Re: saned and root question

[Stephen Morris]

On 10/3/18 4:00 pm, ToddAndMargo wrote:

On 03/09/2018 07:19 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote:

On 03/09/2018 07:16 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote:

Hi All,

Okay, now this is "scary".

Both xsane and Simple Scan work locally.

I can not get saned to work, UNLESS, I edit /etc/group
and add the following to root

root:x:0:saned

Without it, I get

$ xsane net:localhost:epkowa:interpreter:001:007
Access to resource has been denied

Now what am I doing wrong?  Must saned have root privileges?
CUPS doesn't need it.

Many thanks,
-T


ooops, sorry:

Fedora 27, x64
Xfce 4.12

$ rpm -qa \*sane\*
kf5-libksane-17.12.1-1.fc27.x86_64
xsane-common-0.999-23.fc27.x86_64
sane-backends-libs-1.0.27-12.fc27.i686
sane-backends-drivers-cameras-1.0.27-12.fc27.x86_64
sane-backends-1.0.27-12.fc27.x86_64
xsane-0.999-23.fc27.x86_64
sane-backends-drivers-scanners-1.0.27-12.fc27.x86_64
sane-backends-drivers-cameras-1.0.27-12.fc27.i686
sane-backends-drivers-scanners-1.0.27-12.fc27.i686
sane-backends-daemon-1.0.27-12.fc27.x86_64



I just caught this:

$ ps -eo pid,user,group,args --sort user | grep cups
 5005 root root /usr/sbin/cupsd -l

CUPS "is" running as root.  So is it okay to add
saned to root's group?

I have a network scanner that I have installed an Epson driver for, 
which until I did, Xsane would not work with the scanner. I also thought 
Xsane used sane as its backend. How are you trying to use saned?


In my /etc/group I have an entry for saned, but like your original 
entry, I don't have anything connected to group root.



regards,

Steve





___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

FXAA Antialias Query With Nvida Devices

[Stephen Morris]

Hi,

    I use an Asus Geforce GTX 1070 nvidia card with 8 GB of memory. I 
am also using the nvidia driver source from negativo17 for version 
390.25. Within Nvidia X Server Configuration I have selected FXAA 
Antialiasing within the opengl settings and that has caused an issue in 
my F27 implementation. With that option active, the KDE kicker, active 
applications in the taskbar and the system tray contents all get 
displayed as white on white, and all applications, irrespective of 
whether the application is a native KDE application or a GTK 
application, text is displayed out of focus until either I mouse over 
them (in some cases) or scroll the window in which case the text is 
sharp and readable. If I unselect the FXAA option and set the Anti-alias 
option to 16x I don't get the same issue.


    Has anyone else experienced a similar issue and identified whether 
its an issue with the driver or an issue with F27 routines, and whether 
or not they have a resolution?



regards,

Steve

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: saned and root question

[ToddAndMargo]

On 03/09/2018 07:19 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote:

On 03/09/2018 07:16 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote:

Hi All,

Okay, now this is "scary".

Both xsane and Simple Scan work locally.

I can not get saned to work, UNLESS, I edit /etc/group
and add the following to root

root:x:0:saned

Without it, I get

$ xsane net:localhost:epkowa:interpreter:001:007
Access to resource has been denied

Now what am I doing wrong?  Must saned have root privileges?
CUPS doesn't need it.

Many thanks,
-T


ooops, sorry:

Fedora 27, x64
Xfce 4.12

$ rpm -qa \*sane\*
kf5-libksane-17.12.1-1.fc27.x86_64
xsane-common-0.999-23.fc27.x86_64
sane-backends-libs-1.0.27-12.fc27.i686
sane-backends-drivers-cameras-1.0.27-12.fc27.x86_64
sane-backends-1.0.27-12.fc27.x86_64
xsane-0.999-23.fc27.x86_64
sane-backends-drivers-scanners-1.0.27-12.fc27.x86_64
sane-backends-drivers-cameras-1.0.27-12.fc27.i686
sane-backends-drivers-scanners-1.0.27-12.fc27.i686
sane-backends-daemon-1.0.27-12.fc27.x86_64



I just caught this:

$ ps -eo pid,user,group,args --sort user | grep cups
 5005 root root /usr/sbin/cupsd -l

CUPS "is" running as root.  So is it okay to add
saned to root's group?



___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: saned and root question

[ToddAndMargo]

On 03/09/2018 07:16 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote:

Hi All,

Okay, now this is "scary".

Both xsane and Simple Scan work locally.

I can not get saned to work, UNLESS, I edit /etc/group
and add the following to root

root:x:0:saned

Without it, I get

$ xsane net:localhost:epkowa:interpreter:001:007
Access to resource has been denied

Now what am I doing wrong?  Must saned have root privileges?
CUPS doesn't need it.

Many thanks,
-T


ooops, sorry:

Fedora 27, x64
Xfce 4.12

$ rpm -qa \*sane\*
kf5-libksane-17.12.1-1.fc27.x86_64
xsane-common-0.999-23.fc27.x86_64
sane-backends-libs-1.0.27-12.fc27.i686
sane-backends-drivers-cameras-1.0.27-12.fc27.x86_64
sane-backends-1.0.27-12.fc27.x86_64
xsane-0.999-23.fc27.x86_64
sane-backends-drivers-scanners-1.0.27-12.fc27.x86_64
sane-backends-drivers-cameras-1.0.27-12.fc27.i686
sane-backends-drivers-scanners-1.0.27-12.fc27.i686
sane-backends-daemon-1.0.27-12.fc27.x86_64
sane-backends-libs-1.0.27-12.fc27.x86_64
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

saned and root question

[ToddAndMargo]

Hi All,

Okay, now this is "scary".

Both xsane and Simple Scan work locally.

I can not get saned to work, UNLESS, I edit /etc/group
and add the following to root

root:x:0:saned

Without it, I get

$ xsane net:localhost:epkowa:interpreter:001:007
Access to resource has been denied

Now what am I doing wrong?  Must saned have root privileges?
CUPS doesn't need it.

Many thanks,
-T
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: RH rpms, and installing using hardlinks vs symlinks

[Todd Zullinger]

Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 03/09/2018 03:06 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:
>> In the git package, there aren't symlinks.  Within /usr/bin,
>> the git binaries which are identical are hardlinked to each
>> other.  And separately, within /usr/libexec/git-core, the
>> git binaries which are identical are hardlinked to each
>> other.
> 
> But the split between /usr/bin and /usr/libexec is a new thing in F28
> according to your earlier email, right?

Yeah.  In current releases the files are hardlinked across
/usr/bin and /usr/libexec.  I've never seen any bug reports
about that causing actual problems.  I made the change after
noticing the cross-directory hardlink warning from rpmlint.

It should really be an unnoticable change to nearly
everyone, apart from those rare people that want to mount
/usr/bin and /usr/libexec on different file systems

-- 
Todd
~~
Historian, n. A broad-gauge gossip.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: RH rpms, and installing using hardlinks vs symlinks

[Samuel Sieb]

On 03/09/2018 03:06 PM, Todd Zullinger wrote:

Samuel Sieb wrote:
In the git package, there aren't symlinks.  Within /usr/bin,
the git binaries which are identical are hardlinked to each
other.  And separately, within /usr/libexec/git-core, the
git binaries which are identical are hardlinked to each
other.


But the split between /usr/bin and /usr/libexec is a new thing in F28 
according to your earlier email, right?

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: RH rpms, and installing using hardlinks vs symlinks

[Tim]

On Sat, 2018-03-10 at 09:57 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
> No, what I was mentioning here is what I have read as standard linux 
> functionality with copying, when a file is copied, and it doesn't
> matter where to, rather than create a 2nd copy of the file, the
> "copy" is created as a hard link to the original file, for storage
> efficiency, and then when one of the files is updated the hardlink is
> broken and both files become physical.

Considering all the grinding noises my hard drive makes if I copy a
file, I wouldn't have said it works in that way.

-- 
 
[tim@localhost ~] -rsvp
Linux 4.13.16-100.fc25.x86_64 #1 SMP Mon Nov 27 19:52:46 UTC 2017 x86_64
 
Boilerplate:  All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is
no point trying to privately email me, I only get to see the messages
posted to the mailing list.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: RH rpms, and installing using hardlinks vs symlinks

[Todd Zullinger]

Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 03/09/2018 01:27 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>that was my understanding -- as long as the files are within
>> precisely the same directory, hard links could still be used, but any
>> cross-directory links (even if within the same filesystem) will use
>> symlinks. is that about right?
> 
> From what you were saying, it sounded like you thought it was a system-wide
> change for how linking worked.
> 
> Hard links can be used between directories on the same file system, but for
> a package install, since you don't know how the partitions will be
> configured, it's safer to to use symlinks if not in the same directory.
> That's what is being changed for this package.

In the git package, there aren't symlinks.  Within /usr/bin,
the git binaries which are identical are hardlinked to each
other.  And separately, within /usr/libexec/git-core, the
git binaries which are identical are hardlinked to each
other.

For anyone really curious about the finer details on this, I
would point to the upstream git Makefile¹ and the Fedora git
spec file².

¹ https://github.com/git/git/blob/master/Makefile
² https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/git/blob/master/f/git.spec

-- 
Todd
~~
Optimist, n. A proponent of the doctrine that black is white.
-- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"



signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: RH rpms, and installing using hardlinks vs symlinks

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2018, Stephen Morris wrote:

> On 9/3/18 9:11 am, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 07:59 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:
> >> It is my understanding that currently when a file copied to any
> >> location, a physical copy is not produced, the copy is a hardlink
> >> to the original file, until such time as one of the "copies" is
> >> changed and then both become physical files with one file
> >> reflecting the pre-change contents

> > What you describe here is linking, not copying. Copying always
> > produces an apparently independent file ('Apparently' because on
> > Copy-On-Write filesystems they two may actually share disk blocks
> > until one of them changes, but that is *not* the same as linking).

> No, what I was mentioning here is what I have read as standard linux
> functionality with copying, when a file is copied, and it doesn't
> matter where to, rather than create a 2nd copy of the file, the
> "copy" is created as a hard link to the original file, for storage
> efficiency, and then when one of the files is updated the hardlink
> is broken and both files become physical.

 AFAIK, "copying" in unix/linux has never worked that way; if you can
provide a link that describes it that way, that would be interesting.

rday
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: given /usr/bin/rpm2cpio, why exists /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Tom H wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Robert P. J. Day  
> wrote:
> > On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Tom H wrote:
> >> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:09 PM, Ed Greshko  wrote:
> >>> On 03/10/18 03:38, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 
>  subject says it all ... what is the purpose of the file
>  /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh given the existing binary executable
>  /usr/bin/rpm2cpio?
> >>>
> >>> The best place to ask would be at one of the resources list here
> >>> http://rpm.org/community.html
> >>
> >> It's just a script (read it!) that does the same job as the
> >> "rpm2cpio" executable.
> >
> > yes, i grok that, but given the existence of the rpm2cpio executable,
> > is there any additional functionality provided by that script? why is
> > it there? what purpose does it serve above and beyond the rpm2cpio
> > program?
>
> It must be provided by upstream for people to be able unpack rpms
> without installing rpm executables and libraries. I grab it when I
> need to do so on non-Fedora, non-RHEL, non-RHEL-clone systems.

  ah, mystery solved, thanks.

rday
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: RH rpms, and installing using hardlinks vs symlinks

[Stephen Morris]

On 9/3/18 9:11 am, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:

On Fri, 2018-03-09 at 07:59 +1100, Stephen Morris wrote:

It is my understanding that currently when a file copied to any
location, a physical copy is not produced, the copy is a hardlink to the
original file, until such time as one of the "copies" is changed and
then both become physical files with one file reflecting the pre-change
contents

What you describe here is linking, not copying. Copying always produces
an apparently independent file ('Apparently' because on Copy-On-Write
filesystems they two may actually share disk blocks until one of them
changes, but that is *not* the same as linking).


No, what I was mentioning here is what I have read as standard linux 
functionality with copying, when a file is copied, and it doesn't matter 
where to, rather than create a 2nd copy of the file, the "copy" is 
created as a hard link to the original file, for storage efficiency, and 
then when one of the files is updated the hardlink is broken and both 
files become physical.



regards,

Steve




poc
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: given /usr/bin/rpm2cpio, why exists /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh?

[Tom H]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Robert P. J. Day  wrote:
> On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Tom H wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:09 PM, Ed Greshko  wrote:
>>> On 03/10/18 03:38, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

 subject says it all ... what is the purpose of the file
 /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh given the existing binary executable
 /usr/bin/rpm2cpio?
>>>
>>> The best place to ask would be at one of the resources list here
>>> http://rpm.org/community.html
>>
>> It's just a script (read it!) that does the same job as the
>> "rpm2cpio" executable.
>
> yes, i grok that, but given the existence of the rpm2cpio executable,
> is there any additional functionality provided by that script? why is
> it there? what purpose does it serve above and beyond the rpm2cpio
> program?

It must be provided by upstream for people to be able unpack rpms
without installing rpm executables and libraries. I grab it when I
need to do so on non-Fedora, non-RHEL, non-RHEL-clone systems.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: given /usr/bin/rpm2cpio, why exists /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh?

[Ed Greshko]

On 03/10/18 05:55, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>   or perhaps i'm just curious about the purpose of package components.
> seriously, 


And for these types of questions, which are so narrowly focused, you really 
should be
going to the folks that supply it to multiple distros. 

Your kinda like asking a GP a very specific question about the heart when you 
should
be asking a cardiologist.

-- 
I believe all research assistants should be paid for their time.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: given /usr/bin/rpm2cpio, why exists /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh?

[Ed Greshko]

On 03/10/18 05:51, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>   yes, i grok that, but given the existence of the rpm2cpio
> executable, is there any additional functionality provided by that
> script? why is it there? what purpose does it serve above and beyond
> the rpm2cpio program?


You really should go ask the fine folks at rpm.org as your question is very 
specific
to software they supply.  They would be the subject matter experts.

-- 
I believe all research assistants should be paid for their time.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: given /usr/bin/rpm2cpio, why exists /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Sat, 10 Mar 2018, Ed Greshko wrote:

> On 03/10/18 05:39, Tom H wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:09 PM, Ed Greshko  wrote:
> >> On 03/10/18 03:38, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >>> subject says it all ... what is the purpose of the file
> >>> /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh given the existing binary executable
> >>> /usr/bin/rpm2cpio?
> >> The best place to ask would be at one of the resources list here
> >> http://rpm.org/community.html
> > It's just a script (read it!) that does the same job as the "rpm2cpio"
> > executable.
>
> Yeah, that was my reaction as well.  But for some reason the OP
> seems to be searching the file system and looking for answers to
> esoteric questions for fun and profit.

  or perhaps i'm just curious about the purpose of package components.
seriously, ed, what is your problem? have you always been this much of
a patronizing dick? or is this a recent development?

  my apologies to the list for finally losing patience.

rday
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: given /usr/bin/rpm2cpio, why exists /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Tom H wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:09 PM, Ed Greshko  wrote:
> > On 03/10/18 03:38, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >>
> >> subject says it all ... what is the purpose of the file
> >> /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh given the existing binary executable
> >> /usr/bin/rpm2cpio?
> >
> > The best place to ask would be at one of the resources list here
> > http://rpm.org/community.html
>
> It's just a script (read it!) that does the same job as the
> "rpm2cpio" executable.

  yes, i grok that, but given the existence of the rpm2cpio
executable, is there any additional functionality provided by that
script? why is it there? what purpose does it serve above and beyond
the rpm2cpio program?

rday
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: given /usr/bin/rpm2cpio, why exists /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh?

[Ed Greshko]

On 03/10/18 05:39, Tom H wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:09 PM, Ed Greshko  wrote:
>> On 03/10/18 03:38, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>> subject says it all ... what is the purpose of the file
>>> /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh given the existing binary executable
>>> /usr/bin/rpm2cpio?
>> The best place to ask would be at one of the resources list here
>> http://rpm.org/community.html
> It's just a script (read it!) that does the same job as the "rpm2cpio"
> executable.

Yeah, that was my reaction as well.  But for some reason the OP seems to be 
searching
the file system and looking for answers to esoteric questions for fun and 
profit.

-- 
I believe all research assistants should be paid for their time.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: change user id

[Tom H]

On Mon, Mar 5, 2018 at 7:38 PM, Ranjan Maitra  wrote:
>
> I am on a single-account F27 system with an user id 1000. I want to
> change this user id. From what I understand, I should do the following:
>
> sudo usermod -u 54321 
>
> However, when I do this, I get:
>
> usermod: user  is currently used by process 866
>
> I guess that this has to do with the fact that I am logged in (to do
> this). How do I get around this point? There is no root on the system
> but I do have sudo access.
>
> Separately, I want all my files and directory owned by 1000 to move to
> this user id (so that I can have access)? Is this automatic or do I
> have to run chown -R  etc?

Create a different sudo-able account and run "sudo usermod ..." from it.

From "man usermod":

You must make certain that the named user is not executing any processes
when this command is being executed if the user's numerical user ID, the
user's name, or the user's home directory is being changed. usermod
checks this on Linux. On other platforms it only uses utmp to check if
the user is logged in.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: given /usr/bin/rpm2cpio, why exists /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh?

[Tom H]

On Fri, Mar 9, 2018 at 4:09 PM, Ed Greshko  wrote:
> On 03/10/18 03:38, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>>
>> subject says it all ... what is the purpose of the file
>> /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh given the existing binary executable
>> /usr/bin/rpm2cpio?
>
> The best place to ask would be at one of the resources list here
> http://rpm.org/community.html

It's just a script (read it!) that does the same job as the "rpm2cpio"
executable.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: given /usr/bin/rpm2cpio, why exists /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh?

[Ed Greshko]

On 03/10/18 03:38, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
>   subject says it all ... what is the purpose of the file
> /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh given the existing binary executable
> /usr/bin/rpm2cpio?

The best place to ask would be at one of the resources list here 
http://rpm.org/community.html


-- 
I believe all research assistants should be paid for their time.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: given /usr/bin/rpm2cpio, why exists /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Rick Stevens wrote:

> On 03/09/2018 11:38 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> >   subject says it all ... what is the purpose of the file
> > /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh given the existing binary executable
> > /usr/bin/rpm2cpio?
>
> I believe /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh validates that the given file IS
> an RPM in the first place, then uncompresses it based on what
> version of RPM was used. IIRC, different versions of RPM used
> different compression schemes (bzip2, gzip, xz, lzma and zstd to
> name a few). Not sure that /usr/bin/rpm2cpio can handle the older
> RPMs. I could be wrong (and probably am).

  i see nothing to suggest that rpm2cpio invokes rpm2cpio.sh for that
purpose, can anyone else weigh in here?

rday
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: given /usr/bin/rpm2cpio, why exists /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh?

[Rick Stevens]

On 03/09/2018 11:38 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> 
>   subject says it all ... what is the purpose of the file
> /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh given the existing binary executable
> /usr/bin/rpm2cpio?

I believe /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh validates that the given file IS an
RPM in the first place, then uncompresses it based on what version of
RPM was used. IIRC, different versions of RPM used different compression
schemes (bzip2, gzip, xz, lzma and zstd to name a few). Not sure that
/usr/bin/rpm2cpio can handle the older RPMs. I could be wrong (and
probably am).
--
- Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com -
- AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 22643734Yahoo: origrps2 -
--
-  Careful!  Ugly strikes 9 out of 10 people!-
--
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: RH rpms, and installing using hardlinks vs symlinks

[Samuel Sieb]

On 03/09/2018 01:27 AM, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

   that was my understanding -- as long as the files are within
precisely the same directory, hard links could still be used, but any
cross-directory links (even if within the same filesystem) will use
symlinks. is that about right?


From what you were saying, it sounded like you thought it was a 
system-wide change for how linking worked.


Hard links can be used between directories on the same file system, but 
for a package install, since you don't know how the partitions will be 
configured, it's safer to to use symlinks if not in the same directory. 
That's what is being changed for this package.

___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

given /usr/bin/rpm2cpio, why exists /usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  subject says it all ... what is the purpose of the file
/usr/lib/rpm/rpm2cpio.sh given the existing binary executable
/usr/bin/rpm2cpio?

rday
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[389-users] Re: Configuring single-master replication from the cli

[Ludwig Krispenz]

On 03/09/2018 05:27 PM, Julian Kippels wrote:

Am Fri, 09 Mar 2018 17:23:39 +0100
schrieb Ludwig Krispenz :


did you look into chapter 15.2:  Configuring Replication from the
Command Line ?


Somehow I feel incredibly stupid right now…

no, it's always ok to ask

___
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org


--
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Eric 
Shander
___
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[389-users] Re: Configuring single-master replication from the cli

[Julian Kippels]

Am Fri, 09 Mar 2018 17:23:39 +0100
schrieb Ludwig Krispenz :

> did you look into chapter 15.2:  Configuring Replication from the 
> Command Line ?
> 

Somehow I feel incredibly stupid right now…
___
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[389-users] Re: Configuring single-master replication from the cli

[Ludwig Krispenz]

did you look into chapter 15.2:  Configuring Replication from the 
Command Line ?


On 03/09/2018 04:47 PM, Julian Kippels wrote:

Hi

Is it possible to configure single master replication from the cli? In
the documentation it is only described using the admin-server interface:
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_directory_server/10/html/administration_guide/Managing_Replication-Configuring_Single_Master_Replication

I would like to be able to automate this step, hence I need a way to do
this in a scriptable way.

Thanks,
Julian
___
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org


--
Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/, Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael Cunningham, Michael O'Neill, Eric 
Shander
___
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

[389-users] Configuring single-master replication from the cli

[Julian Kippels]

Hi

Is it possible to configure single master replication from the cli? In
the documentation it is only described using the admin-server interface:
https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-us/red_hat_directory_server/10/html/administration_guide/Managing_Replication-Configuring_Single_Master_Replication

I would like to be able to automate this step, hence I need a way to do
this in a scriptable way.

Thanks,
Julian
___
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Replica issue

[kt]

Hi,

I want to install replica server but I have errors.

Replica server:
System: CentOS Linux release 7.4.1708 (Core)
IPA: VERSION: 4.5.0, API_VERSION: 2.228

What I do:

ipa-client-install --mkhomedir

This process ran without a problem

Next

[root@auth02 ~]# ipa-replica-install
Password for ad...@idm.wan: 
Run connection check to master
Your system may be partly configured.
Run /usr/sbin/ipa-server-install --uninstall to clean up.

ipa.ipapython.install.cli.install_tool(CompatServerReplicaInstall): ERROR
Connection check failed!
See /var/log/ipareplica-conncheck.log for more information.
If the check results are not valid it can be skipped with --skip-conncheck 
parameter.
ipa.ipapython.install.cli.install_tool(CompatServerReplicaInstall): ERROR
The ipa-replica-install command failed. See /var/log/ipareplica-install.log for 
more information

In logs I see the problem is connection form master to replica server. This 
services are not install yet. Why ipa-replica-install checkt it? How to fix 
this problem?

2018-03-09T13:57:51Z DEBUG stderr=Check connection from replica to remote 
master 'auth01.idm.wan':
   Directory Service: Unsecure port (389): OK
   Directory Service: Secure port (636): OK
   Kerberos KDC: TCP (88): OK
   Kerberos Kpasswd: TCP (464): OK
   HTTP Server: Unsecure port (80): OK
   HTTP Server: Secure port (443): OK

The following list of ports use UDP protocoland would need to be
checked manually:
   Kerberos KDC: UDP (88): SKIPPED
   Kerberos Kpasswd: UDP (464): SKIPPED

Connection from replica to master is OK.
Start listening on required ports for remote master check
Get credentials to log in to remote master
Check RPC connection to remote master
trying https://auth01.idm.wan/ipa/json
[try 1]: Forwarding 'ping/1' to json server 'https://auth01.idm.wan/ipa/json'
Execute check on remote master
[try 1]: Forwarding 'server_conncheck' to json server 
'https://auth01.idm.wan/ipa/json'
Check connection from master to remote replica 'auth02.idm.wan':
Failed to connect to port 389 tcp on 10.0.102.56
   Directory Service: Unsecure port (389): FAILED
Failed to connect to port 636 tcp on 10.0.102.56
   Directory Service: Secure port (636): FAILED
Failed to connect to port 88 tcp on 10.0.102.56
   Kerberos KDC: TCP (88): FAILED
Failed to connect to port 88 udp on 10.0.102.56
   Kerberos KDC: UDP (88): WARNING
Failed to connect to port 464 tcp on 10.0.102.56
   Kerberos Kpasswd: TCP (464): FAILED
Failed to connect to port 464 udp on 10.0.102.56
   Kerberos Kpasswd: UDP (464): WARNING
Failed to connect to port 80 tcp on 10.0.102.56
   HTTP Server: Unsecure port (80): FAILED
Failed to connect to port 443 tcp on 10.0.102.56
   HTTP Server: Secure port (443): FAILED
The following UDP ports could not be verified as open: 88, 464
This can happen if they are already bound to an application
and ipa-replica-conncheck cannot attach own UDP responder.
ERROR: Port check failed! Inaccessible port(s): 389 (TCP), 636 (TCP), 88 (TCP), 
464 (TCP), 80 (TCP), 443 (TCP)
ERROR: Remote master check failed with following error message(s):
ipa-replica-conncheck returned non-zero exit code

Best regards
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

changing mount point of USB dongle on Fedora when using automount

[Kevin Wilson]

Hello, Fedora users,

How do I change the mount point of a USB dongle on Fedora when using automount ?
When I insert a USB dongle, it is automounted under /run/media/root/4031-0655
I want it to be automounted on /mnt/sdb1

Regards,
Kevin
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: why would "rpm -V setup" show /etc/fstab with changed mode?

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Fri, 9 Mar 2018, Robert P. J. Day wrote:

>   another question based on something that tripped me up last week
> teaching, when i tried a simple demo and was confused by the result.
>
>   was demonstrating how "rpm -V" could verify an installed package,
> and randomly chose the "setup" package since it consists of numerous
> fundamental system files for which some errors in verification would
> be cause for concern, and got the following on my F27 system:
>
>   $ rpm -V setup
>   .M...  c /etc/fstab
>   S.5T.  c /etc/printcap
>   S.5T.  c /etc/profile
>   .MG..  g /var/log/lastlog
>   $
>
> i have no problem with files whose contents will invariably change
> after further configuration, but i was confused about the "M" flag
> for /etc/fstab, suggesting that the mode (type/permissions) for that
> file were different from the installation values.
>
>   as i see it, why should any system config file like /etc/fstab
> change its mode after installation? shouldn't a file like that be
> installed with the correct mode from the beginning?
>
>   i took a look at the spec file for that package here:
>
> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/setup/blob/master/f/setup.spec
>
> and i notice that other files, after being "touch"ed, are chmoded to
> 0644, but not /etc/fstab/, whose current mode on my system is 0664:
>
>   -rw-rw-r--. 1 root root 628 Jan 14  2016 /etc/fstab
>
> as a test, i chmod'ed /etc/fstab to 0644, and the verify diagnostic
> went away.

  as another random example, i verified the systemd package and got
(in part) much the same:

$ rpm -V systemd
.M...  c /etc/locale.conf
.M...  c /etc/machine-id
.M...  g /etc/systemd/system/basic.target.wants
.M...  g /etc/systemd/system/bluetooth.target.wants
.M...  g /etc/systemd/system/getty.target.wants
.M...  g /etc/systemd/system/graphical.target.wants
.M...  g /etc/systemd/system/local-fs.target.wants
.M...  g /etc/systemd/system/multi-user.target.wants
.M...  g /etc/systemd/system/network-online.target.wants
.M...  g /etc/systemd/system/printer.target.wants
.M...  g /etc/systemd/system/remote-fs.target.wants
.M...  g /etc/systemd/system/sockets.target.wants
.M...  g /etc/systemd/system/sysinit.target.wants
.M...  g /etc/systemd/system/timers.target.wants
... snip ...

  all of these verify warnings seem unnecessary, but i'm willing to be
corrected as to what is actually happening here.

rday
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

Re: RH rpms, and installing using hardlinks vs symlinks

[Robert P. J. Day]

On Thu, 8 Mar 2018, Samuel Sieb wrote:

> On 03/08/2018 12:59 PM, Stephen Morris wrote:
> > On 9/3/18 6:13 am, Todd Zullinger wrote:
> >> Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >>> ... ah, so the replacement of those cross-directory hardlinks
> >>> with symlinks will happen in F28, is that what you're saying?
> >> The change will be in F28, yes.  The few files in /usr/bin are
> >> simply copied, not symlinked.  Within /usr/bin, the identical
> >> files are hardlinked to each other.
> >
> > I haven't been keeping up with this thread prior to now so I
> > apologize if I'm covering old ground or have misinterpreted what
> > this thread is saying. It is my understanding that currently when
> > a file copied to any location, a physical copy is not produced,
> > the copy is a hardlink to the original file, until such time as
> > one of the "copies" is changed and then both become physical files
> > with one file reflecting the pre-change contents, whereas the same
> > doesn't happen with symlinks. Are you saying that with F28
> > hardlinks are going to be replaced by symlinks, so that the
> > hardlink functionality no longer works, or are you saying that
> > symlink functionality is being changed to function the same as
> > hardlinks, hence we lose the existing symlink functionality?
>
> You definitely haven't been keeping up. :-)
>
> This is a discussion about a specific package (git).  It has a lot
> of identical binary files with different names in two different
> directories. Currently these are all hard linked to each other.
> What will change is that the cross-directory hardlinks will be
> removed.

  that was my understanding -- as long as the files are within
precisely the same directory, hard links could still be used, but any
cross-directory links (even if within the same filesystem) will use
symlinks. is that about right?

rday
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org

why would "rpm -V setup" show /etc/fstab with changed mode?

[Robert P. J. Day]

  another question based on something that tripped me up last week
teaching, when i tried a simple demo and was confused by the result.

  was demonstrating how "rpm -V" could verify an installed package,
and randomly chose the "setup" package since it consists of numerous
fundamental system files for which some errors in verification would
be cause for concern, and got the following on my F27 system:

  $ rpm -V setup
  .M...  c /etc/fstab
  S.5T.  c /etc/printcap
  S.5T.  c /etc/profile
  .MG..  g /var/log/lastlog
  $

i have no problem with files whose contents will invariably change
after further configuration, but i was confused about the "M" flag
for /etc/fstab, suggesting that the mode (type/permissions) for that
file were different from the installation values.

  as i see it, why should any system config file like /etc/fstab
change its mode after installation? shouldn't a file like that be
installed with the correct mode from the beginning?

  i took a look at the spec file for that package here:

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/setup/blob/master/f/setup.spec

and i notice that other files, after being "touch"ed, are chmoded to
0644, but not /etc/fstab/, whose current mode on my system is 0664:

  -rw-rw-r--. 1 root root 628 Jan 14  2016 /etc/fstab

as a test, i chmod'ed /etc/fstab to 0644, and the verify diagnostic
went away.

  i realize this discrepancy isn't a problem -- things will continue
to work just fine -- but it seems unnecessary to generate a
superfluous "rpm -V" line for /etc/fstab if it were installed with
non-matching mode in the first place.

  is there some reason for the above? am i missing something?

rday
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org