A contrasting migration guide, complete with the how's, where's and
why's would be awesome. (Once one's invested in understanding a tool,
a 1-2-3-itsmagic walkthrough is very discomforting.)
While there are many different points that differ between the two, the
biggest are:
- Supported upstream.
- Can boot from GPT as well as MBR partition table types, regardless
of whether EFI is in use or not. Also supports the use of Apple
Partition Maps, BSD disk labels, and others through modules.
- Doesn't require patching to deal with modern situations; you can
download upstream source code and it will work, unlike GRUB Legacy.
- Can boot from virtually any filesystem you would want to use,
not just a small handful of them; includes ISO9660, UDF, Reiser,
btrfs, NTFS, ZFS, HFS and HFS+, among others.
- Supports selecting filesystems by UUID without distribution-specific
patches, for filesystem types that can be identified by UUIDs.
- Can be booted from BIOS or EFI on the PC, and no longer depends on
the existence of any particular type of firmware (no more probing
for BIOS boot drives, which can fail on many different systems).
This means that GRUB 2 doesn't have to be hand-installed on systems
GRUB Legacy couldn't figure out for whatever reason. And yes, there
were a good number of them, where LILO was the only choice due to
its use of block maps (another not-so-robust booting mechanism which
required significantly more maintenance than GRUB does).
- Can boot Linux, the BSDs, any Multiboot or Multiboot2 kernel, and
EFI applications.
- Supports El Torito natively on platforms that use it (e.g., BIOS)
to boot optical media, meaning that it is possible to use GRUB 2
boot anything that can be burned to an optical disk. This makes it
easier to work with testing environments burned to any form of
optical disk.
- Better code quality than GRUB Legacy, with more loose coupling
between components and making it possible for people to more easily
write GRUB modules than with GRUB Legacy. Additionally, nearly
anything that would have been a patch to GRUB Legacy can be written
as a module in GRUB 2, making it easier to share modules between
distributions. This also means it is *much* more portable.
- Can be run as an EFI application on modern systems using EFI, such
as Intel-based Macintosh systems, without requiring BIOS emulation.
It can also emulate an EFI environment for things which require it
in order to boot.
- Eliminates dependence on BIOS in order to determine available boot
devices. This empowers GRUB to be able to boot without firmware
assistance from many different mediums, including USB and PXE, even
without firmware support.
- Supports booting from Linux device-mapper and LVM2 configurations,
as well as encrypted partitions.
- Supports kernels 16 MB in size without patches. This can happen
when you compile a purely static kernel and support a great deal of
options without putting them into modules. Not common, but does
happen.
Additionally, GRUB 2 standardizes (upstream) a number of things which
were developed independently by various distributions as patches for
GRUB Legacy. Gentoo's legacy GRUB is heavily patched,
The configuration file isn't terribly difficult to figure out, either;
as I've mentioned before, there is *absolutely* no requirement to use
grub2-mkconfig, it just makes life easier.
For example, here is the entry that boots my current kernel:
menuentry 'GNU/Linux, with Linux 3.2.5-gentoo' --class gnu-linux --class
gnu --class os {
load_video
insmod gzio
insmod part_gpt
insmod ext2
set root='(/dev/sda,gpt2)'
search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root
3820beff-80b5-4d05-b989-3ab9265bc2a3
echo'Loading Linux 3.2.5-gentoo ...'
linux /vmlinuz-3.2.5-gentoo root=/dev/sda3 ro
Adding an entry is no more complex as it was before; copy, paste, edit.
Simple. No commands necessary since GRUB reads the grub.cfg file from
the filesystem when it loads, and doesn't embed it anywhere.
(And yes, I have a separate /boot; reason being is that it is mounted -o
sync, that is, when it is mounted at all. At least on my primary
desktop system; /boot is actually on the root fs on most of my systems.)
There will be a day when GRUB Legacy won't be supported by distributions
at all. There's no need to maintain multiple bootloaders (and upstream
refuses to do so, reasonably), and many of the tricks, patches and
workarounds of old are no longer necessary with GRUB 2.
Also, it becomes possible to use the Linux kernel's long-existing
installation hook to automatically update the boot list when you make
install modules_install a new kernel image, making kernel installation
literally a single
[gentoo-user] Alternative to firefox?
Has anyone found a GUI alternative to firefox they like that's in portage? Something minimal preferably but with flash support? - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
On 02/14/2012 02:29 PM, Andrea Conti wrote: Re grub2: as long as grub0 works, I really don't care if grub2 is better, cleaner, shinier, more modern or anything else. I don't need a freakin' whole OS to boot linux, and having a configuration that is so convoluted that it *has to* be generated by running a set of scripts makes no sense at all. I thought the days of m4 and sendmail.cf were over a long time ago... Well, it's a good thing that GRUB 2 is just a bootloader, then. :-) And again, nobody needs the tools to configure it; they are simply standardized from what various distributions developed for GRUB Legacy, but was incompatible from one distribution to the next. I am sure grub2 can be made to work, but for a piece of software as vital as a boot loader, that level of complexity in my opinion is totally unreasonable and impossible to justify. How about It Just Works. Seriously. It is a better designed system with most of its functionality pushed into modules. It is portable to more than just x86, as I've already mentioned before, and during _that_ whole process, the quality of the code increased significantly. It is more robust, and from the POV of a user, maintainer, or packager it is *much* simpler. When supporting GRUB Legacy, it's almost a necessity to know which distribution the user installed it with. Why? Because all of them are different! That is no longer the case with GRUB 2. I'm not sure how that translates to being more complex. If you are averse to change, just say so and be done with it. Is it different? Oh, yes, absolutely. It couldn't be better if it were the same, could it? ;-) --- Mike -- A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense. --- Carveth Read, “Logic” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:35 PM, m...@trausch.us m...@trausch.us wrote:
On 02/14/2012 02:04 PM, Michael Mol wrote:
A detailed elaboration would be nice.
A contrasting migration guide, complete with the how's, where's and
why's would be awesome. (Once one's invested in understanding a tool,
a 1-2-3-itsmagic walkthrough is very discomforting.)
While there are many different points that differ between the two, the
biggest are:
- Supported upstream.
- Can boot from GPT as well as MBR partition table types, regardless
of whether EFI is in use or not. Also supports the use of Apple
Partition Maps, BSD disk labels, and others through modules.
- Doesn't require patching to deal with modern situations; you can
download upstream source code and it will work, unlike GRUB Legacy.
- Can boot from virtually any filesystem you would want to use,
not just a small handful of them; includes ISO9660, UDF, Reiser,
btrfs, NTFS, ZFS, HFS and HFS+, among others.
- Supports selecting filesystems by UUID without distribution-specific
patches, for filesystem types that can be identified by UUIDs.
- Can be booted from BIOS or EFI on the PC, and no longer depends on
the existence of any particular type of firmware (no more probing
for BIOS boot drives, which can fail on many different systems).
This means that GRUB 2 doesn't have to be hand-installed on systems
GRUB Legacy couldn't figure out for whatever reason. And yes, there
were a good number of them, where LILO was the only choice due to
its use of block maps (another not-so-robust booting mechanism which
required significantly more maintenance than GRUB does).
- Can boot Linux, the BSDs, any Multiboot or Multiboot2 kernel, and
EFI applications.
- Supports El Torito natively on platforms that use it (e.g., BIOS)
to boot optical media, meaning that it is possible to use GRUB 2
boot anything that can be burned to an optical disk. This makes it
easier to work with testing environments burned to any form of
optical disk.
- Better code quality than GRUB Legacy, with more loose coupling
between components and making it possible for people to more easily
write GRUB modules than with GRUB Legacy. Additionally, nearly
anything that would have been a patch to GRUB Legacy can be written
as a module in GRUB 2, making it easier to share modules between
distributions. This also means it is *much* more portable.
- Can be run as an EFI application on modern systems using EFI, such
as Intel-based Macintosh systems, without requiring BIOS emulation.
It can also emulate an EFI environment for things which require it
in order to boot.
- Eliminates dependence on BIOS in order to determine available boot
devices. This empowers GRUB to be able to boot without firmware
assistance from many different mediums, including USB and PXE, even
without firmware support.
- Supports booting from Linux device-mapper and LVM2 configurations,
as well as encrypted partitions.
- Supports kernels 16 MB in size without patches. This can happen
when you compile a purely static kernel and support a great deal of
options without putting them into modules. Not common, but does
happen.
Additionally, GRUB 2 standardizes (upstream) a number of things which
were developed independently by various distributions as patches for
GRUB Legacy. Gentoo's legacy GRUB is heavily patched,
The configuration file isn't terribly difficult to figure out, either;
as I've mentioned before, there is *absolutely* no requirement to use
grub2-mkconfig, it just makes life easier.
For example, here is the entry that boots my current kernel:
menuentry 'GNU/Linux, with Linux 3.2.5-gentoo' --class gnu-linux --class
gnu --class os {
load_video
insmod gzio
insmod part_gpt
insmod ext2
set root='(/dev/sda,gpt2)'
search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root
3820beff-80b5-4d05-b989-3ab9265bc2a3
echo 'Loading Linux 3.2.5-gentoo ...'
linux /vmlinuz-3.2.5-gentoo root=/dev/sda3 ro
Adding an entry is no more complex as it was before; copy, paste, edit.
Simple. No commands necessary since GRUB reads the grub.cfg file from
the filesystem when it loads, and doesn't embed it anywhere.
(And yes, I have a separate /boot; reason being is that it is mounted -o
sync, that is, when it is mounted at all. At least on my primary
desktop system; /boot is actually on the root fs on most of my systems.)
There will be a day when GRUB Legacy won't be supported by distributions
at all. There's no need to maintain multiple bootloaders (and upstream
refuses to do so, reasonably), and many of the tricks, patches and
workarounds of old are no longer necessary with GRUB 2.
Also, it becomes possible to use the Linux kernel's long-existing
installation hook to automatically update the boot list when you
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub2
On 02/14/2012 02:59 PM, Michael Cook wrote: You can't edit /etc/default/grub to customize how grub-mkconfig generates grub.cfg. Mint probably has update-grub like Ubuntu does which just allows you to use that command instead of grub2-mkconfig -o /boot/grub/grub.cfg grub-mkconfig (grub2-mkconfig in Gentoo) uses the scripts in /etc/grub.d to generate the configuration file. It runs them in sequential order. You can add, remove or rename the scripts in order to have them do what you want. You can also edit the 40_custom file, which will insert its contents verbatim (sans its shebang and exec lines) into the configuration file when grub(2)-mkconfig is run. For the paranoid, you can put a failsafe boot option in that file. --- Mike -- A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense. --- Carveth Read, “Logic” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub2
On 02/14/2012 02:53 PM, LK wrote: I meant in GRUB2. I have another box with linux mint using GRUB2, and splash backgrounds in GRUB / lowlevel menus or anywhere (branding) reminds me of commercialism like Apple putting their logo onto every product. (They are good, tho, the apple logo is stylish. Now imagine the iPhone would have a rectangle-like icon with bad proportions) Comment out the GRUB_BACKGROUND line in /etc/default/grub. You can also comment out the GRUB_GFXMODE line in order to use plain VGA text mode. --- Mikje -- A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense. --- Carveth Read, “Logic” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Alternative to firefox?
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:41 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone found a GUI alternative to firefox they like that's in portage? Something minimal preferably but with flash support? I mostly use Chromium. IIRC, there's also Galeon. You'd have to look at the current state of the ebuild to see how little (or much) of Gtk and GNOME you'd have to pull in. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] Alternative to firefox?
On 02/14/2012 03:41 PM, Grant wrote: Has anyone found a GUI alternative to firefox they like that's in portage? Something minimal preferably but with flash support? I've used Chromium in the past. It supports the same plugins that Firefox does. There is also Epiphany, the GNOME browser, which I am relatively certain handles the same types of plugins that FF and Chromium do. --- Mike -- A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense. --- Carveth Read, “Logic” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Alternative to firefox?
On 120214, at 21:41, Grant wrote: Has anyone found a GUI alternative to firefox they like that's in portage? Something minimal preferably but with flash support? I guess the default XFCE4 browser supports flash. it is lightweight. It came once with ubuntu xfce and i liked it. (that to be a fast pick)
Re: [gentoo-user] Alternative to firefox?
Grant writes: Has anyone found a GUI alternative to firefox they like that's in portage? Something minimal preferably but with flash support? Maybe you like www-client/midori: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midori_%28web_browser%29 Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
On 120214, at 21:42, m...@trausch.us wrote: On 02/14/2012 02:29 PM, Andrea Conti wrote: Re grub2: as long as grub0 works, I really don't care if grub2 is better, cleaner, shinier, more modern or anything else. I don't need a freakin' whole OS to boot linux, and having a configuration that is so convoluted that it *has to* be generated by running a set of scripts makes no sense at all. I thought the days of m4 and sendmail.cf were over a long time ago... Well, it's a good thing that GRUB 2 is just a bootloader, then. :-) And again, nobody needs the tools to configure it; they are simply standardized from what various distributions developed for GRUB Legacy, but was incompatible from one distribution to the next. I am sure grub2 can be made to work, but for a piece of software as vital as a boot loader, that level of complexity in my opinion is totally unreasonable and impossible to justify. How about It Just Works. Seriously. It is a better designed system with most of its functionality pushed into modules. It is portable to more than just x86, as I've already mentioned before, and during _that_ whole process, the quality of the code increased significantly. It is more robust, and from the POV of a user, maintainer, or packager it is *much* simpler. When supporting GRUB Legacy, it's almost a necessity to know which distribution the user installed it with. Why? Because all of them are different! That is no longer the case with GRUB 2. I'm not sure how that translates to being more complex. If you are averse to change, just say so and be done with it. Is it different? Oh, yes, absolutely. It couldn't be better if it were the same, could it? ;-) First, why do we need that much code? If we have less then we dont have to divide into modules. Second, it does not translate into complex but rather into too much, and whenever it is too much than needed, its hard to understand and THUS complex. Not the other way. A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense. --- Carveth Read, “Logic”
[gentoo-user] Re: grub vs grub 2
Florian Philipp lists at binarywings.net writes: sys-boot/grub has two slots. The default slot 0 with version numbers around 0.92-0.97 is grub-1 (or grub legacy). Slot 2 with version numbers around 1.99 is grub-2. Because it is still in development hell, it has not reached version 2.00. OK, this part I understand. IIRC, sys-boot/grub-static is mostly there for systems that cannot compile grub, for example AMD64 no-multilib profiles. OK, from the handbook Thanks for clearing that up. The second part of this question, is what version of grub do I use with an AMD64 RAID-1-workstation install that will use this (multilib) profile: [5] default/linux/amd64/10.0/desktop/kde * But I intend to put RAID-1 on the boot/root/swap partitions. ext2 and ext4 FS for boot/root. Any preferred version of grub (grub-1) will do ? Trying to use this document: http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/RAID/Software The advice about grub (1 vs 2) and mdadm RAID-metadata all confuses the grub choice for me. Should I use Grub-1 ? or Grub-2 ? Or maybe I should just do a traditional gentoo (handbook) install and then migrate to a RAID-1 workstation, via this document: http://en.gentoo-wiki.com/wiki/Migrate_to_RAID I've spent countless hours on numerous attempts to do it all in one install, and grub will not boot for me. IDEAS? James
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub2
What do you think of putting this conversation onto some website, as tutorial or clarification =P ?
Re: [gentoo-user] Alternative to firefox?
On Feb 14, 2012 3:42 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone found a GUI alternative to firefox they like that's in portage? Something minimal preferably but with flash support? - Grant Midori is quite minimal and has flash support last I checked. It's very lightweight on the features, which can be good and bad :). Personally I get tired of new chromium and v8 builds every week.
Re: [gentoo-user] Alternative to firefox?
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone found a GUI alternative to firefox they like that's in portage? Something minimal preferably but with flash support? Chromium/Chrome, Opera, Konqueror... flash works in all of those and are all fast and minimalistic compared to Firefox. Probably Epiphany, too, but I don't use Gnome so I haven't tried it in years.
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub2
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, LK linuxrocksrul...@googlemail.com wrote: What do you think of putting this conversation onto some website, as tutorial or clarification =P ? http://archives.gentoo.org/gentoo-user/msg_ee5c878773ac6ca9f49a33191654e3db.xml -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] Alternative to firefox?
On Feb 14, 2012 4:16 PM, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone found a GUI alternative to firefox they like that's in portage? Something minimal preferably but with flash support? Chromium/Chrome, Opera, Konqueror... flash works in all of those and are all fast and minimalistic compared to Firefox. Probably Epiphany, too, but I don't use Gnome so I haven't tried it in years. Firefox is quite fast and is also the only browser I've found that can easily manage hundreds of tabs + amazing addons. Firefox has no true alternative, if you consider everything. The last time I tried Epiphany flash didn't appear to work out of the box, but I might have done something wrong too.
Re: [gentoo-user] Alternative to firefox?
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Alecks Gates fuzzylunk...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 14, 2012 4:16 PM, Paul Hartman paul.hartman+gen...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote: Has anyone found a GUI alternative to firefox they like that's in portage? Something minimal preferably but with flash support? Chromium/Chrome, Opera, Konqueror... flash works in all of those and are all fast and minimalistic compared to Firefox. Probably Epiphany, too, but I don't use Gnome so I haven't tried it in years. Firefox is quite fast and is also the only browser I've found that can easily manage hundreds of tabs + amazing addons. Firefox has no true alternative, if you consider everything. The last time I tried Epiphany flash didn't appear to work out of the box, but I might have done something wrong too. Try Chromium and Seamonkey. Also, the phrase ...has no true alternative, if you consider everything. makes you sound like a fanboy. Be careful with that. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] Alternative to firefox?
* Grant emailgr...@gmail.com [14.02.2012. @12:41:25 -0800]: Has anyone found a GUI alternative to firefox they like that's in portage? Something minimal preferably but with flash support? - Grant Hi, You may want to try Luakit which is light and highly configurable by Lua scripts. I think it is a gread browser. JC signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 21:57:03 +0100, LK wrote: I'm not sure how that translates to being more complex. If you are averse to change, just say so and be done with it. Is it different? Oh, yes, absolutely. It couldn't be better if it were the same, could it? ;-) First, why do we need that much code? Because there is that much real world. Sure, you and I only need a small subset of it, but can you guarantee it is the same subset? The idea is that GRUB2 can work everywhere out of the box, without tweak, hacks and patches. -- Neil Bothwick Cross a tagline and a tribble? You get a full HD... signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 20:29:26 +0100, Andrea Conti wrote: I don't need a freakin' whole OS to boot linux, and having a configuration that is so convoluted that it *has to* be generated by running a set of scripts makes no sense at all. No it doesn't. so thankfully, outside of your FUD, this is not true. There are scripts to automatically generate a configuration but grub-mkconfig is no more compulsory than genkernel - but both can make life easier when setting up multiple, different systems. -- Neil Bothwick Your lack of organisation does not represent an emergency in my world. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Alternative to firefox?
Grant emailgr...@gmail.com [14.02.2012. @12:41:25 -0800]: Has anyone found a GUI alternative to firefox they like that's in portage? Something minimal preferably but with flash support? - Grant Check Vimperator for Firefox, and also uzbl (uzbl-browser or uzbl-tabbed).
[gentoo-user] Running a USB graphics cards with Linux?
Hello, I would love to use two external displays with my notebook. I have seen USB graphics cards on the net and was wondering if anyone around here has tried to run such a thing with Linux. If it worked for you I'd be interested in as many details as you are willing to share. Thanks in advance! Best, Sebastian
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
On 02/14/2012 03:57 PM, LK wrote: First, why do we need that much code? First, are you talking about source or binary code? If you're talking about source code, then realize this: Not all that source is even compiled on your system. As to the source that *is* compiled on your system, there is: - A tiny boot loader (max 448 bytes of binary code), which loads the GRUB core. - The GRUB bootloader core, which is the GRUB main program and which knows how to talk to different types of modules. - The modules themselves. There are modules for: - disk types, including PATA, SCSI, USB, Device Manager, DMRAID, LVM, LUKS. - filesystems, including ext2, btrfs, reiserfs. - partition types, including MBR, GPT, Apple Partition Map. Each type of module implements exactly the same interface; the core only needs to know how to talk to that type of module to communicate with all modules that implement that interface. The modular design makes it easier to (a) support new platforms, boot protocols, bus types, partition types, and filesystems, and (b) ensure that only code necessary for a particular type of thing is loaded. This design is _necessary_ to deal with today's world. Your computer is almost certainly setup differently from mine; I require the use of a GPT module on my system, for example. You may not, if you still use MBR. In fact, if you're using GRUB Legacy, then you almost certainly do not require the GPT module on your system (at least not right now). GRUB 1 assumed BIOS, and assumed MBR. GRUB 2 assumes neither. And for that matter, supports encrypted disks and logical volume management (both relatively common especially in servers) without third-party patches. For the _most_ part, GRUB 2 is simply designed to handle today's world. It also includes features that distributions developed (independently, and incompatibly between each other) for GRUB 1 as patches or add-on programs. If we have less then we dont have to divide into modules. Not true; modules are used in GRUB not because it's too big (once in 32-bit protected mode, all memory becomes available), but to help organize the system better. This simplifies the design. If I want to, I can create a new type of filesystem, and then all I have to do to make sure that GRUB 2 supports it is to write a module that knows how to talk to it. Nothing changes anywhere else in GRUB. If I create a new type of firmware, I simply write code that knows how to talk to that type of firmware, and I am done. Now GRUB 2 still runs on my PC, but also runs on my new custom computer. And that code for my custom computer never gets loaded on your computer, because your computer never uses it. Modules in this case are a structural (design) thing to simplify the design of the program, not to make it possible to fit in memory or anything like that. Second, it does not translate into complex but rather into too much, and whenever it is too much than needed, its hard to understand and THUS complex. Not the other way. Having spent the last 30 minutes looking at the GRUB 2 sources from the bzr repo, I can tell you that it's very easy to understand; once you understand how the FS interface works, it's very easy to learn how one FS module reads a filesystem. And you then gain the understanding required to write a new, independent module. Think of GRUB 2's modules as subprograms if you must, which implement a particular (and identical) API for each instance. If you're interested, I can detail a history for you, and explain why GRUB 1 was discontinued and why the whole thing was restructured in detail. I can't right now, as I am about to get on a conference call, but I can certainly do so later tonight or tomorrow if you want. What it boils down to, though is that GRUB 1 made assumptions (that every computer used BIOS, that every computer used MBR partition tables) which no longer hold true. Because they no longer hold true, it was necessary to push that functionality into modules with a standardized interface, in order to support EFI and GPT. That also enabled GRUB 2 to be able to run on more than one platform, since it no longer made assumptions that were specific to consumer-class PC systems. --- Mike -- A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense. --- Carveth Read, “Logic” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 12:52 PM, m...@trausch.us m...@trausch.us wrote: It also supports partition schemes other than MBR, which is useful since I use GPT on my systems. FYI Gentoo's GRUB 0.9x in portage has supported GPT for at least 2 or 3 years now. I'm using it with GPT partitions and my systems all boot. :)
Re: [gentoo-user] grub vs grub 2
On 02/14/2012 06:47 PM, Paul Hartman wrote: FYI Gentoo's GRUB 0.9x in portage has supported GPT for at least 2 or 3 years now. I'm using it with GPT partitions and my systems all boot. :) Not all distributions do. I have been running GPT for quite some time, while I only switched to Gentoo (relatively) recently. That said, I also stopped using GRUB 0.9x when GRUB 1.9x became stable enough to deploy widely, since I was quite tired of fixing broken GRUB setups (almost never my own, mind). Since the so-called mainstream distributions switched to GRUB 2, I take a lot less calls for my system stopped booting. Now most of those are Windows breakages. :-) --- Mike -- A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense. --- Carveth Read, “Logic” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
[gentoo-user] Re: Switching to clocksource tsc: takes AGES on boot
(Sorry that the threading is broken, I was looking at this in the list archive and don't still have the mails from earlier, which I probably mass-deleted...) This sounds suspiciously like an error loading firmware, which can happen when you have a video adapter or WiFi adapter that needs firmware, but doesn't have have the right one. Are there any firmware-related messages in your dmesg? --- Mike -- A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense. --- Carveth Read, “Logic” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Alternative to firefox?
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 07:47:51PM -0200, Claudio Roberto França Pereira wrote: Grant emailgr...@gmail.com [14.02.2012. @12:41:25 -0800]: Has anyone found a GUI alternative to firefox they like that's in portage? Something minimal preferably but with flash support? - Grant Check Vimperator for Firefox, and also uzbl (uzbl-browser or uzbl-tabbed). If you go the vimperator way, _definitely_ check out pentadactyl[1] also. At some point in time and space, the main devs (according to the penta website) left the vimperator project and forked pentadactyl. (The FAQ covers why there was a fork in the first place). [1] http://dactyl.sourceforge.net/pentadactyl/ -- Gruß | Greetings | Qapla' I forbid any use of my email addresses with Facebook services. The most dangerous thing about half-wisdom is that almost half of it is actually believed. pgpBMW9DQpWq4.pgp Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] older machine and video packages
Howdy, On my older x86 machine, I get this when trying to update: WARNING: One or more updates have been skipped due to a dependency conflict: x11-base/xorg-server:0 (x11-base/xorg-server-1.11.2-r2::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) conflicts with x11-base/xorg-server-1.11 required by (x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-173.14.31::gentoo, installed) I thought maybe I needed to unmask or remove the keyword at first so I wanted to see what version I could fiddle with to get this to work. So, I get this: root@smoker / # equery list -p x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers * Searching for nvidia-drivers in x11-drivers ... [-P-] [ ] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-96.43.20:0 [IP-] [ ] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-173.14.31:0 [-P-] [M ] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-275.09.07:0 [-P-] [M~] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-275.28:0 [-P-] [M~] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-275.36:0 [-P-] [M ] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-285.05.09-r1:0 [-P-] [M~] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-290.06:0 [-P-] [M ] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-290.10:0 [-P-] [M~] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-290.10-r1:0 root@smoker / # equery list -p x11-base/xorg-server * Searching for xorg-server in x11-base ... [-P-] [ ] x11-base/xorg-server-1.9.5-r1:0 [IP-] [ ] x11-base/xorg-server-1.10.4-r1:0 [-P-] [ ~] x11-base/xorg-server-1.11.2-r1:0 [-P-] [ ] x11-base/xorg-server-1.11.2-r2:0 [-P-] [ ~] x11-base/xorg-server-1.11.3:0 [-P-] [ ~] x11-base/xorg-server-1.11.4:0 [-P-] [M~] x11-base/xorg-server-1.11.99.902:0 root@smoker / # So, the nvidia driver I am using is the only version for my card. But I can't upgrade xorg either. Well, I think this may be a bug or something. What does the list think? Is there a way around this? Thanks much. Dale :-) :-) P. S. That time of year. May be a bit before I get to read replies. -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-user] older machine and video packages
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 07:37:05PM -0600, Dale wrote: Howdy, On my older x86 machine, I get this when trying to update: WARNING: One or more updates have been skipped due to a dependency conflict: x11-base/xorg-server:0 (x11-base/xorg-server-1.11.2-r2::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) conflicts with x11-base/xorg-server-1.11 required by (x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-173.14.31::gentoo, installed) I, too, can't upgrade to the newer xorg-server; due to a known bug, the nvidia-driver 290 doesn't recognise my 7600 Go, so I have to stick with 279 for the time being. You could try nouveau. The setup isn't really difficult, you get better 2D performance, adequate 3D performance, plus KMS support (which means high TTY resolution without (u)vesafb, and thus no more problems when switching between X and TTY). I would like to use it more often, if it wouldn't leave me with a black screen after waking up from standby. -- Gruß | Greetings | Qapla' I forbid any use of my email addresses with Facebook services. Instead of just trying to do our best, we should try doing something good. pgpk9mK7p3tTA.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] older machine and video packages
On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 19:37:05 -0600 Dale rdalek1...@gmail.com wrote: Howdy, On my older x86 machine, I get this when trying to update: WARNING: One or more updates have been skipped due to a dependency conflict: x11-base/xorg-server:0 (x11-base/xorg-server-1.11.2-r2::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) conflicts with x11-base/xorg-server-1.11 required by (x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-173.14.31::gentoo, installed) I thought maybe I needed to unmask or remove the keyword at first so I wanted to see what version I could fiddle with to get this to work. So, I get this: root@smoker / # equery list -p x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers * Searching for nvidia-drivers in x11-drivers ... [-P-] [ ] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-96.43.20:0 [IP-] [ ] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-173.14.31:0 [-P-] [M ] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-275.09.07:0 [-P-] [M~] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-275.28:0 [-P-] [M~] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-275.36:0 [-P-] [M ] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-285.05.09-r1:0 [-P-] [M~] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-290.06:0 [-P-] [M ] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-290.10:0 [-P-] [M~] x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-290.10-r1:0 root@smoker / # equery list -p x11-base/xorg-server * Searching for xorg-server in x11-base ... [-P-] [ ] x11-base/xorg-server-1.9.5-r1:0 [IP-] [ ] x11-base/xorg-server-1.10.4-r1:0 [-P-] [ ~] x11-base/xorg-server-1.11.2-r1:0 [-P-] [ ] x11-base/xorg-server-1.11.2-r2:0 [-P-] [ ~] x11-base/xorg-server-1.11.3:0 [-P-] [ ~] x11-base/xorg-server-1.11.4:0 [-P-] [M~] x11-base/xorg-server-1.11.99.902:0 root@smoker / # So, the nvidia driver I am using is the only version for my card. But I can't upgrade xorg either. Well, I think this may be a bug or something. What does the list think? Is there a way around this? Thanks much. Dale :-) :-) P. S. That time of year. May be a bit before I get to read replies. Same issue with an 8400GS. I played with it and couldn't get it to work at all together. I think I uninstalled the nVidia driver upgraded and tried to reinstall the nVidia driver. No luck. Wouldn't recognize the card properly! Been awhile but I think that was it! -- Willie Matthews matthews.wil...@gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] older machine and video packages
On 02/14/2012 08:37 PM, Dale wrote: On my older x86 machine, I get this when trying to update: WARNING: One or more updates have been skipped due to a dependency conflict: x11-base/xorg-server:0 (x11-base/xorg-server-1.11.2-r2::gentoo, ebuild scheduled for merge) conflicts with x11-base/xorg-server-1.11 required by (x11-drivers/nvidia-drivers-173.14.31::gentoo, installed) The only way that you'll be able to resolve this is to remove the nvidia-drivers package and switch to Nouveau. If Nouveau works with your graphics chipset, it is win-win, since that driver is maintained in the kernel tree. Otherwise, keep checking to see if it becomes supported. You can work around it by masking x11-base/xorg-server-1.11, but that will (eventually) begin to cause problems as the rest of the system evolves around it. Is 173.14.xx the last driver that supports your card, or will any newer one support your card? Which chipset is your card using? --- Mike -- A man who reasons deliberately, manages it better after studying Logic than he could before, if he is sincere about it and has common sense. --- Carveth Read, “Logic” signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Failing to compile hydrogen
»Q« boxc...@gmx.net [12-02-14 18:12]: On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 17:58:49 +0100 meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote: How can I circumvent the problem? I can't vouch for it, but there's a patch attached to the bug. https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=372003 Hi, thank you for your help and the patch! :) How can I include this patch into the normal build process of gentoo ? Thank you very much in advance for any help! Best regards, mcc
