Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Hmm, all interesting stuff You mention in the notes also that openrc has some kind of keepalive function which can restart crashing services. Can point me towards how that works (assuming it needs some kind of config?) I haven't had any time yet to try this on a test machine, but interested to give it a whirl on my embedded (busybox+uclibc) target... Cheers Ed W -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
On Saturday 01 March 2008 22:26:24 Ed W wrote: Hmm, all interesting stuff You mention in the notes also that openrc has some kind of keepalive function which can restart crashing services. Can point me towards how that works (assuming it needs some kind of config?) No such function :) We can test to see if a service started daemon has crashed or not and report accordingly. The user can then restart the service if desired. This can be automated through scripts as well, but we don't automatically do this. Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Roy Marples schrieb: On Friday 29 February 2008 16:15:51 Ed W wrote: On the other hand since there still isn't a masked ebuild in portage (and I seem some notes on my on Roy's site) then I have to assume that in fact we are still a good way away from calling it a replacement and starting to push it out to users? It's actually been very stable and usable for a long time. It's not, and never will be a 100% drop in replacement for everything baselayout provides, but it's very very compatible. What about the timezone? Baselayout had a setting for the timezone in /etc/conf.d/clock. baselayout-2.0.0 + openrc doesn't seem to have that. Not needed? Bernd -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Hi baselayout-2 was renamed to openrc when Roy left Gentoo as an official dev. Answering my own question (for the record). I found some explanation here: http://lycos.dropcode.net/gregarius/author.php?author=Roy_Marples__uberlord_ Does Roy hang out here? Roy: Is this intended to be a baselayout replacement? How likely is this to be on-track to become a gentoo official baselayout? Do you (try to) support busybox and vserver environments? Don't know. Yes. Very. Yes Yes. Excellent - this is exciting to hear On the other hand since there still isn't a masked ebuild in portage (and I seem some notes on my on Roy's site) then I have to assume that in fact we are still a good way away from calling it a replacement and starting to push it out to users? Would it not make sense to start to snapshot some builds and push openrc out for testing? (Seems like a gentoo job rather than an upstream is the reason I ask here?) Cheers Ed W -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Ed W wrote: Hi baselayout-2 was renamed to openrc when Roy left Gentoo as an official dev. Answering my own question (for the record). I found some explanation here: http://lycos.dropcode.net/gregarius/author.php?author=Roy_Marples__uberlord_ Does Roy hang out here? Roy: Is this intended to be a baselayout replacement? How likely is this to be on-track to become a gentoo official baselayout? Do you (try to) support busybox and vserver environments? Don't know. Yes. Very. Yes Yes. Excellent - this is exciting to hear On the other hand since there still isn't a masked ebuild in portage (and I seem some notes on my on Roy's site) then I have to assume that in fact we are still a good way away from calling it a replacement and starting to push it out to users? Would it not make sense to start to snapshot some builds and push openrc out for testing? (Seems like a gentoo job rather than an upstream is the reason I ask here?) Cheers Ed W sudo emerge layman sudo layman -L sudo layman -a openrc sudo emerge openrc sudo etc-update -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Ed W wrote: Alon Bar-Lev wrote: Check out OpenRC it is baselayout successor and works great! Funnily enough I came across this earlier today for different reasons. However, I hadn't realised that it was a full baselayout competitor? baselayout-2 was renamed to openrc when Roy left Gentoo as an official dev. Does Roy hang out here? Roy: Is this intended to be a baselayout replacement? How likely is this to be on-track to become a gentoo official baselayout? Do you (try to) support busybox and vserver environments? Don't know. Yes. Very. Yes Yes. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Alon Bar-Lev wrote: Check out OpenRC it is baselayout successor and works great! Funnily enough I came across this earlier today for different reasons. However, I hadn't realised that it was a full baselayout competitor? Does Roy hang out here? Roy: Is this intended to be a baselayout replacement? How likely is this to be on-track to become a gentoo official baselayout? Do you (try to) support busybox and vserver environments? Cheers Ed W -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
On Friday 29 February 2008 16:15:51 Ed W wrote: On the other hand since there still isn't a masked ebuild in portage (and I seem some notes on my on Roy's site) then I have to assume that in fact we are still a good way away from calling it a replacement and starting to push it out to users? It's actually been very stable and usable for a long time. It's not, and never will be a 100% drop in replacement for everything baselayout provides, but it's very very compatible. Would it not make sense to start to snapshot some builds and push openrc out for testing? (Seems like a gentoo job rather than an upstream is the reason I ask here?) As Doug mentioned earlier, my git repo is available in an ebuild. Why haven't I done a snapshot or release yet? Well, I have one last feature to add basically. That feature is so it can be installed prefixed and still work perfectly - with the exception of not booting or shutting down the host system. I'll be doing this on my NetBSD box next week hopefully. But bugs are still being found and fixed - although at a slow rate :) Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
On Friday 29 February 2008 15:56:44 Ed W wrote: Alon Bar-Lev wrote: Check out OpenRC it is baselayout successor and works great! Funnily enough I came across this earlier today for different reasons. However, I hadn't realised that it was a full baselayout competitor? Does Roy hang out here? Roy: Is this intended to be a baselayout replacement? How likely is this to be on-track to become a gentoo official baselayout? Do you (try to) support busybox and vserver environments? It's not a full baselayout competitor - instead it's reduced baselayout to providing key base files such as /etc/passwd. OpenRC is just the service management system. Yes Yes [1] A done deal [1] No [2] [1] The Gentoo Council and Gentoo base-system team know and approve of OpenRC. Mike Frysinger of the Gentoo base-system team also has commit access to the git repo. So it's very very likely. [2] I use busybox as a shell and can support it when it's internal start-stop-daemon applet disabled (as OpenRC has it's own variant). I don't and probably never will support vserver personally, but will work with Gentoo developers ensuring that at least one version works. In other words, I'll try and support it but it may break from time to time. Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Roy Marples schrieb: [2] I use busybox as a shell and can support it when it's internal start-stop-daemon applet disabled (as OpenRC has it's own variant). I don't and probably never will support vserver personally, but will work with Gentoo developers ensuring that at least one version works. In other words, I'll try and support it but it may break from time to time. actually, baselayout-2 and openrc work great in vservers ... and it is kind of hard to break it, most things are just cosmetic, so you don't get errors on vserver startup some (minor) cosmetic bugs still need to be fixed in openrc, but i'll send a patch to roy really soon now HTH Bene -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
I just tried openrc and I really like it! All the things changed from baselayout-2.0.0-rc6 are really good ideas! good work! Thanks! But bugs are still being found and fixed - although at a slow rate :) Two small things happened here: After Login I the shell looks like: -bash-3.2# when I start then bash again manually it looks nice, the environment is not setup correctly the first time. when rebooting, INIT stops with no more processes left in this runlevel after remounting / -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
On Friday 29 February 2008 18:32:44 Stefan Hellermann wrote: I just tried openrc and I really like it! All the things changed from baselayout-2.0.0-rc6 are really good ideas! good work! Thanks! :) Two small things happened here: After Login I the shell looks like: -bash-3.2# when I start then bash again manually it looks nice, the environment is not setup correctly the first time. Doesn't sound like an OpenRC issue as such as bash sets up it's own prompt. Also, OpenRC isn't responsible for setting up the environment. At most we suck in what's defined in /etc/profile.env when rebooting, INIT stops with no more processes left in this runlevel after remounting / Curious. A suggest you open a bug a http://bugs.marples.name against openrc so we can move the debugging off this list. Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Stefan Hellermann wrote: Roy Marples schrieb: Two small things happened here: After Login I the shell looks like: -bash-3.2# when I start then bash again manually it looks nice, the environment is not setup correctly the first time. Doesn't sound like an OpenRC issue as such as bash sets up it's own prompt. Also, OpenRC isn't responsible for setting up the environment. At most we suck in what's defined in /etc/profile.env when rebooting, INIT stops with no more processes left in this runlevel after remounting / Curious. A suggest you open a bug a http://bugs.marples.name against openrc so we can move the debugging off this list. Here is something other badly broken :) So I don't think it's a openrc issue. # echo $PATH /usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin # env | grep PATH *nothing* # sysctl # only a example for a app that works *works* # which sysctl# this should work if sysctl works without typing /sbin/sysctl which: no sysctl in ((null)) I think it could be a CFLAG, I compiled my whole System with -mfpmath=sse (not sse,387), but while emerging openrc there are compiler warnings saying it uses -mfpmath=387 because sse is not available. Does openrc block -msse? Cheers Stefan To hijack this thread, you know you're getting worse performance and more problematic results by using -mfpmath=sse. This is the very same reason that -march=pentium2 / -march=athlon-tbird and newer based CPUs don't enable this flag by default. It requires specific changes to system headers. -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Roy Marples schrieb: Two small things happened here: After Login I the shell looks like: -bash-3.2# when I start then bash again manually it looks nice, the environment is not setup correctly the first time. Doesn't sound like an OpenRC issue as such as bash sets up it's own prompt. Also, OpenRC isn't responsible for setting up the environment. At most we suck in what's defined in /etc/profile.env when rebooting, INIT stops with no more processes left in this runlevel after remounting / Curious. A suggest you open a bug a http://bugs.marples.name against openrc so we can move the debugging off this list. Here is something other badly broken :) So I don't think it's a openrc issue. # echo $PATH /usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin # env | grep PATH *nothing* # sysctl # only a example for a app that works *works* # which sysctl# this should work if sysctl works without typing /sbin/sysctl which: no sysctl in ((null)) I think it could be a CFLAG, I compiled my whole System with -mfpmath=sse (not sse,387), but while emerging openrc there are compiler warnings saying it uses -mfpmath=387 because sse is not available. Does openrc block -msse? Cheers Stefan -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Doug Klima schrieb: Stefan Hellermann wrote: Roy Marples schrieb: Two small things happened here: After Login I the shell looks like: -bash-3.2# when I start then bash again manually it looks nice, the environment is not setup correctly the first time. Doesn't sound like an OpenRC issue as such as bash sets up it's own prompt. Also, OpenRC isn't responsible for setting up the environment. At most we suck in what's defined in /etc/profile.env when rebooting, INIT stops with no more processes left in this runlevel after remounting / Curious. A suggest you open a bug a http://bugs.marples.name against openrc so we can move the debugging off this list. Here is something other badly broken :) So I don't think it's a openrc issue. # echo $PATH /usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/sbin:/bin # env | grep PATH *nothing* # sysctl # only a example for a app that works *works* # which sysctl# this should work if sysctl works without typing /sbin/sysctl which: no sysctl in ((null)) I think it could be a CFLAG, I compiled my whole System with -mfpmath=sse (not sse,387), but while emerging openrc there are compiler warnings saying it uses -mfpmath=387 because sse is not available. Does openrc block -msse? Cheers Stefan To hijack this thread, you know you're getting worse performance and more problematic results by using -mfpmath=sse. This is the very same reason that -march=pentium2 / -march=athlon-tbird and newer based CPUs don't enable this flag by default. It requires specific changes to system headers. Thanks for the comment! This is the test-system on a new Via C7, I wanted to do some performance check's, but haven't so far. I thought it could be a good flag :) btw: All my problem are gone ... somehow I managed to not install baselayout from Roys overlay, I only installed openrc. Thanks Roy for your help! -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
btw: All my problem are gone ... somehow I managed to not install baselayout from Roys overlay, I only installed openrc. Thanks Roy for your help! So just to be clear, you need to install both openrc AND baselayout from the layman profile? Sounds sensible enough Cheers Ed W -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
Benedikt Boehm wrote: Roy Marples schrieb: [2] I use busybox as a shell and can support it when it's internal start-stop-daemon applet disabled (as OpenRC has it's own variant). I don't and probably never will support vserver personally, but will work with Gentoo developers ensuring that at least one version works. In other words, I'll try and support it but it may break from time to time. actually, baselayout-2 and openrc work great in vservers ... and it is kind of hard to break it, most things are just cosmetic, so you don't get errors on vserver startup some (minor) cosmetic bugs still need to be fixed in openrc, but i'll send a patch to roy really soon now This would be excellent. Actually I can't believe that there are people who run normal servers anymore. Vserver has such a small overhead and allows so many more features that it's just a no brainer (for most servers). I have been very very impressed with it! Cheers Ed W -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
[2] I use busybox as a shell and can support it when it's internal start-stop-daemon applet disabled (as OpenRC has it's own variant). I guess I could just check it out instead of asking but What's missing from the busybox s-s-daemon? I am using the busybox version 95% successfully with baselayout-2 for example (just simple stuff mind). The only thing it's breaking on right now is a --test option which doesn't seem to exist? I'm not that fussed, I'm just curious? Thanks for continuing to work on this stuff! Cheers Ed W -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
Re: [gentoo-dev] Baselayout-2 progress?
On Friday 29 February 2008 23:23:34 Ed Wildgoose wrote: [2] I use busybox as a shell and can support it when it's internal start-stop-daemon applet disabled (as OpenRC has it's own variant). I guess I could just check it out instead of asking but What's missing from the busybox s-s-daemon? I am using the busybox version 95% successfully with baselayout-2 for example (just simple stuff mind). The only thing it's breaking on right now is a --test option which doesn't seem to exist? I'm not that fussed, I'm just curious? s-s-d when used in an OpenRC service remembers how the daemon is started so it can poll to see if it's still running or not. We also use this ability to ensure the daemon really starts. A lot of daemons love to fork (and return success) before checking config and system for sanity, so sometimes it's needed. OpenRC variant also works better for finding daemons on the whole, especially if you upgrade an already running daemon. Plus, it supports more OS's than busybox - but to be fair, busybox only supports Linux. It's also missing chroot and env options from the upstream Debian version. It's also missing the Gentoo extras for PAM limits support and redirecting the daemons stdout/stderr to log files. It also requires the crappy use of oknodo. It fails to search for daemon arguments when stopping (important for say daemons using python without pidfiles) I'm not sure that busybox would take any patches to add much of the above as most would add more bloat for sure. Thanks Roy -- gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
