Re: [gentoo-user] bad $PATH
On Thu, May 02, 2024 at 01:55:42PM +0100, Jorge Almeida wrote: > I have /var/lib/bin in my $PATH (both as root and as normal user) > > [snip] What could be setting this? (grep /var/lib/bin /etc/conf.d/* > returns nothing) Do you have app-admin/xstow installed? This seems to be the (only) package which adds /var/lib/bin to the PATH, see [1]. At least, I was able to grep -F var/lib/bin pattern only in this package in ::gentoo overlay. [1] https://github.com/gentoo/gentoo/blob/c2fb597e863fb296b5cdaf36e8b258b20c47d4a1/app-admin/xstow/xstow-1.1.0.ebuild#L51-L52 Petr
Re: [gentoo-user] python mess - random winge!
On Tue, Jul 05, 2022 at 08:56:11AM +0100, Neil Bothwick wrote: > On Tue, 5 Jul 2022 15:31:38 +0800, William Kenworthy wrote: > > > I did read the news item and set the systems as above with multiple > > python targets - there is no mention of python-exec and its role in > > which python version is in use for packages that just call "python". > > Perhaps I should have been clearer - what I see is with multiple python > > targets present the python ebuild automatically selects the latest > > version that is stable via python-exec - ok, some would want that. But > > what it should do is respect the users choice of running version and not > > automaticly overide it without asking. It looks like python-exec is the > > controlling factor so I'll try CONFIG_PROTECTon that file and manually > > manage it via ansible. > > It is already CONFIG_PROTECTed, I had to approve the changes in the usual > way before they went ahead. What I find slightly odd is that this file is > also managed by eselect-python, but that is not installed by default. I > would have expected it to be part of @system. This change is described in https://www.gentoo.org/support/news-items/2021-01-30-python-preference-to-follow-python-targets.html Petr
Re: [gentoo-user] Anyone have experience, good or bad, with s6?
On Fri, Dec 04, 2020 at 10:04:31AM -0500, Steven Lembark wrote: > Seems like a reasonable idea, wondering if anyone has seen particularly > good or bad results from trying to use it (on gentoo or anything else). Hi Steven, I use s6/s6-rc/s6-linux-init on most of my computers (few laptops, desktop and RPi3). It works just as expected, however it took some time to built whole dependency graph of all services and oneshots, especially to make some parts sharable across multiple machines. A little disadvantage is the lack of support in Gentoo, by which I mean there are no s6 run scripts installed by emerge. A slightly bigger disadvantage is/was some collision of s6-linux-init with sysvinit or openrc (I don't remember exactly) which led me to creation of my own s6 profiles (see https://github.com/arkamar/overlay/tree/master/profiles). Looking to the history, I already use s6 powered Gentoos for more than 3 years and except of those few struggles, everything works just fine. Petr
Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 10:23:34AM -0500, Dale wrote: > Petr Vaněk wrote: > > On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 10:15:39AM -0500, Dale wrote: > >> I'll dig out my magnifying glass in a bit. lol > > https://linuxfiend.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/gentoo10-19.jpg > > Now that is better. I tried clicking some stuff on the old link, even > tried ctrl + to increase the size, but nothing helped. > cute tho. :-D I just removed ?w=525 from the original image link :) Petr
Re: [gentoo-user] Is Gentoo dead?
On Thu, May 07, 2020 at 10:15:39AM -0500, Dale wrote: > I'll dig out my magnifying glass in a bit. lol https://linuxfiend.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/gentoo10-19.jpg
Re: [gentoo-user] SDD strategies...
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 09:15:58AM +, Peter Humphrey wrote: > On Tuesday, 17 March 2020 09:04:55 GMT Petr Vaněk wrote: > > > I use tmpfs to reduce compilation writes [1]. > > > > tmpfs /var/tmp/portage/ > > tmpfs uid=portage,gid=portage,mode=0775,size=2G,noatime 0 0 > > tmpfs /tmp/ tmpfs > mode=0777,size=1G,noexec,nosuid,noatime 0 0 > > > > 2G is usually enough for most of packages. > > > > [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Portage_TMPDIR_on_tmpfs > > Do you need to specify a size? I just let the kernel juggle the allocation of > memory to tmpfs and everything else. That is what it's for, no? :) No, you don't but then the system sets size to 50% of physical memory (see man 5 tmpfs). It is an upper bound, just in case if something strange happens.
Re: [gentoo-user] SDD strategies...
On Tue, Mar 17, 2020 at 06:59:53AM +0100, tu...@posteo.de wrote: > Hi, > > currentlu I am setting up a new PC for my 12-years old one, > which has reached the limits of its "computational power" :) > > SSDs are a common replacement for HDs nowaday -- but I still trust my > HDs more than this "flashy" things...call me retro or oldschool, but > it my current "Bauchgefühl" (gut feeling). > > To reduce write cycles to the SSD, which are quite a lot when using > UNIX/Limux (logging etc) and especially GENTOO (compiling sources > instead of using binary packages -- which is GOOD!), I am planning > the following setup: > > The sustem will boot from SSD. > > The HD will contain the whole system including the complete root > filesustem. Updateing, installing via Gentoo tools will run using > the HD. If that process has ended, I will rsync the HD based root > fileystem to the SSD. > > Folders, which will be written to by the sustem while running will > be symlinked to the HD. > > This should work...? > > Or is there another idea to setup a system which will benefit from > the advantages of a SSD by avoiding its disadvantages? I use tmpfs to reduce compilation writes [1]. tmpfs /var/tmp/portage/ tmpfs uid=portage,gid=portage,mode=0775,size=2G,noatime 0 0 tmpfs /tmp/ tmpfs mode=0777,size=1G,noexec,nosuid,noatime 0 0 2G is usually enough for most of packages. [1] https://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Portage_TMPDIR_on_tmpfs Petr
[gentoo-user] Re: runc, docker and musl
On Tue, Jun 04, 2019 at 08:40:48AM +0200, Manuel Rüger wrote: > On 03.06.19 10:18, Petr Vaněk wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I am wondering why we have so strict dependency to > > ~app-emulation/runc-1.0.0_rc6_p20190216[apparmor?,seccomp?] > > in docker ebuilds? > > > > I cannot build runc-1.0.0_rc6_p20190216 against musl libc since musl > > does not implement secure_getenv function. However, I forced > > installation of docker with runc-1.0.0_rc6_p20181203-r1 and everything > > seems to work correctly. > > > > Cheers > > Petr > > > > > Hi Petr, > > because Docker upstream bundles this exact version of runc and we got > bitten in the past by incompatibilities. > > Thanks, > Manuel Hi Manuel, ok, thank you for clarification. Petr
[gentoo-user] runc, docker and musl
Hi, I am wondering why we have so strict dependency to ~app-emulation/runc-1.0.0_rc6_p20190216[apparmor?,seccomp?] in docker ebuilds? I cannot build runc-1.0.0_rc6_p20190216 against musl libc since musl does not implement secure_getenv function. However, I forced installation of docker with runc-1.0.0_rc6_p20181203-r1 and everything seems to work correctly. Cheers Petr
