Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Fred Smith]

On Fri, Jun 09, 2017 at 02:30:23PM -0600, Warren Young wrote:
> On Jun 9, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Michael Hennebry 
>  wrote:
> > 
> > On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> > 
> >> Maybe we need another mailing list, like alt.religion.editors*, we could
> >> have alt.religion.systemd 
> >> 
> >> mark
> >> 
> >> * vi, not emacs! Nya
> > 
> > You mean 6, right?
> 
> The developer of Sublime Text is hard at work on his third attempt at a Vi 
> emulating plugin, apparently having run into walls with the prior two 
> attempts.  He is calling his latest attempt…Six.  :)
> 


somehow nobody reads old stuff, or maybe everybody ignores it.
Bill Joy and Mark Horton wrote DECADES ago that its name is Vee-Eye,
not Vye, or Six (or 6).


-- 
---
Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as
the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain
letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers
of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online
community.
 --Roger Ebert, December, 1996
- The Boulder Pledge -
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Warren Young]

On Jun 9, 2017, at 10:08 AM, Michael Hennebry  
wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> 
>> Maybe we need another mailing list, like alt.religion.editors*, we could
>> have alt.religion.systemd 
>> 
>> mark
>> 
>> * vi, not emacs! Nya
> 
> You mean 6, right?

The developer of Sublime Text is hard at work on his third attempt at a Vi 
emulating plugin, apparently having run into walls with the prior two attempts. 
 He is calling his latest attempt…Six.  :)

http://www.sublimesix.com/
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Michael Hennebry]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:


Maybe we need another mailing list, like alt.religion.editors*, we could
have alt.religion.systemd 

 mark

* vi, not emacs! Nya


You mean 6, right?

--
Michael   henne...@web.cs.ndsu.nodak.edu
"Sorry but your password must contain an uppercase letter, a number,
a haiku, a gang sign, a heiroglyph, and the blood of a virgin."
 --  someeecards
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Leroy Tennison]

I was sorely tempted to post saying I would initiate an empty email to the list 
in a week with subject systemd and see what the response would be - I'll 
refrain...

- Original Message -
From: "m roth" <m.r...@5-cent.us>
To: "centos" <centos@centos.org>
Sent: Thursday, June 8, 2017 9:32:57 AM
Subject: Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

Mark Haney wrote:
> On 06/08/2017 09:12 AM, Andrew Holway wrote:
>> I think we had enough of Systemd flaming last month. Please stop
>> polluting my inbox and find an operating system compatible with your
>> worldview. It is really tiresome to keep on hearing about it.
>>
> Huh. Okay, though I'm not sure when you became arbiter of this list.  If
> you don't like 'our worldview' discussions, maybe you need to find a
> different OS that suits your childish attitude.  Like Windows 95.
>
> Mailing lists now are so full of children it's hard to even use them.
> Maybe you should leave IT if heated discussions make you uncomfortable.

Folks, I'm the one who made the original annoyed throwaway remark. I've
even asked that we end the incipient flamewar. Look, as much as I dislike
systemd, going on and on and on just ain't of interest. Hell, I'll
probably skim and delete, or just delete.

Now, the information that someone posted about what might be happening to
cause my original question was helpful, and in *that* context, in the same
email, cmts about systemd, sure. But I dunno 'bout most of you, but a
flamewar that runs for *weeks*, as we've seen here, is of no interest.

Maybe we need another mailing list, like alt.religion.editors*, we could
have alt.religion.systemd 

  mark

* vi, not emacs! Nya

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[m . roth]

Mark Haney wrote:
> On 06/08/2017 09:12 AM, Andrew Holway wrote:
>> I think we had enough of Systemd flaming last month. Please stop
>> polluting my inbox and find an operating system compatible with your
>> worldview. It is really tiresome to keep on hearing about it.
>>
> Huh. Okay, though I'm not sure when you became arbiter of this list.  If
> you don't like 'our worldview' discussions, maybe you need to find a
> different OS that suits your childish attitude.  Like Windows 95.
>
> Mailing lists now are so full of children it's hard to even use them.
> Maybe you should leave IT if heated discussions make you uncomfortable.

Folks, I'm the one who made the original annoyed throwaway remark. I've
even asked that we end the incipient flamewar. Look, as much as I dislike
systemd, going on and on and on just ain't of interest. Hell, I'll
probably skim and delete, or just delete.

Now, the information that someone posted about what might be happening to
cause my original question was helpful, and in *that* context, in the same
email, cmts about systemd, sure. But I dunno 'bout most of you, but a
flamewar that runs for *weeks*, as we've seen here, is of no interest.

Maybe we need another mailing list, like alt.religion.editors*, we could
have alt.religion.systemd 

  mark

* vi, not emacs! Nya

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Jonathan Billings]

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 09:15:23AM -0400, Mark Haney wrote:
> Huh. Okay, though I'm not sure when you became arbiter of this list.  If you
> don't like 'our worldview' discussions, maybe you need to find a different
> OS that suits your childish attitude.  Like Windows 95.
> 
> Mailing lists now are so full of children it's hard to even use them.  Maybe
> you should leave IT if heated discussions make you uncomfortable.

I certainly would not suggest anyone leave this list or stop using
CentOS.

While I don't think we need to be yelling at each other, I do
sympathize with anyone frustrated by the continued ignorance of some
of the more vocal proponents of the systemd-haters crowd.  The CentOS
list continues to be a good resource, even if it's learning about
systemd.  Sometimes the complaints about systemd can be turned into a
learning experience (such as how fstab works).  I think that if we can
attempt to frame questions about systemd in a more positive way,
everyone would get more out of it.


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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Mark Haney]

On 06/08/2017 09:12 AM, Andrew Holway wrote:

I think we had enough of Systemd flaming last month. Please stop polluting
my inbox and find an operating system compatible with your worldview. It is
really tiresome to keep on hearing about it.

Huh. Okay, though I'm not sure when you became arbiter of this list.  If 
you don't like 'our worldview' discussions, maybe you need to find a 
different OS that suits your childish attitude.  Like Windows 95.


Mailing lists now are so full of children it's hard to even use them.  
Maybe you should leave IT if heated discussions make you uncomfortable.


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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Andrew Holway]

I think we had enough of Systemd flaming last month. Please stop polluting
my inbox and find an operating system compatible with your worldview. It is
really tiresome to keep on hearing about it.



On 8 June 2017 at 14:51, John Hodrien  wrote:

> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Jonathan Billings wrote:
>
> Upstream 6 uses systemd?

 jh

>>>
>>> yes, 6.6 and above
>>>
>>
>> RHEL6 has used Upstart since RHEL 6.0, and continues to use it in RHEL
>> 6.9.  I have no idea where you'd get this kind of information.
>>
>
> If you really thought Redhat would switch from upstart of systemd, within a
> major release, I have no idea why you'd want to use anything based on
> Redhat.
>
> jh
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[John Hodrien]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Jonathan Billings wrote:


Upstream 6 uses systemd?

jh


yes, 6.6 and above


RHEL6 has used Upstart since RHEL 6.0, and continues to use it in RHEL
6.9.  I have no idea where you'd get this kind of information.


If you really thought Redhat would switch from upstart of systemd, within a
major release, I have no idea why you'd want to use anything based on Redhat.

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Jonathan Billings]

On Thu, Jun 08, 2017 at 05:02:38AM -0700, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
> > 
> > > Yes, 7 does track upstream.  upstream 6 uses systemd also and Scientific
> > > Linux 6 does not.  I would say that indicates a solution.
> > 
> > Upstream 6 uses systemd?
> > 
> > jh
>
> yes, 6.6 and above

RHEL6 has used Upstart since RHEL 6.0, and continues to use it in RHEL
6.9.  I have no idea where you'd get this kind of information.

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[James Hogarth]

On 8 June 2017 at 13:02, Bruce Ferrell  wrote:
> On 06/08/2017 04:59 AM, John Hodrien wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Bruce Ferrell wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, 7 does track upstream.  upstream 6 uses systemd also and Scientific
>>> Linux 6 does not.  I would say that indicates a solution.
>>
>>
>> Upstream 6 uses systemd?
>>
>> jh
>> ___
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@centos.org
>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
> yes, 6.6 and above
>
>

Uh I'd urge you to recheck your sources as EL6 has never in any part
of its lifespan made use of systemd
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Bruce Ferrell]

On 06/08/2017 04:59 AM, John Hodrien wrote:

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Bruce Ferrell wrote:


Yes, 7 does track upstream.  upstream 6 uses systemd also and Scientific
Linux 6 does not.  I would say that indicates a solution.


Upstream 6 uses systemd?

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


yes, 6.6 and above

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[John Hodrien]

On Thu, 8 Jun 2017, Bruce Ferrell wrote:


Yes, 7 does track upstream.  upstream 6 uses systemd also and Scientific
Linux 6 does not.  I would say that indicates a solution.


Upstream 6 uses systemd?

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Bruce Ferrell]

On 6/8/17 1:15 AM, Veli-Pekka Kestilä wrote:

On 7.6.2017 23:40, Bruce Ferrell wrote:

On 06/07/2017 01:27 PM, Warren Young wrote:

On Jun 7, 2017, at 1:02 PM, John R Pierce  wrote:
every RPM that interacts with systemd will need to be 'fixed' to do 
it the old way, with init.d scripts. repositories like postgres, 
EPEL, etc won't work, either, as their C7 packaged daemons are all 
configured to use systemd.

That’s just skimming the surface.

The real hard bits come from the way systemd hooks into the whole 
FreeDesktop infrastructure and vice versa.  (e.g. dbus is now 
inextricably part of systemd, and many FreeDesktop interactions 
happen via dbus.)  This is why the BSDs are either dropping GNOME 
and KDE (e.g. Lumina in TrueOS) or have badly lagging ports compared 
to the upstream version.


I suspect it’s probably easier to start with C6, then backport as 
much as is possible without dragging in any systemd stuff, the same 
way the BSDs are doing.


Good luck to y’all.  Sincerely.  I plan to keep on using C7, warts 
and all.


As I mentioned previously.  Scientific Linux (another RHEL clone) HAS 
solved those issues.  Centos isn't running the latest KDE/Plasma5 junk.





How they have solved it? According SL7 release notes in:
http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/7.0/x86_64/release-notes/

They say following:
"Following upstream SL7 uses systemd as its init system. The System’s 
Administrators Guide published by upstream provides a helpful 
introduction to systemd commands."


-vpk 
Yes, 7 does track upstream.  upstream 6 uses systemd also and Scientific 
Linux 6 does not.  I would say that indicates a solution.

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Veli-Pekka Kestilä]

On 7.6.2017 23:40, Bruce Ferrell wrote:

On 06/07/2017 01:27 PM, Warren Young wrote:

On Jun 7, 2017, at 1:02 PM, John R Pierce  wrote:
every RPM that interacts with systemd will need to be 'fixed' to do 
it the old way, with init.d scripts. repositories like postgres, 
EPEL, etc won't work, either, as their C7 packaged daemons are all 
configured to use systemd.

That’s just skimming the surface.

The real hard bits come from the way systemd hooks into the whole 
FreeDesktop infrastructure and vice versa.  (e.g. dbus is now 
inextricably part of systemd, and many FreeDesktop interactions happen 
via dbus.)  This is why the BSDs are either dropping GNOME and KDE 
(e.g. Lumina in TrueOS) or have badly lagging ports compared to the 
upstream version.


I suspect it’s probably easier to start with C6, then backport as much 
as is possible without dragging in any systemd stuff, the same way the 
BSDs are doing.


Good luck to y’all.  Sincerely.  I plan to keep on using C7, warts and 
all.


As I mentioned previously.  Scientific Linux (another RHEL clone) HAS 
solved those issues.  Centos isn't running the latest KDE/Plasma5 junk.





How they have solved it? According SL7 release notes in:
http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/7.0/x86_64/release-notes/

They say following:
"Following upstream SL7 uses systemd as its init system. The System’s 
Administrators Guide published by upstream provides a helpful 
introduction to systemd commands."


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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Bruce Ferrell]

On 06/07/2017 01:27 PM, Warren Young wrote:

On Jun 7, 2017, at 1:02 PM, John R Pierce  wrote:

every RPM that interacts with systemd will need to be 'fixed' to do it the old 
way, with init.d scripts. repositories like postgres, EPEL, etc won't work, 
either, as their C7 packaged daemons are all configured to use systemd.

That’s just skimming the surface.

The real hard bits come from the way systemd hooks into the whole FreeDesktop 
infrastructure and vice versa.  (e.g. dbus is now inextricably part of systemd, 
and many FreeDesktop interactions happen via dbus.)  This is why the BSDs are 
either dropping GNOME and KDE (e.g. Lumina in TrueOS) or have badly lagging 
ports compared to the upstream version.

I suspect it’s probably easier to start with C6, then backport as much as is 
possible without dragging in any systemd stuff, the same way the BSDs are doing.

Good luck to y’all.  Sincerely.  I plan to keep on using C7, warts and all.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos


As I mentioned previously.  Scientific Linux (another RHEL clone) HAS solved 
those issues.  Centos isn't running the latest KDE/Plasma5 junk.

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Warren Young]

On Jun 7, 2017, at 2:24 PM, Always Learning  wrote:
> 
> What is the advantage of patches over a virgin version that can be
> subsequently patched ?

Doing the change as a patch to the upstream RPM means that, most of the time, 
you can just apply your patch again whenever the upstream RPM changes.  If the 
patch applies cleanly, chances are that your port update is done, right there.

If you fork the package base entirely, you have to backport each change from 
upstream yourself, which is a much bigger burden.  Chances are good that you’ll 
end up forking the whole OS that way, rather than creating a variant spin of it.

The fork-the-whole-thing model would make sense if you’re starting from C6, 
since it’s on the downhill side of the patch rate curve now, so that there will 
be little backporting necessary.  And soon, a maintainer of a C6 fork would be 
on his own anyway, when the upstream patches dry up.

Whereas if you start with C7, you’d like to have the benefit of the upstream 
changes while you do the smallest amount of work you can while achieving your 
end of ridding C7 of systemd.  The project is likely to take years to complete 
— after all, it took many years for systemd to get to where it is now — so 
there’s a good chance you could complete the project before you’re left with an 
EOL’d C7 base package set.

If you look inside many RPMs, they are composed of the untouched upstream 
source tarball plus a series of patches.  One RPM I looked into recently had 
something like 30 separate patches applied to it, some from Fedora, some from 
Red Hat, Inc, and potentially (though not in this specific case) some from the 
CentOS project.  This is the normal way of doing these things.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Warren Young]

On Jun 7, 2017, at 1:02 PM, John R Pierce  wrote:
> 
> every RPM that interacts with systemd will need to be 'fixed' to do it the 
> old way, with init.d scripts. repositories like postgres, EPEL, etc won't 
> work, either, as their C7 packaged daemons are all configured to use systemd.

That’s just skimming the surface.

The real hard bits come from the way systemd hooks into the whole FreeDesktop 
infrastructure and vice versa.  (e.g. dbus is now inextricably part of systemd, 
and many FreeDesktop interactions happen via dbus.)  This is why the BSDs are 
either dropping GNOME and KDE (e.g. Lumina in TrueOS) or have badly lagging 
ports compared to the upstream version.

I suspect it’s probably easier to start with C6, then backport as much as is 
possible without dragging in any systemd stuff, the same way the BSDs are doing.

Good luck to y’all.  Sincerely.  I plan to keep on using C7, warts and all.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Always Learning]

On Wed, 2017-06-07 at 12:02 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:

> but will you contribute to building the non-systemd packages, and 
> working out how to retrofit old sysV init back into everything via 
> patches, etc ?every RPM that interacts with systemd will need to be 
> 'fixed' to do it the old way, with init.d scripts. repositories like 
> postgres, EPEL, etc won't work, either, as their C7 packaged daemons are 
> all configured to use systemd.

I'll do what I can providing people recognise I'm currently grossly
overloaded with community and family responsibilities and currently am
lucky if I get 6 hours sleep a day. However I'll try.

What is the advantage of patches over a virgin version that can be
subsequently patched ?

-- 
Regards,

Paul.
England, EU.  England's place is in the European Union.

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[m . roth]

Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 06/07/2017 02:02 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 6/7/2017 11:28 AM, Always Learning wrote:
 In the case of CentOS-7 .. you don't need to create a whole new
 distro, you can just petition the CentOS Project Board to create a
 Special Interest Group to get access to CentOS Project controlled
 resources to build packages (and get them rolled into our mirrors,
 etc.) to use something other than systemd.

>>> Excellent idea. I'll gladly sign any such petition:-)
>>
>> but will you contribute to building the non-systemd packages, and
>> working out how to retrofit old sysV init back into everything via
>> patches, etc ?every RPM that interacts with systemd will need to be
>> 'fixed' to do it the old way, with init.d scripts. repositories like
>> postgres, EPEL, etc won't work, either, as their C7 packaged daemons are
>> all configured to use systemd.
>
> Exactly what John said.
>
Yup. I'd happily sign, also... but between work and a *lot* of personal
issues, I don't have the time or energy to do such development. Given
that, I wasn't going to push for it.

mark

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Bruce Ferrell]

On 6/7/17 12:42 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:

On 06/07/2017 02:02 PM, John R Pierce wrote:

On 6/7/2017 11:28 AM, Always Learning wrote:

In the case of CentOS-7 .. you don't need to create a whole new
distro, you can just petition the CentOS Project Board to create a
Special Interest Group to get access to CentOS Project controlled
resources to build packages (and get them rolled into our mirrors,
etc.) to use something other than systemd.

Excellent idea. I'll gladly sign any such petition:-)


but will you contribute to building the non-systemd packages, and
working out how to retrofit old sysV init back into everything via
patches, etc ?every RPM that interacts with systemd will need to be
'fixed' to do it the old way, with init.d scripts. repositories like
postgres, EPEL, etc won't work, either, as their C7 packaged daemons are
all configured to use systemd.



Exactly what John said.

What I meant by petitioning the board is for a group of people who are
willing to actually contribute the time/effort required to make/modify
software that would use something other than systemd.

If such a group exists, and if that group wanted a way to get such
software into CentOS, they could petition (ask) for the starting of a SIG.

If there are not people willing to invest that effort, then we get what
we get from the released source code.

We don't need people to tell us they don't like it .. just like we don't
need people to tell us the want they want the upgrade tool to work.  We
need people who will actually DO SOMETHING to volunteer to do said
something in order for these (or any other things) to actually happen.

Actually, a LOT of that work exists in Scientific Linux.  The power of 
OSS is that odds are our problems aren't new and have already been 
solved by someone and we share those solutions.


Previous to systemd, the packages didn't have systemd integrated, so 
should be good models.


I, for one, volunteer.

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Valeri Galtsev]

On Wed, June 7, 2017 2:02 pm, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 6/7/2017 11:28 AM, Always Learning wrote:
>>> In the case of CentOS-7 .. you don't need to create a whole new
>>> distro, you can just petition the CentOS Project Board to create a
>>> Special Interest Group to get access to CentOS Project controlled
>>> resources to build packages (and get them rolled into our mirrors,
>>> etc.) to use something other than systemd.
>> Excellent idea. I'll gladly sign any such petition:-)
>
>
> but will you contribute to building the non-systemd packages, and
> working out how to retrofit old sysV init back into everything via
> patches, etc ?every RPM that interacts with systemd will need to be
> 'fixed' to do it the old way, with init.d scripts. repositories like
> postgres, EPEL, etc won't work, either, as their C7 packaged daemons are
> all configured to use systemd.

I agree, John.

We respect CentOS for what it is (blatantly said, being RHEL binary
replica, I know it is more...). Debian/devuan is a core system developers
team split. You want similar core system developers split here - the place
is RedHat, not CentOS and this definitely will not happen (note the
difference between debian.org and redhat.com).

So, the only productive thing about systemd on CentOS list will be to drop
all battles, accept systemd as our reality, and keep all posts restricted
to pure technical questions/answers.

Just my $0.02

Valeri


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

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Johnny Hughes]

On 06/07/2017 02:02 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 6/7/2017 11:28 AM, Always Learning wrote:
>>> In the case of CentOS-7 .. you don't need to create a whole new
>>> distro, you can just petition the CentOS Project Board to create a
>>> Special Interest Group to get access to CentOS Project controlled
>>> resources to build packages (and get them rolled into our mirrors,
>>> etc.) to use something other than systemd.
>> Excellent idea. I'll gladly sign any such petition:-)
> 
> 
> but will you contribute to building the non-systemd packages, and
> working out how to retrofit old sysV init back into everything via
> patches, etc ?every RPM that interacts with systemd will need to be
> 'fixed' to do it the old way, with init.d scripts. repositories like
> postgres, EPEL, etc won't work, either, as their C7 packaged daemons are
> all configured to use systemd.
> 
> 

Exactly what John said.

What I meant by petitioning the board is for a group of people who are
willing to actually contribute the time/effort required to make/modify
software that would use something other than systemd.

If such a group exists, and if that group wanted a way to get such
software into CentOS, they could petition (ask) for the starting of a SIG.

If there are not people willing to invest that effort, then we get what
we get from the released source code.

We don't need people to tell us they don't like it .. just like we don't
need people to tell us the want they want the upgrade tool to work.  We
need people who will actually DO SOMETHING to volunteer to do said
something in order for these (or any other things) to actually happen.



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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[John R Pierce]

On 6/7/2017 11:28 AM, Always Learning wrote:

In the case of CentOS-7 .. you don't need to create a whole new
distro, you can just petition the CentOS Project Board to create a
Special Interest Group to get access to CentOS Project controlled
resources to build packages (and get them rolled into our mirrors,
etc.) to use something other than systemd.

Excellent idea. I'll gladly sign any such petition:-)



but will you contribute to building the non-systemd packages, and 
working out how to retrofit old sysV init back into everything via 
patches, etc ?every RPM that interacts with systemd will need to be 
'fixed' to do it the old way, with init.d scripts. repositories like 
postgres, EPEL, etc won't work, either, as their C7 packaged daemons are 
all configured to use systemd.



--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Always Learning]

On Wed, 2017-06-07 at 11:23 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:

> If you want to create a CentOS-7 variant that does not use systemd,
> then start a Special Interest Group and create modified packages
> to use something else instead ..., much like the this group did
> with Debian:
> 
> https://devuan.org/
> 
> In the case of CentOS-7 .. you don't need to create a whole new
> distro, you can just petition the CentOS Project Board to create a
> Special Interest Group to get access to CentOS Project controlled
> resources to build packages (and get them rolled into our mirrors,
> etc.) to use something other than systemd.

Excellent idea. I'll gladly sign any such petition :-)

-- 
Regards,

Paul.
England, EU.  England's place is in the European Union.

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[m . roth]

Kenneth Porter wrote:
> On 6/7/2017 10:09 AM, Louis Lagendijk wrote:
>> I would not call fstab rudimentary.
>
> Perhaps I phrased that poorly. The idea is that fstab provides a minimal
> set of mounts to get off the ground. (My understanding, not saying
> that's how it's designed or intended.)
>
> This follows the packaging pattern that every unique setting goes in its
> own file. You don't disturb or risk breaking other settings when you add
> a new setting, and you can separately package these settings without
> meddling with central files.

Ok, sorta. Thanks for expanding, all.

 mark "none o' youse guys had to spend something like six hours
Monday and Tuesday swapping 42 drives in a RAID from 2TB
to 4TB, 6 unscrews, 4 screws"

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Kenneth Porter]

On 6/7/2017 10:09 AM, Louis Lagendijk wrote:

I would not call fstab rudimentary.


Perhaps I phrased that poorly. The idea is that fstab provides a minimal 
set of mounts to get off the ground. (My understanding, not saying 
that's how it's designed or intended.)


This follows the packaging pattern that every unique setting goes in its 
own file. You don't disturb or risk breaking other settings when you add 
a new setting, and you can separately package these settings without 
meddling with central files.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Louis Lagendijk]

On Wed, 2017-06-07 at 12:47 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Kenneth Porter wrote:
> > On 6/7/2017 8:31 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> > > Not sure what you mean when you say "jacked up filesystem".
> > > Here's
> > > fstab:
> > 
> > In systemd fstab takes care of only rudimentary mounting. Most
> > mounting
> > is done through *.mount unit files. Type "mount" and you'll see a
> > bunch
> > of other mounts that were implemented that way. Add your custom
> > mounts
> > by creating suitable files in /etc/systemd/system/*mount. (There's
> > also
> > *.automount for creating demand-based mounts.)
> > 
> 
> You. Have. To. Be. Joking. WHY? Why doesn't systemd *look* at fstab
> and
> create what it needs on the fly? Why does it only "rudimentary
> mount"?
Calm down Mark. You are overreacting.
Systemd does generate mount units in the fly. Check the documentation:
man systemd.mount tells you more. I would not call fstab rudimentary. 
/Louis

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Jonathan Billings]

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 12:47:58PM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> You. Have. To. Be. Joking. WHY? Why doesn't systemd *look* at fstab and
> create what it needs on the fly? Why does it only "rudimentary mount"?

It does that.  Read the man page for 'systemd-fstab-generator', and
'systemd.generator'. 

> What purpose does that serve? What goal is it trying to achieve by
> this?

I think the biggest use I see is that your services can have
dependencies on mountpoints.

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[m . roth]

Kenneth Porter wrote:
> On 6/7/2017 8:31 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Not sure what you mean when you say "jacked up filesystem". Here's
>> fstab:
>
> In systemd fstab takes care of only rudimentary mounting. Most mounting
> is done through *.mount unit files. Type "mount" and you'll see a bunch
> of other mounts that were implemented that way. Add your custom mounts
> by creating suitable files in /etc/systemd/system/*mount. (There's also
> *.automount for creating demand-based mounts.)
>
You. Have. To. Be. Joking. WHY? Why doesn't systemd *look* at fstab and
create what it needs on the fly? Why does it only "rudimentary mount"?
What purpose does that serve? What goal is it trying to achieve by this?

   mark

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Johnny Hughes]

On 06/07/2017 09:10 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> I just updated a system - as in minutes ago, and log back in after it
> reboots, and this is in dmesg:
> [   88.202272] systemd-readahead[484]:
> open(/var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1/initramfs/usr/bin/loginctl) failed: Too many
> levels of symbolic links
> [   88.202515] systemd-readahead[484]:
> open(/var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1/initramfs/usr/lib/systemd/system/dracut-emergency.service)
> failed: Too many levels of symbolic links
> 
> Anyone know what this is - some weird bug, a garbage message?

Before this turns into another 200 email flame war about systemd .. this
list is NOT the place to discuss if systemd is good or bad, nor whether
it should be in a CentOS Linux distro or not.

CentOS rebuilds source code for RHEL as released by Red Hat.  If that
source code uses GNOME 3.14 instead of GNOME 3.18 .. or if it uses
mariadb instead of mysql .. or if it uses systemd or sysv init .. is not
relevant to how we build CentOS Linux or what CentOS Linux is.  If you
want to influence what is in upstream RHEL (so therefore what gets
released as source code, and therefore becomes part of CentOS Linux),
Red Hat has mechanisms in place where that happens for both Fedora and
RHEL.  This is not one of those mechanisms.

CentOS rebuilds the source code that is put out, nothing more.  No one
is making anyone use CentOS Linux, or like what it contains.  If you
don't like CentOS, don't use it.  If you don't like systemd but want to
use CentOS Linux, use CentOS-6, which does not have systemd.

If you want to create a CentOS-7 variant that does not use systemd, then
start a Special Interest Group and create modified packages to use
something else instead, much like the this group did with Debian:

https://devuan.org/

In the case of CentOS-7 .. you don't need to create a whole new distro,
you can just petition the CentOS Project Board to create a Special
Interest Group to get access to CentOS Project controlled resources to
build packages (and get them rolled into our mirrors, etc.) to use
something other than systemd.

But just whining about not liking content in CentOS Linux in general, or
systemd in particular, is not productive.  Use CentOS if you want, if
you don't that is fine.  If you want something major changed .. this is
open source and we provide mechanisms to make such changes (Special
Interest Groups), so use them.

I am NOT saying that Mark (or anyone else) is whining at this point .. I
just picked the original mail in this thread to post this email
reminding how CentOS Linux works and to suggest how something
constructive might be done instead of another irrelevant (to CentOS
Linux) 'I like or I hate systemd' thread.

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes





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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Kenneth Porter]

On 6/7/2017 8:31 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:

Not sure what you mean when you say "jacked up filesystem". Here's fstab:


In systemd fstab takes care of only rudimentary mounting. Most mounting 
is done through *.mount unit files. Type "mount" and you'll see a bunch 
of other mounts that were implemented that way. Add your custom mounts 
by creating suitable files in /etc/systemd/system/*mount. (There's also 
*.automount for creating demand-based mounts.)



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Valeri Galtsev]

On Wed, June 7, 2017 10:43 am, Warren Young wrote:
> On Jun 7, 2017, at 9:31 AM, Mark Haney  wrote:
>>
>> On 06/07/2017 11:24 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
>>>
>>> Mark stop with the flame baiting please.
>>>
>>> This is nothing systemd specific - and keep in mind /var/tmp is a
>>> persistent temp area unlike /tmp which as it's tmpfs by default is of
>>> course emptie don boot.
>> I would wholeheartedly disagree.  This IS something systemd specific.
>
> I’m sure James Hogarth meant that circular symlink chains are a problem
> for any program, not just for systemd.
>
> Now if you can show that systemd *generated* this chain, you might have a
> point.
>
> Since we have only one report of this, it seems unlikely that systemd is
> doing this.  Surely we’d have thousands of reports of this is something
> systemd always did.
>
>> I have never seen init.d blow itself up over bloody symlinks.
>
> Only the systemd-readahead process failed.  It’s an optional component.
> systemd is clearly not “blown up” on Mark’s system, else he
> couldn’t have gotten to a login prompt.
>
> This optional component diagnosed an actual problem, that’s all.
>
>> The readahead, while /possibly/ nice isn't at all necessary on modern
>> hardware.
>
> Explain then why a VM containing a given OS generally boots faster the
> second time on a given host than rebooting the same OS on the bare
> hardware running that VM host.
>
> RAM caches matter more today than they ever did, due to the vast disparity
> between storage access speeds in a modern system.  Precharging the caches
> is still a good idea in 2017.
>
>> I want my hardware to boot consistently, not bomb like an Adam Sandler
>> movie because of /symlinks/.
>
> Hyperbolic much?
>
>> I'd be willing to bet a year's salary most admins hate systemd with a
>> passion.
>
> I think you’re basing that bet on data generated by an angry noisy
> minority.

With all my respect to Warren, I still decided to mention: noisy minority
are the only ones everyone hears. There is big bunch of people who stopped
saying anything as when one does, he gets in the middle of heated
argument, gets shushed upon... And both sides of argument do realize that
arguing will not change anything. Especially NOT on CentOS list. I am just
mentioning that obviously visible minority has a bunch of invisible folks
agreeing with them who decided to stop commenting on this, and some who
fled elsewhere (and definitely didn't change their minds). Sigh.

Let's close this theme, and go back to administering systems we love
(whichever OS that would mean for you).

Valeri


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

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Warren Young]

On Jun 7, 2017, at 9:31 AM, Mark Haney  wrote:
> 
> On 06/07/2017 11:24 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
>> 
>> Mark stop with the flame baiting please.
>> 
>> This is nothing systemd specific - and keep in mind /var/tmp is a
>> persistent temp area unlike /tmp which as it's tmpfs by default is of
>> course emptie don boot.
> I would wholeheartedly disagree.  This IS something systemd specific.

I’m sure James Hogarth meant that circular symlink chains are a problem for any 
program, not just for systemd.

Now if you can show that systemd *generated* this chain, you might have a point.

Since we have only one report of this, it seems unlikely that systemd is doing 
this.  Surely we’d have thousands of reports of this is something systemd 
always did.

> I have never seen init.d blow itself up over bloody symlinks.

Only the systemd-readahead process failed.  It’s an optional component.  
systemd is clearly not “blown up” on Mark’s system, else he couldn’t have 
gotten to a login prompt.

This optional component diagnosed an actual problem, that’s all.

> The readahead, while /possibly/ nice isn't at all necessary on modern 
> hardware.

Explain then why a VM containing a given OS generally boots faster the second 
time on a given host than rebooting the same OS on the bare hardware running 
that VM host.

RAM caches matter more today than they ever did, due to the vast disparity 
between storage access speeds in a modern system.  Precharging the caches is 
still a good idea in 2017.

> I want my hardware to boot consistently, not bomb like an Adam Sandler movie 
> because of /symlinks/.

Hyperbolic much?

> I'd be willing to bet a year's salary most admins hate systemd with a passion.

I think you’re basing that bet on data generated by an angry noisy minority.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[m . roth]

Mark Haney wrote:
> On 06/07/2017 11:24 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
>>
>> Mark stop with the flame baiting please.
>>
>> This is nothing systemd specific - and keep in mind /var/tmp is a
>> persistent temp area unlike /tmp which as it's tmpfs by default is of
>> course emptie don boot.
> I would wholeheartedly disagree.  This IS something systemd specific.  I
> have never seen init.d blow itself up over bloody symlinks.  The
> readahead, while /possibly/ nice isn't at all necessary on modern
> hardware.  I want my hardware to boot consistently, not bomb like an
> Adam Sandler movie because of /symlinks/.
>
> But hey, call it flamebait if you want. I'd be willing to bet a year's
> salary most admins hate systemd with a passion.
>
Yup. I have issues with just trying to find out the name of a service to
restart But let's not go on about it. I just had a throwaway, and
really didn't intend to start something like the last flame thread on
systemd, that went on for weeks

mark

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[m . roth]

Mark Haney wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the info. Now, why it shouldn't have cleaned itself up when I
>> gave it the reboot command... I see too many (that's defined as more
>> than zero) cases where systemd WANTS TO BOOT FAST, and doesn't wait for
>> things to finish - sush as not getting the hostname from dhcp, and so
having to
>> hardcode the name instead.
>>
>> Systemd, as I've said before, seems to be targeted towards laptops. Not
>> servers. Not workstations. *bleah*

> I'm still thinking it's a jacked up filesystem.  I'm not sure what fs
> you're using, though the default is xfs, but I'd look at dmesg and
> boot.log to see if the kernel is finding issues with the drives or just
> the fs.  It's also possible that server had been up a long time and RAM
> was funky.  I've seen both of these happen before.

Not sure what you mean when you say "jacked up filesystem". Here's fstab:

UUID=b32212c1-bb97-4a99-8200-aa8152da528d /   xfs defaults
   0 0
UUID=d6648305-f049-4d7d--670979da3cbe /boot   xfs defaults
   0 0
UUID=1bc3baaf-4b52-4309-9564-f80f2c098643 swapswapdefaults
   0 0
LABEL=export1   /export/1   ext4defaults0 0


  mark

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 11:31:06AM -0400, Mark Haney wrote:
> I would wholeheartedly disagree.  This IS something systemd
> specific.  I have never seen init.d blow itself up over bloody
> symlinks.  The readahead, while /possibly/ nice isn't at all
> necessary on modern hardware.  I want my hardware to boot
> consistently, not bomb like an Adam Sandler movie because of
> /symlinks/.

Now this is just silly. It didn't "blow itself up". Nothing blew up at
all. There are just messages logged. There is no actual problem.



-- 
Matthew Miller

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Mark Haney]

On 06/07/2017 11:24 AM, James Hogarth wrote:


Mark stop with the flame baiting please.

This is nothing systemd specific - and keep in mind /var/tmp is a
persistent temp area unlike /tmp which as it's tmpfs by default is of
course emptie don boot.
I would wholeheartedly disagree.  This IS something systemd specific.  I 
have never seen init.d blow itself up over bloody symlinks.  The 
readahead, while /possibly/ nice isn't at all necessary on modern 
hardware.  I want my hardware to boot consistently, not bomb like an 
Adam Sandler movie because of /symlinks/.


But hey, call it flamebait if you want. I'd be willing to bet a year's 
salary most admins hate systemd with a passion.



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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Mark Haney]

Thanks for the info. Now, why it shouldn't have cleaned itself up when I
gave it the reboot command... I see too many (that's defined as more than
zero) cases where systemd WANTS TO BOOT FAST, and doesn't wait for things
to finish - sush as not getting the hostname from dhcp, and so having to
hardcode the name instead.

Systemd, as I've said before, seems to be targeted towards laptops. Not
servers. Not workstations. *bleah*
I'm still thinking it's a jacked up filesystem.  I'm not sure what fs 
you're using, though the default is xfs, but I'd look at dmesg and 
boot.log to see if the kernel is finding issues with the drives or just 
the fs.  It's also possible that server had been up a long time and RAM 
was funky.  I've seen both of these happen before.


As far as using systemd based systems on servers, a month or so back, I 
pushed a new C7 kickstart for servers we send to customers and haven't 
seen anything to make me think systemd isn't good for servers.  That 
doesn't mean it's not a giant POS for administrators.  If only they 
hadn't jacked the syntax all to hell from initd, I might be slightly 
happier with it.  That by itself has to be the most ridiculous thing any 
group of devs have ever done. And for no rational reason either.  



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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[James Hogarth]

On 7 June 2017 at 16:13,   wrote:
> Matthew Miller wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:10:14AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>>> I just updated a system - as in minutes ago, and log back in after it
>>> reboots, and this is in dmesg:
>>> [   88.202272] systemd-readahead[484]:
>>> open(/var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1/initramfs/usr/bin/loginctl) failed: Too many
>>> levels of symbolic links
>>> [   88.202515] systemd-readahead[484]:
>>> open(/var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1/initramfs/usr/lib/systemd/system/dracut-emergency.service)
>>> failed: Too many levels of symbolic links
>>> Anyone know what this is - some weird bug, a garbage message?
>>
>> systemd-readahead is just trying to pre-cache stuff into memory so boot
>> time is faster. I'm not sure eaxctly what's going on here but that
>> message is typical of having a loop in your symbolic links (which can
>> easily happen with relative links).
>>
>> I'm not quite sure what *exactly* is going on, but it looks like maybe
>> dracut temp files didn't get cleaned up properly and that they contain
>> such a loop. I bet you can just rm -rf /var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1.
>>
> Thanks for the info. Now, why it shouldn't have cleaned itself up when I
> gave it the reboot command... I see too many (that's defined as more than
> zero) cases where systemd WANTS TO BOOT FAST, and doesn't wait for things
> to finish - sush as not getting the hostname from dhcp, and so having to
> hardcode the name instead.
>
> Systemd, as I've said before, seems to be targeted towards laptops. Not
> servers. Not workstations. *bleah*
>


Mark stop with the flame baiting please.

This is nothing systemd specific - and keep in mind /var/tmp is a
persistent temp area unlike /tmp which as it's tmpfs by default is of
course emptie don boot.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[m . roth]

Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:10:14AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> I just updated a system - as in minutes ago, and log back in after it
>> reboots, and this is in dmesg:
>> [   88.202272] systemd-readahead[484]:
>> open(/var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1/initramfs/usr/bin/loginctl) failed: Too many
>> levels of symbolic links
>> [   88.202515] systemd-readahead[484]:
>> open(/var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1/initramfs/usr/lib/systemd/system/dracut-emergency.service)
>> failed: Too many levels of symbolic links
>> Anyone know what this is - some weird bug, a garbage message?
>
> systemd-readahead is just trying to pre-cache stuff into memory so boot
> time is faster. I'm not sure eaxctly what's going on here but that
> message is typical of having a loop in your symbolic links (which can
> easily happen with relative links).
>
> I'm not quite sure what *exactly* is going on, but it looks like maybe
> dracut temp files didn't get cleaned up properly and that they contain
> such a loop. I bet you can just rm -rf /var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1.
>
Thanks for the info. Now, why it shouldn't have cleaned itself up when I
gave it the reboot command... I see too many (that's defined as more than
zero) cases where systemd WANTS TO BOOT FAST, and doesn't wait for things
to finish - sush as not getting the hostname from dhcp, and so having to
hardcode the name instead.

Systemd, as I've said before, seems to be targeted towards laptops. Not
servers. Not workstations. *bleah*

  mark

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Matthew Miller]

On Wed, Jun 07, 2017 at 10:10:14AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> I just updated a system - as in minutes ago, and log back in after it
> reboots, and this is in dmesg:
> [   88.202272] systemd-readahead[484]:
> open(/var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1/initramfs/usr/bin/loginctl) failed: Too many
> levels of symbolic links
> [   88.202515] systemd-readahead[484]:
> open(/var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1/initramfs/usr/lib/systemd/system/dracut-emergency.service)
> failed: Too many levels of symbolic links
> Anyone know what this is - some weird bug, a garbage message?

systemd-readahead is just trying to pre-cache stuff into memory so boot
time is faster. I'm not sure eaxctly what's going on here but that
message is typical of having a loop in your symbolic links (which can
easily happen with relative links).

I'm not quite sure what *exactly* is going on, but it looks like maybe
dracut temp files didn't get cleaned up properly and that they contain
such a loop. I bet you can just rm -rf /var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1.


-- 
Matthew Miller

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

Re: [CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[Mark Haney]

I'm not sure why it's trying to open anything  in /var/tmp to be 
honest.  Jacked up filesystem maybe?  Granted I know very little about 
systemd except it sucks on levels that I can't begin to explain.



On 06/07/2017 10:10 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:

I just updated a system - as in minutes ago, and log back in after it
reboots, and this is in dmesg:
[   88.202272] systemd-readahead[484]:
open(/var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1/initramfs/usr/bin/loginctl) failed: Too many
levels of symbolic links
[   88.202515] systemd-readahead[484]:
open(/var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1/initramfs/usr/lib/systemd/system/dracut-emergency.service)
failed: Too many levels of symbolic links

Anyone know what this is - some weird bug, a garbage message?

 mark

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


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

[CentOS] C7, systemd, say what?!

[m . roth]

I just updated a system - as in minutes ago, and log back in after it
reboots, and this is in dmesg:
[   88.202272] systemd-readahead[484]:
open(/var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1/initramfs/usr/bin/loginctl) failed: Too many
levels of symbolic links
[   88.202515] systemd-readahead[484]:
open(/var/tmp/dracut.fP4yj1/initramfs/usr/lib/systemd/system/dracut-emergency.service)
failed: Too many levels of symbolic links

Anyone know what this is - some weird bug, a garbage message?

mark

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