First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug
Bug#: 113298
Alias:
Product:
Component:
Status: RESOLVED
Resolution: DUPLICATE of bug 53269
Assigned To: Gentoo's Team for Core System packages <base-system@gentoo.org>
Hardware:
OS:
Version:
Priority:
Severity:
Reporter: Rafael <Tiger683@buerotiger.de>
Add CC:
CC:
Remove selected CCs
URL:
Summary:
Status Whiteboard:
Keywords:

Filename Description Type Creator Created Size Actions
emerge-info emerge info text/plain Rafael 2005-11-23 09:54 0000 2.56 KB Details
baselayout-1.11.14-users.patch baselayout-1.11.14-users.patch patch Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-02-14 08:35 0000 890 bytes Details | Diff
Create a New Attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.) View All

Bug 113298 depends on: Show dependency tree
Show dependency graph
Bug 113298 blocks: 119737
Votes: 0    Show votes for this bug    Vote for this bug

Additional Comments: (this is where you put emerge --info)







View Bug Activity   |   Format For Printing   |   XML   |   Clone This Bug


Description:   Opened: 2005-11-22 15:52 0000
Migration between different CHOSTs during a stage 1/2 installation
when doing emerge -e system. This bug seems to affect mainly autoconf-2.59
and cronbase.
Autoconf fails because of Perl not being recompiled before it (Data::Dumper 
module is not found) and cronbase because there is no functional Shadow for 
adding the user/group.

To work around this bug, a change in dependencies should be done, so that the 
order of affected packages is :
perl -> shadow -> cronbase

The respective dependencies get pulled in in right order too.

Reproducible: Always
Steps to Reproduce:
1.decide to make a stage 1/2 installation
2.change CHOST value
3.emerge -e system (evtl. after successful bootstrap if stage1 install)

Actual Results:  
emerge -e system breaks at cronbase. even if this one gets injected externally 
with ROOT="..." set, autoconf-2.59 will fail because of not-found perl module

Expected Results:  
all steps from stage1 throughout the installation until a reboot should run 
flawlessly

------- Comment #1 From roger55 (RETIRED) 2005-11-22 16:07:59 0000 -------
*** Bug 113299 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

------- Comment #2 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2005-11-23 04:38:21 0000 -------
No need to CC me when I told you where to assign it.  Also, no need for a
blocker... well... pretty much ever.  The only time we consider something a
"blocker" is when it means "Oh dear God, we need to roll out a new release
because of this *NOW*" type of thing.

I'll get to this today.  I honestly didn't have much time to work on Gentoo last
night.

------- Comment #3 From Rafael 2005-11-23 04:45:18 0000 -------
Sorry for this, won't happen again...


------- Comment #4 From Rafael 2005-11-23 06:12:07 0000 -------
(In reply to comment #0)

Apparently, the problem is a missing dependency in the depgraph
concerning dependencies of cronbase, or more precisely eutils.

Reasons for NOT adding shadow to eutils dependencies is more or less elaborated 
in bug #94745, see comment 5 + 6...

I think cronbase maintainer should be bugged to add the dep, as this might solve
all problems regarding CHOST issue with stage1/2 installs, life of releng people 
would certainly get a little less stressful too.

I didn't CC no one this time, someone more appropriate should do it ;)

------- Comment #5 From Rafael 2005-11-23 09:54:41 0000 -------
Created an attachment (id=73440) [edit]
emerge info

This is emerge info from my main system, although it is
not built upon the stages i have tested the above behaviours on.

The interesting thing might be my catalyst version: 
dev-util/catalyst-2.0_pre20051122

------- Comment #6 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2005-11-23 11:12:56 0000 -------
I'm currently looking at implimenting a eusergroup eclass that includes
enewuser
and enewgroup (along with a couple helper functions).  What this would do is
allow us to make *that* eclass DEPEND on shadow (on Linux) and work around the
problems in bug #94745 by side-stepping it.

------- Comment #7 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-01-17 04:08:34 0000 -------
I've upgraded this to a blocker since some fix is required for our release to
build properly and we are nearing our snapshot date.

------- Comment #8 From SpanKY 2006-01-17 06:12:37 0000 -------
or you could simply add shadow to packages.build and be done with it

------- Comment #9 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-01-17 06:35:08 0000 -------
Except adding shadow breaks stage 1 and stage2 building, so isn't a viable
solution, as I stated last time you brought it up.  It also makes it impossible
to build a set of default-linux stages without USE=pam...

------- Comment #10 From Lars Weiler (RETIRED) 2006-01-18 10:55:23 0000 -------
(In reply to comment #9)
> to build a set of default-linux stages without USE=pam...

I have pam set in the generic ppc-profile.  But it breaks as well.

------- Comment #11 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-01-20 11:59:25 0000 -------
Testing results:

Test #1 (shadow in packages.build and blockers removed)

# grep shadow profiles/default-linux/packages.build
# While shadow could be in here, it breaks stage 1 and stage 2 building for the
sys-apps/shadow
# grep pam-login sys-apps/shadow/shadow-4.0.7-r4.ebuild
        !pam? ( !build? ( !bootstrap? ( !sys-apps/pam-login ) ) )
# We moved /etc/pam.d/login to pam-login
PDEPEND="pam? ( >=sys-apps/pam-login-3.17 )"
                # These is now shipped with pam-login, and login
                                        # pam-login now.

>>> md5 files   ;-) files/README
>>> md5 files   ;-) files/run-crons-0.2.1
 * Adding group 'cron' to your system ...
 *  - Groupid: 16
/usr/portage/eclass/eutils.eclass: line 735: groupadd: command not found

!!! ERROR: sys-process/cronbase-0.3.2 failed.
!!! Function enewgroup, Line 735, Exitcode 127
!!! enewgroup failed
!!! If you need support, post the topmost build error, NOT this status message.


!!! catalyst: run script failed.

This is when it gets to building stage3.


Test #2 (shadow in packages.build)

# grep shadow profiles/default-linux/packages.build
# While shadow could be in here, it breaks stage 1 and stage 2 building for the
sys-apps/shadow
# grep pam-login sys-apps/shadow/shadow-4.0.7-r4.ebuild
        !pam? ( !sys-apps/pam-login )
# We moved /etc/pam.d/login to pam-login
PDEPEND="pam? ( >=sys-apps/pam-login-3.17 )"
                # These is now shipped with pam-login, and login
                                        # pam-login now.

Calculating dependencies ...done!

!!! Error: the sys-apps/pam-login package conflicts with another package.
!!!        both can't be installed on the same system together.
!!!        Please use 'emerge --pretend' to determine blockers.


!!! catalyst: run script failed.

This is building a stage1.

------- Comment #12 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-01-21 14:47:28 0000 -------
Possible solution:

#1: Add pam to STAGE1_USE in *all* pam-enabled 2006.0 profiles
#2: Add sys-apps/shadow to default-linux/packages.build

This has been verified to work on x86.  Currently testing on amd64/ppc...

------- Comment #13 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-01-22 06:17:14 0000 -------
This also fixes amd64/ppc... I've added pam to STAGE1_USE on alpha, amd64, ppc,
ppc64, sparc, and x86 for the 2006.0 profiles.

The rest of you need to make yourself a 2006.0 profile and make this change.

------- Comment #14 From Joshua Kinard 2006-01-22 11:09:11 0000 -------
mips done

------- Comment #15 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-01-22 15:55:06 0000 -------
I did s390 since there was already a 2006.0 profile...

------- Comment #16 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-01-25 05:42:02 0000 -------
Apparently adding PAM to stage1 is a bad thing, so I'm adding solar to CC since
he was working on a solution to this that doesn't involve PAM in stage1.

I am removing arches from CC since we might not need to do this.  I'll add them
back if it ends up being necessary in the end or if another solution requires
their assistance.

------- Comment #17 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-02-06 08:49:08 0000 -------
*** Bug 121807 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

------- Comment #18 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-02-06 08:50:40 0000 -------
OK.  I have resolved this in my snapshots with two changes.  First, I have
removed sys-process/cronbase from RDEPEND on man, since it wasn't necessary. 
Second, I have added a patch to baselayout-1.11.14-r3 in my snapshot that adds
back the man user and group.  After these two changes, stage3 builds
successfully (without pam in STAGE1_USE) on all arches.

------- Comment #19 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-02-14 08:35:19 0000 -------
Created an attachment (id=79772) [edit]
baselayout-1.11.14-users.patch

This patch resolves this issue for me.

------- Comment #20 From solar 2006-02-14 09:23:33 0000 -------
Chris should this bug be reassigned to spanky/baselayout/base-system now?

------- Comment #21 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-02-14 09:40:38 0000 -------
I would say so.  I'm keeping release on CC, though, since it'll affect anyone
trying to build from stage1, so I'm sure we'll get *lots* of bugs on this if it
isn't fixed in the tree by the time 2006.0 rolls out.

------- Comment #22 From SpanKY 2006-02-14 09:51:57 0000 -------
that's the point of the dupe

------- Comment #23 From Gustavo Zacarias (RETIRED) 2006-03-17 06:02:07 0000 -------
Anything new about this?
Stages can't be built with a current snapshot without tweaking it.

------- Comment #24 From SpanKY 2006-04-07 19:38:19 0000 -------
*** Bug 127157 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

------- Comment #25 From Jakub Moc 2006-04-08 09:02:41 0000 -------
*** Bug 129255 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

------- Comment #26 From Jakub Moc 2006-04-14 08:18:14 0000 -------
*** Bug 129951 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

------- Comment #27 From Jakub Moc 2006-04-14 08:21:10 0000 -------
*** Bug 128999 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

------- Comment #28 From Jakub Moc 2006-04-14 08:38:05 0000 -------
Is there still any issue with adding shadow dependency back to eutils.eclass 
(where is really belongs), once the new shadow with re-integrated pam-login is
marked stable? (Not that I'd notice any significant benefit wrt punting of
various pretty much essential groups/users like cron/sshd/man from baselayout
in the first place...)

------- Comment #29 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-04-17 15:03:20 0000 -------
shadow inherits eutils, so it can't be a dependency of eutils...

------- Comment #30 From Jakub Moc 2006-04-17 15:13:27 0000 -------
(In reply to comment #29)
> shadow inherits eutils, so it can't be a dependency of eutils...

It can with a little hack...

MY_PN="shadow"

DEPEND="!bootstrap? ( sys-devel/patch )"
RDEPEND=""

if [[ "${PN}" != "${MY_PN}" ]]; then
DEPEND="${DEPEND}
        sys-apps/shadow"
RDEPEND="${RDEPEND}"
fi

------- Comment #31 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-04-18 08:22:32 0000 -------
As soon as you can prove to me that it won't cause more trouble than it is
worth when trying to build stages via catalyst, I'll do it.  However, I can
guarantee you that this will cause circular dependencies and generally be more
trouble than it is worth.

------- Comment #32 From Jakub Moc 2006-04-18 08:34:54 0000 -------
Shrug. If the above produces circular dependencies, then portage is broken... 

If that's not an acceptable solution, then I'd suggest re-adding cron/sshd/man
back to baselayout and think twice before punting them again just for the sake
of saving a few "redundant" lines in /etc/{passwd,group}.

------- Comment #33 From solar 2006-04-18 08:40:46 0000 -------
(In reply to comment #32)
> Shrug. If the above produces circular dependencies, then portage is broken... 

Circular dependencies are just that. portage broken or not..  
A circle is still round.

> If that's not an acceptable solution, then I'd suggest re-adding cron/sshd/man
> back to baselayout and think twice before punting them again just for the sake
> of saving a few "redundant" lines in /etc/{passwd,group}.

Right this is the only real solution to the problem.

------- Comment #34 From Chris Gianelloni (RETIRED) 2006-04-18 14:55:34 0000 -------
The only thing that is required to be added back in man user/group.  That is
because shadow will come in after man, but before openssh/cronbase.  As I said,
the patch above worked perfectly for the 2006.0 release.

------- Comment #35 From Jakub Moc 2006-05-10 14:10:33 0000 -------
*** Bug 132947 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

------- Comment #36 From Jakub Moc 2006-05-14 03:02:12 0000 -------
*** Bug 133281 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

------- Comment #37 From solar 2006-05-28 18:36:30 0000 -------
This is a formal vote for the solution presented by Chris in comment #34, me in 
#33 and others via IRC.
Add man back to user/group as needed and lose the dep so this bug wont hold up 
releng or others building feom the lowe levels of gentoo without adding any 
new deps. In addition I vote for making the change within the next few days.

------- Comment #38 From Joshua Kinard 2006-05-28 18:39:52 0000 -------
Seconded.  This just halted my 2006.1-pre stage run for mips, so I wanna squish
it.

------- Comment #39 From Gustavo Zacarias (RETIRED) 2006-05-29 10:38:45 0000 -------
+1
i've been patching this for ages now to build QA stuff and it's quite
bothersome.

------- Comment #40 From Guy Martin 2006-05-29 10:51:05 0000 -------
+1

I'm for it.

------- Comment #41 From Jason Wever (RETIRED) 2006-05-29 11:24:40 0000 -------
+1 from me as well (as the supposed SPARC basesystem guy).

------- Comment #42 From SpanKY 2006-06-07 06:15:53 0000 -------
formal vote ?  you just made that up

adding users back into baselayout ignores problems, it doesnt fix them

the only real fix is having portage create the users instead of relying on
packages such as shadow being installed

------- Comment #43 From Alec Warner 2006-06-07 06:25:21 0000 -------
(In reply to comment #42)
> formal vote ?  you just made that up
> 
> adding users back into baselayout ignores problems, it doesnt fix them
> 
> the only real fix is having portage create the users instead of relying on
> packages such as shadow being installed
> 

while i agree with you on principal, this bug is holding people up.  We have a
SoC project for GLEP 27, perhaps we can provide a module for this situation. 
For now though, if you don't have a workable solution, I can't see a reason to
leave it 'broken'; ie it blocks legitimate work for a bunch of other projects.

------- Comment #44 From solar 2006-06-07 06:32:21 0000 -------
(In reply to comment #42)
> formal vote ?  you just made that up
> 
> adding users back into baselayout ignores problems, it doesnt fix them
> 
> the only real fix is having portage create the users instead of relying on
> packages such as shadow being installed

man is a user on every system. There is no reason to not really have it 
there cept maybe on uclibc systems where noman might be set.

Problem is this is blocking building from stage1 (comment #9) 
correctly and forcing shadow where it was not forced before is a 
worse solution than a one liner returning old behavior.

If you have a creative way to add users which does not rely on shadow then 
I think all of us are all ears.

------- Comment #45 From SpanKY 2006-06-07 09:16:25 0000 -------
the man account serves no purpose when the system has no man functionality
installed

as i said, moving the logic to portage negates the need for any accounting
utilities to be preinstalled

------- Comment #46 From Andrew Gaffney 2006-06-07 09:18:59 0000 -------
Feel free to remove the 'man' user/group once that logic has been moved to
portage and is shown to be stable (and work with ${ROOT}!) :)

------- Comment #47 From Joshua Kinard 2006-06-07 21:23:36 0000 -------
Portage-2.1 is in feature freeze right now, so even if someone cooked up that
kind of logic, it would be of no use because it would not be able to make the
snapshot, so the temp solution for now is the one-line addition.  Maybe said
logic can be drafted and put into portage before 2007.0 rolls around (it can't
be that hard -- anyone even drafted up pseudo-code or something for it?), and
we can get rid of this change.  But for 2006.1 to work well, we need this
change.

------- Comment #48 From SpanKY 2006-06-09 07:26:45 0000 -------

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 53269 ***

------- Comment #49 From Alec Warner 2006-06-09 08:36:58 0000 -------
When glep 27 is done, this is fixed, fix your shit now and we can fix it later
at the end of the summer.

Don't go creating problems when no solution exists.

------- Comment #50 From SpanKY 2006-06-09 13:12:32 0000 -------
instead of being a jackass why dont you read the backlog

baselayout isnt broken

people want to add users back in to baselayout to ignore the underlying issue

uberlord *already added the user back in to baselayout*

the problem reported here *no longer shows up because the hacks have been added
back into portage*

no go back to doing something useful instead of re-opening bugs you havent been
following

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of 53269 ***

First Last Prev Next    No search results available      Search page      Enter new bug