Re: [CentOS] Some thoughts on systemd
On 19.7.2014 1:23, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2014-07-18, Les Mikesell wrote: >> But it does force people who should be focusing on improving an >> application to instead spend their time reconfiguring the startup >> configuration for a distribution just to keep it working the same way. > This seems (again) to be moving into a debate on "why systemd", when at > least for CentOS 7 the decision has been made--it's systemd or bust (or > a SIG for removing it). Perhaps we should focus systemd discussions > more on how we as CentOS users can easily adjust? (I know, I already > violated this principle in the thread, but I will aim not to in the > future.) > > IOW, if people really don't like systemd, I don't think this is a > good forum for that discussion. It is actually funny how there seems to be so many opponents of systemd who want back the old ways of doing things. Even the grumpy sysadmins at university I work are happier with it than the old sysv init. It really makes their work easier. And I have written sysv startup scripts before and I will be looking forward to convert them to systemd when my client upgrades to CentOS7 or RHEL7 depending on the machines. It seems more reasonable way of doing them and will also help in the task by automating many of the tasks which you specifically needed to take care yourself in the script before. And for those who complain the new way is badly written, have you actually read those old scripts like old network service and can you easily understand what is going on. When reading them I could really understand why they were abandoned for something which promises to do things simpler and more sane way. Especially as they probably should be rewritten for the new ip tools instead of the old stuff. But I don't mind you complaining it makes entertaining read on the summer work trips as local free newspaper is on summer vacation. Especially when I know that the things will not change back to old sysv way. There might be something new in future, but somehow I feel that there will be new group of people complaining that why change as systemd is good enough for them. -vpk ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Some thoughts on systemd
On 2014-07-18, Les Mikesell wrote: > But it does force people who should be focusing on improving an > application to instead spend their time reconfiguring the startup > configuration for a distribution just to keep it working the same way. This seems (again) to be moving into a debate on "why systemd", when at least for CentOS 7 the decision has been made--it's systemd or bust (or a SIG for removing it). Perhaps we should focus systemd discussions more on how we as CentOS users can easily adjust? (I know, I already violated this principle in the thread, but I will aim not to in the future.) IOW, if people really don't like systemd, I don't think this is a good forum for that discussion. --keith -- kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Anyone using CentOS 6 on PC104 stacks?
Is anyone using CentOS 6 on PC104 stacks? I have tried a couple of different CPU cards with CentOS 6.5 [no updates]. I can install with the Install DVD to the PATA hard drive just fine, but they each hang up while the installed system is trying to get UDEV going. And by "hang up" I mean a) leave the machine setting for hours and it never gets udev started, AND b) the keyboard has gone non-responsive (power switch is the only way out). Note1: each board and drive works fine under CentOS 5.9. Note2: for the purposes of this test all other boards have been removed, it is just the CPU board and an power supply. Granted that does leave the video chip, serial chip, audio chip, usb chip, and memory (which was memtest86 for 50 hours in this config). Has 6 dropped support for ISA somehow? Any ideas on what might be wrong or where to start debugging? I have tried: Setting selinux to permissive (there was a udev issue in 6.0 where this was needed) Removing quiet and RHGB from the boot, so I can see what is going on In /etc/udev/udev.conf set udev_log="debug", but this seems to just information overload, AND It never stops at the same set of messages. Even booted with udevtrace. Syslog has not started, so there is nothing in /var/log/messages Moved /etc/udev/rules.d/* to /etc/udev/rules.distro/ so that rules created at install time, under the install dvd's kernel, are not causing issues. Though I did move one file per boot attempt, newest first. (yes I have reached desperate stage) Thanks for any pointers. Even when this disclaimer is not here: I am not a contracting officer. I do not have authority to make or modify the terms of any contract. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Some thoughts on systemd
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Mark Tinberg wrote: > > So simple things are trivial, more complicated things are possible and the > options are there in the config file if you want to use them but you aren’t > forced to. But it does force people who should be focusing on improving an application to instead spend their time reconfiguring the startup configuration for a distribution just to keep it working the same way. For example: http://issues.opennms.org/browse/NMS-6137 And, while it might offer a benefit in terms of being able to make it wait for the supporting postgres database if it is local, what happens if it is configured that way but you use the setup recommended for scaling where the database runs on a different system? -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Some thoughts on systemd
On Jul 18, 2014, at 7:14 AM, Timothy Murphy wrote: > In principle this should simplify the algorithms involved. > But it seems to me that the way in which it has been implemented > has in fact increased the complication rather than the reverse. >From my perspective this is a simplified implementation, service files have >very simple and well documented behavior, any complication I see seems to be >inherent to the problem space and existed before systemd came on the scene, so >it’s not created by systemd. A simple service example would be >rsyslogd.service which just reads /etc/sysconfig/rsyslogd and runs >/sbin/rsyslogd -n $SYSLOGD_OPTIONS a more complicated example would be >mounting NFS filesystems, which has a bunch of dependancies on RPC port mapper >services like idmap or gssapi a special filesystem in /var/lib/nfs etc. Neil >Brown wrote a series of articles for LWN on replacing the shell scripts in >nfs-utils with systemd unit files for SuSE. https://lwn.net/Articles/584175/ So simple things are trivial, more complicated things are possible and the options are there in the config file if you want to use them but you aren’t forced to. — Mark Tinberg, System Administrator Division of Information Technology - Network Services University of Wisconsin - Madison mtinb...@wisc.edu ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] el7: Thunderbird?
On 18/07/14 21:22, James Pearson wrote: > Ned Slider wrote: >> >> The other alternative seems to be running the tarball from Mozilla, but >> that is only available in 32-bit and I don't really want to install a >> whole bunch of 32-bit libs just to run one program. > > Mozilla do have 64 bit builds: > > http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/thunderbird/releases/24.6.0/linux-x86_64/ > > James Pearson Many thanks James, I didn't know they existed! I'll give that a try. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] el7: Thunderbird?
Ned Slider wrote: > > The other alternative seems to be running the tarball from Mozilla, but > that is only available in 32-bit and I don't really want to install a > whole bunch of 32-bit libs just to run one program. Mozilla do have 64 bit builds: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/thunderbird/releases/24.6.0/linux-x86_64/ James Pearson ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] el7: Thunderbird?
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 20:19:23 +0100 Ned Slider wrote: > Just wondering what Thunderbird users are doing on el7 now it's been > removed from the distro? I don't use thunderbird but am wondering if you have tried compiling a Fedora 20 src.rpm? I've installed a number of things on this C7 system that way over the past few days. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] el7: Thunderbird?
Hi Folks, Just wondering what Thunderbird users are doing on el7 now it's been removed from the distro? I note EPEL has a thunderbird package but it seems very out of date at version 24.5.0. Version 24.6.0 was released 10 June, nearly 6 weeks ago, and fixed 3 critical security issues. Is this normal for EPEL to be so far behind on security updates? The other alternative seems to be running the tarball from Mozilla, but that is only available in 32-bit and I don't really want to install a whole bunch of 32-bit libs just to run one program. So what is everyone else using? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-7 amavisd-new
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 18:07:08 +0200 Timothy Murphy wrote: > The amavisd-new rpm in epel fails with a number of missing dependencies, > in particular clamav* : You should file a bug on the Fedora epel bugzilla. (Lyx also fails to install on C7 due to missing dependencies and I filed a bug there about it.) -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www.melvilletheatre.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS-7 amavisd-new
On Fri, Jul 18, 2014 at 06:07:08PM +0200, Timothy Murphy wrote: > What is the point of putting an rpm in the epel repo > if it cannot be installed? Why don't you ask on the EPEL list where it is on-topic and not here, where it is not. -- rgds Stephen ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] CentOS-7 amavisd-new
The amavisd-new rpm in epel fails with a number of missing dependencies, in particular clamav* : -- Error: Package: amavisd-new-2.9.1-1.el7.noarch (epel) Requires: perl(Unix::Syslog) Error: Package: amavisd-new-2.9.1-1.el7.noarch (epel) Requires: clamav-server Error: Package: amavisd-new-2.9.1-1.el7.noarch (epel) Requires: clamav-server-systemd Error: Package: amavisd-new-2.9.1-1.el7.noarch (epel) Requires: cabextract Error: Package: amavisd-new-2.9.1-1.el7.noarch (epel) Requires: perl(Convert::TNEF) -- What is the point of putting an rpm in the epel repo if it cannot be installed? -- Timothy Murphy e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Some thoughts on systemd
Mark Tinberg wrote: >>> But the only practical advantage of systemd that I've seen touted >>> is that it speeds up boot-time. >>> Even if this were true it does not seem to me worth worrying about, > If the only practical advantage of systemd that you have seen touted has > been boot time efficiency then you have been poorly served by your > advisors. For servers I think some of the largest advantages is that now > you have a standard, built-in way to make your services highly available, > both with explicit watchdog heartbeats and with automatic restarting on > failure if you want, but not mindless restarting if the service is broken, > you have a configurable hold down timer as well. I did not say that boot-time is touted as the only advantage of systemd. I explicitly said As far as I can see, the other reason for favouring systemd is more philosophical, and is based on the idea that the many different start-up routines share a considerable amount of common code, and that it is good to take out this code and put it in a separate process. That seems to me a good Unix-like argument. It seems to me that the arguments you put forward fall into this category. And I added the remark In principle this should simplify the algorithms involved. But it seems to me that the way in which it has been implemented has in fact increased the complication rather than the reverse. a point that you have not answered. -- Timothy Murphy e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] dovecot + pigeonhole on CentOS-7
Frank Cox wrote: > I run spamassassin on my mailserver, pick up the mail from there with my > desktop machine using fetchmail, and filter it with procmail. Thanks for your response. I'm actually doing that on another server, but I thought the dovecot sieve method would be simpler, if I could sent it up. Otherwise I'll revert to procmail. -- Timothy Murphy e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] dovecot + pigeonhole on CentOS-7
Alexander Dalloz wrote: >> As far as I can see, the current advice is to leave filtering >> to dovecot, using the dovecot-pigeonhole rpm. >> >> I'm wondering if anyone else is doing this? >> If so, what settings exactly did you use? >> I haven't been able to find any clear documentation, >> or rather I have seen widely differing instructions. >> My brief attempt failed, so if anyone can help >> I should be very grateful. > I feel that specific topic is better discussed on the dovecot mailing > list than here. Thanks for your response. I'm sure you are right; I'll re-ask the question on the dovecot list. The reason I asked here was that I was not sure how specific this is to the CentOS-7 setup. > How do you have mail delivery configured between Postfix and dovecot? > Using LDA or LMTP? I'm not sure - I made no change relevant to this in the given config files - main.cf and master.cf . Should I have done? And how do I tell what is being used? In any case, the current setup seems to work, since mail is getting through to ~/Maildir (too much of it). > How is dovecot configured? -> doveconf -n I made no change at all to dovecot.conf as supplied in CentOS-7. > Did you enable sieve at all in your dovecot configuration? No - that was my question, how should one do that? As I said, I have read widely different suggestions on the web. But I will move my query to the dovecot mailing list, as you suggest. -- Timothy Murphy e-mail: gayleard /at/ eircom.net School of Mathematics, Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] pptp client automatically disconnected after some time
2014-07-18 4:05 GMT+03:00 Benjamin Fernandis : > keep-alive "icp-echo-*" at pptp-client end ? > > means i need to add this option on my client pc in /etc/ppp/options.pptp ? > Read the docs. Options might be like lcp-echo-interval VALUE and lcp-echo-failure VALUE pptp protocol is unsafe, you should avoid using it.. -- Eero ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
