Re: [gentoo-user] Re: how to get rid of kernel modules?
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 04:50:29AM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote On 11/11/2011 08:14 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote: On Nov 11, 2011 11:02 AM, Nikos Chantziaras rea...@arcor.de mailto:rea...@arcor.de wrote: Isn't there a selection in make menuconfig asynchronous scsi scan (or something like that)? There is. But scsi_wait_scan.ko will still be built. Thanks. I'm always learning something new on this list. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
Re: [gentoo-user] bash date puzzle
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:06:04 -0500, Philip Webb wrote: To convert a UNIX date to a human-readable version the command is : 556: ~ date -d @1321251520 Mon Nov 14 01:18:40 EST 2011 I would like to create a Bash alias or function to do this, but can't get the Bash syntax right: it keeps telling me date: the argument `1321251520' lacks a leading `+'; when using an option to specify date(s), any non-option argument must be a format string beginning with `+' Try `date --help' for more information. It is difficult to say what is wrong with your alias as you haven't shown it, but my guess is that is is introducing a space between the @ and the timestamp, which gives exactly the error you get. -- Neil Bothwick When companies ship Styrofoam, what do they pack it in? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] The LIGHTEST web server (just for serving files)?
On Sat, November 12, 2011 2:11 pm, YoYo Siska wrote: On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 07:40:08PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote: During my drive home, something hit my brain: why not have the 'master' server share the distfiles dir via NFS? So, the question now becomes: what's the drawback/benefit of NFS-sharing vs HTTP-sharing? The scenario is back-end LAN at the office, thus, a trusted network by definition. NFS doesn't like when it looses connection to the server. The only problems I had ever with NFS were because I forgot to unmout it before a server restart or when I took a computer (laptop) off to another network... NFS-shares can work, but these need to be umounted before network goes. If server goes, problems can occur there as well. But that is true with any server/client filesharing. (CIFS/Samba, for instance) Otherwise it works well, esp. when mounted ro on the clients, however for distfiles it might make sense to allow the clients download and save tarballs that are not there yet ;), though I never used it with many computer emerging/downloading same same stuff, so can't say if locking etc works correctly... Locking works correctly, have had 5 machines share the same NFS-shared distfiles and all downloading the source-files. And with NFS the clients won't duplicate the files in their own distfiles directories ;) Big plus, for me :) -- Joost
Re: [gentoo-user] The LIGHTEST web server (just for serving files)?
http://code.google.com/p/bashttpd/ run with systemd or xinetd 于 2011年11月14日 18:05, J. Roeleveld 写道: On Sat, November 12, 2011 2:11 pm, YoYo Siska wrote: On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 07:40:08PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote: During my drive home, something hit my brain: why not have the 'master' server share the distfiles dir via NFS? So, the question now becomes: what's the drawback/benefit of NFS-sharing vs HTTP-sharing? The scenario is back-end LAN at the office, thus, a trusted network by definition. NFS doesn't like when it looses connection to the server. The only problems I had ever with NFS were because I forgot to unmout it before a server restart or when I took a computer (laptop) off to another network... NFS-shares can work, but these need to be umounted before network goes. If server goes, problems can occur there as well. But that is true with any server/client filesharing. (CIFS/Samba, for instance) Otherwise it works well, esp. when mounted ro on the clients, however for distfiles it might make sense to allow the clients download and save tarballs that are not there yet ;), though I never used it with many computer emerging/downloading same same stuff, so can't say if locking etc works correctly... Locking works correctly, have had 5 machines share the same NFS-shared distfiles and all downloading the source-files. And with NFS the clients won't duplicate the files in their own distfiles directories ;) Big plus, for me :) -- Joost signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] java java everywhere
On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 08:07:43PM +0100, Florian Philipp wrote: To find out why portage wants the JDK, run `emerge -pv --depclean virtual/jdk`. Repeat until you find @world or something looking familiar. I bet you have LibreOffice installed with USE=java. There is an old thread from earlier this year which describes what functionality you loose when you deactivate that flag. All things considered, though, I think it will be faster to install a JDK than to re-emerge LibreOffice with USE=-java. Heh, you guess wrong :p I actually just have virtual/jdk in world (I can't remember why I didn't use virtual/jre instead) because of some binaries-only, non-portage stuff I run. What caught me off-guard was the fact that the upgrade did not offer the -bin option. (Which, as I mentioned in a different branch of this thread, you helped me figure out why.) Thank you again for all the help, W -- Willie W. Wong ww...@math.princeton.edu Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitae involvente fluxiones invenire et vice versa ~~~ I. Newton
Re: [gentoo-user] bash date puzzle
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 06:13:34 AM Philip Webb wrote: 14 Neil Bothwick wrote: On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:06:04 -0500, Philip Webb wrote: To convert a UNIX date to a human-readable version the command is : 556: ~ date -d @1321251520 Mon Nov 14 01:18:40 EST 2011 I would like to create a Bash alias or function to do this, but can't get the Bash syntax right: it keeps telling me date: the argument `1321251520' lacks a leading `+'; It is difficult to say what is wrong with your alias as you haven't shown it alias th='date -d @$1' was the first try, then adding '+' /or '\' to escape '+' or '@'. I also tried a function along similar lines. but my guess is that is is introducing a space between @ and the timestamp, which gives exactly the error you get. No, no spaces. Aliases don't take argument, you need a function for that. Turning on shell debugging shows what is happening $ set -x + set -x $ alias th='date -d @$1' + alias 'th=date -d @$1' $ th 1321251520 + date -d @ 1321251520 date: the argument `1321251520' lacks a leading `+'; when using an option to specify date(s), any non-option argument must be a format string beginning with `+' Try `date --help' for more information. Now set a value to $1 and see what happenes... $ set -- 'Ha Ha' + set -- 'Ha Ha' $ th 1321251520 + date -d @Ha Ha 1321251520 date: extra operand `1321251520' Try `date --help' for more information. $ set +x All the 'alias' process does is simple text substitution. -- Reverend Paul Colquhoun, ULC.http://andor.dropbear.id.au/~paulcol Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. Then, when you do, you'll be a mile away, and you'll have their shoes.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: how to get rid of kernel modules?
waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 04:50:29AM +0200, Nikos Chantziaras wrote On 11/11/2011 08:14 AM, Pandu Poluan wrote: On Nov 11, 2011 11:02 AM, Nikos Chantziarasrea...@arcor.de mailto:rea...@arcor.de wrote: Isn't there a selection in make menuconfig asynchronous scsi scan (or something like that)? There is. But scsi_wait_scan.ko will still be built. Thanks. I'm always learning something new on this list. Just to put more fertilizer on this weed. I tried to get rid of this a long time ago. It can't be done. It will be there even if you edit the config directly. It reminds me of the nutgrass in my garden. It just keeps popping up. Dale :-) :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] bash date puzzle
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 06:13:34AM -0500, Philip Webb wrote: alias th='date -d @$1' was the first try, then adding '+' /or '\' to escape '+' or '@'. I also tried a function along similar lines. That is not how you use alias. What you want is to use a function. Replace the alias line by function th { date -d @$1; } in your bashrc you'l probably be ok. W -- Willie W. Wong ww...@math.princeton.edu Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitae involvente fluxiones invenire et vice versa ~~~ I. Newton
Re: [gentoo-user] bash date puzzle
14 Neil Bothwick wrote: On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 02:06:04 -0500, Philip Webb wrote: To convert a UNIX date to a human-readable version the command is : 556: ~ date -d @1321251520 Mon Nov 14 01:18:40 EST 2011 I would like to create a Bash alias or function to do this, but can't get the Bash syntax right: it keeps telling me date: the argument `1321251520' lacks a leading `+'; It is difficult to say what is wrong with your alias as you haven't shown it alias th='date -d @$1' was the first try, then adding '+' /or '\' to escape '+' or '@'. I also tried a function along similar lines. but my guess is that is is introducing a space between @ and the timestamp, which gives exactly the error you get. No, no spaces. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
Re: [gentoo-user] bash date puzzle
On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 06:13:34 -0500, Philip Webb wrote: It is difficult to say what is wrong with your alias as you haven't shown it alias th='date -d @$1' was the first try, then adding '+' /or '\' to escape '+' or '@'. I also tried a function along similar lines. but my guess is that is is introducing a space between @ and the timestamp, which gives exactly the error you get. No, no spaces. You invoke it as 'alias argument', so there is a space between the alias and the argument and this space is included when the alias is expanded. Otherwise aliases like ll='ls -l' would not work as 'll /mnt' would be expanded to 'ls -l/mnt'. -- Neil Bothwick My brain's in gear, neutral's a gear ain't it? signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Display name and Wacom tablet
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 04:07:42PM -0500, Daniel D Jones wrote: I have an Nvidia GeForce GTX 560 Ti running nvidia-drivers 275.09.07. It supports dual monitors via Twinview. I have a Wacom Inspire3 6 x 8 Tablet. The tablet is working but it covers the entire display across both monitors and I'd like to restrict it to one monitor. This is supposed to be done via xsetwacom set Wacom Intuos3 6x8 pad MapToOutput VGA1 VGA1 is supposed to be the name of the display you want to restrict it to, and that name is supposed to be available via xrandr. xrandr gives me the following output: ddjones@kushiel ~ $ xrandr xrandr: Failed to get size of gamma for output default Screen 0: minimum 2048 x 768, current 3360 x 1050, maximum 3360 x 1050 default connected 3360x1050+0+0 0mm x 0mm 3360x1050 50.0* 2048x768 51.0 ddjones@kushiel ~ $ xrandr --verbose xrandr: Failed to get size of gamma for output default Screen 0: minimum 2048 x 768, current 3360 x 1050, maximum 3360 x 1050 default connected 3360x1050+0+0 (0x166) normal (normal) 0mm x 0mm Identifier: 0x165 Timestamp: 13703 Subpixel: unknown Clones: CRTC: 0 CRTCs: 0 Transform: 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 filter: 3360x1050 (0x166) 176.4MHz *current h: width 3360 start0 end0 total 3360 skew0 clock 52.5KHz v: height 1050 start0 end0 total 1050 clock 50.0Hz 2048x768 (0x167) 80.2MHz h: width 2048 start0 end0 total 2048 skew0 clock 39.2KHz v: height 768 start0 end0 total 768 clock 51.0Hz I've tried guessing at the display name, trying VGA, DVI and LVDS with various numbers appended but xsetwacom simply complains that the display does not exist. I've also tried setting the Coordinate Transformation Matrix as described here: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/linuxwacom/index.php?title=Dual_and_Multi- Monitor_Set_Up#Dual_Monitors I can set the matrix via the xinput command and xinput list-props for the device confirms that the matrix is set to the new value but it does not alter the behaviour of the tablet - it still spans both displays. I set and confirmed the matrix for the pad, the eraser and the cursor. Any advice or suggestions on how to either either identify the display names (or fix whatever issue causes xrandr not to display the info) or to otherwise restrict the tablet to one monitor would be greatly appreciated. Nvidia driver doesn't use the xrandr protocol when dealing with multiple monitors... they have their own extension and they say that it is better and that xrandr is bad, and they report through xrandr only one output (monitor) that covers all nvidia outputs. Thhat's the 'default' output in your xrandr output, it's widht is the sum of widhts of both monitors etc.. They report the physicall layout of monitors through the xinerama extension, but I guess that wacom uses xrandr (xinerama only numbers the display, it doesn't have names, reports only a subset of randr information and is generally older...) I guess your only chance is to find parameters in the wacom display that allow you to restrict the tablet to a certain area by setting the coordinates... (and that would ofcourse work only for a specific resolution...) yoyo
[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Another hardware thread
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Sat, 12 Nov 2011 23:00:15 +0200, masterprometheus wrote: For AMD I'd recommend to go for a 960T : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819103995 It's a 95W and as a Zosma it's actually a 6-core. Most of those (not all unfortunately) can be unlocked to a 6-core. Has Turbo functionality. That sounds like a poor gamble. A 3.0GHz CPu that I may be able to unlock to 6 cores for £20 less than a genuine 6 cores 3.2GHz 1090T. I either get slightly less for slightly less, or a lot less for slightly less :( Well when I checked the 960T was $125 at Newegg and 1090T was $170. That's a $45 difference. With $30 of this you can get a good cooler like this one : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16835233082 Then overclock and beat the 1090T easily in most tasks (even with 4 cores). But if you're not in a budget get the best you can. An Intel core i7 2600K is a great choice if you can afford it. Already fast, easily overclockable and hyperthreading will help with media encoding etc.
Re: [gentoo-user] bash date puzzle
14 Willie Wong wrote: On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 06:13:34AM -0500, Philip Webb wrote: alias th='date -d @$1' That is not how you use alias. What you want is to use a function. Replace the alias line by function th { date -d @$1; } in your bashrc you'l probably be ok. That's what I thought I tried, but evidently not: function th { date -d @$1 ; } does indeed work (with a space before ';'). Thanks for the various replies. -- ,, SUPPORT ___//___, Philip Webb ELECTRIC /] [] [] [] [] []| Cities Centre, University of Toronto TRANSIT`-O--O---' purslowatchassdotutorontodotca
Re: [gentoo-user] The LIGHTEST web server (just for serving files)?
Isn't there a kernelland HTTP server? ISTR seeing the option. I don't know anything about it, though. On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:10 AM, microcai micro...@fedoraproject.org wrote: http://code.google.com/p/bashttpd/ run with systemd or xinetd 于 2011年11月14日 18:05, J. Roeleveld 写道: On Sat, November 12, 2011 2:11 pm, YoYo Siska wrote: On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 07:40:08PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote: During my drive home, something hit my brain: why not have the 'master' server share the distfiles dir via NFS? So, the question now becomes: what's the drawback/benefit of NFS-sharing vs HTTP-sharing? The scenario is back-end LAN at the office, thus, a trusted network by definition. NFS doesn't like when it looses connection to the server. The only problems I had ever with NFS were because I forgot to unmout it before a server restart or when I took a computer (laptop) off to another network... NFS-shares can work, but these need to be umounted before network goes. If server goes, problems can occur there as well. But that is true with any server/client filesharing. (CIFS/Samba, for instance) Otherwise it works well, esp. when mounted ro on the clients, however for distfiles it might make sense to allow the clients download and save tarballs that are not there yet ;), though I never used it with many computer emerging/downloading same same stuff, so can't say if locking etc works correctly... Locking works correctly, have had 5 machines share the same NFS-shared distfiles and all downloading the source-files. And with NFS the clients won't duplicate the files in their own distfiles directories ;) Big plus, for me :) -- Joost -- :wq
[gentoo-user] Re: The SIMPLEST web server to config (this time - just for serving video files) ?
On 2011-11-13, Mark Knecht markkne...@gmail.com wrote: My main issue isn't really the lightest in terms of memory or CPU usage, but rather something that's VERY easy to setup the config so that I don't have to spend much time reading manuals. Busybox httpd: Just start it in the directory from which you want to serve files. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! If I felt any more at SOPHISTICATED I would DIE gmail.comof EMBARRASSMENT!
Re: [gentoo-user] bash date puzzle
On 14 November 2011, at 07:06, Philip Webb wrote: To convert a UNIX date to a human-readable version the command is : 556: ~ date -d @1321251520 Mon Nov 14 01:18:40 EST 2011 I would like to create a Bash alias or function to do this, but can't get the Bash syntax right: it keeps telling me date: the argument `1321251520' lacks a leading `+'; ~ $ function foo { date -d @$1 } ~ $ foo 1321251520 Mon Nov 14 06:18:40 GMT 2011 ~ $ Copied and pasted literally from my terminal, which is why you see the PS2 continuation prompt on lines 2 3. Stroller.
[gentoo-user] Re: net-libs/gnutls-2.10.5 fails to compile
On 11/12/2011 08:30 PM, Justin Findlay wrote: I can't get the package net-libs/gnutls-2.10.5 to emerge because of a c++ linker error. What can I do to fix this? CXXFLAGS=-march=pentium3 -mtune=pentium3 -m32 -Os -fmessage-length=0 -pipe -fno-implicit-templates ^ I'm wondering about that no-implicit-templates. What happens if you delete it?
Re: [gentoo-user] The LIGHTEST web server (just for serving files)?
There is a very small web server called thttpd which is very lightweight and lets start serving files very quickly. It runs on my home router machine with an old Pentium CPU and several megabytes of RAM and seems to consume about 500 kb of it. Regards, Vladimir On Mon, 14 Nov 2011 09:36:22 -0500 Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: Isn't there a kernelland HTTP server? ISTR seeing the option. I don't know anything about it, though. On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 5:10 AM, microcai micro...@fedoraproject.org wrote: http://code.google.com/p/bashttpd/ run with systemd or xinetd 于 2011年11月14日 18:05, J. Roeleveld 写道: On Sat, November 12, 2011 2:11 pm, YoYo Siska wrote: On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 07:40:08PM +0700, Pandu Poluan wrote: During my drive home, something hit my brain: why not have the 'master' server share the distfiles dir via NFS? So, the question now becomes: what's the drawback/benefit of NFS-sharing vs HTTP-sharing? The scenario is back-end LAN at the office, thus, a trusted network by definition. NFS doesn't like when it looses connection to the server. The only problems I had ever with NFS were because I forgot to unmout it before a server restart or when I took a computer (laptop) off to another network... NFS-shares can work, but these need to be umounted before network goes. If server goes, problems can occur there as well. But that is true with any server/client filesharing. (CIFS/Samba, for instance) Otherwise it works well, esp. when mounted ro on the clients, however for distfiles it might make sense to allow the clients download and save tarballs that are not there yet ;), though I never used it with many computer emerging/downloading same same stuff, so can't say if locking etc works correctly... Locking works correctly, have had 5 machines share the same NFS-shared distfiles and all downloading the source-files. And with NFS the clients won't duplicate the files in their own distfiles directories ;) Big plus, for me :) -- Joost -- :wq - v...@ukr.net
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: net-libs/gnutls-2.10.5 fails to compile
On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 2:33 PM, walt w41...@gmail.com wrote: CXXFLAGS=-march=pentium3 -mtune=pentium3 -m32 -Os -fmessage-length=0 -pipe -fno-implicit-templates ^ I'm wondering about that no-implicit-templates. What happens if you delete it? I was somewhat surprised by this too. I've been grepping through inherited ebuilds and eclasses to try to find where -fno-implicit-templates gets inserted into CXXFLAGS, but found nothing. Within the ebuild itself, the only files that contained this flag were the Makefiles (not Makefile.??), temp/build.log (naturally, but as a particle physicist I feel compelled to list the self interaction for completeness), and temp/environment. It seemed unlikely that gentoo would have put that into the default environment, and I found no references in /etc/env.d/, /etc/*bash*, /etc/skel/, or even /etc/. At this point I remembered that I was emerging through a chroot from another distro, and indeed -fno-implicit-templates came from a custom CXXFLAGS there. Thanks for giving me the idea to track this down, because removing the flag also removes the link error. Justin
[gentoo-user] Firefox desktop icon missing on e17
This may apply to other desktops but the problem I report here happens on the e17 rev. 64957 Following the update to firefox-7.0.1 no icon for firefox shows up on the iBar. Looking at /home/michael/.local/share/applications/ I see a file mozilla- firefox-3.6.desktop file - instead of firefox-7.0.1 Shouldn't this file have been updated? How can I fix it? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
[gentoo-user] Keyboard stopped working
I just finished updating my wife's laptop which hadn't been updated in 6-12 months. Her laptop's hardware is identical to mine which is always kept up-to-date and works great. After rebooting, the keyboard on her laptop doesn't work although the mouse does work. The keyboard works in grub and after booting to a LiveCD so it's not a hardware problem. Does anyone know what might have caused this? - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] Keyboard stopped working
Grant writes: I just finished updating my wife's laptop which hadn't been updated in 6-12 months. Her laptop's hardware is identical to mine which is always kept up-to-date and works great. After rebooting, the keyboard on her laptop doesn't work although the mouse does work. The keyboard works in grub and after booting to a LiveCD so it's not a hardware problem. Does anyone know what might have caused this? If it working in the text console, but not in X, this might come from an xorg upgrade without re-merging xf86-input-keyboard. emerge @x11-module-rebuild to fix this. Wonko
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Are push backups flawed?
And if I pull, none of my backed-up systems are secure because anyone who breaks into the backup server has root read privileges on every backed-up system and will thereby gain full root privileges quickly. IMO that depends on whether you also backup the authentication-related files or not. Exclude them from backup, ensure different root passwords for all boxes, and now you can limit the infiltration. If you're pulling to the backup server, that backup server has to be able to log in to and read all files on the other servers. Including e.g. your swap partition and device files. What if I have each system save a copy of everything to be backed up from its own filesystem in a separate directory and change the ownership of everything in that directory so it can be read by an unprivileged backup user? Then I could have the backup server pull that copy from each system without giving it root access to each system. Can I somehow have the correct ownerships for the backup saved in a separate file for use during a restore? - Grant You could just as well use an NFS share with no_root_squash. It is really more a question of finding the right combination of tools to ensure proper separation of concern for server and client. In fact, I think we are intermixing three distinct problems: 1. (Possible) limitations of rdiff-backup with regard to untrusted backup servers or clients. The limitation is real unfortunately. All backups created by rdiff-backup more than a second ago can be deleted something like this: rdiff-backup --remove-older-than 1s backup@12.34.56.78::/path/to/backup 2. The purely technical question which file transfer protocols protect against write access from backup server to backup client and backup client to older backups on the server. rdiff-backup doesn't provide those sort of protections. Do any file transfer protocols? 3. The more or less organisational question what level of protection backups need and how fast security breaks have to be detected. I think backups should be very well protected and security breaks should not have to be immediately detected. - Grant I think push vs. pull is just a secondary concern with regard to the second question and has practically no relevance to the third one. Regards, Florian Philipp
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Are push backups flawed?
And if I pull, none of my backed-up systems are secure because anyone who breaks into the backup server has root read privileges on every backed-up system and will thereby gain full root privileges quickly. IMO that depends on whether you also backup the authentication-related files or not. Exclude them from backup, ensure different root passwords for all boxes, and now you can limit the infiltration. If you're pulling to the backup server, that backup server has to be able to log in to and read all files on the other servers. Including e.g. your swap partition and device files. What if I have each system save a copy of everything to be backed up from its own filesystem in a separate directory and change the ownership of everything in that directory so it can be read by an unprivileged backup user? You've just reinvented the push backup =) If separate-directory is on the same server, an attacker can log in and overwrite all of your files with zeros. Those zeros will be pulled to the backup server, destroying your backups. That's not the case at all. The zeros would be pulled to the backup server via rdiff-backup and saved as a new version in the repository. The backups would be safe. - Grant If separate-directory is on the backup server...
Re: [gentoo-user] Keyboard stopped working
I just finished updating my wife's laptop which hadn't been updated in 6-12 months. Her laptop's hardware is identical to mine which is always kept up-to-date and works great. After rebooting, the keyboard on her laptop doesn't work although the mouse does work. The keyboard works in grub and after booting to a LiveCD so it's not a hardware problem. Does anyone know what might have caused this? If it working in the text console, but not in X, this might come from an xorg upgrade without re-merging xf86-input-keyboard. emerge @x11-module-rebuild to fix this. Right on the money, that got it, thank you. - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] Keyboard stopped working
You might need to remerge xorg11 driver. Try below command then reboot X to see if it fix your problem emerge `qlist -I -C x11-drivers/` Hung On 11/14/11 19:25, Grant wrote: I just finished updating my wife's laptop which hadn't been updated in 6-12 months. Her laptop's hardware is identical to mine which is always kept up-to-date and works great. After rebooting, the keyboard on her laptop doesn't work although the mouse does work. The keyboard works in grub and after booting to a LiveCD so it's not a hardware problem. Does anyone know what might have caused this? - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Are push backups flawed?
It's out of scope for file transfer protocols; it's a daemon/system-local problem. Attach pre-event or post-event scripts serverside for any special munging or protections you'd like to apply. (Such as triggering an LVM snapshot, for example...) (sorry for the top post; in-line can be done in this client, but it's more cumbersome than I have time for atm...) ZZ On Nov 14, 2011 7:45 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote: And if I pull, none of my backed-up systems are secure because anyone who breaks into the backup server has root read privileges on every backed-up system and will thereby gain full root privileges quickly. IMO that depends on whether you also backup the authentication-related files or not. Exclude them from backup, ensure different root passwords for all boxes, and now you can limit the infiltration. If you're pulling to the backup server, that backup server has to be able to log in to and read all files on the other servers. Including e.g. your swap partition and device files. What if I have each system save a copy of everything to be backed up from its own filesystem in a separate directory and change the ownership of everything in that directory so it can be read by an unprivileged backup user? Then I could have the backup server pull that copy from each system without giving it root access to each system. Can I somehow have the correct ownerships for the backup saved in a separate file for use during a restore? - Grant You could just as well use an NFS share with no_root_squash. It is really more a question of finding the right combination of tools to ensure proper separation of concern for server and client. In fact, I think we are intermixing three distinct problems: 1. (Possible) limitations of rdiff-backup with regard to untrusted backup servers or clients. The limitation is real unfortunately. All backups created by rdiff-backup more than a second ago can be deleted something like this: rdiff-backup --remove-older-than 1s backup@12.34.56.78::/path/to/backup 2. The purely technical question which file transfer protocols protect against write access from backup server to backup client and backup client to older backups on the server. rdiff-backup doesn't provide those sort of protections. Do any file transfer protocols? 3. The more or less organisational question what level of protection backups need and how fast security breaks have to be detected. I think backups should be very well protected and security breaks should not have to be immediately detected. - Grant I think push vs. pull is just a secondary concern with regard to the second question and has practically no relevance to the third one. Regards, Florian Philipp
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Are push backups flawed?
It's out of scope for file transfer protocols; it's a daemon/system-local problem. Attach pre-event or post-event scripts serverside for any special munging or protections you'd like to apply. (Such as triggering an LVM snapshot, for example...) I must be going about this the wrong way. Am I the only one using automated backups? If not, how is it done properly? - Grant And if I pull, none of my backed-up systems are secure because anyone who breaks into the backup server has root read privileges on every backed-up system and will thereby gain full root privileges quickly. IMO that depends on whether you also backup the authentication-related files or not. Exclude them from backup, ensure different root passwords for all boxes, and now you can limit the infiltration. If you're pulling to the backup server, that backup server has to be able to log in to and read all files on the other servers. Including e.g. your swap partition and device files. What if I have each system save a copy of everything to be backed up from its own filesystem in a separate directory and change the ownership of everything in that directory so it can be read by an unprivileged backup user? Then I could have the backup server pull that copy from each system without giving it root access to each system. Can I somehow have the correct ownerships for the backup saved in a separate file for use during a restore? - Grant You could just as well use an NFS share with no_root_squash. It is really more a question of finding the right combination of tools to ensure proper separation of concern for server and client. In fact, I think we are intermixing three distinct problems: 1. (Possible) limitations of rdiff-backup with regard to untrusted backup servers or clients. The limitation is real unfortunately. All backups created by rdiff-backup more than a second ago can be deleted something like this: rdiff-backup --remove-older-than 1s backup@12.34.56.78::/path/to/backup 2. The purely technical question which file transfer protocols protect against write access from backup server to backup client and backup client to older backups on the server. rdiff-backup doesn't provide those sort of protections. Do any file transfer protocols? 3. The more or less organisational question what level of protection backups need and how fast security breaks have to be detected. I think backups should be very well protected and security breaks should not have to be immediately detected. - Grant I think push vs. pull is just a secondary concern with regard to the second question and has practically no relevance to the third one. Regards, Florian Philipp
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Are push backups flawed?
Then I could have the backup server pull that copy from each system without giving it root access to each system. Can I somehow have the correct ownerships for the backup saved in a separate file for use during a restore? If you're intent on making a two-stage pull work; you can do it by creating a 'backups' user on your servers, and then using filesystem ACLs to grant backups+r to every file/directory you want to back up. That way, an attacker on the backup server can't decide to peruse the rest of your stuff. I like that. So use ACLs to grant access to the backups instead of using ownership/permissions so that the ownership/permissions stay intact. I've never used ACLs. Do they override ownership/permissions? In other words, if the ACL specifies backups+r to a file owned by root that is chmod 700, backups can read it anyway? The easiest method, though, is to just add a third stage. Either move the backups on the backup server to another directory after the backup job completes, or sync/burn/whatever them off-site. In this case the backup server can't access anything you don't give it, and the individual servers can't trash their backed-up data. I don't see how that could work in an automated fashion. Could you give me an example? - Grant
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Are push backups flawed?
You identified a flaw in the system as you were using it. You're right, those are flaws. However, you can fix those flaws by applying some magic as a sysadmin. That's why several posts in the thread have mentioned versioning your backups in some fashion. I've mentioned lvm a couple times. I think someone else mentioned pulling the backup target's data to another locale, either via a pull from another server, or via something like a traditional incremental tape backup. You're getting the data off the original machines to a remote location, which is good. You identified a way the backed-up data could be tampered with, which is good. You just need to put in another (better) barrier to protect the data from being tampered with, or limit how much data is lost in such an event. ZZ On Nov 14, 2011 8:21 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote: It's out of scope for file transfer protocols; it's a daemon/system-local problem. Attach pre-event or post-event scripts serverside for any special munging or protections you'd like to apply. (Such as triggering an LVM snapshot, for example...) I must be going about this the wrong way. Am I the only one using automated backups? If not, how is it done properly? - Grant And if I pull, none of my backed-up systems are secure because anyone who breaks into the backup server has root read privileges on every backed-up system and will thereby gain full root privileges quickly. IMO that depends on whether you also backup the authentication-related files or not. Exclude them from backup, ensure different root passwords for all boxes, and now you can limit the infiltration. If you're pulling to the backup server, that backup server has to be able to log in to and read all files on the other servers. Including e.g. your swap partition and device files. What if I have each system save a copy of everything to be backed up from its own filesystem in a separate directory and change the ownership of everything in that directory so it can be read by an unprivileged backup user? Then I could have the backup server pull that copy from each system without giving it root access to each system. Can I somehow have the correct ownerships for the backup saved in a separate file for use during a restore? - Grant You could just as well use an NFS share with no_root_squash. It is really more a question of finding the right combination of tools to ensure proper separation of concern for server and client. In fact, I think we are intermixing three distinct problems: 1. (Possible) limitations of rdiff-backup with regard to untrusted backup servers or clients. The limitation is real unfortunately. All backups created by rdiff-backup more than a second ago can be deleted something like this: rdiff-backup --remove-older-than 1s backup@12.34.56.78::/path/to/backup 2. The purely technical question which file transfer protocols protect against write access from backup server to backup client and backup client to older backups on the server. rdiff-backup doesn't provide those sort of protections. Do any file transfer protocols? 3. The more or less organisational question what level of protection backups need and how fast security breaks have to be detected. I think backups should be very well protected and security breaks should not have to be immediately detected. - Grant I think push vs. pull is just a secondary concern with regard to the second question and has practically no relevance to the third one. Regards, Florian Philipp
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Are push backups flawed?
You identified a flaw in the system as you were using it. You're right, those are flaws. However, you can fix those flaws by applying some magic as a sysadmin. That's why several posts in the thread have mentioned versioning your backups in some fashion. I've mentioned lvm a couple times. I thought versioning meant that you could roll back to a previous version. rdiff-backup provides that. I think someone else mentioned pulling the backup target's data to another locale, either via a pull from another server, or via something like a traditional incremental tape backup. So the systems push to the backup server and a second backup server pulls from the first backup server? Should the second backup server use rdiff-backup against the rdiff-backup repository on the first backup server? I think I've read that's not a good idea. What does everybody else do? I feel like the first person to ever attempt secure automated backups. - Grant You're getting the data off the original machines to a remote location, which is good. You identified a way the backed-up data could be tampered with, which is good. You just need to put in another (better) barrier to protect the data from being tampered with, or limit how much data is lost in such an event. ZZ On Nov 14, 2011 8:21 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote: It's out of scope for file transfer protocols; it's a daemon/system-local problem. Attach pre-event or post-event scripts serverside for any special munging or protections you'd like to apply. (Such as triggering an LVM snapshot, for example...) I must be going about this the wrong way. Am I the only one using automated backups? If not, how is it done properly? - Grant And if I pull, none of my backed-up systems are secure because anyone who breaks into the backup server has root read privileges on every backed-up system and will thereby gain full root privileges quickly. IMO that depends on whether you also backup the authentication-related files or not. Exclude them from backup, ensure different root passwords for all boxes, and now you can limit the infiltration. If you're pulling to the backup server, that backup server has to be able to log in to and read all files on the other servers. Including e.g. your swap partition and device files. What if I have each system save a copy of everything to be backed up from its own filesystem in a separate directory and change the ownership of everything in that directory so it can be read by an unprivileged backup user? Then I could have the backup server pull that copy from each system without giving it root access to each system. Can I somehow have the correct ownerships for the backup saved in a separate file for use during a restore? - Grant You could just as well use an NFS share with no_root_squash. It is really more a question of finding the right combination of tools to ensure proper separation of concern for server and client. In fact, I think we are intermixing three distinct problems: 1. (Possible) limitations of rdiff-backup with regard to untrusted backup servers or clients. The limitation is real unfortunately. All backups created by rdiff-backup more than a second ago can be deleted something like this: rdiff-backup --remove-older-than 1s backup@12.34.56.78::/path/to/backup 2. The purely technical question which file transfer protocols protect against write access from backup server to backup client and backup client to older backups on the server. rdiff-backup doesn't provide those sort of protections. Do any file transfer protocols? 3. The more or less organisational question what level of protection backups need and how fast security breaks have to be detected. I think backups should be very well protected and security breaks should not have to be immediately detected. - Grant I think push vs. pull is just a secondary concern with regard to the second question and has practically no relevance to the third one. Regards, Florian Philipp
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Are push backups flawed?
Sure, but you've noted that rdiff-backup is insecure if the source box is violated. What you need, then, is a layer of versioning not subject to that vulnerability. ZZ On Nov 14, 2011 9:34 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote: You identified a flaw in the system as you were using it. You're right, those are flaws. However, you can fix those flaws by applying some magic as a sysadmin. That's why several posts in the thread have mentioned versioning your backups in some fashion. I've mentioned lvm a couple times. I thought versioning meant that you could roll back to a previous version. rdiff-backup provides that. I think someone else mentioned pulling the backup target's data to another locale, either via a pull from another server, or via something like a traditional incremental tape backup. So the systems push to the backup server and a second backup server pulls from the first backup server? Should the second backup server use rdiff-backup against the rdiff-backup repository on the first backup server? I think I've read that's not a good idea. What does everybody else do? I feel like the first person to ever attempt secure automated backups. - Grant You're getting the data off the original machines to a remote location, which is good. You identified a way the backed-up data could be tampered with, which is good. You just need to put in another (better) barrier to protect the data from being tampered with, or limit how much data is lost in such an event. ZZ On Nov 14, 2011 8:21 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote: It's out of scope for file transfer protocols; it's a daemon/system-local problem. Attach pre-event or post-event scripts serverside for any special munging or protections you'd like to apply. (Such as triggering an LVM snapshot, for example...) I must be going about this the wrong way. Am I the only one using automated backups? If not, how is it done properly? - Grant And if I pull, none of my backed-up systems are secure because anyone who breaks into the backup server has root read privileges on every backed-up system and will thereby gain full root privileges quickly. IMO that depends on whether you also backup the authentication-related files or not. Exclude them from backup, ensure different root passwords for all boxes, and now you can limit the infiltration. If you're pulling to the backup server, that backup server has to be able to log in to and read all files on the other servers. Including e.g. your swap partition and device files. What if I have each system save a copy of everything to be backed up from its own filesystem in a separate directory and change the ownership of everything in that directory so it can be read by an unprivileged backup user? Then I could have the backup server pull that copy from each system without giving it root access to each system. Can I somehow have the correct ownerships for the backup saved in a separate file for use during a restore? - Grant You could just as well use an NFS share with no_root_squash. It is really more a question of finding the right combination of tools to ensure proper separation of concern for server and client. In fact, I think we are intermixing three distinct problems: 1. (Possible) limitations of rdiff-backup with regard to untrusted backup servers or clients. The limitation is real unfortunately. All backups created by rdiff-backup more than a second ago can be deleted something like this: rdiff-backup --remove-older-than 1s backup@12.34.56.78: :/path/to/backup 2. The purely technical question which file transfer protocols protect against write access from backup server to backup client and backup client to older backups on the server. rdiff-backup doesn't provide those sort of protections. Do any file transfer protocols? 3. The more or less organisational question what level of protection backups need and how fast security breaks have to be detected. I think backups should be very well protected and security breaks should not have to be immediately detected. - Grant I think push vs. pull is just a secondary concern with regard to the second question and has practically no relevance to the third one. Regards, Florian Philipp
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Are push backups flawed?
Sure, but you've noted that rdiff-backup is insecure if the source box is violated. What you need, then, is a layer of versioning not subject to that vulnerability. Does it exist? - Grant You identified a flaw in the system as you were using it. You're right, those are flaws. However, you can fix those flaws by applying some magic as a sysadmin. That's why several posts in the thread have mentioned versioning your backups in some fashion. I've mentioned lvm a couple times. I thought versioning meant that you could roll back to a previous version. rdiff-backup provides that. I think someone else mentioned pulling the backup target's data to another locale, either via a pull from another server, or via something like a traditional incremental tape backup. So the systems push to the backup server and a second backup server pulls from the first backup server? Should the second backup server use rdiff-backup against the rdiff-backup repository on the first backup server? I think I've read that's not a good idea. What does everybody else do? I feel like the first person to ever attempt secure automated backups. - Grant You're getting the data off the original machines to a remote location, which is good. You identified a way the backed-up data could be tampered with, which is good. You just need to put in another (better) barrier to protect the data from being tampered with, or limit how much data is lost in such an event. ZZ On Nov 14, 2011 8:21 PM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote: It's out of scope for file transfer protocols; it's a daemon/system-local problem. Attach pre-event or post-event scripts serverside for any special munging or protections you'd like to apply. (Such as triggering an LVM snapshot, for example...) I must be going about this the wrong way. Am I the only one using automated backups? If not, how is it done properly? - Grant And if I pull, none of my backed-up systems are secure because anyone who breaks into the backup server has root read privileges on every backed-up system and will thereby gain full root privileges quickly. IMO that depends on whether you also backup the authentication-related files or not. Exclude them from backup, ensure different root passwords for all boxes, and now you can limit the infiltration. If you're pulling to the backup server, that backup server has to be able to log in to and read all files on the other servers. Including e.g. your swap partition and device files. What if I have each system save a copy of everything to be backed up from its own filesystem in a separate directory and change the ownership of everything in that directory so it can be read by an unprivileged backup user? Then I could have the backup server pull that copy from each system without giving it root access to each system. Can I somehow have the correct ownerships for the backup saved in a separate file for use during a restore? - Grant You could just as well use an NFS share with no_root_squash. It is really more a question of finding the right combination of tools to ensure proper separation of concern for server and client. In fact, I think we are intermixing three distinct problems: 1. (Possible) limitations of rdiff-backup with regard to untrusted backup servers or clients. The limitation is real unfortunately. All backups created by rdiff-backup more than a second ago can be deleted something like this: rdiff-backup --remove-older-than 1s backup@12.34.56.78::/path/to/backup 2. The purely technical question which file transfer protocols protect against write access from backup server to backup client and backup client to older backups on the server. rdiff-backup doesn't provide those sort of protections. Do any file transfer protocols? 3. The more or less organisational question what level of protection backups need and how fast security breaks have to be detected. I think backups should be very well protected and security breaks should not have to be immediately detected. - Grant I think push vs. pull is just a secondary concern with regard to the second question and has practically no relevance to the third one. Regards, Florian Philipp
Re: [gentoo-user] XEmacs from Outer Space...is it Plan 9 or what ? ;)
On Sat, Nov 12, 2011 at 05:39:54PM +0100, meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote Fredric Johansson fredric.miscm...@gmail.com [11-11-12 17:32]: But: Now and when I may did install it accidently it is/was true, that Xemacs was needed and would be installed. Why was it pulled in now, if it would have been installed when I installed app-xemacs/emerge accidently? Here's what you may have done ***WITHOUT*** the - waltdnes@d531 ~ $ emerge -p emerge vim These are the packages that would be merged, in order: Calculating dependencies... done! [ebuild N ] app-admin/eselect-emacs-1.13 [ebuild N ] media-libs/audiofile-0.3.1 USE=-static-libs [ebuild R] app-editors/vim-7.3.266 [ebuild N ] app-editors/xemacs-21.4.22-r2 USE=X gif jpeg png tiff -Xaw3d -athena -berkdb -canna -dnd -eolconv -esd -freewnn -gdbm -gpm -ldap -motif -mule -nas -neXt -pop -postgres -xface -xim [ebuild N ] app-xemacs/xemacs-base-2.27 [ebuild N ] app-xemacs/emerge-1.11 Pulls in emacs. Talk about an accident waiting to happen... -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
[gentoo-user] Tempertaure of NVidia GPUs
Hi, is there any tool to read out the temperature of NVidia GPUs other than the NVidia Setting GUI and nvclock ? Thank you very much in advance for any help! Best regards, mcc
[gentoo-user] Re: Tempertaure of NVidia GPUs
meino.cra...@gmx.de: is there any tool to read out the temperature of NVidia GPUs other than the NVidia Setting GUI and nvclock ? Perhaps this one? hafi@i5 ~ $ nvidia-smi Tue Nov 15 05:29:24 2011 +--+ | NVIDIA-SMI 2.290.06 Driver Version: 290.06 | |---+--+--+ | Nb. Name | Bus IdDisp. | Volatile ECC SB / DB | | Fan Temp Power Usage /Cap | Memory Usage | GPU Util. Compute M. | |===+==+==| | 0. GeForce GTX 460 | :01:00.0 N/A| N/AN/A | | 40% 39 C N/A N/A / N/A | 6% 62MB / 1023MB | N/A Default| |---+--+--| | Compute processes: GPU Memory | | GPU PID Process name Usage | |=| | 0. ERROR: Not Supported | +-+ Hartmut -- Usenet-ABC-Wiki http://www.usenet-abc.de/wiki/ Von Usern fuer User :-)
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Are push backups flawed?
On Nov 15, 2011 9:49 AM, Grant emailgr...@gmail.com wrote: Sure, but you've noted that rdiff-backup is insecure if the source box is violated. What you need, then, is a layer of versioning not subject to that vulnerability. Does it exist? Quick and dirty: TARGDIR=/home/versions/$(date +%Y%m%d%H%M%S) find $BACKUPDIR -exec ln {} $TARGDIR/{} \; # make hard links; they survive unlinking of the originals Disclaimer: Not tested. Use it at your own risk. Rgds,
[gentoo-user] Anybody want to beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev?
After a recent thread, about udev developers wanting /usr on the same partition as / (or else requiring initramfs), it was pretty obvious that 90%+ of the users here strongly disliked the idea. I went around asking on various lists if it was possible to run Gentoo without udev. After some research, and various unrelated delays, I've come up with a working Gentoo without udev. It turns out that busybox's mdev implementation is sufficient for my needs. I do the usual email, web surfing, including Youtube. I'm listening to Live365.com as I type this email, so Flash works just fine. Contrary to the FUD I've heard, X works just fine, thank you, without an xorg.conf. Modern flatscreens with EDID info are set up automatically. I suppose that old CRT monitors without EDID info might require xorg.conf, but that's exotic hardware nowadays. The only change I notice is somewhat faster bootup. The purpose of this email is to ask adventurous people here to beta test my approach to a udev-less Gentoo. If we don't find any showstopper problems, we can think about requesting Gentoo developers to support an mdev-based profile. It would help the cause if a large number of testers can report that it works for them. The instructions for a udev-ectomy follow below. Thanks to Zac Medico and others on the Gentoo developers' list for their helpful hints and pointers on how to do this. I couldn't have figured this out by myself. The usual warnings apply... * this is a beta * use a spare test machine * if you don't follow the instructions correctly, the result might be an unbootable linux * even if you do follow instructions, the result might be an unbootable linux 1) Set up your kernel to support and automount a devtmpfs filesystem at /dev * If you prefer to edit .config directly, set CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y * If you prefer make menuconfig, the route is as shown below. Note that the Autount devtmpfs... option won't appear until you enable Maintain a devtmpf... option. make menuconfig Device Drivers --- Generic Driver Options --- [*] Maintain a devtmpfs filesystem to mount at /dev [*] Automount devtmpfs at /dev, after the kernel mounted the rootfs Once you've made the changes, rebuild the kernel. 2) Set up for emerging busybox, there are 2 items to change A) It appears that there may be an mdev bug in older versions of busybox. To avoid that bug, keyword busybox-1.19.2 in /etc/portage/package.keywords E.g. if you're using 32-bit Gentoo on Intel, the incantation is... =sys-apps/busybox-1.19.2 ~x86 Change the ~x86 to reflect your architecture, etc. B) busybox requires the mdev flag in this situation. The static flag is probably also a good idea. In file /etc/portage/package.use add the line sys-apps/busybox static mdev Now, emerge busybox 3) In the bootloader append line, include init=/sbin/linuxrc where the file /sbin/linuxrc consists of *AT LEAST*... #!/sbin/busybox ash mount -t proc proc /proc mount -t sysfs sysfs /sys exec /sbin/init This should be enough for most users. If you have an unusual setup, you may need additional stuff in there. If you're using lilo remember to re-run lilo to implement the changes. 4) Remove udev from the services list, and replace it with mdev. Type the following 2 commands at the command line rc-update del udev sysinit rc-update add mdev sysinit 5) reboot to your new kernel. You're now running without using udev. 6) ***THIS STEP IS OPTIONAL*** This is only to alay any suspicion that udev is still in use. udev is pulled in by virtual/dev-manager, which in turn is pulled in by the kernel. * cd /usr/portage/virtual/dev-manager * Make a backup copy of dev-manager-0.ebuild * Edit dev-manager-0.ebuild to include sys-apps/busybox as one option in RDEPEND, like so... RDEPEND=|| ( sys-fs/udev sys-fs/devfsd sys-apps/busybox sys-fs/static-dev sys-freebsd/freebsd-sbin ) I had really wanted to use sys-apps/busybox[mdev], but an EAPI-0 ebuild can't handle that syntax. * execute the following 3 commands at the commandline ebuild dev-manager-0.ebuild digest emerge -1 dev-manager emerge --unmerge sys-fs/udev * In file /atc/portage/package.mask, append the line sys-fs/udev Create the file if it doesn't already exist. You now have a totally udev-free machine -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
[gentoo-user] Re: Firefox desktop icon missing on e17
On Monday 14 Nov 2011 22:53:50 Mick wrote: This may apply to other desktops but the problem I report here happens on the e17 rev. 64957 Following the update to firefox-7.0.1 no icon for firefox shows up on the iBar. Looking at /home/michael/.local/share/applications/ I see a file mozilla- firefox-3.6.desktop file - instead of firefox-7.0.1 Shouldn't this file have been updated? How can I fix it? OK, the problem was that I had that mozilla- firefox-3.6.desktop in /home/michael/.local/share/applications/. I removed it and the WM picked up /usr/share/applications/firefox.desktop. All works as expected now. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Are push backups flawed?
On Tue, November 15, 2011 3:32 am, Grant wrote: You identified a flaw in the system as you were using it. You're right, those are flaws. However, you can fix those flaws by applying some magic as a sysadmin. That's why several posts in the thread have mentioned versioning your backups in some fashion. I've mentioned lvm a couple times. I thought versioning meant that you could roll back to a previous version. rdiff-backup provides that. It's part of it. I think someone else mentioned pulling the backup target's data to another locale, either via a pull from another server, or via something like a traditional incremental tape backup. So the systems push to the backup server and a second backup server pulls from the first backup server? Should the second backup server use rdiff-backup against the rdiff-backup repository on the first backup server? I think I've read that's not a good idea. Not sure, I don't use rdiff-backup. Am considering it for the desktops once the new server is in place. What does everybody else do? I feel like the first person to ever attempt secure automated backups. For more secure backups, you could use backup-utilities that support incremental backups. dar springs to mind. So do larger automated systems. As my servers are all virtual machines running on Xen, I configured pull style backups. For the desktops, I am planning the following: rdiff-backup (or similar) to push backups from the desktops to the server. Adding hardlinks as already suggested for simple versioning. The backup-script in the desktop will do 2 things: 1) rdiff-backup 2) instruct the backup-server to create the hardlinks with versioning Then, at regular intervals, this will be backed up by pull from the Host-domain on the server. I don't see any chance to kill all my backups as the data will remain, even when deleting the backup-directory of a desktop. -- Joost
[gentoo-user] swapping processor problem
I have two gentoo boxes, X has an ASUS M2NPV-VM with AMD64 3500+ CPU, Y has a AMD64 X2 5600+ CPU. Since I need more juice on X I thought I could swap CPUs. After updating X's BIOS the system with the 'new' CPU boots up to the MythTv screen with no error but does not respond to the USB keyboard nor to the remote control keypresses. More precisely: - keyboard is fine at grub boot, I can select up and down or edit the entries - keyboard is no longer responsive at the init scripts start (when you can press 'I' to select services) My first thought was that X (and Y) WERE compiled with '-march=native' GCC flag and maybe the 5600+ does not execute properly the 3500+ code. But a quick search on wikipedia shows that 5600+ has a superset of the 3500+ so I should have problems putting the 3500+ in the Y box, not vice-versa. Any suggestions? raffaele
Re: [gentoo-user] Anybody want to beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev?
On Nov 15, 2011 1:24 PM, waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: After a recent thread, about udev developers wanting /usr on the same partition as / (or else requiring initramfs), it was pretty obvious that 90%+ of the users here strongly disliked the idea. I went around asking on various lists if it was possible to run Gentoo without udev. After some research, and various unrelated delays, I've come up with a working Gentoo without udev. It turns out that busybox's mdev implementation is sufficient for my needs. I do the usual email, web surfing, including Youtube. I'm listening to Live365.com as I type this email, so Flash works just fine. Contrary to the FUD I've heard, X works just fine, thank you, without an xorg.conf. Modern flatscreens with EDID info are set up automatically. I suppose that old CRT monitors without EDID info might require xorg.conf, but that's exotic hardware nowadays. The only change I notice is somewhat faster bootup. The purpose of this email is to ask adventurous people here to beta test my approach to a udev-less Gentoo. If we don't find any showstopper problems, we can think about requesting Gentoo developers to support an mdev-based profile. It would help the cause if a large number of testers can report that it works for them. The instructions for a udev-ectomy follow below. Thanks to Zac Medico and others on the Gentoo developers' list for their helpful hints and pointers on how to do this. I couldn't have figured this out by myself. The usual warnings apply... * this is a beta * use a spare test machine * if you don't follow the instructions correctly, the result might be an unbootable linux * even if you do follow instructions, the result might be an unbootable linux 1) Set up your kernel to support and automount a devtmpfs filesystem at /dev * If you prefer to edit .config directly, set CONFIG_DEVTMPFS=y and CONFIG_DEVTMPFS_MOUNT=y * If you prefer make menuconfig, the route is as shown below. Note that the Autount devtmpfs... option won't appear until you enable Maintain a devtmpf... option. make menuconfig Device Drivers --- Generic Driver Options --- [*] Maintain a devtmpfs filesystem to mount at /dev [*] Automount devtmpfs at /dev, after the kernel mounted the rootfs Once you've made the changes, rebuild the kernel. 2) Set up for emerging busybox, there are 2 items to change A) It appears that there may be an mdev bug in older versions of busybox. To avoid that bug, keyword busybox-1.19.2 in /etc/portage/package.keywords E.g. if you're using 32-bit Gentoo on Intel, the incantation is... =sys-apps/busybox-1.19.2 ~x86 Change the ~x86 to reflect your architecture, etc. B) busybox requires the mdev flag in this situation. The static flag is probably also a good idea. In file /etc/portage/package.use add the line sys-apps/busybox static mdev Now, emerge busybox 3) In the bootloader append line, include init=/sbin/linuxrc where the file /sbin/linuxrc consists of *AT LEAST*... #!/sbin/busybox ash mount -t proc proc /proc mount -t sysfs sysfs /sys exec /sbin/init This should be enough for most users. If you have an unusual setup, you may need additional stuff in there. If you're using lilo remember to re-run lilo to implement the changes. 4) Remove udev from the services list, and replace it with mdev. Type the following 2 commands at the command line rc-update del udev sysinit rc-update add mdev sysinit 5) reboot to your new kernel. You're now running without using udev. 6) ***THIS STEP IS OPTIONAL*** This is only to alay any suspicion that udev is still in use. udev is pulled in by virtual/dev-manager, which in turn is pulled in by the kernel. * cd /usr/portage/virtual/dev-manager * Make a backup copy of dev-manager-0.ebuild * Edit dev-manager-0.ebuild to include sys-apps/busybox as one option in RDEPEND, like so... RDEPEND=|| ( sys-fs/udev sys-fs/devfsd sys-apps/busybox sys-fs/static-dev sys-freebsd/freebsd-sbin ) I had really wanted to use sys-apps/busybox[mdev], but an EAPI-0 ebuild can't handle that syntax. * execute the following 3 commands at the commandline ebuild dev-manager-0.ebuild digest emerge -1 dev-manager emerge --unmerge sys-fs/udev * In file /atc/portage/package.mask, append the line sys-fs/udev Create the file if it doesn't already exist. You now have a totally udev-free machine Sounds nice! However, my Gentoo systems are all virtual servers (DomU VMs on XenServer). So, the hardware devices are static. Will switching over to mdev give any benefits? I even am toying around with the idea of having a completely static /dev, but still can't find any guide/pointers yet. (Apologies if my email is OOT) Rgds,
[gentoo-user] multi-threaded mplayer
Do I need to set any particular USE flag to enable multi-threaded decoding with mplayer, or is it just a matter of passing the appropriate 'threads=' on the command line? raffaele