devil-linux-discuss — General Mailing List for all discussions

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration [Scanned]

[Matthew H. <mat...@va...>]

You just can't get the staff nowadays. ;)

-----Original Message-----
From: dev...@li...
[mailto:dev...@li...] On Behalf Of
Serge Leschinsky
Sent: 17 April 2008 14:30
To: dev...@li...
Subject: Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration [Scanned]

Heiko Zuerker wrote:

> 
> I think you forgot to upload it to the ftp server. ;-)
> 
A-a-a-a-a-a!!!!!! You are right. My bad, I completely forgot about it.
Will be
done in a minute.

--
Serge

------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
This SF.net email is sponsored by the 2008 JavaOne(SM) Conference 
Don't miss this year's exciting event. There's still time to save $100. 
Use priority code J8TL2D2. 
http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;198757673;13503038;p?http://java.sun.com/j
avaone
_______________________________________________
Devil-linux-discuss mailing list
Dev...@li...
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

[Serge L. <fi...@in...>]

Heiko Zuerker wrote:

> 
> I think you forgot to upload it to the ftp server. ;-)
> 
A-a-a-a-a-a!!!!!! You are right. My bad, I completely forgot about it. Will be
done in a minute.

--
Serge

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

[Heiko Z. <he...@zu...>]

Quoting Serge Leschinsky <fi...@in...>:

> Bruce Smith wrote:
>
>> It looks for the saved config, can't find any, asks if I want to
>> continue without a config, I answer "y", and then it says:
>>
>> !!! Devil-Linux CD-ROM not found !!!
>> Please check your Hardware!
>> Booting will NOT continue, you have to reset to try again
>>
> I have done a quick check for bb 1.9.2 and it works for my boxes - intel and
> nvidia sata. I'll checked it in ASAP ( a little modification of the  
> build script
> is required ).

I think you forgot to upload it to the ftp server. ;-)

-- 

Regards
   Heiko Zuerker
   http://www.devil-linux.org



----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

[Serge L. <fi...@in...>]

Serge Leschinsky wrote:
> Bruce Smith wrote:
> 
>> Do you want me to test this one on my SATA CDROM system?
> Yes, it would be grate.
great

Too hurry to be accurate. Sorry.

--
Serge

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

[Serge L. <fi...@in...>]

Bruce Smith wrote:

> Do you want me to test this one on my SATA CDROM system?
Yes, it would be grate.

> 
> Is there a good shortcut to get the changes in my ISO?  i.e.
> After updating src & cvs, can I manually untar busybox, run
> scripts/build.sh to build & install it, then "make clean install iso"?
> 
> Or should I start over with a new lFS & make mrproper?
No-no.

Just rebuild busybox (manual untar to /tmp dir, remove .done_build_busybox, then
"build.sh build opt=busybox") and copy it to tmp/ISO/initrdtree/sbin (rewrite
old one).
Then recreate iso, i.e. "rm tmp/.done_iso_build-iso && make iso".

Thank you,

--
Serge

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

[Heiko Z. <he...@zu...>]

Quoting Bruce Smith <bw...@ar...>:

>> > It looks for the saved config, can't find any, asks if I want to
>> > continue without a config, I answer "y", and then it says:
>> >
>> > !!! Devil-Linux CD-ROM not found !!!
>> > Please check your Hardware!
>> > Booting will NOT continue, you have to reset to try again
>> >
>> I have done a quick check for bb 1.9.2 and it works for my boxes - intel and
>> nvidia sata. I'll checked it in ASAP ( a little modification of the  
>> build script
>> is required ).
>
> Do you want me to test this one on my SATA CDROM system?
>
> Is there a good shortcut to get the changes in my ISO?  i.e.
> After updating src & cvs, can I manually untar busybox, run
> scripts/build.sh to build & install it, then "make clean install iso"?
>
> Or should I start over with a new lFS & make mrproper?

rm -rf tmp/busybox*
untar the new one into tmp/
rm tmp/.done*busybox
make clean makefile

You guys may not know about "make makefile", it's a little faster and  
supports the parallel compile of several scripts at the same time.

-- 

Regards
   Heiko Zuerker
   http://www.devil-linux.org




----------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

[Bruce S. <bw...@ar...>]

> > It looks for the saved config, can't find any, asks if I want to
> > continue without a config, I answer "y", and then it says:
> > 
> > !!! Devil-Linux CD-ROM not found !!!
> > Please check your Hardware!
> > Booting will NOT continue, you have to reset to try again
> > 
> I have done a quick check for bb 1.9.2 and it works for my boxes - intel and
> nvidia sata. I'll checked it in ASAP ( a little modification of the build script
> is required ).

Do you want me to test this one on my SATA CDROM system?

Is there a good shortcut to get the changes in my ISO?  i.e.
After updating src & cvs, can I manually untar busybox, run
scripts/build.sh to build & install it, then "make clean install iso"?

Or should I start over with a new lFS & make mrproper?

 - BS

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

[Serge L. <fi...@in...>]

Bruce Smith wrote:

> It looks for the saved config, can't find any, asks if I want to
> continue without a config, I answer "y", and then it says:
> 
> !!! Devil-Linux CD-ROM not found !!!
> Please check your Hardware!
> Booting will NOT continue, you have to reset to try again
> 
I have done a quick check for bb 1.9.2 and it works for my boxes - intel and
nvidia sata. I'll checked it in ASAP ( a little modification of the build script
is required ).

--
Sincerely,
 Serge

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

[Bruce S. <bw...@ar...>]

> > I haven't had a chance to try booting a DL CD on my SATA CD machine yet.
> > Hopefully I'll remember tonight, when I get home from work.
> > 
> > I'll let you know ...
> 
> Thank you, Bruce.

It looks for the saved config, can't find any, asks if I want to
continue without a config, I answer "y", and then it says:

!!! Devil-Linux CD-ROM not found !!!
Please check your Hardware!
Booting will NOT continue, you have to reset to try again


 - BS

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] cron.daily errors with 1.3.4

[Dick M. <di...@fo...>]

Dick Middleton wrote:
> Since moving to 1.3.4 I've been getting messages like this every day:
> 
> Cron <root@Devil> /usr/sbin/cron.interval daily
> 
> zcat: /var/log/mail.log.4.gz already has .gz suffix -- unchanged
> zcat: /var/log/mail.log.3.gz already has .gz suffix -- unchanged
> zcat: /var/log/mail.log.2.gz already has .gz suffix -- unchanged
> zcat: /var/log/messages.2.gz already has .gz suffix -- unchanged
> zcat: /var/log/apache2/access.log.2.gz already has .gz suffix -- unchanged
> 
> It seems to be logwatch that is producing these.

I think this is because zcat is a sym link to gzip

On Debian zcat is a script which does exec gzip -cd "$@"

So here zcat is trying to compress file again rather than uncompress and send to 
stdout.

Dick

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

[Serge L. <fi...@in...>]

Bruce Smith wrote:

> I haven't had a chance to try booting a DL CD on my SATA CD machine yet.
> Hopefully I'll remember tonight, when I get home from work.
> 
> I'll let you know ...

Thank you, Bruce.

--
Sincerely,
Serge

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

[Bruce S. <bw...@ar...>]

> >>> Actually the 2.6 kernel is pretty good in detecting which modules to  
> >>> load, so we may not need to worry about this anymore.
> >>>
> >> Heiko, I'm afraid it's not so good as we expect. To check it you may want to
> >> install DL on SATA HDD - most probably it will not boot (conf media not found,
> >> DL cdrom not found). The problem is in busybox's mdev (I think so) that is why
> >> Ubuntu Live-CD has original udev binaries linked against uclibc, not busybox.
> > 
> > What about a SATA CDROM?  Would that be a good test?
> > 
> > I have one system with a SATA CD drive, that I could try to boot DL on.
>
> I checked busybox web page and found out that something was done for mdev. Maybe
>  the problem with hardware detection is really away. I'm going to try version
> 1.9.2 - current stable.

I haven't had a chance to try booting a DL CD on my SATA CD machine yet.
Hopefully I'll remember tonight, when I get home from work.

I'll let you know ...

> 12 February 2008 -- BusyBox 1.9.1 (stable)
> BusyBox 1.9.1. (svn, patches, how to add a patch)
> 
> This is a bugfix-only release, with fixes to fsck, iproute, mdev, mkswap, msh,
> nameif, stty, test, zcip.

 - BS

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

[Serge L. <fi...@in...>]

Bruce,

Bruce Smith wrote:
>>> Actually the 2.6 kernel is pretty good in detecting which modules to  
>>> load, so we may not need to worry about this anymore.
>>>
>> Heiko, I'm afraid it's not so good as we expect. To check it you may want to
>> install DL on SATA HDD - most probably it will not boot (conf media not found,
>> DL cdrom not found). The problem is in busybox's mdev (I think so) that is why
>> Ubuntu Live-CD has original udev binaries linked against uclibc, not busybox.
> 
> What about a SATA CDROM?  Would that be a good test?
> 
> I have one system with a SATA CD drive, that I could try to boot DL on.

I checked busybox web page and found out that something was done for mdev. Maybe
 the problem with hardware detection is really away. I'm going to try version
1.9.2 - current stable.

12 February 2008 -- BusyBox 1.9.1 (stable)
BusyBox 1.9.1. (svn, patches, how to add a patch)

This is a bugfix-only release, with fixes to fsck, iproute, mdev, mkswap, msh,
nameif, stty, test, zcip.

--
Sincerely,
Serge

[Devil-Linux-discuss] DL 1.3.5 is ready for testing!

[Bruce S. <bw...@ar...>]

I have committed changes for DL 1.3.5, which places the /etc directory
in a aufs (Another Union File System), so only changes to the /etc
directory exist in ramdisk/memory, and only modifications to /etc are
saved to the config [floppy/USB] media.

I have uploaded a i686 "server" build of DL 1.3.5 to the DL ftp site.  
Feedback is appreciated!  :-)

MD5SUM:
6c9a2ba6c8d4b639ac76b9b97d1c82cc  devil-linux-1.3.5-2008-04-16-i686-bs.tar.bz2

 - BS

[Devil-Linux-discuss] cron.daily errors with 1.3.4

[Dick M. <di...@fo...>]

Since moving to 1.3.4 I've been getting messages like this every day:

Cron <root@Devil> /usr/sbin/cron.interval daily

zcat: /var/log/mail.log.4.gz already has .gz suffix -- unchanged
zcat: /var/log/mail.log.3.gz already has .gz suffix -- unchanged
zcat: /var/log/mail.log.2.gz already has .gz suffix -- unchanged
zcat: /var/log/messages.2.gz already has .gz suffix -- unchanged
zcat: /var/log/apache2/access.log.2.gz already has .gz suffix -- unchanged

It seems to be logwatch that is producing these.

Anybody else seeing this?

Dick

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] 1.3.4 2008-04-10 Running

[Bruce S. <bw...@ar...>]

> 	I've just installed this version and it's OK so far.   Mysql came up OK with 
> that config file change and slapd is running.
> 
> I went to some trouble to merge the default etc.tar.bz2 with my own configs in 
> the hope that it wouldn't need to do the config copy thing - but dang, it 
> thought the config was from 2008-04-02 and needed to update.
> 
> Is that just because the default config was unchanged from that release?
> 
> Let me in on a secret - where does DL keep the version information - next time I 
> want to bodge it proper?

It compare the DL rev in your saved config:  /etc/Devil-release
against the rev on the CD:  /config/etc_files/Devil-release

If they are different, it goes through the upgrade thing.

Like with drugs, you can always "just say no".  ;-)

 - BS

[Devil-Linux-discuss] 1.3.4 2008-04-10 Running

[Dick M. <di...@fo...>]

Hi,

	I've just installed this version and it's OK so far.   Mysql came up OK with 
that config file change and slapd is running.

I went to some trouble to merge the default etc.tar.bz2 with my own configs in 
the hope that it wouldn't need to do the config copy thing - but dang, it 
thought the config was from 2008-04-02 and needed to update.

Is that just because the default config was unchanged from that release?

Let me in on a secret - where does DL keep the version information - next time I 
want to bodge it proper?

Dick

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] Install-tousb script failing

[Serge L. <fi...@in...>]

Dick,

Dick Middleton wrote:
> Serge,
> 
>>> Install failed!
>>> syncing and unmounting (this could take a while)
>> I've checked it. Looks like an attempt to preserve permissions for vfat
>> partition. I have no possibility to check the patch now and I will be grateful
>> for the testing.
> 
> I've just done this on 1.3.4-2008-04-10 with syslinux bootloader on fat 
> partition and it worked fine - no error.
> 
Thank you very much! I'll check it in.

--
Sincerely,
Serge

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] Install-tousb script failing

[Dick M. <di...@fo...>]

Serge,

>> Install failed!
>> syncing and unmounting (this could take a while)
> I've checked it. Looks like an attempt to preserve permissions for vfat
> partition. I have no possibility to check the patch now and I will be grateful
> for the testing.

I've just done this on 1.3.4-2008-04-10 with syslinux bootloader on fat 
partition and it worked fine - no error.

Dick

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration/Unionfs

[Dick M. <di...@li...>]

Heiko Zuerker wrote:

> Quoting Bruce Smith <bw...@ar...>:
> 
>>> both unionfs and aufs are std in Debian if you've got a deb desktop.
>> What's the difference between unionfs & aufs?  Does DL have aufs?
>> Which one should we use for this?
> 
> I don't know what the difference is. Aufs is not in DL right now.
> If aufs is really more stable and maybe better maintained, then we  
> should go for that one.

I don't know either.  The aufs people understandably advocate their offering 
enthusiastically. See below.

However I use Debian sid amd64 and I've not had unionfs working for a long while 
for one reason or another whereas aufs worked first time out of the box so I'm 
favourably disposed towards it.

Aufs claim their offering is smaller lighter, more reliable and better featured. 
  Since we're only going to use a basic part of the functionality I doubt it 
will make much difference.

> We also need to choose wisely, so we don't have to wait for a patch  
> for a new kernel for a couple of months.

unionfs says it is in Andrew Mortons patches but I think that's as near either 
are to being included in the kernel.

Dick

Why to use AuFS instead of unionfs:
-----------------------------------

I am an AuFS user for a long time and what I really appreciate
(from the user's point of view) is the following:

# AuFS supports writable branch balancing. That means, you can setup several 
partitions for writing and AuFS will split all new/modified files between them, 
based on free disk space, existence of parent directory, randomly, or combinations.


# AuFS supports huge amount of branches. I'm currently using hundreds of 
branches without just a small slowdown (which is obvious).


# AuFS provides a list of branches through /sys, which doesn't have the 
limitation like /proc/mounts. For that reason, it works correctly even with 
thousand of branches (while so much branches would break /proc/mounts at all).


# AuFS implements 'rr' branch mode, it means 'really-readonly'. This is really 
useful, particularly for ISO images or SquashFS filesystems as a brach, as AuFS 
doesn't need to re-lookup those filesystems. (You know, a readonly branch 'ro' 
can be modified from another place, eg. network, so there can occur a 'direct 
branch access' even for read-only directories and AuFS handles it correctly.)


# last, but not the least, AuFS is really stable in real world situations. I 
used unionfs in the past, but my second name for it was 'NULL POINTER 
DEREFERENCE'. I can see those errors still happening in latest unionfs as well, 
last one I've found is from 27th of May 2008 ... BUG: unable to handle kernel 
NULL pointer dereference. ... I have absolutely no idea what that means, but the 
same errors keep appearing in unionfs for years. You won't see anything like 
that in AuFS. Guess why knoppix and other projects switched to it :)

                                                            Tomas M
                                                            slax.org

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

[Serge L. <fi...@in...>]

Bruce Smith wrote:

>>> Actually the 2.6 kernel is pretty good in detecting which modules to  
>>> load, so we may not need to worry about this anymore.
>>>
>> Heiko, I'm afraid it's not so good as we expect. To check it you may want to
>> install DL on SATA HDD - most probably it will not boot (conf media not found,
>> DL cdrom not found). The problem is in busybox's mdev (I think so) that is why
>> Ubuntu Live-CD has original udev binaries linked against uclibc, not busybox.
> 
> What about a SATA CDROM?  Would that be a good test?
I suppose yes.  My expectation is that you will get "DL cd not found" but I
would be happy to be wrong.

--
Serge

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

[Bruce S. <bw...@ar...>]

> > Actually the 2.6 kernel is pretty good in detecting which modules to  
> > load, so we may not need to worry about this anymore.
> > 
> Heiko, I'm afraid it's not so good as we expect. To check it you may want to
> install DL on SATA HDD - most probably it will not boot (conf media not found,
> DL cdrom not found). The problem is in busybox's mdev (I think so) that is why
> Ubuntu Live-CD has original udev binaries linked against uclibc, not busybox.

What about a SATA CDROM?  Would that be a good test?

I have one system with a SATA CD drive, that I could try to boot DL on.

 - BS

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] GRE tunnel

[Serge L. <fi...@in...>]

Heiko Zuerker wrote:
> I am open for changes, but they would have to be done before we  
> release 1.4-RC1.
> 
> I would prefer going a more generic route then copying one of the  
> major distros. This is why I would like to give etcnet the first shot.
> There's also one downside we would need to take care of: the upgrade  
> script needs to be able to upgrade to the new config syntax.
> 

OK. I'll play with etcnet (it seems really perspective project) at my earliest
convenience. I'll try to foresee the upgrade related problem as well.

--
Serge

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

[Serge L. <fi...@in...>]

Heiko Zuerker wrote:
> Quoting Serge Leschinsky <fi...@in...>:
> 
>> Bruce Smith wrote:
>>>>> Another advantage of doing this is the size of the config file saved to
>>>>> the floppy/usb would be a LOT smaller!
>>>> Disadvantage of that exists also. Our boot logic based on the config file
>>>> searching and parsing config files. If it was union/au fs based  
>>>> solution I'm not
>>>> sure we will able to keep the logic unchanged.
>>> Right, we would have to change the boot process to mount /etc from CDROM
>>> and then mount the unionfs on top of that and untar the changes there.
>> :-) Which comes first the chicken or the egg?
>> To be able to mount CDROM we have to find out the config file and  
>> load modules
>> from /etc/sysconfi/config:INITRD_MODULES ...
>>
>> Another way is to do something like I did in install-on-hdd, i.e. load all
>> modules, but include into initrd/ramfs only really necessary.
>>
>> Bruce, don't take me wrong, I like the idea. I only try to define  
>> the points we
>> should discuss and modify.
>>
> 
> Actually the 2.6 kernel is pretty good in detecting which modules to  
> load, so we may not need to worry about this anymore.
> 
Heiko, I'm afraid it's not so good as we expect. To check it you may want to
install DL on SATA HDD - most probably it will not boot (conf media not found,
DL cdrom not found). The problem is in busybox's mdev (I think so) that is why
Ubuntu Live-CD has original udev binaries linked against uclibc, not busybox.

But I agree  - it will be fixed sooner or later. The question is "when".


--
Serge

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration/Unionfs

[Bruce S. <bw...@ar...>]

We should probably move this thread to the develop list.  :-)

Dick, I looked and you don't appear to be subscribed to that list.

Can I get you to sign up so we can move this thread?

https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-develop

(and anyone else who's interested in DL development is welcome too!)

 - BS