Menu
▾
▴
devil-linux-develop
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2002-03-13 20:06:45
|
Hi, The following message was sent by "John van V." <joh...@ya...> on Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:37:10 -0800 (PST). > I want to reflect the following (very constructive) comments. My guys > like > Debian, and after showing them some problems in the LFS written init.d/network > script they really balked. Personally, I always liked /etc/rc.local... > but > thats a personal preferance. They want to go w/ a Debian stucture which > I > imagine follows offical linux standards. I have been working on Solaris > and > HPUX recently. I don't have any Debian knowledge, but when it's good what you do and we like it, why not change it? > They so much love the CD-only solution that I had to show them your > self-imposed bug reporting about harddrive access. They then suggested > we > search for a VFAT MSDOS disk as well where we could set up a DL/LSD file > system > including swap space. We got a giggle when the perl install crashed the > box > for lack of memory. This will change in the Beta6. Harddisk support (log, swap, samba,...) is running. DL itself doesn't run anymore in a Ramdisk, we switched to SHMFS (uses, if neccessary, swapspace). > Also, they dont like ISO Boot (by reputuation) and the society already > committed to Grub. My booting problem, that you fixed wasnt really broken. > DL > was trying to boot from the CDWriter, hdc not the Fast CDreader, hdd. Needs some improvements. ;-) > Do you > think this is an ISO boot problem. Can Grub work on a CD ?? I don't know group. We had Lilo before, but SYSLINUX/ISOLINUX seems to work much better. > I will start working on TO-DO so that we can we can refresh your CVS with > our > modifications. Would be great. > Ethernet card detection is very high on the list, for obvious reasons. > Once we > get that, then the rest of the distributed install is a cakewalk. If you think so. ;-) > > Thanks again for all your efforts, You're welcome. cu Heiko |
|
From: Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...> - 2002-03-13 23:21:01
|
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 21:06, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > Hi, > > The following message was sent by "John van V." <joh...@ya...> on Wed, 13 Mar 2002 11:37:10 -0800 (PST). > > > I want to reflect the following (very constructive) comments. My > > guys like Debian, and after showing them some problems in the LFS > > written init.d/network script they really balked. Personally, I > > always liked /etc/rc.local... but thats a personal preferance. > > They want to go w/ a Debian stucture which I imagine follows > > offical linux standards. I have been working on Solaris and HPUX > > recently. > > I don't have any Debian knowledge, but when it's good what you do > and we like it, why not change it? I think we should be LSB compliant, and in the end it should be all the same. > > > They so much love the CD-only solution that I had to show them > > your self-imposed bug reporting about harddrive access. They then > > suggested we search for a VFAT MSDOS disk as well where we could > > set up a DL/LSD file system including swap space. We got a giggle > > when the perl install crashed the box for lack of memory. > > This will change in the Beta6. Harddisk support (log, swap, > samba,...) is running. DL itself doesn't run anymore in a Ramdisk, > we switched to SHMFS (uses, if neccessary, swapspace). Currently we use 40 MB SHMFS and we have 64 MB as minimum RAM requirement. > > Also, they dont like ISO Boot (by reputuation) and the society > > already committed to Grub. My booting problem, that you fixed > > wasnt really broken. DL was trying to boot from the CDWriter, hdc > > not the Fast CDreader, hdd. > > Needs some improvements. ;-) It's not a bug it's a feature! The first ide cdrom found will be used :) Just kidding, we'll fix that in the next beta after 0.5b6. > > Ethernet card detection is very high on the list, for obvious > > reasons. Once we get that, then the rest of the distributed > > install is a cakewalk. > > If you think so. ;-) From a security standpoint I would like the user to specifiy which module to load first because otherwise the internal and external interface could get swapped. But DL for sure could become the standard versatile cdrom distro in the future. -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2002-03-14 01:20:32
|
Friedrich Lobenstock wrote: > On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 21:06, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > I think we should be LSB compliant, and in the end it should be all > the same. I totally agree. All other Distris also try to be LSB conform, so let's go for this. I already started implementing this by changing the boot scripts. But we still have a long way in front of us. >>>They so much love the CD-only solution that I had to show them >>>your self-imposed bug reporting about harddrive access. They then >>>suggested we search for a VFAT MSDOS disk as well where we could >>>set up a DL/LSD file system including swap space. We got a giggle >>>when the perl install crashed the box for lack of memory. >>> >>This will change in the Beta6. Harddisk support (log, swap, >>samba,...) is running. DL itself doesn't run anymore in a Ramdisk, >>we switched to SHMFS (uses, if neccessary, swapspace) > > Currently we use 40 MB SHMFS and we have 64 MB as minimum RAM > requirement. Did you limit it to 40 MB ? We should change that in case somebody installs a lot of apps. >>>Ethernet card detection is very high on the list, for obvious >>>reasons. Once we get that, then the rest of the distributed >>>install is a cakewalk. >>> >>If you think so. ;-) >> > >>From a security standpoint I would like the user to specifiy which > module to load first because otherwise the internal and external > interface could get swapped. > > But DL for sure could become the standard versatile cdrom distro in > the future. I also have sometimes the problem to find out, which of the modules I have to use. We could do it the way, that the user has to start (manually!) a program, which configures the system. We could also think about having something in the boot concept, which initially configures a unconfigured system. -- cu Heiko We are Penguin, Resistance is futile! http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: John v. V. <joh...@ya...> - 2002-03-14 08:32:22
|
> I also have sometimes the problem to find out, which of the modules I
> have to use.
> We could do it the way, that the user has to start (manually!) a
> program, which configures the system.
> We could also think about having something in the boot concept, which
> initially configures a unconfigured system.
Thats why I mentioned ethernet hardware detection
Other users would need modem detection, and PPP configuration
=====
John van Vlaanderen
#############################################
# CXN, Inc. Contact: jo...@th... # #
# Proud Sponsor of The Linux Society #
# http://www.thelinuxsociety.org #
#############################################
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email!
http://mail.yahoo.com/
|
|
From: Friedrich L. <fl...@fl...> - 2002-03-14 09:29:18
|
On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:15, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > > Currently we use 40 MB SHMFS and we have 64 MB as minimum RAM > > requirement. > > Did you limit it to 40 MB ? > We should change that in case somebody installs a lot of apps. From the initrd linuxrc: # mount shared memory filesystem with a limit of 40GB (for now) test -d /dev/shm || mkdir /dev/shm echo -n "Mounting SHM FS on /dev/shm" mount -t shm -o size=40g shmfs /dev/shm && print_status success || print_status Oops that's not 40MB as you can see it's 40GB :-) I must have been somewhere else when I wrote that piece of code. I'll correct that to 40megs. If we say that we need a minimum of 64 MB of RAM we have to make sure that the machine has some RAM left to start some programs. Even more in the case when we have no swap. Heiko can you try a full install and give use the maximum SHMFS footprint in this case so we see some numbers to talk about. Maybe we should document the basis memory footprint and also the one for each package so the user can calculate if he needs more than 64MB of RAM. BTW patches to calculate the limit based on the amount of installed RAM are more than welcome ;-) > I also have sometimes the problem to find out, which of the modules > I have to use. We could do it the way, that the user has to start > (manually!) a program, which configures the system. We could also > think about having something in the boot concept, which initially > configures a unconfigured system. Agreed. -- MfG / Regards Friedrich Lobenstock ____________________________________________________________________ Friedrich Lobenstock FL226-RIPE Internetservices URL: http://www.fl.priv.at/ Email: fl...@fl... ____________________________________________________________________ |
|
From: Heiko Z. <he...@zu...> - 2002-03-15 01:00:05
|
Friedrich Lobenstock wrote: > On Wed, 13 Mar 2002 20:15, Heiko Zuerker wrote: > Oops that's not 40MB as you can see it's 40GB :-) > I must have been somewhere else when I wrote that piece of code. > I'll correct that to 40megs. Where is the problem to keep a high number? The user will feel it, when his RAM is full. ;-) > If we say that we need a minimum of 64 MB of RAM we have to make sure > that the machine has some RAM left to start some programs. Even more > in the case when we have no swap. The system will tell you, when no RAM is left. ;-) > > Heiko can you try a full install and give use the maximum SHMFS > footprint in this case so we see some numbers to talk about. > Maybe we should document the basis memory footprint and also the one > for each package so the user can calculate if he needs more than 64MB > of RAM. That should be easy to calculate, unpack ramdisk size + unpacked package size > > BTW patches to calculate the limit based on the amount of installed > RAM are more than welcome ;-) Then write one. ;-) -- cu Heiko We are Penguin, Resistance is futile! http://www.devil-linux.org |
|
From: John v. V. <joh...@ya...> - 2002-03-14 03:41:07
|
Hi again DLers and Linux Society, Note keywords: LSB, Harddisk support, SHMFS I just looked at this and didn't find much too relevant http://www.linuxbase.org/spec/refspecs/LSB_1.1.0/gLSB/book1.html It seems that we will have to use your system as template for our releases and updates and then somehow be able to supply back scripts which you would then refine for security purposes. Also, I dont think our distro should have the packages in them, it defeats the purpose of our distribution model, which is "on demand" Getting to the nitty gritty: Using the sysconfig/network script as an example, neither it nor its location is mentioned One problem with the script was that the author used something like x=`ls | grep ifcfg-` (dont have it in front of me) I would write x=ifcfg-* The route line was broken too Stuff like script style isnt even mentioned. I would even prefer to use perl so I could eliminate .bak or .old suffixes Perl isnt mentioned in the LSB either, yet it is an admin staple. As to packaging... well we unanimously rejected RPMs last night !! We like: tar cvf - | ssh -l user host "cd directory ; tar xvf -" We like yours also, but want to create an alternative to /usr (and not /opt either) Then they mention certification, do we really need that headache ?? I think what my boys (and girl ;) want are accepted locations for config files and scripts and a reasonable expect ion that they are written with good coding style. They are assuming that they will find the kindest version in Debian. Shells, they mention Bash and some other... no busy box !! No korn shell either :( Frankly, it looks like its designed to benefit the big boys... Heiko Zuerker wrote ( > > ): > > I don't have any Debian knowledge, but when it's good what you do > > and we like it, why not change it? Friedrich Lobenstock wrote ( > ): > I think we should be LSB compliant, and in the end it should be all > the same. > > > > > > They so much love the CD-only solution. They then > > > suggested we search for a VFAT MSDOS disk as well where we could > > > set up [ stuff ] > > This will change in the Beta6. Harddisk support (log, swap, > > samba,...) is running. DL itself doesn't run anymore in a Ramdisk, > > we switched to SHMFS (uses, if neccessary, swapspace). > > Currently we use 40 MB SHMFS and we have 64 MB as minimum RAM > requirement. > > > Also, they dont like ISO Boot > > > DL was trying to boot from the CDWriter, hdc > > > not the Fast CDreader, hdd. > > > > Needs some improvements. ;-) > > It's not a bug it's a feature! > We'll fix that in the next beta after 0.5b6. > > > > Ethernet card detection is very high on the list, for obvious > > > reasons. > > If you think so. ;-) > > From a security standpoint I would like the user to specifiy which > module to load first because otherwise the internal and external > interface could get swapped. > But DL for sure could become the standard versatile cdrom distro in > the future. Don't you mean LSD/DL ?? :) Ok, I must confess that I am knee deep in NYPC politics again, its taking up my most useful hours. Basically boils down to money for office rent and services to keep members. Both nowhere to be found. We'll keep hacking, looks like I will have to install Debian to satisfy the members. > Devil-linux-develop mailing list > Dev...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop ===== John van Vlaanderen ############################################# # CXN, Inc. Contact: jo...@th... # # # Proud Sponsor of The Linux Society # # http://www.thelinuxsociety.org # ############################################# __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Try FREE Yahoo! Mail - the world's greatest free email! http://mail.yahoo.com/ |
