Gentoo Websites Logo
Go to: Gentoo Home Documentation Forums Lists Bugs Planet Store Wiki Get Gentoo!
Bug 417167 - genkernel 3.4.20 fails to build on amd64 on default settings with kernel 3.2.12 due to NFS error
Summary: genkernel 3.4.20 fails to build on amd64 on default settings with kernel 3.2....
Status: VERIFIED DUPLICATE of bug 413247
Alias: None
Product: Gentoo Linux
Classification: Unclassified
Component: [OLD] Core system (show other bugs)
Hardware: AMD64 Linux
: Normal major (vote)
Assignee: Gentoo Linux bug wranglers
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2012-05-22 20:28 UTC by Nicolai Czempin
Modified: 2012-05-23 15:13 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Package list:
Runtime testing required: ---

Attachments
Add an attachment (proposed patch, testcase, etc.)

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.
Description Nicolai Czempin 2012-05-22 20:28:48 UTC 
Genkernel 3.4.20, which is currently marked stable, fails during the build even when no changes have been made to the default configuration of the 3.2.12 kernel.

I will post the exact message once I do a fresh install, so I can reproduce the error message(s).

It seemed to be related to NFS parts of the kernel. According to some supporters on IRC #gentoo, I could have either disabled NFS or used 3.4.24. I chose the latter, which turned out to work fine on at least 3 recent installations (different systems, all amd64).

Genkernel should not be regarded as stable in the current configuration; perhaps a version bump is required.
Comment 1 Nicolai Czempin 2012-05-23 11:06:27 UTC 
I just (after filing the bug) saw that in the meantime genkernel 3.4.24-r1 was set to stable; if this is the case, then the current stable combination should work fine in this regard, and I guess the bug can be set to resolved.

Perhaps someone would like to make a note to take measures so that a bug _like_ this is harder to slip through to stable in the future.
Comment 2 Jeroen Roovers (RETIRED) gentoo-dev 2012-05-23 14:31:23 UTC 

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 413247 ***
Comment 3 Nicolai Czempin 2012-05-23 15:13:27 UTC 
This is indeed the same issue.