Re: [gentoo-user] Glibc and binpackages
On 17/01/2023 16:41, Laurence Perkins wrote: That's not a terrible idea. Although running emerge twice every time in order to check would slow things down considerably. Probably better to just get it through my thick head to update core libraries first. I guess that could mean putting all those libs in an @set? Then you could just do eg "emerge --update @libraries; emerge --update @world". Or maybe what I do if I'm expecting trouble - "emerge --update @system; emerge --update @world". I guess those libraries are in @system? Cheers, Wol
Re: [gentoo-user] Glibc and binpackages
On Fri, 13 Jan 2023 11:17:29 -0500 John Blinka wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 12:54 PM Laurence Perkins > wrote: > > > I’m not sure if I’m doing something horribly wrong, or missing something > > blindingly obvious, but I’ve just had to boot a rescue shell yet again, so > > I’m going to ask. > > > > > > > > To save time and effort, I have my big, powerful machine create > > binpackages for everything when it updates, and then let all my smaller > > machines pull from that. It works pretty well for the most part. > > > > I do something quite similar, but have never had a glibc problem. Maybe the > problem lies in differences between the specific details of our two > approaches. > > I have 3 boxes with different hardware but identical portage setup, > identical world file, identical o.s., etc, even identical CFLAGS, CPPFLAGS > and CPU_FLAGS_X86 despite different processors. Like you, I build on my > fastest box (but offload work via distcc), and save binpkgs. After a world > update (emerge -DuNv —changed-deps @world) , I rsync all repositories and > binpkgs from the fast box to the others. An emerge -DuNv —changed-deps > —usepkgonly @world on the other boxes completes the update. I do this > anywhere from daily to (rarely) weekly. Portage determines when to update > glibc relative to other packages. There hasn’t been a problem in years with > glibc. > > I believe there are more sophisticated ways to supply updated portage trees > and binary packages across a local network. I think there are others on > the list using these more sophisticated techniques successfully. Just a > plain rsync satisfies my needs. > > It’s not clear to me whether you have the problem on your big powerful > machine or on your other machines. If it’s the other machines, that > suggests that portage knows the proper build sequence on the big machine > and somehow doesn’t on the lesser machines. Why? What’s different? > > Perhaps there’s something in my update frequency or maintaining an > identical setup on all my machines that avoids the problem you’re having? > > If installing glibc first works, then maybe put a wrapper around your > emerge? Something that installs glibc first if there’s a new binpkg then > goes on to the remaining updates. > > Just offered in case there’s a useful hint from my experience - not arguing > that mine is the one true way (tm). > > HTH, > > John Blinka > > > In case it is not clear what the underlying problem is: Slow machine updates and is on the same set of packages as the fast machine. Fast machine updates glibc to a new version at time T1 Fast machine updates app-arch/xz-utils to a new version at time T2. This version of xz CAN have glibc symbols from the very newest glibc version that was merged at time T1. Everything is fine on the fast machine. Now the slow machine starts its update process at a time T3 > T2. The list of packages includes glibc AND xz-utils, however xz-utils is often pulled in before glibc which ends in a disaster. Now you have an xz decompressing tool on your slow machine that cannot run, because some library symbols from glibc are missing (because glibc was not merged yet), and you're pretty much stuck in the middle of the update with a broken system. I have seen this kind of behaviour only when I have not updated for a very long time the slow machine (i.e. no update for a year). Anyway I think a reasonable default for emerge would be to merge glibc as early as possible, because all other binary packages could have been built with the newer glibc version, and could potentially fail to run on the slow machine until glibc is updated. Hope that clears up what happens, and why it fails to update / breaks the slow machine. Andreas
RE: [gentoo-user] Glibc and binpackages
> From: John Blinka john.bli...@gmail.com<mailto:john.bli...@gmail.com> > Sent: Friday, January 13, 2023 8:17 AM > To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org<mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org> > Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Glibc and binpackages > > > > > On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 12:54 PM Laurence Perkins > > lperk...@openeye.net<mailto:lperk...@openeye.net> wrote: > > I’m not sure if I’m doing something horribly wrong, or missing something > > blindingly obvious, but I’ve just had to boot a rescue shell yet again, so > > I’m going to ask. > > > > To save time and effort, I have my big, powerful machine create binpackages > > for everything when it updates, and then let all my smaller machines pull > > from that. It works pretty well for the most part. > > I do something quite similar, but have never had a glibc problem. Maybe the > problem lies in differences between the specific details of our two > approaches. > > I have 3 boxes with different hardware but identical portage setup, identical > world file, identical o.s., etc, even identical CFLAGS, CPPFLAGS and > CPU_FLAGS_X86 despite different processors. Like you, I build on my fastest > box (but offload work via distcc), and save binpkgs. After a world update > (emerge -DuNv —changed-deps @world) , I rsync all repositories and binpkgs > from the fast box to the others. An emerge -DuNv —changed-deps —usepkgonly > @world on the other boxes completes the update. I do this anywhere from daily > to (rarely) weekly. Portage determines when to update glibc relative to other > packages. There hasn’t been a problem in years with glibc. I suspect it's the binpkg-only bit. I keep USE flags and python versions and so-forth the same between the different machines, but the list of installed packages is not entirely identical. I do sync the ebuild repository from the main machine so everybody has the same package list. But the primary goal is to avoid building huge things like webkit over and over again. Most of the little stuff hardly matters. glibc issues aren't exactly a regular occurrence, even when I'm being careless. It's just that when they do happen it's painful enough to make me wonder if maybe glibc version should be included in the binpackage metadata or something as an extra safeguard. > > I believe there are more sophisticated ways to supply updated portage trees > and binary packages across a local network. I think there are others on the > list using these more sophisticated techniques successfully. Just a plain > rsync satisfies my needs. > Oh dozens probably. Big question is if you're happy with having a master copy on one machine and making all the modifications there, or if you need to be able to propagate changes from the clients back upstream automatically as well. > It’s not clear to me whether you have the problem on your big powerful > machine or on your other machines. If it’s the other machines, that suggests > that portage knows the proper build sequence on the big machine and somehow > doesn’t on the lesser machines. Why? What’s different? The big machine is fine. Emerge handles everything perfectly every time if there are no binpackages involved. It's the little machines that occasionally seem to get confuzzled. Maybe I should try always setting --with-bdeps=y so it doesn't think it can skip things... > >Perhaps there’s something in my update frequency or maintaining an identical >setup on all my machines that avoids the problem you’re having? > >If installing glibc first works, then maybe put a wrapper around your emerge? >Something that installs glibc first if there’s a new binpkg then goes on to >the remaining updates. That's not a terrible idea. Although running emerge twice every time in order to check would slow things down considerably. Probably better to just get it through my thick head to update core libraries first. > >Just offered in case there’s a useful hint from my experience - not arguing >that mine is the one true way (tm). > >HTH, > >John Blinka Thanks for the info. Gives me some things to think about. LMP
Re: [gentoo-user] Glibc and binpackages
On Thu, Jan 12, 2023 at 12:54 PM Laurence Perkins wrote: > I’m not sure if I’m doing something horribly wrong, or missing something > blindingly obvious, but I’ve just had to boot a rescue shell yet again, so > I’m going to ask. > > > > To save time and effort, I have my big, powerful machine create > binpackages for everything when it updates, and then let all my smaller > machines pull from that. It works pretty well for the most part. > I do something quite similar, but have never had a glibc problem. Maybe the problem lies in differences between the specific details of our two approaches. I have 3 boxes with different hardware but identical portage setup, identical world file, identical o.s., etc, even identical CFLAGS, CPPFLAGS and CPU_FLAGS_X86 despite different processors. Like you, I build on my fastest box (but offload work via distcc), and save binpkgs. After a world update (emerge -DuNv —changed-deps @world) , I rsync all repositories and binpkgs from the fast box to the others. An emerge -DuNv —changed-deps —usepkgonly @world on the other boxes completes the update. I do this anywhere from daily to (rarely) weekly. Portage determines when to update glibc relative to other packages. There hasn’t been a problem in years with glibc. I believe there are more sophisticated ways to supply updated portage trees and binary packages across a local network. I think there are others on the list using these more sophisticated techniques successfully. Just a plain rsync satisfies my needs. It’s not clear to me whether you have the problem on your big powerful machine or on your other machines. If it’s the other machines, that suggests that portage knows the proper build sequence on the big machine and somehow doesn’t on the lesser machines. Why? What’s different? Perhaps there’s something in my update frequency or maintaining an identical setup on all my machines that avoids the problem you’re having? If installing glibc first works, then maybe put a wrapper around your emerge? Something that installs glibc first if there’s a new binpkg then goes on to the remaining updates. Just offered in case there’s a useful hint from my experience - not arguing that mine is the one true way (tm). HTH, John Blinka >
Re: [gentoo-user] Glibc and binpackages
On Thu, 12 Jan 2023 17:53:55 + Laurence Perkins wrote: > I'm not sure if I'm doing something horribly wrong, or missing something > blindingly obvious, but I've just had to boot a rescue shell yet again, so > I'm going to ask. > > To save time and effort, I have my big, powerful machine create binpackages > for everything when it updates, and then let all my smaller machines pull > from that. It works pretty well for the most part. > > But when there's a glibc update I have to specifically install it first. If > I don't, then about half the time emerge decides that because it doesn't have > to worry about build dependencies for binpackages, it can obviously update > glibc last... Then it updates something that's needed for handling updates > and that's it, stuck. If I'm lucky it's a compile tool, not one for handling > binpackages and I can just tell it to do the glibc package next. Quite often > though it's something like tar that's fundamental to installing anything at > all and I have to ferry the new glibc over on a USB stick and unpack it with > busybox... Occasionally it's something critical for the whole system and > then I have to boot to a rescue shell of some kind. > > Think it's worth a feature request to have emerge prioritize glibc as high up > in the list as it can when installing things? Or am I the only one who runs > into this? > > LMP I was running into this issue too already, but then at some point I started more regularly updating and this problem disappeared. I fully agree, that glibc should be updated rather earlier than later, especially when compression libraries were built with a newer glibc. /Andreas
[gentoo-user] Glibc and binpackages
I'm not sure if I'm doing something horribly wrong, or missing something blindingly obvious, but I've just had to boot a rescue shell yet again, so I'm going to ask. To save time and effort, I have my big, powerful machine create binpackages for everything when it updates, and then let all my smaller machines pull from that. It works pretty well for the most part. But when there's a glibc update I have to specifically install it first. If I don't, then about half the time emerge decides that because it doesn't have to worry about build dependencies for binpackages, it can obviously update glibc last... Then it updates something that's needed for handling updates and that's it, stuck. If I'm lucky it's a compile tool, not one for handling binpackages and I can just tell it to do the glibc package next. Quite often though it's something like tar that's fundamental to installing anything at all and I have to ferry the new glibc over on a USB stick and unpack it with busybox... Occasionally it's something critical for the whole system and then I have to boot to a rescue shell of some kind. Think it's worth a feature request to have emerge prioritize glibc as high up in the list as it can when installing things? Or am I the only one who runs into this? LMP
