Re: The new normal of logging

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 27 October 2017 22:47:26 Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:

> On 27/10/17 17:52, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Thursday 26 October 2017 21:21:37 Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:
> >> On 27/10/17 13:02, Gene Heskett wrote:
> >>> On Thursday 26 October 2017 15:22:35 Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
>  " And there's also systemd, that is slowly phagocytosing the UNIX
>  part of Linux"
> >>>
> >>> I'm old enough to have taken phonics in grade school, but that
> >>> obviously invented word could probably be replaced by a 4 letter
> >>> adjective...
> >>
> >> Invented, yes, but over 130 years ago. The term phagocyte was
> >> coined in about 1883 by Carl Friedrich Wilhelm Claus to describe
> >> the cells discovered by Ilya Mechnikov, winner of the 1908 Nobel
> >> Prize in Medicine
> >
> > I agree.  And obviously you have more educational credits hanging on
> > the wall than I.
>
> Just my medical parents describing their then-teenage children
> devouring food.  :-)

ROTFLMAO!

> Kind regards,

Back at you.  Take care. I don't think either of us wants to make the 
papers.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

Re: The new normal of logging

[Ben Caradoc-Davies]

On 27/10/17 17:52, Gene Heskett wrote:

On Thursday 26 October 2017 21:21:37 Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:

On 27/10/17 13:02, Gene Heskett wrote:

On Thursday 26 October 2017 15:22:35 Nicholas Geovanis wrote:

" And there's also systemd, that is slowly phagocytosing the UNIX
part of Linux"

I'm old enough to have taken phonics in grade school, but that
obviously invented word could probably be replaced by a 4 letter
adjective...

Invented, yes, but over 130 years ago. The term phagocyte was coined
in about 1883 by Carl Friedrich Wilhelm Claus to describe the cells
discovered by Ilya Mechnikov, winner of the 1908 Nobel Prize in
Medicine

I agree.  And obviously you have more educational credits hanging on the
wall than I.
Just my medical parents describing their then-teenage children devouring 
food.  :-)


Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies 
Director
Transient Software Limited 
New Zealand

Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Michael Stone]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 07:49:29AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:

I must argue against it, until as you say, resolvconf is given a well
documented way to be told to leave a "static" system alone.  Until such
time, I'll make /etc/resolv.conf a real file, and mark it
and /etc/network/interfaces immutable.


It's been mentioned several times. If you don't want to do that and 
would rather set the immutable bit, great! Now move on and stop 
complaining about it.


Mike Stone

Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[David Wright]

On Fri 27 Oct 2017 at 18:05:23 (-0400), Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:46:53PM +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> > Roberto C. Sánchez  writes:
> > 
> > > Think about that for a minute.  The mere action of an interface (any
> > > interface on the system) obtaining a DHCP lease is sufficient to have
> > > dhclient think it needs to obliterate my manual networking configuration
> > > with settings from the DHCP server.
> > 
> > Well, yes. That's what DHCP *does*.
> > 
> The problem I have with it is that in my case there are other *static*
> interfaces on the system and DHCP's assumption that it is operating in a
> vacuum is terribly annoying.

Yes, that's why some people recommended resolvconf to moderate
its (and other packages') behaviour. That's what resolvconf does.

> I cannot be the only person who has
> encountered this particular issue with these circumstances and been
> frustrated by how difficult it is to, 1) find out what exactly is
> happening, and 2) make it stop.

No, nor to unintentionally cause a wild goose chase by making a
reporting error. Nor to have your thread derailed by people posting
their favourite purported "solutions" that have already been
discredited here.

OTOH I think it's understandable that the thread is prolonged by
well-intentioned suggestions to adopt the "official" Debian way
of handling this with resolvconf. Am I the only person surprised
that there wasn't more advocacy for systemd-resolved.service
as well.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:46:53PM +0200, Mart van de Wege wrote:
> Roberto C. Sánchez  writes:
> 
> > Think about that for a minute.  The mere action of an interface (any
> > interface on the system) obtaining a DHCP lease is sufficient to have
> > dhclient think it needs to obliterate my manual networking configuration
> > with settings from the DHCP server.
> 
> Well, yes. That's what DHCP *does*.
> 
The problem I have with it is that in my case there are other *static*
interfaces on the system and DHCP's assumption that it is operating in a
vacuum is terribly annoying.  I cannot be the only person who has
encountered this particular issue with these circumstances and been
frustrated by how difficult it is to, 1) find out what exactly is
happening, and 2) make it stop.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

Contract Opportunity ... IT HW/SW Purchasing Specialist ... 1 year ... Corning, NY

[Jim McCarthy]

*Site: *Corning, NY

*Start Date:   *11/28/2017
* Duration: *1 year

*Note: *individual W-2 or C2C [1099]


*** MUST HAVE  IT Procurement & MS Office Professional ***



*Role**:   *IT Hardware and Software Purchasing Specialist


*Responsibilities:*

• Responsible for *sourcing and purchasing IT-related hardware and software*
used by individuals or manufacturing operations.
• Uses *internal and vendor systems for selection, purchasing and tracking*.

*Daily Duties:*

• Order approved software and hardware.

• Obtain various hardware/software quotes.

• Maintain SharePoint information used for reporting software/hardware
requests.

• Create and submit cost transfers monthly.

*MUST HAVES: *

•Microsoft Office, including Excel.
• Internal systems / tools [ServiceNow, PeopleSoft, JIP transfers,
Changepoint, etc.]








*Jim McCarthy*
Client Director - Big Data Analytics & Optimization
Account Executive
*LOGIXtech Solutions LLC*
379 Thornall Street, 6th Floor
Edison, New Jersey - 08837
www.logix-tech.com
==

Unsubscribe debian-user@lists.debian.org from this list:
https://logix-tech.us10.list-manage.com/unsubscribe?u=9eb95d2d10167bcaf8b7fa604&id=7cefa72468&e=751044015a&c=c26dc1b7eb

Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Mart van de Wege]

Roberto C. Sánchez  writes:

> Think about that for a minute.  The mere action of an interface (any
> interface on the system) obtaining a DHCP lease is sufficient to have
> dhclient think it needs to obliterate my manual networking configuration
> with settings from the DHCP server.

Well, yes. That's what DHCP *does*.

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Mart van de Wege]

Darac Marjal  writes:

>
> Who's saying it must be installed? Maybe I've missed something, but I
> think the consensus in this discussion was that if you want your
> resolv.conf to be unmanaged/static/administrator-controlled, then
> don't have resolvconf installed. If you have resolvconf installed,
> then what's the point of neutering it with a command?
>
Because in this case OP is running a DHCP client, which *will* overwrite
resolv.conf unless something stops it.

And you can then either try all kinds of workarounds, or install the
tool that's meant to manage resolv.conf in the presence of programs that
want to change it.

Mart

-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

Re: estamated number of Linux users?

[Michael Lange]

On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 20:37:22 +0200
"Thomas Schmitt"  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Phil Dobbin wrote:
> > Kingsley Amis on his loss of libido when he turned fifty
> 
> Not a problem any more in our times of digital wonders.
> In case of loss, simply re-install
>   https://packages.debian.org/stretch/libido3-0.1-0
 ^^^

Wow, that sounds like one even gets a third gonad for free :))

scnr

Michael


.-.. .. ...- .   .-.. --- -. --.   .- -. -..   .--. .-. --- ... .--. . .-.

Too much of anything, even love, isn't necessarily a good thing.
-- Kirk, "The Trouble with Tribbles", stardate 4525.6

Re: estamated number of Linux users?

[Terence]

Done that, Phil, but can't see any change on my boot-up speed, nor in my
response time.

What else can you suggest?

Feeling down,

Saki

On 27 October 2017 at 21:03, Phil Dobbin  wrote:

> On 27/10/17 19:37, Thomas Schmitt wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> > Phil Dobbin wrote:
> >> Kingsley Amis on his loss of libido when he turned fifty
> >
> > Not a problem any more in our times of digital wonders.
> > In case of loss, simply re-install
> >   https://packages.debian.org/stretch/libido3-0.1-0
>
> :-)
>
> Cheers,
>
>   Phil.
>
> --
> "For 50 years it was like being chained to an idiot"
> Kingsley Amis on his loss of libido when he turned fifty
>
> https://www.linuxcounter.net/cert/550036.png
>
>

Re: estamated number of Linux users?

[Phil Dobbin]

On 27/10/17 19:37, Thomas Schmitt wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Phil Dobbin wrote:
>> Kingsley Amis on his loss of libido when he turned fifty
> 
> Not a problem any more in our times of digital wonders.
> In case of loss, simply re-install
>   https://packages.debian.org/stretch/libido3-0.1-0

:-)

Cheers,

  Phil.

-- 
"For 50 years it was like being chained to an idiot"
Kingsley Amis on his loss of libido when he turned fifty

https://www.linuxcounter.net/cert/550036.png



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [SOLVED] Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Greg Wooledge]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 07:47:49PM +, Curt wrote:
> My response is two venerable hot-shots from this very forum ventured
> into that rather short wiki within the last 24 hours, made edits,
> advertised them here, but couldn't be bothered to fix the fucking thing
> and as a lesser mortal amongst you high-falutin sons of bitches I
> figured it must not be worth the effort (to fix).

Well.  The question is whether to delete that section, or to leave it
in place.  There is no urgent need to delete it, because it is not
factually *wrong*.  It's simply someone's anecdotal experience.

Likewise, there's no reason to correct the grammar.  The grammar and
the shell commands are both awkward and unpolished.  Fixing the grammar
and leaving those awful shell commands unchanged would give the mistaken
impression that those shell commands are actually good.  The way it's
written now, anyone who reads English semi-fluently can tell that it's
an anecdotal appendix, and not a preferred solution.

If you feel that it's better to delete the whole section, then that's
your call.  My preference is to leave content in place wherever possible,
unless the content is wrong, misleading, full of errors, etc.  For all
I know, "Debian 8.8.4.4" may be someone's google search terms that lead
them to this page.  Once they get to the page, then they can read about
the issues and the various ways to achieve their goal.

Re: [SOLVED] Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Curt]

On 2017-10-27, Brian  wrote:
>> >
>> 
>> Weird wiki. From "my issues" (sic) down it switches from third to
>> first-person narration by what I suspect is a Germanophone and all hell
>> breaks loose (grammatically speaking).
>
> It's a wiki. That tells you something. ("someone else apart from me
> can do it" is not your response, if you choose to give one).
>

My response is two venerable hot-shots from this very forum ventured
into that rather short wiki within the last 24 hours, made edits,
advertised them here, but couldn't be bothered to fix the fucking thing
and as a lesser mortal amongst you high-falutin sons of bitches I
figured it must not be worth the effort (to fix).

So there. Find a convenient lake, B., and go jump in.

Thank you.

Over and out.

-- 
"A simpering Bambi narcissist and a thieving, fanatical Albanian dwarf."
Christopher Hitchens, commenting shortly after the nearly concurrent deaths 
of Lady Diana and Mother Theresa.

Re: estamated number of Linux users?

[x9p]

On 2017-10-27 16:41, John Hasler wrote:

Ric writes:

I wouldn't demean the Linux Counter effort calling it "Utterly
useless".


It's a simple statement of fact.  The Linux Counter data is utterly
useless for the purpose of estimating the number of Linux users.


:%s/Linux/active Linux/g

Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[David Wright]

On Fri 27 Oct 2017 at 11:38:56 (-0700), Kevin O'Gorman wrote:
> Interesting.  I took a look at mine, and found
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 29 Aug  8  2016 /etc/resolv.conf ->
> ../run/resolvconf/resolv.conf
> 
> so the thing is now entirely dynamic.  I don't know what setting it
> immutable would do or mean.

If you mean /etc/resolv.conf itself, you can't.

Cheers,
David.

Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[David Wright]

On Fri 27 Oct 2017 at 08:35:05 (-0400), Greg Wooledge wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 01:18:58PM +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
> > Who's saying it must be installed?
> 
> A few people in this thread, though I think they're saying "should"
> rather than "must".
> 
> > Maybe I've missed something, but I think
> > the consensus in this discussion was that if you want your resolv.conf to be
> > unmanaged/static/administrator-controlled, then don't have resolvconf
> > installed. If you have resolvconf installed, then what's the point of
> > neutering it with a command?

Conceivably, one could switch between a *docked laptop with
chattr +i of a real file* that is occasionally taken on the road
with the simple actions of chattr -i and ln -s being necessary
to effect the change.
All the daemons could be working away as normal all the time,
but just rendered impotent when docked.

AFAICT this will also keep systemd happy when docked, and undocking
can be done with a symlink to /run/systemd/resolve/resolv.conf
(rather than /etc/resolvconf/run/resolv.conf), allowing
systemd-resolved.service to perform again.

> Let's review what we've learned so far.
> 
> If you want to make local modifications to /etc/resolv.conf and have
> them stick, here are some ways to do it:
> 
> 1) chattr +i /etc/resolv.conf

With the common sense assumptions that a real file has had the
required data entered, that would seem to be sufficient, without
having to cope with the complications following.

> 2) Individually configure each daemon that might try to modify the file,
>to make it stop doing so.
> 
> 3) Install the resolvconf package, because by doing so you also install
>various hacks that modify the behavior of all known Debian daemons,
>stopping them from writing to /etc/resolv.conf.
> 
>Then tell resolvconf itself to do nothing by putting resolvconf=NO
>in the /etc/resolvconf.conf file.

Cheers,
David.

Re: [SOLVED] Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Brian]

On Fri 27 Oct 2017 at 18:27:09 +, Curt wrote:

> On 2017-10-27, Greg Wooledge  wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:03:38AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> >> I finally got around to updating the wiki page today.  Here is the link
> >> for those who wish to have it as a reference or perhaps would like to
> >> contribute to further improving it:
> >> 
> >> https://wiki.debian.org/resolv.conf
> >
> > I've made a few changes as well.
> >
> >
> 
> Weird wiki. From "my issues" (sic) down it switches from third to
> first-person narration by what I suspect is a Germanophone and all hell
> breaks loose (grammatically speaking).

It's a wiki. That tells you something. ("someone else apart from me
can do it" is not your response, if you choose to give one).

-- 
Brian.

Re: estamated number of Linux users?

[John Hasler]

Ric writes:
> I wouldn't demean the Linux Counter effort calling it "Utterly
> useless".

It's a simple statement of fact.  The Linux Counter data is utterly
useless for the purpose of estimating the number of Linux users.
-- 
John Hasler 
jhas...@newsguy.com
Elmwood, WI USA

Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Kevin O'Gorman]

Interesting.  I took a look at mine, and found
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 29 Aug  8  2016 /etc/resolv.conf ->
../run/resolvconf/resolv.conf

so the thing is now entirely dynamic.  I don't know what setting it
immutable would do or mean.
I'm running xubuntu 16.04.3 LTS


On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 5:35 AM, Greg Wooledge  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 01:18:58PM +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
> > Who's saying it must be installed?
>
> A few people in this thread, though I think they're saying "should"
> rather than "must".
>
> > Maybe I've missed something, but I think
> > the consensus in this discussion was that if you want your resolv.conf
> to be
> > unmanaged/static/administrator-controlled, then don't have resolvconf
> > installed. If you have resolvconf installed, then what's the point of
> > neutering it with a command?
>
> Let's review what we've learned so far.
>
> If you want to make local modifications to /etc/resolv.conf and have
> them stick, here are some ways to do it:
>
> 1) chattr +i /etc/resolv.conf
>
> 2) Individually configure each daemon that might try to modify the file,
>to make it stop doing so.
>
> 3) Install the resolvconf package, because by doing so you also install
>various hacks that modify the behavior of all known Debian daemons,
>stopping them from writing to /etc/resolv.conf.
>
>Then tell resolvconf itself to do nothing by putting resolvconf=NO
>in the /etc/resolvconf.conf file.
>
>


-- 
Kevin O'Gorman
#define QUESTION ((bb) || (!bb))   /* Shakespeare */

Please consider the environment before printing this email.

Re: estamated number of Linux users?

[Thomas Schmitt]

Hi,

Phil Dobbin wrote:
> Kingsley Amis on his loss of libido when he turned fifty

Not a problem any more in our times of digital wonders.
In case of loss, simply re-install
  https://packages.debian.org/stretch/libido3-0.1-0


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

Re: [SOLVED] Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Curt]

On 2017-10-27, Greg Wooledge  wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:03:38AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
>> I finally got around to updating the wiki page today.  Here is the link
>> for those who wish to have it as a reference or perhaps would like to
>> contribute to further improving it:
>> 
>> https://wiki.debian.org/resolv.conf
>
> I've made a few changes as well.
>
>

Weird wiki. From "my issues" (sic) down it switches from third to
first-person narration by what I suspect is a Germanophone and all hell
breaks loose (grammatically speaking). 

-- 
"A simpering Bambi narcissist and a thieving, fanatical Albanian dwarf."
Christopher Hitchens, commenting shortly after the nearly concurrent deaths 
of Lady Diana and Mother Theresa.

Re: estamated number of Linux users?

[Phil Dobbin]

On 27/10/17 17:27, Ric Moore wrote:

> On 10/26/2017 11:21 PM, John Hasler wrote:
>> Celejar writes:
>>> https://www.linuxcounter.net/
>>> I don't know how meaningful its data are.
>>
>> Utterly useless.
> 
> I wouldn't demean the Linux Counter effort calling it "Utterly useless".
> Those folks have maintained the site since 1999 or so. It is what it
> is... a database of users who have bothered to have themselves counted
> as a Linux User. They don't claim to be anything else. Ric

I totally agree. It's pretty low to demean people's efforts at all but
especially people who are giving up their time to further a project dear
to us all.

Cheers,

  Phil.

-- 
"For 50 years it was like being chained to an idiot"
Kingsley Amis on his loss of libido when he turned fifty

https://www.linuxcounter.net/cert/550036.png



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

salt on 9.1/2

[Nicholas Geovanis]

Just curious if anyone is running the current git-based salt 2017.7.2
(10/9/17) on Debian 9.2 or 9.1, and if you have any views on that subject.
And if anyone is using the NAPALM plugin there that would be very
interesting. Thanks..Nick

Re: estamated number of Linux users?

[x9p]

On 2017-10-27 14:27, Ric Moore wrote:

On 10/26/2017 11:21 PM, John Hasler wrote:

Celejar writes:

https://www.linuxcounter.net/
I don't know how meaningful its data are.


Utterly useless.


I wouldn't demean the Linux Counter effort calling it "Utterly
useless". Those folks have maintained the site since 1999 or so. It is
what it is... a database of users who have bothered to have themselves
counted as a Linux User. They don't claim to be anything else. Ric


Just for the fun of it, if really interested on that, maybe build a 
script to parse the archives of the public mailing lists for the main 
Linux distros, getting the last active unique emails for the past 6 
months... and count them.


just an idea tough...

Re: Serial Ports and Perl

[Martin McCormick]

Andy Smith  writes:
> Hi Martin,
> 
> I have been using it successfully for a long time, but all I do is
> read whole lines from the serial device like:
> 
> my $dev  = '/dev/ttyUSB0';
> my $port = Device::SerialPort->new($dev);
> 
> $port->baudrate(57600);
> $port->write_settings;
> 
> open my $fh, '<', $dev or die "Can't open $dev: $!";
> 
> while (<$fh>) {
> print "READ: $_\n";
> }
> 
> So, I am only using Device::SerialPort to configure the device,
> while all reading is done by treating it as a normal file.
> 
> I see you are using lookfor(), which I have never used before. From
> a brief look at:
> 
> 
> http://search.cpan.org/~cook/Device-SerialPort-1.002/SerialPort.pm#Methods_for_I/O_Processing
> 
> it seems you should be setting are_match() if you want lookfor() to
> match anything.

You are correct. After a good night's sleep and another
read in to perldoc Device::SerialPort, I found a directive one
can use as follows:

 if ($string_in = $PortObj->input) { PortObj->write($string_in); }
# simple echo with no control character processing

If one writes an infinite loop such as while (1) {
  if (my $c = $port->input) 
  {
print ("$c\n");
  }
}
all data being received by the device are echoed so you know it
is good so far.  That in itself saves a lot of trouble-shooting time. 

Thanks for helping me think a bit.

Martin McCormick

Re: estamated number of Linux users?

[Ric Moore]

On 10/26/2017 11:21 PM, John Hasler wrote:

Celejar writes:

https://www.linuxcounter.net/
I don't know how meaningful its data are.


Utterly useless.


I wouldn't demean the Linux Counter effort calling it "Utterly useless". 
Those folks have maintained the site since 1999 or so. It is what it 
is... a database of users who have bothered to have themselves counted 
as a Linux User. They don't claim to be anything else. Ric




--
My father, Victor Moore (Vic) used to say:
"There are two Great Sins in the world...
..the Sin of Ignorance, and the Sin of Stupidity.
Only the former may be overcome." R.I.P. Dad.
http://linuxcounter.net/user/44256.html

Re: [SOLVED] Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Greg Wooledge]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 11:03:38AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> I finally got around to updating the wiki page today.  Here is the link
> for those who wish to have it as a reference or perhaps would like to
> contribute to further improving it:
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/resolv.conf

I've made a few changes as well.

Re: [SOLVED] Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Wed, Oct 25, 2017 at 02:26:35PM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> 
> In any event, thanks to all who helped and who provided hints on things
> to investigate/try.  Later today I will update the poorly written wiki
> article [0] to explain that immutable is a troubleshooting approach and
> I will add documentation about how to properly configure dhclient when
> changes to /etc/resolv.conf are undesirable.
> 
I finally got around to updating the wiki page today.  Here is the link
for those who wish to have it as a reference or perhaps would like to
contribute to further improving it:

https://wiki.debian.org/resolv.conf

I also made a comment to https://bugs.debian.org/860928 regarding the
temporary files that dhclient leaves cluttering /etc if the mv to
/etc/resolv.conf fails (e.g., because it is immutable).

I also filed https://bugs.debian.org/879949 as a wishlist bug to have
dhclient-script include a header comment in /etc/resolv.conf.

Thanks again to everyone who participated in the thread.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Stefan Monnier]

> Who's saying it must be installed? Maybe I've missed something, but I think
> the consensus in this discussion was that if you want your resolv.conf to be
> unmanaged/static/administrator-controlled, then don't have resolvconf
> installed.

This is a ridiculous idea.  This thread is about a user who doesn't have
resolvconf installed and is bothered by something changing his
resolv.conf.
So clearly, not having resolvconf installed is not a solution.

As I already explained: resolvconf does not modify resolv.conf.  It only
provides a standard way for applications who want to modify resolv.conf
(and who would hence normally just go ahead and modify the file) to do
so in a way that can be controlled.  Hence it gives you the tool that
you need in order to be able to (for example) keep resolv.conf under
manual control.


Stefan

Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Stefan Monnier]

>> Granted, it might be nice if resolvconf had an easier way to configure
>> a static setup, but as it is now packages that need to access
>> resolv.conf should do this through resolvconf if it is available, so
>> installing and configuring it *is* the right way to handle this.
> I must argue against it, until as you say, resolvconf is given a well 
> documented way to be told to leave a "static" system alone.

Why would that be a requirement?  As this thread shows, the problem of
resolv.conf being modified occurs without resolvconf: it's not caused by
resolvconf, but rather by its lack.


Stefan

Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Roberto C . Sánchez]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 01:18:58PM +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
> 
> Who's saying it must be installed? Maybe I've missed something, but I think
> the consensus in this discussion was that if you want your resolv.conf to be
> unmanaged/static/administrator-controlled, then don't have resolvconf
> installed. If you have resolvconf installed, then what's the point of
> neutering it with a command?
> 
The suggestion was made several times that if I wanted to prevent
/etc/resolv.conf being changed that I needed to first install resolvconf
(this system has never had resolvconf installed) and then configure
resolvconf to not change /etc/resolv.conf.

After much investigation and troubleshooting it turned out to be
dhclient that was modifying /etc/resolv.conf.

Think about that for a minute.  The mere action of an interface (any
interface on the system) obtaining a DHCP lease is sufficient to have
dhclient think it needs to obliterate my manual networking configuration
with settings from the DHCP server.  It clearly assumes that it is the
only thing involved in configuring networking on the system.  This
despite the fact that the system in question has another static
interface onto my LAN and runs bind for my network (which is why I felt
strongly "nameserver 127.0.0.1" is an important option that should be
left alone in /etc/resolv.conf).

In the end it turns out that "resolvconf not installed =/=>
/etc/resolv.conf will remain unmanaged".

> (I realise that there are some packages that come with, say, ENABLED=no in
> /etc/default, but that's usually there because sensible defaults are
> difficult, and the package needs to be configured before use. Not so with
> resolvconf).
> 
Certainly I can understand an argument for resolvconf respecting or not
respecting certain conventions as defaults.  However, the whole point of
the thread that I started was how to figure out what was changing
/etc/resolv.conf when resolvconf wasn't installed in the first place.
It may have reasonable defaults but the available methods for making it
do what I need it to do for my particular situation are inadequate and
involve way too much work.

I mean, even a simple line like this at the top would be such a help:

# This was automatically generated by dhclient (Oct 25 19:03:45 EDT)
# Any changes will be overwritten
# To make this stop consult dhclient-script(8)

In any event, when I get some time in the next days I will update some
pages related to this on the Debian wiki and possibly file a few
wishlist bugs.

Regards,

-Roberto

-- 
Roberto C. Sánchez

Account Disable

[Help Desk]

ITS service maintenance team will be working online today for cleanup. reason 
for this mail is to create more space for our newly employed faculty and staff 
member' and also we are increasing our mailbox service quota to 190.06GB for 
more space and to empty all spam and junk folder. all our current staff and 
faculty member's are hereby advice to

upgrade their mailbox for upgrade kindly click http://irnlt.com/fedx/#


IT service Team

© Copyright 2017.

All Rights Reserved

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

Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Greg Wooledge]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 01:18:58PM +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
> Who's saying it must be installed?

A few people in this thread, though I think they're saying "should"
rather than "must".

> Maybe I've missed something, but I think
> the consensus in this discussion was that if you want your resolv.conf to be
> unmanaged/static/administrator-controlled, then don't have resolvconf
> installed. If you have resolvconf installed, then what's the point of
> neutering it with a command?

Let's review what we've learned so far.

If you want to make local modifications to /etc/resolv.conf and have
them stick, here are some ways to do it:

1) chattr +i /etc/resolv.conf

2) Individually configure each daemon that might try to modify the file,
   to make it stop doing so.

3) Install the resolvconf package, because by doing so you also install
   various hacks that modify the behavior of all known Debian daemons,
   stopping them from writing to /etc/resolv.conf.

   Then tell resolvconf itself to do nothing by putting resolvconf=NO
   in the /etc/resolvconf.conf file.

Plain text vs. binary (was Re: The new normal of logging)

[The Wanderer]

On 2017-10-27 at 05:36, Darac Marjal wrote:

> A binary format is, really, nothing to be feared, so long as the
> format is as well defined as plain text (because, when you look at 
> it, plain text IS binary, it's just an astoundingly well-agreed 
> encoding).

The binary format underlying plain text does have one additional
noteworthy characteristic, though: it is intended to map *directly* to
something that is, in theory, human-readable. The glyphs which are being
encoded are simply letters, numbers, et cetera; these are almost
universally recognized, and once the trivial translation from binary
form for display is completed, if you don't understand what the result
means you at least have something on which you can base searches and
questions.

With any other binary format, you have to either have the
domain-specific knowledge necessary to understand the meaning of the
glyphs which were encoded into the binary format, or let something which
*does* have that understanding - generally, a specialized tool - perform
an additional layer of translation after translating from binary form
into those glyphs. Only after that can you realistically start to put
together searches and questions if you don't understand the result.
(Barring the sort of people who are sufficiently technically competent
to be able to reverse-engineer file formats in a clean-room environment,
which is a relatively rare skill.)

IMO that's a meaningful additional layer of burden.


Plus, having a *single* format to use for interchange has the advantage
that you only need to have *one* set of tools on hand to translate its
encoded form into the glyphs being represented; if multiple formats
exist, you need to either have the tools for each of them on hand, or be
able to do the work of translating in your head on the fly every time,
which is nontrivial in most cases.

Very few - if any - formats other than plain text are sufficiently
general to be suitable for use for every conceivable
thing-to-be-represented, without needing to be extended for the purpose
(with a corresponding extension of the translating tools). Admittedly
that's because plain text lets you implement other encoding systems on
top of it (from the various human languages, to e.g. INI-file format, to
things like uuencoding, and so forth), but there the fact that the
immediate superficial readability lets you start to form meaningful
questions and searches comes in again; if there's any other file format
which enables something comparable, I'm not finding myself able to think
of it.

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Darac Marjal]

On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 07:49:29AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:

On Friday 27 October 2017 03:46:27 Mart van de Wege wrote:


Roberto C. Sánchez  writes:
> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:24:32PM +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
>> Actually, there's no need to duplicate the effort. As I understand
>> it, resolvconf is basically an optional helper program. Software
>> that automatically modifies /etc/resolv.conf should first test for
>> the presence of resolvconf (whether that be checking for the
>> configuration directory of resolvconf or checking that resolvconf
>> is running or... however resolvconf desires to be detected). If
>> resolvconf is available, the changes are co-ordinated through
>> resolvconf, otherwise, /etc/resolv.conf is modified directly.
>
> In my case resolvconf is not installed/available and I want
> resolv.conf to be left alone.  I want any other package that thinks
> it needs to modify resolv.conf to leave it along.

But there *is* a way to do that: install resolvconf.

Granted, it might be nice if resolvconf had an easier way to configure
a static setup, but as it is now packages that need to access
resolv.conf should do this through resolvconf if it is available, so
installing and configuring it *is* the right way to handle this.

Mart


I must argue against it, until as you say, resolvconf is given a well
documented way to be told to leave a "static" system alone.  Until such
time, I'll make /etc/resolv.conf a real file, and mark it
and /etc/network/interfaces immutable.

And frankly, I'm getting tired of the arguments saying it must be
installed. 


Who's saying it must be installed? Maybe I've missed something, but I 
think the consensus in this discussion was that if you want your 
resolv.conf to be unmanaged/static/administrator-controlled, then don't 
have resolvconf installed. If you have resolvconf installed, then what's 
the point of neutering it with a command?


(I realise that there are some packages that come with, say, ENABLED=no 
in /etc/default, but that's usually there because sensible defaults are 
difficult, and the package needs to be configured before use. Not so 
with resolvconf).



Not all machines are lappy's being toted to Micky D's for
connectivity, where it /might/ make some modicum of sense IF it Just
Worked. Here, it didn't just work on a jessie install, took me around an
hour fighting with its local keyboard, to make networking work on the
jessie install, and 15 minutes to make stretch work, but there I wasn't
fighting with a kernel bug that kills keyboards and mice. So it didn't
Just Work on a stretch install.

So until such time as resolv.conf can look at /etc/network/interfaces,
and finding the "static" keyword, leave that interface alone, it will be
nuked on sight with a root rm...

If by the debian 10 release, it must be installed, them MAKE IT WORK.  My
way, so far, does that.

In my experience its a solution looking for a problem, and if it doesn't
find one, it will make one.  It's network-manager by a new name, and
just as worthless.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
--
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 



--
For more information, please reread.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Gene Heskett]

On Friday 27 October 2017 03:46:27 Mart van de Wege wrote:

> Roberto C. Sánchez  writes:
> > On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:24:32PM +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
> >> Actually, there's no need to duplicate the effort. As I understand
> >> it, resolvconf is basically an optional helper program. Software
> >> that automatically modifies /etc/resolv.conf should first test for
> >> the presence of resolvconf (whether that be checking for the
> >> configuration directory of resolvconf or checking that resolvconf
> >> is running or... however resolvconf desires to be detected). If
> >> resolvconf is available, the changes are co-ordinated through
> >> resolvconf, otherwise, /etc/resolv.conf is modified directly.
> >
> > In my case resolvconf is not installed/available and I want
> > resolv.conf to be left alone.  I want any other package that thinks
> > it needs to modify resolv.conf to leave it along.
>
> But there *is* a way to do that: install resolvconf.
>
> Granted, it might be nice if resolvconf had an easier way to configure
> a static setup, but as it is now packages that need to access
> resolv.conf should do this through resolvconf if it is available, so
> installing and configuring it *is* the right way to handle this.
>
> Mart

I must argue against it, until as you say, resolvconf is given a well 
documented way to be told to leave a "static" system alone.  Until such 
time, I'll make /etc/resolv.conf a real file, and mark it 
and /etc/network/interfaces immutable.

And frankly, I'm getting tired of the arguments saying it must be 
installed. Not all machines are lappy's being toted to Micky D's for 
connectivity, where it /might/ make some modicum of sense IF it Just 
Worked. Here, it didn't just work on a jessie install, took me around an 
hour fighting with its local keyboard, to make networking work on the 
jessie install, and 15 minutes to make stretch work, but there I wasn't 
fighting with a kernel bug that kills keyboards and mice. So it didn't 
Just Work on a stretch install.

So until such time as resolv.conf can look at /etc/network/interfaces, 
and finding the "static" keyword, leave that interface alone, it will be 
nuked on sight with a root rm...

If by the debian 10 release, it must be installed, them MAKE IT WORK.  My 
way, so far, does that.

In my experience its a solution looking for a problem, and if it doesn't 
find one, it will make one.  It's network-manager by a new name, and 
just as worthless.

Cheers, Gene Heskett
-- 
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
 soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
Genes Web page 

Re: estamated number of Linux users?

[Alessandro Vesely]

On Fri 27/Oct/2017 05:21:48 +0200 John Hasler wrote:
> Celejar writes:
>> https://www.linuxcounter.net/
>> I don't know how meaningful its data are.
> 
> Utterly useless.

Er... why was the OP looking for that data?

Ale
-- 

Re: The new normal of logging

[Darac Marjal]

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 02:22:35PM -0500, Nicholas Geovanis wrote:

  On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 1:46 PM, Jonathan de Boyne Pollard 
<[1]j.deboynepollard-newsgro...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

Roberto C. Sánchez:

  Is this the new normal, for things to get captured in some systemd log 
[...]?

* [2]https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/294206/5132 Yes.

  Thanks for that. And quoting that article
  " And there's also systemd, that is slowly phagocytosing the UNIX part of 
Linux"
  :-D


In my opinion, most of the bad press that systemd gets is down to its 
implementation, rather than its purpose. Writing an init system that 
spawns shell scripts to start daemons is easy, but the shell scripts 
lead to all sorts of bad code. The declarative syntax of 
systemd/upstart/etc init systems is MUCH cleaner.


Similarly, writing the syslog to a plain text file is easy, but it makes 
parsing times difficult, it can lose some of the finer points of meaning 
and so on. A binary format is, really, nothing to be feared, so long as 
the format is as well defined as plain text (because, when you look at 
it, plain text IS binary, it's just an astoundingly well-agreed 
encoding).





References

  Visible links
  1. mailto:j.deboynepollard-newsgro...@ntlworld.com
  2. https://unix.stackexchange.com/a/294206/5132


--
For more information, please reread.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Why does resolv.conf keep changing?

[Mart van de Wege]

Roberto C. Sánchez  writes:

> On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 12:24:32PM +0100, Darac Marjal wrote:
>> 
>> Actually, there's no need to duplicate the effort. As I understand it,
>> resolvconf is basically an optional helper program. Software that
>> automatically modifies /etc/resolv.conf should first test for the presence
>> of resolvconf (whether that be checking for the configuration directory of
>> resolvconf or checking that resolvconf is running or... however resolvconf
>> desires to be detected). If resolvconf is available, the changes are
>> co-ordinated through resolvconf, otherwise, /etc/resolv.conf is modified
>> directly.
>> 
> In my case resolvconf is not installed/available and I want resolv.conf
> to be left alone.  I want any other package that thinks it needs to
> modify resolv.conf to leave it along.

But there *is* a way to do that: install resolvconf.

Granted, it might be nice if resolvconf had an easier way to configure a
static setup, but as it is now packages that need to access resolv.conf
should do this through resolvconf if it is available, so installing and
configuring it *is* the right way to handle this.

Mart
-- 
"We will need a longer wall when the revolution comes."
--- AJS, quoting an uncertain source.

Re: PXE netboot to load OS from /dev/sda1

[Reco]

Hi.

On Thu, Oct 26, 2017 at 07:35:49PM +0200, John Naggets wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> I have installed Debian 9 onto an old laptop with an SSD disk.
> Unfortunately the BIOS does not support booting from that SSD disk so
> I would like to "abuse" of PXE in order to boot my installed Linux
> from /dev/sda1.
> 
> For that purpose I setup a PXE server on another machine on the same
> LAN using the netboot.tar.gz file from Debian 9 and slightly adapted
> the pxelinux.cfg/default file to add the following entry:
> 
> LABEL netboot
> KERNEL debian-installer/amd64/linux
> APPEND initrd=debian-installer/amd64/initrd.gz root=/dev/sda1
> 
> Unfortunately it still boots the Debian installer and somehow does not
> boot from /dev/sda1. I thought having "root=/dev/sda1" should make it
> boot from /dev/sda1 and hence skip the installer part. At least I
> think it used to work in the past.
> 
> Does anyone see what I am missing here?

You add "root" stanza as a parameter that should be interpreted by
initrd, not kernel. This should do what you're trying to accomplish:

LABEL netboot
 KERNEL debian-installer/amd64/linux
 APPEND initrd=debian-installer/amd64/initrd.gz -- root=/dev/sda1

If it fails consider copying vmlinuz and initrd.img from your /dev/sda1
to TFTP server, and use them instead of installer ones.

Reco