Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

New major release soon? #141

Closed
joakim-tjernlund opened this issue Nov 26, 2019 · 20 comments
Closed

New major release soon? #141

joakim-tjernlund opened this issue Nov 26, 2019 · 20 comments

Comments

@joakim-tjernlund
Copy link

@joakim-tjernlund joakim-tjernlund commented Nov 26, 2019

241.4 is getting old, is there a 243.x on the horizon?

@Yamakuzure

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Yamakuzure Yamakuzure commented Nov 26, 2019

@joakim-tjernlund

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@joakim-tjernlund joakim-tjernlund commented Nov 26, 2019

Yes it is. I am currently testing and cleaning up the sources from unused functions.Guess I'll push tomorrow, you can clone from v243-stable branch and test, too, if you like.

Would be much easier if there was en 9999 ebuild in Gentoo, could you push one?

@Yamakuzure

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Yamakuzure Yamakuzure commented Nov 26, 2019

@Yamakuzure

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Yamakuzure Yamakuzure commented Nov 27, 2019

I just pushed. Travis is no longer working, but that I have to sort out later. (They changed some default package in the void linux image we use.)

@joakim-tjernlund

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@joakim-tjernlund joakim-tjernlund commented Dec 29, 2019

I tried your elogind-243.9999 ebuild but didn't work out:

  1. the elogind-241.1-docs.patch does not apply
  2. building fails with:
o' -MF 'elogind-uaccess-command@exe/src_uaccess-command_uaccess-command.c.o.d' -o 'elogind-uaccess-command@exe/src_uaccess-command_uaccess-command.c.o' -c ../elogind-243.9999/src/uaccess-command/uaccess-command.c
../elogind-243.9999/src/uaccess-command/uaccess-command.c: In function ‘dev_uaccess’:
../elogind-243.9999/src/uaccess-command/uaccess-command.c:44:9: error: implicit declaration of function ‘umask’; did you mean ‘sigmask’? [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
   44 |         umask(0022);
      |         ^~~~~
      |         sigmask
../elogind-243.9999/src/uaccess-command/uaccess-command.c:44:9: warning: nested extern declaration of ‘umask’ [-Wnested-externs]
cc1: some warnings being treated as errors
@joakim-tjernlund

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@joakim-tjernlund joakim-tjernlund commented Dec 29, 2019

This little patch makes it build:

--- src/uaccess-command/uaccess-command.c.org	2019-12-29 22:18:46.849371284 +0100
+++ src/uaccess-command/uaccess-command.c	2019-12-29 22:19:40.636321047 +0100
@@ -22,6 +22,8 @@
 #include <errno.h>
 #include <stdio.h>
 #include <stdlib.h>
+#include <sys/types.h>
+#include <sys/stat.h>
 
 #include "sd-login.h"

w.r.t elogind-241.1-docs.patch, could you not integrate that into the elogind src?

@Yamakuzure

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Yamakuzure Yamakuzure commented Jan 6, 2020

Sorry for the late reply.

I have just published: https://github.com/elogind/elogind/releases/tag/v243.4

The elogind-243.9999 should work just fine until the update hits the portage tree.

The reason for the long time is my stupidity leading to a typo that lead to an rm -rf /. Luckily as a user, but thanks to the wonders of nvme, the short two seconds until I slammed CTRL-C was enough to delete half of the containers I have my stuff in and all of my backups.

So after restoring enough to test and get this release out, my current main project is:
https://github.com/Yamakuzure/xfs_undelete

I hope I get my stuff back...

@Yamakuzure Yamakuzure closed this Jan 6, 2020
@joakim-tjernlund

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@joakim-tjernlund joakim-tjernlund commented Jan 6, 2020

Sorry for the late reply.

I have just published: https://github.com/elogind/elogind/releases/tag/v243.4

The elogind-243.9999 should work just fine until the update hits the portage tree.

Great !

The reason for the long time is my stupidity leading to a typo that lead to an rm -rf /. Luckily as a user, but thanks to the wonders of nvme, the short two seconds until I slammed CTRL-C was enough to delete half of the containers I have my stuff in and all of my backups.

So after restoring enough to test and get this release out, my current main project is:
https://github.com/Yamakuzure/xfs_undelete

I hope I get my stuff back...

Ouch, been there myself too.
I haven't looked into you xfs code, just wanted to mention http://inai.de/projects/hxtools/
There is some xfs recover code in there. There is also https://github.com/salviati/xfsr
Good luck

@joakim-tjernlund

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@joakim-tjernlund joakim-tjernlund commented Jan 6, 2020

BTW, the tag, v243.4 seem to be missing.
My little patch above is also missing I think?

@Yamakuzure

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Yamakuzure Yamakuzure commented Jan 6, 2020

I had to retract the release due to some heavy issues on travis.

And good it was, because some more issues popped up all of a sudden. I'll re-release when everything is ready. Hopefully tomorrow or on Wednesday.

@Yamakuzure Yamakuzure reopened this Jan 6, 2020
@Yamakuzure

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Yamakuzure Yamakuzure commented Jan 6, 2020

My little patch above is also missing I think?

It should be fixed now.

@joakim-tjernlund

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@joakim-tjernlund joakim-tjernlund commented Jan 6, 2020

My little patch above is also missing I think?

It should be fixed now.

Still don't see it.

@Yamakuzure

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Yamakuzure Yamakuzure commented Jan 9, 2020

My little patch above is also missing I think?

It should be fixed now.

Still don't see it.

I need a little bit more info. I am using elogind-243.9999 for a few weeks now, and everything is working well, built with gcc-9.2 against glibc-2.30. No build failures so far, so I don't know why I should add includes when they don't solve a standing problem.

Do you build still fails with elogind-243.9999 ?

@joakim-tjernlund

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@joakim-tjernlund joakim-tjernlund commented Jan 9, 2020

umask(2) has these includes documeted:

       #include <sys/types.h>
       #include <sys/stat.h>

       mode_t umask(mode_t mask);

Omitting them may work depending on glibc version which by accident pull in these

Have you fixed the two Gentoo patches elogind-241.4-broken-test.patch and elogind-241.4-nodocs.patch ?
They don't apply any more.

@joakim-tjernlund

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@joakim-tjernlund joakim-tjernlund commented Jan 9, 2020

umask(2) has these includes documeted:

       #include <sys/types.h>
       #include <sys/stat.h>

       mode_t umask(mode_t mask);

Omitting them may work depending on glibc version which by accident pull in these

Especially since elogind defaults to -Werror
-Werror is nice for development work but a pain for distributions

@joakim-tjernlund

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Author

@joakim-tjernlund joakim-tjernlund commented Jan 9, 2020

Still breaks form me at home:
gcc-9.2.0-r2 and glibc-2.29-r7

@Yamakuzure

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Yamakuzure Yamakuzure commented Jan 12, 2020

Now I get it....

@perfect7gentleman

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@perfect7gentleman perfect7gentleman commented Jan 12, 2020

 ~ $ loginctl --version
elogind 243.4 (243.4)
+PAM -AUDIT -SELINUX +SMACK +UTMP +ACL default-hierarchy=hybrid
Yamakuzure added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 12, 2020
umask(2) has these includes documeted:

       #include <sys/types.h>
       #include <sys/stat.h>

       mode_t umask(mode_t mask);

These are no linger implicitly included and thus have to be included directly.

Thanks to @joakim-tjernlund for pointing this out!

Bug: #141
Closes: #141
Signed-off-by: Sven Eden <sven.eden@prydeworx.com>
@Yamakuzure

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Yamakuzure Yamakuzure commented Jan 12, 2020

@perfect7gentleman That's also my experience.
And yet we have another shred of evidence that installations can be different without seeming to be so... 🤷‍♂

That's why I need your feedback, guys, so thank you very much!

@Yamakuzure Yamakuzure closed this Jan 12, 2020
@Yamakuzure

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Collaborator

@Yamakuzure Yamakuzure commented Jan 20, 2020

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Linked pull requests

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

None yet
3 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.