Re: New mon admin, some questions
On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: Thanks Given that the published tarball is from 2007, perhaps it's time then to collect some patches and do a minor update release? yes. And what are the chances of getting that shifted over to Sourceforge's supported git access, to allow people like me to do local patchind and tweaks and branching and submit the changes when we're ready? I've helped migrate CVS or Subversion projects on Sourceforge to the git access before. It's quite easy, and works well. It also helps encourage minor upgrades to be submitted. until now there's been no demand for it. i'm open to it, however, as a good excuse to learn git. ___ mon mailing list mon@linux.kernel.org http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/mon
Re: New mon admin, some questions
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 1:27 PM, Mahlon E. Smith mah...@martini.nu wrote: On Sat, Jun 11, 2011, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: [...] And what are the chances of getting that shifted over to Sourceforge's supported git access, to allow people like me to do local patchind and tweaks and branching and submit the changes when we're ready? You can certainly make local changes, and create and submit patches, without requiring a seachange in VCS backend, no? Yes, but you can't make local branches and record your changes. That's a very useful feature for rebundling of any kind. Personally, I have *had it* with CVS, and consider Subversion a placeholder until someone can progress enough to use git. I'm also running into issues with daemontools integration [...] I run Mon under daemontools as well (very, very happily!) Let me know what issues you're running into -- I'm happy to share my run file or whatever you need to get it goin'. I used the built-in daemontools-run package from Squeeze, along with the mon present there. The init script uses svc to enable and disable the script. When I attempted to update other utilities, such as postfix, the installers complained about the init script and I had to revert to the standard mon package provided one to allow the update of postfix to proceed. Are you using the update-services tool? And using the daemontool-run provided setup using /etc/services and various symlink structures? Or following Dan Bernstein's original practice and using symlinks into /service ___ mon mailing list mon@linux.kernel.org http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/mon
Re: New mon admin, some questions
On 6/11/2011 8:28 PM, Jim Trocki wrote: On Sat, 11 Jun 2011, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: Is there a central code base now for updates? The Wiki and codebase at https://mon.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page/ seems to have last been updated in 2007. I do see some published patches, mostly from Nathan the most recent code is available from cvs. http://sourceforge.net/scm/?type=cvsgroup_id=170 this includes mon, the client lib, and the contrib repository, all of which are maintained and have recent additions. you can browse it here: http://mon.cvs.sourceforge.net/mon/ nathan's enhancements, which are appreciated, are maintained by him on his own web pages. You are more than welcome to pull them into upstream, if they are good enough. That's what open source is all about, giving back. Speaking of which, I owe Noel Butler a big apology. I failure to give attribution on the last mon.cgi release. His advice was indispensable in getting that release done quickly, and in getting it done right. Sorry Noel, and thanks. -- Sincerely, Nathan Gibbs Systems Administrator Christ Media http://www.cmpublishers.com ___ mon mailing list mon@linux.kernel.org http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/mon
Failure to find designatated monitor reported as untested
I just ran into some confuson. I misunderstood the mondir setting in a configuration, and presumed that it mon would search *all* the listed directories for a specific monitor. The result was that I tried stashing them, for separation from default monitors, in their own directory. It didn't work: not a huge surprise. What confused me was that the missing monitors were simply Untested, as opposed to being reported Missing. or Unavailable. Would it seem appropriate and reasonable to report missing minotirs as Missing, to help avoid confusion during restarts or confusion about monitors being unavailable from some NFS shared resource? ___ mon mailing list mon@linux.kernel.org http://linux.kernel.org/mailman/listinfo/mon
