Re: [gentoo-user] where is the unifont?
Daniel Vrcic wrote You should have unifont's path listed in the Files section of xorg.conf: Section Files: ... FontPath /usr/share/fonts/unifont ... Thanks, that was it. I relied on the usual etc-update to do such things. I mean, if I install a font, I sure want it in the xconfig? ralf -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Gnome overriding screen resolution
do you have the same problem with other wm/desktop environments(kde,fluxbox. etc.) or just with gnome?... O/H Richard Marzan έγραψε: Hello, Gnome is giving me some issues with respect to screen resolution. It doesn't want to display my preferred resolution nor does it have it as an option in the drop-down menu. I set up my resolution in xorg.conf but gnome quickly overrides the option. How can I stop gnome from meddling with my resolution? Regards, Richard signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] where is the unifont?
On Sat, 2007-10-20 at 19:35 +0200, Ralf Stephan wrote: Thanks, that was it. I relied on the usual etc-update to do such things. I mean, if I install a font, I sure want it in the xconfig? That's not what etc-update does. etc-update is just a tool that helps you manage files that a package installs that were CONFIG_PROTECTed. Since font packages don't supply xorg.conf there's nothing to CONFIG_PROTECT and therefore etc-update is futile. Actually the package that actually uses xorg.conf, xorg-server, doesn't even supply xorg.conf. -- Albert W. Hopkins -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: migrating to LVM
On 10/20/07, Neil Bothwick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hello Don Jerman, So / and /boot will be smallish physical partitions - I use the minimum size for /boot and around 10G for root, When did 10GB become small for a root partition? I have a 400MB root partition, 35% full, no /boot and everything else on LVM. -- Neil Bothwick Energizer Bunny arrested, charged with battery :) Since my smallest hard disk is a quarter terabyte :) 8G to 10G is plenty to keep portage and compile openoffice before you build out your logical volumes, and my goal is to simplify management, more than to manage efficiently. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
[gentoo-user] Huge problem
Hi all, after upgrading xorg, yesterday I started to upgrade gcc (from 3.x to 4.x) following the Gentoo GCC Upgrade Guide. All went well up to emerge -eav system. The command seemed work fine but, for some reason, it was not able to emerge man-pages. The process aborted. I added other gentoo sites to my make.conf and emerged the remaining portages starting from man-pages. At the end running etc-update I found 26 config files to upgrade . Surely I did something wrong (to upgrade udev I had to unmerge coldplug) and the result has been a failure in booting gentoo. Here is the message: /sbin/rc: line 400: start: command not found Failed to start /etc/init.d/checkroot One or more critical startup scripts failed to start! Please correct this, and reboot ... Any suggestion? Should I reinstall everything? Regards Emilio -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Huge problem
econti writes: Here is the message: /sbin/rc: line 400: start: command not found Failed to start /etc/init.d/checkroot One or more critical startup scripts failed to start! Please correct this, and reboot ... Any suggestion? Should I reinstall everything? I don't know what's wrong here. /sbin/rc calls the function 'start' in line 400, which can be found in /etc/init.d/checkroot. This file is sourced in line 388 of /sbin/rc, so it should be known. Strange. What happens if you try to execute /etc/init.d/checkroot by hand? Were all config files updated already? find /etc -name '*._cfg*' should return nothing then. Alex -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Huge problem
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 17:15:34 +0200 econti [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hi all, after upgrading xorg, yesterday I started to upgrade gcc (from 3.x to 4.x) following the Gentoo GCC Upgrade Guide. All went well up to emerge -eav system. The command seemed work fine but, for some reason, it was not able to emerge man-pages. The process aborted. I added other gentoo sites to my make.conf and emerged the remaining portages starting from man-pages. At the end running etc-update I found 26 config files to upgrade . Surely I did something wrong (to upgrade udev I had to unmerge coldplug) and the result has been a failure in booting gentoo. Here is the message: /sbin/rc: line 400: start: command not found Failed to start /etc/init.d/checkroot One or more critical startup scripts failed to start! Please correct this, and reboot ... Any suggestion? Should I reinstall everything? Regards Emilio Try re-emerging sys-apps/baselayout. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Raid 1 problems
Hi, following http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Gentoo_Install_on_Software_RAID and some other docs, I moved my system to RAID 1. Using gentoo LiveCD, all my config worked fine: I was able to mount md0 and md1 (at this point my only raid devices) and see data. So after ensuring my raid was sync, I decided to boot to my normal system, and I found that my system was not able to boot because it said something about my filesystem in md1, a message like: The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 104420 blocks The physical size of the device is 104320 blocks Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt! Aborty? yes (don't look at block number cause it refers to md0, and original message was about md1). So, I decided to set dump/pass option to 0 in my fstab so fs won't be check at next start. After that, it booted fine, but I'd like to repair my system, and now, md0 complains about fs too... # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] md1 : active raid1 hdf3[0] 8112704 blocks [2/1] [U_] md0 : active raid1 hdh1[1] hdf1[0] 104320 blocks [2/2] [UU] So, anyone could tell what to do for reparing mdX?¿ TIA, Arnau -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Huge problem
On Sunday 21 October 2007 18:23:16 Kenneth Prugh wrote: At the end running etc-update I found 26 config files to upgrade . Surely I did something wrong (to upgrade udev I had to unmerge coldplug) and the result has been a failure in booting gentoo. Here is the message: /sbin/rc: line 400: start: command not found Failed to start /etc/init.d/checkroot One or more critical startup scripts failed to start! Please correct this, and reboot ... Any suggestion? Should I reinstall everything? Try re-emerging sys-apps/baselayout. You may also want to have a look at --noconfmem in `man emerge`. -- Bo Andresen signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Raid 1 problems
On Sunday 21 October 2007 19:08:21 Arnau Bria wrote: Hi, following http://gentoo-wiki.com/HOWTO_Gentoo_Install_on_Software_RAID and some other docs, I moved my system to RAID 1. Using gentoo LiveCD, all my config worked fine: I was able to mount md0 and md1 (at this point my only raid devices) and see data. So after ensuring my raid was sync, I decided to boot to my normal system, and I found that my system was not able to boot because it said something about my filesystem in md1, a message like: The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 104420 blocks The physical size of the device is 104320 blocks Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt! Aborty? yes (don't look at block number cause it refers to md0, and original message was about md1). with /dev/md0 unmounted: resize2fs -f /dev/md0 So, I decided to set dump/pass option to 0 in my fstab so fs won't be check at next start. After that, it booted fine, but I'd like to repair my system, and now, md0 complains about fs too... # cat /proc/mdstat Personalities : [raid1] md1 : active raid1 hdf3[0] 8112704 blocks [2/1] [U_] md0 : active raid1 hdh1[1] hdf1[0] 104320 blocks [2/2] [UU] So, anyone could tell what to do for reparing mdX?¿ mdadm --manage /dev/md1 --add /dev/hdh3 Then make sure hdh3's partition type is 'fd' raid autodetect. -- Mike Williams -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Raid 1 problems
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 19:34:51 +0100 Mike Williams wrote: On Sunday 21 October 2007 19:08:21 Arnau Bria wrote: [...] The filesystem size (according to the superblock) is 104420 blocks The physical size of the device is 104320 blocks Either the superblock or the partition table is likely to be corrupt! Aborty? yes (don't look at block number cause it refers to md0, and original message was about md1). with /dev/md0 unmounted: resize2fs -f /dev/md0 If same thing happens with md1, I suppose I must boot with livecd and do the same with md1, am I right? [...] mdadm --manage /dev/md1 --add /dev/hdh3 Then make sure hdh3's partition type is 'fd' raid autodetect. Yes it is. Thanks a lot. Cheers, Arnau -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Raid 1 problems
On Sunday 21 October 2007 20:29:47 Arnau Bria wrote: with /dev/md0 unmounted: resize2fs -f /dev/md0 If same thing happens with md1, I suppose I must boot with livecd and do the same with md1, am I right? Yeah, you can't reduce the filesystem online. The RAIDing shrinks the space available for the filesystem slightly. I don't know why, but I've had the same problem before. mdadm --manage /dev/md1 --add /dev/hdh3 Then make sure hdh3's partition type is 'fd' raid autodetect. Yes it is. Thanks a lot. Was it before, or did mdadm ignore it/kick it out for some reason? dmesg | grep hdh -- Mike Williams -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Raid 1 problems
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 20:42:57 +0100 Mike Williams wrote: On Sunday 21 October 2007 20:29:47 Arnau Bria wrote: [...] Yeah, you can't reduce the filesystem online. The RAIDing shrinks the space available for the filesystem slightly. I don't know why, but I've had the same problem before. thanks for your explanation. mdadm --manage /dev/md1 --add /dev/hdh3 Then make sure hdh3's partition type is 'fd' raid autodetect. Yes it is. Was it before, or did mdadm ignore it/kick it out for some reason? dmesg | grep hdh hdh: Maxtor 7Y250P0, ATA DISK drive hdh reduced to Ultra33 mode. hdh: max request size: 128KiB hdh: 490234752 sectors (251000 MB) w/7936KiB Cache, CHS=30515/255/63, UDMA(33) hdh: cache flushes supported hdh: hdh1 hdh2 hdh3 hdh4 hdh5 hdh6 md: invalid raid superblock magic on hdh3 md: hdh3 has invalid sb, not importing! Let me ask you one more thing. I have this device: md3 : active raid1 hdh6[1] 98727360 blocks [2/1] [_U] And I'd like to add hdf6, and then sync but against it (I mean, make hdf6 primary and copy its data to hdh6). What steps should I follow? TIA, Arnau -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: migrating to LVM
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 07:29:35 -0400, Don Jerman wrote: Since my smallest hard disk is a quarter terabyte :) 8G to 10G is plenty to keep portage and compile openoffice You have PORTAGE_TMPDIR in your root filesystem? You are braver than me, I point to to a filesystem where it won't cause problems if it fills up. -- Neil Bothwick If man ruled the world: signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Raid 1 problems
On Sun, 21 Oct 2007 22:30:51 +0200 Arnau Bria wrote: [...] Let me ask you one more thing. I have this device: md3 : active raid1 hdh6[1] 98727360 blocks [2/1] [_U] And I'd like to add hdf6, and then sync but against it (I mean, make hdf6 primary and copy its data to hdh6). I'd removed the array and created again with second drive missing. now I have: md3 : active raid1 hdf6[0] 98727360 blocks [2/1] [U_] and will sync. TIA, Arnau -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] LVM : pros cons
Philip Webb wrote: Does anyone have advice based on experience using LVM ? I sb partitioning a new 320 GB hard drive soon for a simple desktop box. That is 8 times the size of the HDD in my present machine, which I haven't exhausted by any means. LVM seems more professional allows flexibility for unforeseen storage needs, but it adds a layer of complexity potential problems arising therefrom. I wonder whether LVM slows down disk access whether there's a disaster lurking unseen if anything goes wrong with LVM: a bad package update, a damaged config file or file storing LVM's layout would seem to risk losing everything on the HDD require re-installation. Hello, I chose to use it on my laptop because of it's flexibility. On a desktop system, it you ever need more room, you can just a a new HD. If you use LVM on it, you can expand whatever you need to, if you don't, you can move data around and free up some space where needed. On a laptop, unless you attach an external drive (and in reality, those are annoying to carry around all the time), it's hard to free up some space, but with LVM, such a task is possible. I found it not hard to configure and it's benefits largely outsize the cons one could find. I would recommend it on single and multi-HD systems. Cheers, Gabriel Rossetti -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Raid 1 problems
On Sunday 21 October 2007 22:03:23 Arnau Bria wrote: Let me ask you one more thing. I have this device: md3 : active raid1 hdh6[1] 98727360 blocks [2/1] [_U] And I'd like to add hdf6, and then sync but against it (I mean, make hdf6 primary and copy its data to hdh6). I'd removed the array and created again with second drive missing. now I have: md3 : active raid1 hdf6[0] 98727360 blocks [2/1] [U_] and will sync. Yeah, that'd work, or you could have created it with both devices, but specifing hdf6 *first*: mdadm -C /dev/md3 -n2 -l1 /dev/hd[fh]6 As for md1, I'm not sure what to make of that. I'd be a little wary of it, once the array is created/started the superblock must be written, so I'm worried about why the kernel thought it wasn't there. Probably nothing though, I've had partitions kicked out of arrays before, even though they go back in fine. -- Mike Williams -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] Raid 1 problems
Hello Mike Williams, Yeah, you can't reduce the filesystem online. The RAIDing shrinks the space available for the filesystem slightly. I don't know why, but I've had the same problem before. The RAID superblock is stored at the end of the partition. -- Neil Bothwick Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
[gentoo-user] Re: migrating to LVM
On Fri, 19 Oct 2007 08:11:55 -0400, Don Jerman wrote: So / and /boot will be smallish physical partitions - I use the minimum size for /boot and around 10G for root, and LVM manages anything that gets dynamically large or uncertain like /home/, /opt/, and application directories like /var/lib/mythtv/ or /var/spool/mail/. Anything that starts to eat up a large part of my root partition is a candidate for copying over to a LV later on. Great discussion, thanks to all. -Thufir -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
Re: [gentoo-user] LDAP: Slapd fails asking itself while startup
Hi, Am Freitag, 19. Okt 2007, 21:09:59 +0200 schrieb Bertram Scharpf: I just set up LDAP authentication and it works fine. However, when running the init script there comes up an error that clutters up my syslog with a lot of useless error messages. @(#) $OpenLDAP: slapd 2.3.38 (Oct 18 2007 22:12:26) $ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/var/tmp/portage/net-nds/openldap-2.3.38/work/openldap-2.3.38/servers/slapd nss_ldap: failed to bind to LDAP server ldap://127.0.0.1: Can't contact LDAP server nss_ldap: failed to bind to LDAP server ldap://127.0.0.1/: Can't contact LDAP server nss_ldap: failed to bind to LDAP server ldapi://%2fvar%2frun%2fldapi_sock/: Can't contact LDAP server ... nss_ldap: could not search LDAP server - Server is unavailable WARNING: No dynamic config support for database ldbm. slapd starting I found out that the Gentoo init script activates the options -u ldap -g ldap. Without them, the error messages do not appear. Therefore I suppose the slapd daemon tries to obtain passwd/shadow information for ldap via nss_ldap. At least when I say compat in nsswitch.conf, the error message doesn't appear as well. The thing I really wonder about is that the lines in nsswitch.conf say passwd:files ldap shadow:files ldap group: files ldap The files should be searched first. The ldap information is present in all three of them. I even tried to chown the shadow file to ldap but this didn't save me from encountering the weird messages either. I detected I have a machine where this didn't happen. Then I upgraded from glibc-2.5-r4 to glibc-2.6.1 ... Could this be a real bug in glibc? Does anybody experience the same behaviour? Thanks in advance, Bertram -- Bertram Scharpf Stuttgart, Deutschland/Germany http://www.bertram-scharpf.de -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] mailing list
