Re: [Nut-upsuser] new NUT release please!
Marco Walther writes: You can [hardly any more] find some USB hubs, which allow ports to be powered on & off via software control. I'm using an older Linksys hub (http://a.co/gPhfi45) and the following little loop to reset the USB when there is a problem: Well, that's an obvious solution. And an obvious problem: finding such a USB hub, these days… pgp7aWtqwoN9Z.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
Re: [Nut-upsuser] new NUT release please!
On 09/11/2017 10:49 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: Mike writes: On 9/10/2017 6:41 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Dutchman01 writes: > >> Hello all, >> >> >> >> I request a new NUT release as current dates back to March 9, 2016: NUT 2.7.4 >> >> The fact stays that not all distro’s use latest snapshots/commits from github >> dev tree. >> >> >> >> So please do release a new up to date version please. > > I updated Fedora's nut rpms with a custom rpm package that was built off the > libusb-1.0 branch. It's been running fine, for the last 4-5 months, or so; > subject to Tripplite's typical crappiness, of course. > subject to Tripplite's typical crappiness, of course. Oh, so it's not just me that has had the "pleasure" of using their UPS The libusb-1.0 branch is more stable with that UPS, but the UPS is still crap. The communications can be reliably reset by disconnecting and reconnecting the USB cable, so it should be theoretically possible to recover by completely shutting down and reenabling the USB port, but I haven't found a way to do that in Linux. You can [hardly any more] find some USB hubs, which allow ports to be powered on & off via software control. I'm using an older Linksys hub (http://a.co/gPhfi45) and the following little loop to reset the USB when there is a problem: root@odroid:~/bin# cat check_ups.sh #!/bin/bash while true do x=$(curl -s -o - 'http://192.168.1.5:85/cgi-bin/nut/upsstats.cgi?host=tripplite@127.0.0.1:3493' | sed 's:<[^>]*>::g' | awk 'BEGIN {s = 0; } $1 == "Status:" { s = 1; next; } s == 1 { print $0; s = 0; }') if [ "$x" != "ONLINE" ] then logger -p daemon.warning "Triplite is not offline, trying to restart USB" /root/bin/hub-ctrl -b 001 -d 005 -P 1 -p 0 sleep 5 /root/bin/hub-ctrl -b 001 -d 005 -P 1 -p 1 sleep 30 else sleep 300 fi done (https://github.com/codazoda/hub-ctrl.c is the little USB power switch helper) root@odroid:~/bin# fgrep Triplite /var/log/daemon.log /var/log/daemon.log.1 /var/log/daemon.log:Sep 10 21:17:08 odroid logger: Triplite is not offline, trying to restart USB /var/log/daemon.log.1:Sep 4 11:39:09 odroid logger: Triplite is not offline, trying to restart USB /var/log/daemon.log.1:Sep 4 11:39:44 odroid logger: Triplite is not offline, trying to restart USB /var/log/daemon.log.1:Sep 9 09:06:15 odroid logger: Triplite is not offline, trying to restart USB root@odroid:~/src/hub-ctrl.c# lsusb Bus 001 Device 006: ID 0bc2:ab24 Seagate RSS LLC Bus 001 Device 054: ID 09ae:3016 Tripp Lite <--- Tripplite Bus 001 Device 005: ID 0409:0058 NEC Corp. HighSpeed Hub <--- Hub Bus 001 Device 004: ID 0424:ec00 Standard Microsystems Corp. SMSC9512/9514 Fast Ethernet Adapter Bus 001 Device 003: ID 0424:9514 Standard Microsystems Corp. SMC9514 Hub Bus 001 Device 002: ID 0424:3503 Standard Microsystems Corp. Bus 001 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0002 Linux Foundation 2.0 root hub Bus 002 Device 001: ID 1d6b:0001 Linux Foundation 1.1 root hub root@odroid:~/src/hub-ctrl.c# lsusb -^C root@odroid:~/src/hub-ctrl.c# lsusb -t /: Bus 02.Port 1: Dev 1, Class=root_hub, Driver=exynos-ohci/3p, 12M /: Bus 01.Port 1: Dev 1, Class=root_hub, Driver=s5p-ehci/3p, 480M |__ Port 2: Dev 2, If 0, Class=Hub, Driver=hub/3p, 480M |__ Port 1: Dev 3, If 0, Class=Hub, Driver=hub/5p, 480M |__ Port 1: Dev 4, If 0, Class=Vendor Specific Class, Driver=smsc95xx, 480M |__ Port 2: Dev 5, If 0, Class=Hub, Driver=hub/4p, 480M <--- Hub |__ Port 1: Dev 54, If 0, Class=Human Interface Device, Driver=usbfs, 1.5M <--- Tripplite |__ Port 3: Dev 6, If 0, Class=Mass Storage, Driver=usb-storage, 480M Hope, that helps a bit;-) -- Marco ___ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser ___ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
Re: [Nut-upsuser] new NUT release please!
Charles Lepple writes: On 11/9/17 1:56 am, Dutchman01 wrote: > > I request a new NUT release as current dates back to March 9, 2016: NUT 2.7.4 > > > The fact stays that not all distro’s use latest snapshots/commits from github dev tree. > Not all of the distros have moved to 2.7.4, either... As Sam alluded to out on the list (are you subscribed?), if you have a specific issue (such as the one addressed by the libusb-1.0 branch), let us know and we can help you build packages for your distro that include the patches you need. Not everyone who asks this is going to have the dev knowledge to build their own custom package. Especially when the package in question is based off a non-default git branch. Especially when the aforementioned git branch won't even build on one's current distribution, due to a makefile issue[1]. Occasionally these kinds of requests come from sysadmins, and others that do not have a development background. I wouldn't assume that every sysadmin would know how to grab a particular git branch, look inside their distribution's existing nut version to see what it does, attempt to replace the existing package with a new tarball, figure out why it didn't work, and then fix the Makefile. Pushing out a defined release will encourage distributions to update to it, expanding the usage of the new code, increase feedback, and make it easier for some to update to the new code base. [1] One of the outstanding pull requests. pgpn8GYg6oPcB.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
Re: [Nut-upsuser] new NUT release please!
Mike writes: On 9/10/2017 6:41 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Dutchman01 writes: > >> Hello all, >> >> >> >> I request a new NUT release as current dates back to March 9, 2016: NUT 2.7.4 >> >> The fact stays that not all distro’s use latest snapshots/commits from github >> dev tree. >> >> >> >> So please do release a new up to date version please. > > I updated Fedora's nut rpms with a custom rpm package that was built off the > libusb-1.0 branch. It's been running fine, for the last 4-5 months, or so; > subject to Tripplite's typical crappiness, of course. > subject to Tripplite's typical crappiness, of course. Oh, so it's not just me that has had the "pleasure" of using their UPS The libusb-1.0 branch is more stable with that UPS, but the UPS is still crap. The communications can be reliably reset by disconnecting and reconnecting the USB cable, so it should be theoretically possible to recover by completely shutting down and reenabling the USB port, but I haven't found a way to do that in Linux. pgpC7RP6pcc1V.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
Re: [Nut-upsuser] new NUT release please!
On 9/10/2017 6:41 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Dutchman01 writes: > >> Hello all, >> >> >> >> I request a new NUT release as current dates back to March 9, 2016: NUT 2.7.4 >> >> The fact stays that not all distro’s use latest snapshots/commits from >> github >> dev tree. >> >> >> >> So please do release a new up to date version please. > > I updated Fedora's nut rpms with a custom rpm package that was built off the > libusb-1.0 branch. It's been running fine, for the last 4-5 months, or so; > subject to Tripplite's typical crappiness, of course. > subject to Tripplite's typical crappiness, of course. Oh, so it's not just me that has had the "pleasure" of using their UPS ___ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
Re: [Nut-upsuser] new NUT release please!
On 11/9/17 1:56 am, Dutchman01 wrote: > > I request a new NUT release as current dates back to March 9, 2016: NUT 2.7.4 > > > The fact stays that not all distro’s use latest snapshots/commits from github > dev tree. > Not all of the distros have moved to 2.7.4, either... As Sam alluded to out on the list (are you subscribed?), if you have a specific issue (such as the one addressed by the libusb-1.0 branch), let us know and we can help you build packages for your distro that include the patches you need. If you just want the latest version, note that the tarballs that you can get from http://buildbot.networkupstools.org (check for links on the Debian builders) are very similar to releases - we use the same `make distcheck` procedure to build and test what we can (without real UPS hardware) as when we build an "official" release. I was going to push for a new release that includes the libusb-1.0 branch, and then I found some issues in the Git history that we need to resolve before merging (see discussion at https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/issues/300 ). Arnaud has also been busy lately, and I am in the midst of trying to move the server that includes, among other things, buildbot.networkupstools.org. That said, let us know if you have specific issues that might have been solved post-2.7.4. On Sep 10, 2017, at 5:27 PM, Tim Dawson wrote: > And you can source build the current version from source on pretty much > anything, thus negating any value of distro centric packaging . . . While this is true for many packages, I think this is a bit of a stretch for a tool like NUT when it is being used to shut down a system. Barring the inevitable bug that creeps in, I think the distros are in a much better place to fix integration problems with their shutdown scripts. Sam's suggestion of adding newer NUT sources to existing Fedora RPMs seems like it would reap the benefits of both the distro integration and the newer NUT features and bug fixes. ___ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
Re: [Nut-upsuser] new NUT release please!
Dutchman01 writes: Hello all, I request a new NUT release as current dates back to March 9, 2016: NUT 2.7.4 The fact stays that not all distro’s use latest snapshots/commits from github dev tree. So please do release a new up to date version please. I updated Fedora's nut rpms with a custom rpm package that was built off the libusb-1.0 branch. It's been running fine, for the last 4-5 months, or so; subject to Tripplite's typical crappiness, of course. pgpTQCTcnu3Oo.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
Re: [Nut-upsuser] new NUT release please!
And you can source build the current version from source on pretty much anything, thus negating any value of distro centric packaging . . . On September 10, 2017 4:20:49 PM CDT, Greg Vickers wrote: >I'll take this hit: Dutchman01, why should there be a new version >released? Is there a significant problem with the current version, or >major functionality that is missing? > >Releasing a new version for the sake of an updated version number isn't > >a reason for releasing an update. > > >On 11/9/17 1:56 am, Dutchman01 wrote: >> >> Hello all, >> >> I request a new NUT release as current dates back to March 9, 2016: >> NUT 2.7.4 >> >> The fact stays that not all distro’s use latest snapshots/commits >from >> github dev tree. >> >> So please do release a new up to date version please. >> >> Thank you >> >> Dutchman >> >> >> >> ___ >> Nut-upsuser mailing list >> Nut-upsuser@lists.alioth.debian.org >> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.___ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser
Re: [Nut-upsuser] new NUT release please!
I'll take this hit: Dutchman01, why should there be a new version released? Is there a significant problem with the current version, or major functionality that is missing? Releasing a new version for the sake of an updated version number isn't a reason for releasing an update. On 11/9/17 1:56 am, Dutchman01 wrote: Hello all, I request a new NUT release as current dates back to March 9, 2016: NUT 2.7.4 The fact stays that not all distro’s use latest snapshots/commits from github dev tree. So please do release a new up to date version please. Thank you Dutchman ___ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser ___ Nut-upsuser mailing list Nut-upsuser@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsuser