Re: [CentOS] yum update (first in a long time) - /var/log/dovecot no longer used

[m . roth]

Johnny Hughes wrote:

> Right.  And I do want to point out, this list is really not the place to
> discuss the positives and negatives of systemd vs. upstart vs. SysV.
> The goal of CentOS is to build RHEL source code with the absolute
> minimum changes required for branding.  So, we get the init system that
> is in the source code.
>
> Having that kind of discussion on a Fedora list might be appropriate if
> you are not a RHEL customer or on a RHEL list if you are.

Sorry, I hadn't read this when I posted my followup to Valeri. At any
rate, I *only* intended to make that one comment, and have no intention of
following up. I think that most of us do *NOT* want another flamewar that
buries actual question and answers related to what we're doing with CentOS
- administering and running it.

mark


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update (first in a long time) - /var/log/dovecot no longer used

[m . roth]

Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 3:13 am, Gary Stainburn wrote:
>> On Thursday 05 May 2016 17:16:17 Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>>> There were several heated discussions on this list, and elsewhere. This
>>> is
>>> not intended to start the new one, but to help someone who missed them
>>> to
>>> define their statute.
>>>
>>> People split into two groups:
>>>
>>> Opponents of systemd (, firewqalld, etc.) who argue that from formerly
>>> Unix-like system Linux becomes Unix-unlike (or more MS Windows-like),
>>> and this is bad.
>>>
>>> Proponents of systemd etc. who argue that the life goes on, systems
>>> evolve and you better keep up with changes.
>>>

Or



mark

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update (first in a long time) - /var/log/dovecot no longer used

[Valeri Galtsev]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 8:46 am, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 05/06/2016 08:38 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, May 6, 2016 3:13 am, Gary Stainburn wrote:
>>> On Thursday 05 May 2016 17:16:17 Valeri Galtsev wrote:
 There were several heated discussions on this list, and elsewhere.
 This
 is
 not intended to start the new one, but to help someone who missed them
 to
 define their statute.

 People split into two groups:

 Opponents of systemd (, firewqalld, etc.) who argue that from formerly
 Unix-like system Linux becomes Unix-unlike (or more MS Windows-like),
 and
 this is bad.

 Proponents of systemd etc. who argue that the life goes on, systems
 evolve
 and you better keep up with changes.

 Therefore, for new person who is about to, let's say, upgrade Linux
 system
 to the version with systemd, there is a decision that will define that
 person's future maintenance of this new system. And the decision has
 to
 be
 made before upgrade. Luckily for those who do decide to go with
 systemd,
 bugs (that always are present in new software) are being solved.
 Luckily
 for those who do not accept fundamental changes systemd brings (like
 binary logs or config files infested with XML garbage - sorry if I'm
 missing or misinterpreting something) there are Unix system one can
 migrate machine to.

 Either way one has to read and estimate what making that step
 (upgrading
 to systemd, firewalld based Linux or switching to some flavor of Unix)
 will entail in a long run for that server and the server admin. Either
 way, as in one of Unix handbooks they stress: read carefully the
 upgrade
 notes!

 I hope, this helps someone.

 Valeri

>>>
>>> I understand the arguments for the move to systemd - and I also
>>> understand
>>> the
>>> points of those arguments.  Like most arguments, there are some valid
>>> and
>>> positive points and some not so.
>>>
>>> There are times - such as the encompassing of the name resolver code -
>>> where
>>> it just seems a case of replacing old, mature code with new untested
>>> code
>>> for
>>> no reason.
>>>
>>> Either way, I now have to manage both traditional and systemd based
>>> systems.
>>> Okay, it just means learning new toolsets, but it's something else I
>>> have
>>> to
>>> learn, and something else I have to cope with for my bespoke systems
>>> and
>>> services.
>>
>> I guess, I didn't stress it well enough: read the upgrade notes! In case
>> of switching to systemd: read about what the change means.
>>
>> In other words, at least in minds of those who decided to migrate to
>> UNIX,
>> this change it not just about learning new tools. It is about how the
>> system works. I am not going to argue they (refugees to UNIX) are right,
>> or proponents of systemd (and friends) are right. The important part is
>> that each weighed the changed and will deal with the consequences of the
>> decision made conscientiously. But for that (to make good decision),
>> once
>> again:
>>
>> Read the "upgrade notes" [systemd documentation in this case]! This is
>> the
>> decision about your system and its future life.
>
> Right.  And I do want to point out, this list is really not the place to
> discuss the positives and negatives of systemd vs. upstart vs. SysV.
> The goal of CentOS is to build RHEL source code with the absolute
> minimum changes required for branding.  So, we get the init system that
> is in the source code.

Exactly. As I said in the first post (reply to which happened to hijack
the thread - my apologies that was not intended by me), it was only
intended to help those who are just about to make this step to really
think about what it will entail. And thanks everybody who added their
comments, they all do the same what I intended.

Valeri

>
> Having that kind of discussion on a Fedora list might be appropriate if
> you are not a RHEL customer or on a RHEL list if you are.
>
>>
>>>
>>> What I didn't expect, and what really threw me was that this has been
>>> implemented via a simply 'yum update' of an existing system, not at a
>>> major
>>> release level.
>
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>



Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update (first in a long time) - /var/log/dovecot no longer used

[Johnny Hughes]

On 05/06/2016 08:38 AM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> 
> On Fri, May 6, 2016 3:13 am, Gary Stainburn wrote:
>> On Thursday 05 May 2016 17:16:17 Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>>> There were several heated discussions on this list, and elsewhere. This
>>> is
>>> not intended to start the new one, but to help someone who missed them
>>> to
>>> define their statute.
>>>
>>> People split into two groups:
>>>
>>> Opponents of systemd (, firewqalld, etc.) who argue that from formerly
>>> Unix-like system Linux becomes Unix-unlike (or more MS Windows-like),
>>> and
>>> this is bad.
>>>
>>> Proponents of systemd etc. who argue that the life goes on, systems
>>> evolve
>>> and you better keep up with changes.
>>>
>>> Therefore, for new person who is about to, let's say, upgrade Linux
>>> system
>>> to the version with systemd, there is a decision that will define that
>>> person's future maintenance of this new system. And the decision has to
>>> be
>>> made before upgrade. Luckily for those who do decide to go with systemd,
>>> bugs (that always are present in new software) are being solved. Luckily
>>> for those who do not accept fundamental changes systemd brings (like
>>> binary logs or config files infested with XML garbage - sorry if I'm
>>> missing or misinterpreting something) there are Unix system one can
>>> migrate machine to.
>>>
>>> Either way one has to read and estimate what making that step (upgrading
>>> to systemd, firewalld based Linux or switching to some flavor of Unix)
>>> will entail in a long run for that server and the server admin. Either
>>> way, as in one of Unix handbooks they stress: read carefully the upgrade
>>> notes!
>>>
>>> I hope, this helps someone.
>>>
>>> Valeri
>>>
>>
>> I understand the arguments for the move to systemd - and I also understand
>> the
>> points of those arguments.  Like most arguments, there are some valid and
>> positive points and some not so.
>>
>> There are times - such as the encompassing of the name resolver code -
>> where
>> it just seems a case of replacing old, mature code with new untested code
>> for
>> no reason.
>>
>> Either way, I now have to manage both traditional and systemd based
>> systems.
>> Okay, it just means learning new toolsets, but it's something else I have
>> to
>> learn, and something else I have to cope with for my bespoke systems and
>> services.
> 
> I guess, I didn't stress it well enough: read the upgrade notes! In case
> of switching to systemd: read about what the change means.
> 
> In other words, at least in minds of those who decided to migrate to UNIX,
> this change it not just about learning new tools. It is about how the
> system works. I am not going to argue they (refugees to UNIX) are right,
> or proponents of systemd (and friends) are right. The important part is
> that each weighed the changed and will deal with the consequences of the
> decision made conscientiously. But for that (to make good decision), once
> again:
> 
> Read the "upgrade notes" [systemd documentation in this case]! This is the
> decision about your system and its future life.

Right.  And I do want to point out, this list is really not the place to
discuss the positives and negatives of systemd vs. upstart vs. SysV.
The goal of CentOS is to build RHEL source code with the absolute
minimum changes required for branding.  So, we get the init system that
is in the source code.

Having that kind of discussion on a Fedora list might be appropriate if
you are not a RHEL customer or on a RHEL list if you are.

> 
>>
>> What I didn't expect, and what really threw me was that this has been
>> implemented via a simply 'yum update' of an existing system, not at a
>> major
>> release level.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update (first in a long time) - /var/log/dovecot no longer used

[Valeri Galtsev]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 3:13 am, Gary Stainburn wrote:
> On Thursday 05 May 2016 17:16:17 Valeri Galtsev wrote:
>> There were several heated discussions on this list, and elsewhere. This
>> is
>> not intended to start the new one, but to help someone who missed them
>> to
>> define their statute.
>>
>> People split into two groups:
>>
>> Opponents of systemd (, firewqalld, etc.) who argue that from formerly
>> Unix-like system Linux becomes Unix-unlike (or more MS Windows-like),
>> and
>> this is bad.
>>
>> Proponents of systemd etc. who argue that the life goes on, systems
>> evolve
>> and you better keep up with changes.
>>
>> Therefore, for new person who is about to, let's say, upgrade Linux
>> system
>> to the version with systemd, there is a decision that will define that
>> person's future maintenance of this new system. And the decision has to
>> be
>> made before upgrade. Luckily for those who do decide to go with systemd,
>> bugs (that always are present in new software) are being solved. Luckily
>> for those who do not accept fundamental changes systemd brings (like
>> binary logs or config files infested with XML garbage - sorry if I'm
>> missing or misinterpreting something) there are Unix system one can
>> migrate machine to.
>>
>> Either way one has to read and estimate what making that step (upgrading
>> to systemd, firewalld based Linux or switching to some flavor of Unix)
>> will entail in a long run for that server and the server admin. Either
>> way, as in one of Unix handbooks they stress: read carefully the upgrade
>> notes!
>>
>> I hope, this helps someone.
>>
>> Valeri
>>
>
> I understand the arguments for the move to systemd - and I also understand
> the
> points of those arguments.  Like most arguments, there are some valid and
> positive points and some not so.
>
> There are times - such as the encompassing of the name resolver code -
> where
> it just seems a case of replacing old, mature code with new untested code
> for
> no reason.
>
> Either way, I now have to manage both traditional and systemd based
> systems.
> Okay, it just means learning new toolsets, but it's something else I have
> to
> learn, and something else I have to cope with for my bespoke systems and
> services.

I guess, I didn't stress it well enough: read the upgrade notes! In case
of switching to systemd: read about what the change means.

In other words, at least in minds of those who decided to migrate to UNIX,
this change it not just about learning new tools. It is about how the
system works. I am not going to argue they (refugees to UNIX) are right,
or proponents of systemd (and friends) are right. The important part is
that each weighed the changed and will deal with the consequences of the
decision made conscientiously. But for that (to make good decision), once
again:

Read the "upgrade notes" [systemd documentation in this case]! This is the
decision about your system and its future life.

Valeri

>
> What I didn't expect, and what really threw me was that this has been
> implemented via a simply 'yum update' of an existing system, not at a
> major
> release level.


Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update (first in a long time) - /var/log/dovecot no longer used

[James B. Byrne]

On Fri, May 6, 2016 04:36, John Hodrien wrote:
> On Fri, 6 May 2016, Gary Stainburn wrote:
>
>> What I didn't expect, and what really threw me was that this has
>> been implemented via a simply 'yum update' of an existing system,
>> not at a major release level.
>
>
> Something like RHEL is stuck in a trap here.  Either they never
> change a default post-install (lots of rpmnew or deliberately
> not introducing new behaviours), or they bring in defaults as
> you update (to some extent doing things like rpmsave).  Some
> people would complain whichever option they chose.

Or have packagers divide configuration files into system and local
with local overriding system. Then restrict software updates such that
they modify only system configs leaving locals alone.  That way new
things can be added with old things are left as they are. Some
software already behaves like this.  There is no evident technical
reason why most of the rest could not as well.

If an update is such that old things cannot be left alone then that is
sufficient to require an rpmnew and a warning to the installer that
manual intervention is required to complete the update. In fact,
anything of that nature would benefit from requiring a special switch
to install so that 'yum update' would not break a running system.


-- 
***  e-Mail is NOT a SECURE channel  ***
Do NOT transmit sensitive data via e-Mail
 Do NOT open attachments nor follow links sent by e-Mail

James B. Byrnemailto:byrn...@harte-lyne.ca
Harte & Lyne Limited  http://www.harte-lyne.ca
9 Brockley Drive  vox: +1 905 561 1241
Hamilton, Ontario fax: +1 905 561 0757
Canada  L8E 3C3

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update (first in a long time) - /var/log/dovecot no longer used

[John Hodrien]

On Fri, 6 May 2016, Gary Stainburn wrote:


What I didn't expect, and what really threw me was that this has been
implemented via a simply 'yum update' of an existing system, not at a major
release level.


journald has been there since you installed C7.

You appear to have seen a change in logging behaviour as a result of an
update.  Whether that's due to an update of dovecot, systemd, or something
else, I have no idea.

Something like RHEL is stuck in a trap here.  Either they never change a
default post-install (lots of rpmnew or deliberately not introducing new
behaviours), or they bring in defaults as you update (to some extent doing
things like rpmsave).  Some people would complain whichever option they chose.

jh
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update (first in a long time) - /var/log/dovecot no longer used

[Gary Stainburn]

On Thursday 05 May 2016 17:16:17 Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> There were several heated discussions on this list, and elsewhere. This is
> not intended to start the new one, but to help someone who missed them to
> define their statute.
>
> People split into two groups:
>
> Opponents of systemd (, firewqalld, etc.) who argue that from formerly
> Unix-like system Linux becomes Unix-unlike (or more MS Windows-like), and
> this is bad.
>
> Proponents of systemd etc. who argue that the life goes on, systems evolve
> and you better keep up with changes.
>
> Therefore, for new person who is about to, let's say, upgrade Linux system
> to the version with systemd, there is a decision that will define that
> person's future maintenance of this new system. And the decision has to be
> made before upgrade. Luckily for those who do decide to go with systemd,
> bugs (that always are present in new software) are being solved. Luckily
> for those who do not accept fundamental changes systemd brings (like
> binary logs or config files infested with XML garbage - sorry if I'm
> missing or misinterpreting something) there are Unix system one can
> migrate machine to.
>
> Either way one has to read and estimate what making that step (upgrading
> to systemd, firewalld based Linux or switching to some flavor of Unix)
> will entail in a long run for that server and the server admin. Either
> way, as in one of Unix handbooks they stress: read carefully the upgrade
> notes!
>
> I hope, this helps someone.
>
> Valeri
>

I understand the arguments for the move to systemd - and I also understand the 
points of those arguments.  Like most arguments, there are some valid and 
positive points and some not so.

There are times - such as the encompassing of the name resolver code - where 
it just seems a case of replacing old, mature code with new untested code for 
no reason.

Either way, I now have to manage both traditional and systemd based systems. 
Okay, it just means learning new toolsets, but it's something else I have to 
learn, and something else I have to cope with for my bespoke systems and 
services.

What I didn't expect, and what really threw me was that this has been 
implemented via a simply 'yum update' of an existing system, not at a major 
release level.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] yum update (first in a long time) - /var/log/dovecot no longer used

[John Hodrien]

On Thu, 5 May 2016, Gary Stainburn wrote:


Another change to my Centos 7.2 system since my 'yum update' yesterday is
that /var/log/dovecot is no longer written to.

If I do 'systemctl status dovecot' I can see log entries. How can I now do
the equiv or 'tail -f '

Also, why has this changed, and where is it documented?


I'd take a stab at:

journalctl -fu dovecot

The full RHEL7 System Administrators Guide is well worth a read, but here's
the bit you're probably after.

https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Linux/7/html/System_Administrators_Guide/s1-Using_the_Journal.html

Or maybe:

https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-use-journalctl-to-view-and-manipulate-systemd-logs

jh
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos