Re: GNOME3/Nautilus mount requires password
On 26/07/12 16:29, Camaleón wrote: First thing I would try is to create a new user and do the first login with gnome-shell to check from there. My wild guess is that given the number of Desktops installed in your system something could have been messed up. I tried this - same effect. I also tried both accounts with an encrypted USB device, which worked fine. Suspecting it might be an issue to do with the hardware port I am using (eSATA), I connected the same drive via USB and it decrypted and mounted the partition immediately. Connecting back to eSATA, and I get the authentication prompt. At first, it appeared to be a HAL issue. For anyone interested, this has been raised via launchpad: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/udisks/+bug/153768/comments/0 But the answer was to tell uDisks that the external SATA port is hot plugable. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Udev#Mark_internal_SATA-Ports_as_eSATA-Ports I have tested this and it works on Wheezy; I couldn't say if it applies to earlier versions. -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5017967d.8090...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: GNOME3/Nautilus mount requires password
On 31/07/12 09:25, Steve Dowe wrote: https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Udev#Mark_internal_SATA-Ports_as_eSATA-Ports I have tested this and it works on Wheezy; I couldn't say if it applies to earlier versions. Correction - I thought it worked, but that was because my password was stored in the session. When I unmounted the drive in nautilus and tried to remount it, the issue persisted. -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/50179727.9050...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: Printers using free software only
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 23/07/12 20:30, green wrote: I do wish there were more hardware manufacturers with a real interest in making their products work well with Linux. HP is the best I have seen: http://hplipopensource.com/hplip-web/recommended.html I have had years of success with a Xerox 6300DN. Nope, it's not cheap (at the time, costing around £700) but the manufacturer provides PPD files for a huge range of colour lasers including this, paper handling has been faultless and print quality is very good indeed. Not quite up to the level of a good inkjet on photos, but close enough. It's fast too. And very heavy. So, unless you want nice print outs /and/ a broken back, don't get one ;) - -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal http://warp2.me/sd -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAlAWuzEACgkQff0deVwNl4jvtgCfZdYKZDw3YnEqp0MXZiX8IxI2 HhAAnRXiS/PlE2I5ZhQM7TiK01HM1CS2 =uxiL -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/5016bb3d.7030...@warpuniversal.co.uk
GNOME3/Nautilus mount requires password
Hi, I've Googled this aplenty and came across a multitude of possible reasons why this is happening, but I would rather solicit an answer detailing the Debian way... I hope I've not missed this posted elsewhere on the list/fora.. So, I'm running Wheezy, GNOME 3/gdm3, although my original install was using LXDE/lxdm, and then XFCE/LightDM - all of which I like, but I keep coming back to GNOME. The problem is that I plug in a USB drive and cannot mount it with a click in Nautilus without being prompted for my password. I would like to not be prompted for my password. A few of the processes currently running on my system: 2515 ?Ss 0:00 /usr/bin/dbus-daemon --system 6192 ?S 0:00 /usr/bin/dbus-launch --exit-with-session gnome-session 6196 ?Ss 0:01 /usr/bin/dbus-daemon --fork --print-pid 5 --print-address 7 --session 2569 ?Sl 0:00 /usr/lib/policykit-1/polkitd --no-debug My user is a member of the sudo, plugdev fuse system groups. In gnome-session-properties, PolicyKit Authentication Agent is ticked (it points to /usr/lib/policykit-1-gnome/polkit-gnome-authentication-agent-1, which exists). If I try to execute /usr/lib/policykit-1-gnome/polkit-gnome-authentication-agent-1 on a terminal, I get: ** (polkit-gnome-authentication-agent-1:10561): WARNING **: Unable to register authentication agent: GDBus.Error:org.freedesktop.PolicyKit1.Error.Failed: An authentication agent already exists for the given subject Cannot register authentication agent: GDBus.Error:org.freedesktop.PolicyKit1.Error.Failed: An authentication agent already exists for the given subject When I try gvfs-mount -d /dev/sdb1 I get prompted through the GUI to enter my password. If I decline, I get: Error mounting /dev/dm-3: Not Authorized I get exactly the same if I try udisks --mount /dev/sdb1 too. I think I'm missing a pretty simple piece of the puzzle here. I'm guessing it's policykit somewhere. A final point - the partition is encrypted with luks - but gnome-keyring seems to do a good job of using my saved password to decrypt the partition, when I click on the drive in Nautilus. It's then the password-less mount which fails... If anyone could point me in the right direction, I'd be very grateful. Many thanks, Steve -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/501108ed.1040...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: Bridging eth0/br0 NetworkManager - can they coexist?
I'm sorry for the tardy response - IceDove hid a load of Debian list mail in Junk. On 29/06/12 18:06, Camaleón wrote: Maybe is time now for you to tell us more about the kind of VM you are planning to use... Testing on the same subnet :) I still don't see the relation of using N-M and the possibility of having multiple IP addresses :-? There is no direct relationship. Basically, you need eth0 bridged (using br0) to allow other virtual machines to pick up an IP address on your real network. If NM were capable of controlling br0, you could retain the flexibility of using NM for all networking with having the convenience of using various NICs in virtual machines as desired. But evidently NM doesn't manage br0, so you have to drop control of any ethernet functionality and just use NM for wireless. Well, for this scenario, I wouldn't use N-M regardless the linux distribution, not just Debian. N-M is aimed for laptops or mobile devices. I'm using a laptop :) Would this second interface have to physically exist? For a true bridge, I guess yes :-) 'Nuff said :) Cheers, -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ff1c8ca.7090...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: Bridging eth0/br0 NetworkManager - can they coexist?
On 29/06/12 17:34, Neal Murphy wrote: (...) another program running whose sole purpose is to slurp CPU cycles, take up screen real estate I'm all for machine efficiency, but I don't find NM to do either of those. On a laptop, I find it sacrifices my human efficiency to /not/ have it. and make me click-click-click...click-click-click-click to - great description, though :) find what 'ip addr' would tell me. And if you are running a bunch of VMs, you've moved beyond the utility of N-M; you do not want it controlling your network. Yes, I'm learning that this is clearly the case. You're doing pretty much what I do. I have four bridges (but only 3 NICs: one bridge goes nowhere) for testing my firewalls (RED/GREEN/PURPLE/ORANGE). I can have a number of firewalls running in KVMs, attached to any combination of four bridges. I can direct Squeeze's default route to any of them or to the bridge direct to my perimeter F/W. Most of this could be achieved over a virtual network, though, couldn't it? I would use a virtual network for firewall testing. I need real network IPs for using real network resources, e.g. grabbing something off a local server over NFS. The bridge device (e.g. br0) is a network interface. The NIC is a network interface. The tap device (e.g. tap0) appears as a network interface to the VM. A bridge device doesn't need a real NIC to operate. It's perfectly happy to bridge zero or more taps to itself. The host doesn't need to actively use a brX device (with IP address, et al) for it to bridge VMs together. I'm trying to get my head around this. I need to read more on this subject. :) Kernel- wise, a bridge device is very similar to a run-of-the-mill 8-port ethernet switch: it bridges whatever is connected to it. Or it sits idle when it has no member devices other than itself. One thing that becomes apparent with (GNU/)Linux is the sheer number of networking options that it's capable of. The ability to simulate complex networks, for instance. Thanks. -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ff1cca8.5010...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: Bridging eth0/br0 NetworkManager - can they coexist?
On 29/06/12 23:47, Chris Davies wrote: Steve Dowe s...@warpuniversal.co.uk wrote: The issue I'm having, using wheezy, is that if I set up a bridged ethernet interface for eth0 (br0), as per instructions on the Debian wiki etc, NetworkManager can no longer manage my wired ethernet connection. You can't do that :-( That was almost the right answer ;) If you need a bridge (like I do), AFAIK the only two solutions are: - uninstall network manager and return to using /etc/network/interfaces - add the missing code to network manager I'm trying to decide what's more tempting... I have tried various ways of persuading NM that it wants to control my bridged interface instead of the physical one, and it really won't play ball. I had wanted to try and keep NM on my laptop because it does wireless better than my previous home-grown solutions. But I've had to unmanage my wired NIC and now NM tries really hard to bring up the wireless interface each time someone logs in. I like the ease with which I can configure (and test) VPNs for clients Oh well. I suppose I should be glad I'm not alone. But it doesn't really help you, does it. No... but as you say, knowing the there might be a reasonable use case for controlling a bridged ethernet device means there may be a solution, one day. -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ff1d31d.3080...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: Bridging eth0/br0 NetworkManager - can they coexist?
On 02/07/12 17:34, Camaleón wrote: Testing on the same subnet :) Yes but what solution? KVM, VMware, Xen, VirtualBox... Oh heck, sorry. It's KVM. I thought I'd mentioned that. Oops. Basically, you need eth0 bridged (using br0) to allow other virtual machines to pick up an IP address on your real network. Well, not in VirtualBox (or not at least not when using a windows host), that should be a requirement coming from whatever VM solution are you using. It sounds like VirtualBox simply takes care of that for you, on Windows. You will get more flexibility (and reliability) when using /etc/ networking/interfaces :-) Looks like man 5 interfaces is my friend :) A laptop with server-like advanced networking/routing needings is so not a plain laptop with two/tree NICs (ethernet, wireless and umts, for instance) ;-) True enough. -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4ff1d96e.2000...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Bridging eth0/br0 NetworkManager - can they coexist?
Hello, I have absolutely no doubt that someone reading this list knows more than I do on this.. :) The issue I'm having, using wheezy, is that if I set up a bridged ethernet interface for eth0 (br0), as per instructions on the Debian wiki etc, NetworkManager can no longer manage my wired ethernet connection. If I edit /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf and change [ifupdown] managed=false to [ifupdown] managed=true then eth0 and br0 both pick up the same IP address. This is my current /etc/network/interfaces: # The loopback network interface auto lo br0 iface lo inet loopback # bridging iface br0 inet dhcp bridge_ports eth0 bridge_stp off bridge_maxwait 0 bridge_fd 0 I must be missing something simple here. Could anyone point me in the right direction please? Has anyone got a working config? TIA... Steve -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fedb591.1090...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: Bridging eth0/br0 NetworkManager - can they coexist?
On 29/06/12 15:34, Camaleón wrote: If I edit /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf and change [ifupdown] managed=false to [ifupdown] managed=true then eth0 and br0 both pick up the same IP address. Mmm... and what's what you want to bridge? Remember that any bridge needs at least two end points. My intention is allow my ethernet interface to be allocated as many IPs on my local network as necessary to service the virtual machines I'm running. The bridge, in this case, is a virtual-to-physical one. This is my current /etc/network/interfaces: # The loopback network interface auto lo br0 iface lo inet loopback # bridging iface br0 inet dhcp bridge_ports eth0 bridge_stp off bridge_maxwait 0 bridge_fd 0 I must be missing something simple here. Could anyone point me in the right direction please? Has anyone got a working config? There are some bridging samples here: http://wiki.debian.org/BridgeNetworkConnections#Configuring_bridging_in_.2BAC8-etc.2BAC8-network.2BAC8-interfaces Thanks. I did look at those. And by following that configuration: # Set up interfaces manually, avoiding conflicts with, e.g., network manager iface eth0 inet manual iface eth1 inet manual # Bridge setup iface br0 inet dhcp bridge_ports eth0 ... Network Manager cannot control eth0. Under Wired Networks it reports Device not managed. Besides, the comment in that configuration is # Set up interfaces manually, avoiding conflicts with, e.g., network manager - so it's clearly acknowledge here that bridging does indeed conflict with network manager, and I shouldn't expect it to work using that example. But shouldn't be better to use the same networking method (ifup or N-M but not a mix of them) to configure the interfaces (eth0 and br0)? :-? Ok, so I'm getting used to the Debian way of doing things, having come from another distro. I assumed I /was/ using the N-M way of doing things, editing a N-M config file. But, I glean from your comment that there is overlap here. When I keep the above settings in /etc/network/interfaces and change /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf, from [ifupdown] managed=false to [ifupdown] managed=true then I can control eth0 through Network Manager, and I'm back at square one - both eth0 and br0 get the same IP address, and routing breaks. I believe harmony is possible between NM and br0 - I'm just unsure of the approach in Debian. -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fedc4ea.5070...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: Filezilla a security risk
On 29/06/12 15:36, Roger B.A. Klorese wrote: My root credentials for my local machine aren't stored in plaintext. And if the local machine is compromised, the critical threat is its use as a zombie, not any info that's on it. There simply isn't any confidential data. But the reason for that is that your root password is encrypted using one-way encryption. It cannot be decrypted. But, the result of it being encrypted is compared to the result of the password you log in with (as root) being encrypted ... if the two match, that's good enough for PAM, etc. Obviously, for FZ, you need two-way encryption/decryption. I know I'm stating the obvious, but I've been told I'm good at that ;) -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fedc60e.8080...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: Filezilla a security risk
On 29/06/12 16:25, Denis Witt wrote: This might not be bulletproof but it gave you some time to detect that your machine was compromised and change your passwords. Maybe not, but what is? :) At the same time, with all this talk of passwords stored as plain text etc, it's not a great hurdle to set up a local, encrypted loopback device that mounts in your local file system. You could even mount it at ~/.filezilla, and then run up FZ for the first time. Such a device would require a password to unlock/mount, so the window where unencrypted data is vulnerable could be minimised... http://www.howtoforge.com/encrypt-your-data-with-encfs-debian-squeeze-ubuntu-11.10 -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fedcbde.8010...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: Bridging eth0/br0 NetworkManager - can they coexist?
On 29/06/12 16:54, Camaleón wrote: Ah, then maybe you don't need a bridge but a virtual addressing layout: http://wiki.debian.org/NetworkConfiguration#Multiple_IP_addresses_on_One_Interface But that fixes the IP addresses both to my local network. The intended NM approach was to allow the virtual network interfaces of virtual machines the chance to pick up an IP address using DHCP whatever local network they're on. There are some bridging samples here: http://wiki.debian.org/BridgeNetworkConnections#Configuring_bridging_in_.2BAC8-etc.2BAC8-network.2BAC8-interfaces Thanks. I did look at those. And by following that configuration: # Set up interfaces manually, avoiding conflicts with, e.g., network manager iface eth0 inet manual iface eth1 inet manual # Bridge setup iface br0 inet dhcp bridge_ports eth0 ^ (you still need a second interface to create the bridge) That would seem to conflict with this: http://www.linux-kvm.org/page/Networking#public_bridge (Debian's way) (notwithstanding it was published some time ago and not by a Debian-focused organisation, but still, it's documentation... :) ... Network Manager cannot control eth0. Under Wired Networks it reports Device not managed. Yes, that's correct. Hmm. Kinda doesn't fit the use case then :D Why do you want N-M to be in charge of your network? It does not look like a good approach if you are planning to use Debian as a VM host :-? Because I have a multiplicity of networking requirements on my laptop. I need VPN access, easy wireless configuration, and the ability to run virtual machines with IP addresses on the local network (wherever I am). Besides, the comment in that configuration is # Set up interfaces manually, avoiding conflicts with, e.g., network manager - so it's clearly acknowledge here that bridging does indeed conflict with network manager, and I shouldn't expect it to work using that example. It's not that clear, at least from a practical point of view :-) Agreed. A conflict doesn't necessarily mean a mutex. That was just what I was inferring, reading between the lines and all that... My experience tells me that I better do not mix them. My experience is becoming more like yours in Debian .. but less like yours in Fedora (sorry, I said the F-word!). I believe harmony is possible between NM and br0 - I'm just unsure of the approach in Debian. I think you still need to add a second interface to the bridge... Would this second interface have to physically exist? Cheers, Steve -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fedd58f.6000...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: Bridging eth0/br0 NetworkManager - can they coexist?
On 29/06/12 17:19, Steve Dowe wrote: On 29/06/12 16:54, Camaleón wrote: Ah, then maybe you don't need a bridge but a virtual addressing layout: http://wiki.debian.org/NetworkConfiguration#Multiple_IP_addresses_on_One_Interface But that fixes the IP addresses both to my local network. The intended NM approach was to allow the virtual network interfaces of virtual machines the chance to pick up an IP address using DHCP whatever local network they're on. Gah, now I /can/ be accused of not RTFM! 'An alias interface should not have gateway or dns-nameservers; *dynamic IP assignment is permissible.* ' So, this may be the answer after all! I'll report back. Thanks, Steve -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fedd86a.2070...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: Filezilla a security risk
On 29/06/12 17:22, Denis Witt wrote: And afterwards I have to unmount the device. This might work rather fine on a Linux system but on Windows (and FZ is available for Windows)... I believe the same thing might be achieved on Windows, using TrueCrypt. -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fedd9f9.9050...@warpuniversal.co.uk
mdadm error - superfluous RAID member
Hi, I'm trying to re-use an older server, installing squeeze (6.0.5). I'm using software RAID and LVM on the machine (details below). But I must be doing something wrong with the disk set up stage in the installer, as when it boots I see an error flash up quickly: error: superfluous RAID member (5 found) It appears that the initramfs then gets loaded, the RAID detection fails and it then looks for the LVM volume group, which it can't find (as the LVM group exists on the RAID device). I see this output: Loading, please wait... mdadm: No devices listed in conf file were found. Volume group vgbiff not found Skipping volume group vgbiff Unable to find LVM volume vgbiff/lvroot same messages appear but for lvswap Gave up waiting for root device snip ... It then drops me into the BusyBox shell, with initramfs prompt. I can then activate the RAID simply by doing (initramfs) mdadm --assemble --scan mdadm: /dev/md/0 has been started with 5 drives and 1 spare. and then activate the volume group, using: (initramfs) vgchange -a y 2 logical volume(s) in volume group vgbiff now active Exiting the busybox shell then boots the system. The basic configuration is: - Xeon (64-bit capable) w/4GB RAM - PCI SCSI controller - 6 x 73GB SCSI drives During install, on each drive I created a 500MB primary partition (with /dev/sda1 being for /boot) and then a second partition for Linux s/w RAID (label set to fd). In /dev/md0 I then created a LVM partition, and set up the volume group to contain two volumes - one for swap, and one for /. /dev/md0 is comprised of 5 drives running in RAID5, with one hot spare. During installation, I took pains to wipe all the drives and create all partitions anew. When booted, I checked /etc/default/mdadm. The values INITRDSTART='all' and AUTOSTART=true are both set. I also set VERBOSE=true to give me more output when creating a new initramfs. I checked the contents of /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf - which seems fine. I then issued update-initramfs -vu, and saw the following: I: mdadm: using configuration file: /etc/mdadm/mdadm.conf I: mdadm: will start all available MD arrays from the initial ramdisk. I: mdadm: use `dpkg-reconfigure --priority=low mdadm` to change this. and the last output before cpio builds the initial ramdisk is Calling hook dmsetup - so, in my limited knowledge, this suggests the drive mapper is incorporated into the initramfs also. When I take a peek into /boot/grub/grub.cfg I see: insmod raid insmod raid5rec insmod mdraid insmod lvm in the 00_header section. I'm running low on ideas now. Re-installing grub doesn't help. Running update-grub simply dumps out many more of those error messages: error: superfluous RAID member (5 found). repeats 17 times So it does point to grub being at fault somewhere, rather than the initrd. Have I missed something blindingly obvious? Thanks again, Steve -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd8539b.9080...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: mdadm error - superfluous RAID member
On 13/06/12 19:07, Tom H wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Christofer C. Bell christofer.c.b...@gmail.com wrote: I don't believe you can boot from a striped volume (raid5 being a stripe + parity). I found some instructions that may allow this to work but requires packing a non-standard initrd: http://nil-techno.blogspot.com/2009/02/booting-fakeraid-raid5-linux-half-assed.html grub2 can handle /boot on mdraid raid5 (and possibly dmraid raid5 too). That's ok, my boot partition is /dev/sda1 (500MB) - dedicated to being /boot and nothing else, and all my RAID partitions are /dev/sd*2. I didn't realise grub2 could handle that, though. Thanks. -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd8f694.4030...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: mdadm error - superfluous RAID member
On 13/06/12 19:56, Tom H wrote: On Wed, Jun 13, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Gary Dale garyd...@rogers.com wrote: For example, Squeeze has problems with booting from partitioned RAID arrays. After running update-initramfs and update-grub, I find that the UUID for the partitions has been replaced with the UUID for the array, so that the boot fails. This particular problem can be solved by fixing the UUIDs in grub.cfg. grub2 was patched about a year ago to boot from a partitioned mdraid /boot but I don't know whether that change made it into squeeze. I have just found the GNU grub development mailing list discussion, here: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2012-02/msg3.html Although the symptoms are the same as the Debian bug (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=610184), I'm not sure whether the causes are. I believe, in my case, the cause is the one discussed in the GNU list, namely that grub couldn't accurately detect whether a partition of the whole disk was assigned for RAID use. In the developer's own words, if you have 64KiB between end of disk and end of partition the metadata is exactly in the same place for either if the whole disks are raided or only partitions. And no field which allows to distinguish those... On that basis, and the fact that grub in squeeze 6.0.5 seemed to exhibit the problem, I decided to update the machine to testing/wheezy instead and see if the problem disappears. I can confirm that it has. The error message no longer appears at boot time and I don't need to intervene to get to my login prompt. For anyone reading this in the same dilemma, I'm not sure if things like this would get backported to squeeze or not - perhaps someone has an idea how to find out... Thanks, Steve -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd8fa19.9040...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: mdadm error - superfluous RAID member
On 13/06/12 23:15, Tom H wrote: Since metadata 1.1 or 1.2 stores the metadata at the beginning rather than at the end, perhaps using a partitioned mdraid device with that metada works with squeeze. Good idea. I'll boot it up with a live CD and report back soon. -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd915f4.4010...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Fire and Thunder
Hi, I know that Debian distributes its own variants, but could someone say what their experience of installing the latest Firefox and/or Thunderbird has been like in Squeeze? Many thanks. -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd7089c.9000...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: Fire and Thunder
On 12/06/12 10:54, 张启德(Zhang Qide) wrote: See http://mozilla.debian.net/ From memory, the Ice* packages tended to throw up incompatibilities with Mozilla add-ons, e.g. those designed to be installed in Firefox rather than Iceweasel. Are there no incompatibilities in your experience, or do you not use any add-ons? Thanks, -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd71ce0.70...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: Fire and Thunder
On 12/06/12 12:17, a0z wrote: Are there no incompatibilities in your experience, or do you not use any add-ons? I'm using Iceweasel 10.0.5 and Icedove 10.0.4 on Debian testing, libc 2.13-33, kernel 3.2.0-2-amd64. Iceweasel has FoxyProxy, some search add-ons and a custom theme, all found from the built in add-on search'n'install thingy. Also got flashplugin-nonfree installed version 1:2.8.4 works fine. Icedove has Enigmail GnuPG add-on ok, but a theme I downloaded makes it crash so I'm using the default theme. That's really useful - thanks for your feedback. Steve -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd73f32.2050...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: Fire and Thunder
On 12/06/12 14:37, 张启德(Zhang Qide) wrote: PS: I am using Iceweasel 13.0 from http://mozilla.debian.net on squeeze, and all addons all found from the built in add-on search. I've just used http://mozilla.debian.net to update Iceweasel to v10 (release). Which option upgrades it to 13? -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd74b69.9000...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: Fire and Thunder
On 12/06/12 14:51, Chris Davies wrote: Are you soliciting comments about installing the generic Mozilla Firefox and Thunderbird, or the Ice* variants? I was asking about the generic ones, not the Ice* variants. The purpose was to see if there were any compatibility issues (e.g. outdated libraries) on Squeeze. I run the Mozilla variants here, downloaded from mozilla, and have encountered no problems at all. That's encouraging. :) Thanks. -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd75e3f.6000...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: Fire and Thunder
On 12/06/12 17:05, 张启德(Zhang Qide) wrote: If you are using squeeze and want to upgrades to 13, just edit /etc/apt/sources.list and add this line to it: deb http://backports.debian.org/debian-backports squeeze-backports main deb http://mozilla.debian.net/ squeeze-backports iceweasel-release then as root run apt-get update apt-get install -t squeeze-backports iceweasel Awesome. Much appreciated. Sorry, I am not good at writing English! You have nothing to worry about - it's perfectly comprehensible. Thanks for your help! -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd775b2.1000...@warpuniversal.co.uk
Re: Fire and Thunder
On 12/06/12 17:21, Ralf Mardorf wrote: On Wed, 2012-06-13 at 00:05 +0800, 张启德(Zhang Qide) wrote: If you are using squeeze and want to upgrades to 13, just edit /etc/apt/sources.list and add this line to it: [snip] http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/06/msg00888.html http://lists.debian.org/debian-user/2012/06/msg00892.html Brilliant, thanks for the links Ralf. -- Steve Dowe Warp Universal Limited http://warp2.me/sd -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4fd775e7@warpuniversal.co.uk
