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

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

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

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.

-- 

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



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

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

[Bruce S. <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.
> 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.

I looked at both web pages, and unionfs impressed me as being better
maintained than aufs.  

I don't know the difference in functionality. (yet :)

I also noticed another alternative that is not part of the kernel, but
uses FUSE.  (for the name now)

 - BS

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

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

> > 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 ...

Right, that will be a problem with anything other than a standard IDE
CDROM drive.

> 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.

It's a good point.

Can we load the config directory changes before the underlying /etc
directory on the CD?  That would let us read sysconfig/config ...

 - BS

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

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

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.
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.

-- 

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...>]

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.

--
Serge

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

[Bruce S. <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?

 - BS

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

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

Hello,

Fred Frigerio wrote:
> Last chance, do you really want to continue ?  (y/n) y
> Installing syslinux MBR
> 0+1 records in
> 0+1 records out
> 410 bytes (410 B) copied, 0.001488 s, 276 kB/s
> installing SysLinux boot sector
> copying files
> copying source file ./bootcd.iso to device mounted on
> ./tmp-install2usb/disk-mnt/bootcd.iso
> cp: failed to preserve ownership for
> `./tmp-install2usb/disk-mnt/bootcd.iso': Operation not permitted
> 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.


--
Serge

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

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

-- 

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



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

>> > 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.
>
> We'd also have to change save-config to only save the unionfs.  There
> would also have to be changes to the "upgrade to a new release" logic.
>
> This may also make 1.2 and 1.4 not compatible with each other's config.
> So, I guess this is a good time to do it, if we're going to.
>
> I guess it comes down to asking Heiko if this is the direction we want
> to go?  I think it's a nice solution to be managing changes in /etc and
> making the saved config much smaller.  Much better than tar'ring up some
> of the large, rarely used, packages in /etc and putting them on the CD
> (as we talked about doing some time ago).
>
> If Heiko okay's this change, I'll volunteer to do the work.  Heiko?? :-)

Yes lets give this a shot.
The size of the /etc.tar.bz2 keeps bothering me and this would really  
be a help.
Then we can also get rid of all the stupid symlinks in /etc.

Heiko

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

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

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

> My worry about using unionfs is giving a possible intruder the option  
> to 'overwrite' files.
> I have to admit I really don't know much about unionfs/aufs, but we  
> need to make sure we keep at least the same level of security.

At the moment I'm only talking about making the change to /etc. 
All the changes would still be in memory, so we're not really losing any
security, or doing anything different in that sense.

It may be a problem if we start using it for the read-only filesystem on
the CD (i.e.  /usr).  I'm not sure we should do that either.  If a user
wants to manually set that up for themselves, that's their problem.
We can't force people to keep their system secure.

 - BS

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

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

> > 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.  

We'd also have to change save-config to only save the unionfs.  There
would also have to be changes to the "upgrade to a new release" logic.

This may also make 1.2 and 1.4 not compatible with each other's config.
So, I guess this is a good time to do it, if we're going to.

I guess it comes down to asking Heiko if this is the direction we want
to go?  I think it's a nice solution to be managing changes in /etc and
making the saved config much smaller.  Much better than tar'ring up some
of the large, rarely used, packages in /etc and putting them on the CD
(as we talked about doing some time ago).

If Heiko okay's this change, I'll volunteer to do the work.  Heiko?? :-)

 - BS

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

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

My worry about using unionfs is giving a possible intruder the option  
to 'overwrite' files.
I have to admit I really don't know much about unionfs/aufs, but we  
need to make sure we keep at least the same level of security.

-- 

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



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

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] GRE tunnel

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

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.

-- 

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



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

> Hello,
>
> Fred Frigerio wrote:
>> How would one setup a gre tunnel in devil-linux? Just to be clear, I was
>> able to get it working by hand. I am not asking how to set up the tunnel
>> itself, but whether there is a formal configuration file (network?)
>> where I can set them up. I poked around and it seems it would be in the
>> /etc/sysconfig/nic but I am not sure what to do there.
>>
>> Any ideas? Has anyone done them?
>
> Well, I have to admit that there is no an elegant solution or I  
> don't know it.
> Your request is moved me to review the network configuration in DL  
> and I think
> the time to discuss it has come. DL really has difficulties with  
> ipv6, tunneling
> (ip-ip. gre, static ipsec/psk etc), teql and other exotic interfaces
> configuration we will probably wish to configure.
> To be more constructive I'd like to suggests several possibilities:
> - sync network initialization with the latest RH based systems
> - change network initialization to Debian like style and sync it  
> with the latest
> Debian system
> - add an alternative network initialization system and allow to  
> switch between
> them. I mean etcnet project http://etcnet.org/.
> - other suggestions ?
>
> Bruce, Heiko, may I ask you about your thoughts?
> I'm sorry in advance, due to my current overloading I can't answer  
> quickly :-(
>
> --
> Sincerely,
> Serge Leschinsky
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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/javaone
> _______________________________________________
> Devil-linux-discuss mailing list
> Dev...@li...
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/devil-linux-discuss
>



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

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

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

Dick Middleton wrote:
> Bruce,
> 
>>>>>> unionfs is a part of DL 1.3

> You do it like this:

> You could have 2 directories:  /etc-default and /shm/etc-admin and mount like this:
> 
> mount -t unionfs -o dirs=/shm/etc-admin:/etc-default=ro none /shm/etc

A better way is if /etc is the default in rom and /shm/etc-admin is the 
user's changes:

mount -t unionfs -o dirs=/shm/etc-admin:/etc=ro none /etc

That way you don't have the default in shm and you can always access 
etc-admin directly for save and restore.  Last night I was a bit fixated 
on keeping the link /etc->/shm/etc.

Dick

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] GRE tunnel

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

Hello,

Fred Frigerio wrote:
> How would one setup a gre tunnel in devil-linux? Just to be clear, I was
> able to get it working by hand. I am not asking how to set up the tunnel
> itself, but whether there is a formal configuration file (network?)
> where I can set them up. I poked around and it seems it would be in the
> /etc/sysconfig/nic but I am not sure what to do there.
> 
> Any ideas? Has anyone done them?

Well, I have to admit that there is no an elegant solution or I don't know it.
Your request is moved me to review the network configuration in DL and I think
the time to discuss it has come. DL really has difficulties with ipv6, tunneling
(ip-ip. gre, static ipsec/psk etc), teql and other exotic interfaces
configuration we will probably wish to configure.
To be more constructive I'd like to suggests several possibilities:
- sync network initialization with the latest RH based systems
- change network initialization to Debian like style and sync it with the latest
Debian system
- add an alternative network initialization system and allow to switch between
them. I mean etcnet project http://etcnet.org/.
- other suggestions ?

Bruce, Heiko, may I ask you about your thoughts?
I'm sorry in advance, due to my current overloading I can't answer quickly :-(

--
Sincerely,
Serge Leschinsky

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

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

Bruce,

Bruce Smith wrote:
>>>>> unionfs is a part of DL 1.3
>>> As soon as Heiko checks in the latest openldap update, I plan on
>>> compiling a fresh 1.3, and will select unionfs.  I can upload the ISO to
>>> the ftp server if there is any interest.
>> I'm interested but I'm not sure what I'd do with it - my DL is a live system. So 
>> it's qualified interest.  I'd much rather some enthusiastic developer leapt on 
>> the idea and changed the scripts for a later release.
> 
> I like the idea, but I've never used unionfs.  The docs for unionfs seem
> to be kind of scarce.  Can you post some examples of how you use it?
The most detail documentation is the kernel docs, i.e.
linux-2.6.xx/Documentation/filesystems/unionfs

> 
> How do we modify save-config to only save the changes in the upper
> modified branch?  Can we just save that directory?  (I need to play with
> unionfs, except it's not included in my 1.3 either :)
Yes. we can. United dirs may be saved an restored.
> 
> 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.

--
Serge

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] new 1.3 testing release

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

Quoting Heiko Zuerker <he...@zu...>:

> Quoting Heiko Zuerker <he...@zu...>:
>
>> Hey,
>>
>> I just uploaded the latest and greatest of the 1.3 beta series.
>> Grab it from the usual place and let us know if there are any problems.
>
> Let me take that back, I forgot something...

OK let's give this another try.
About an hour after this email the upload should be on 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] new 1.3 testing release

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

Quoting Heiko Zuerker <he...@zu...>:

> Hey,
>
> I just uploaded the latest and greatest of the 1.3 beta series.
> Grab it from the usual place and let us know if there are any problems.

Let me take that back, I forgot something...

Heiko

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

[Devil-Linux-discuss] new 1.3 testing release

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

Hey,

I just uploaded the latest and greatest of the 1.3 beta series.
Grab it from the usual place and let us know if there are any problems.

-- 

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






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

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

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

Bruce,

>>>>> unionfs is a part of DL 1.3

> I like the idea, but I've never used unionfs.  The docs for unionfs seem
> to be kind of scarce.  Can you post some examples of how you use it?

yes it's a bit obscure.  (http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/7714). Reading 
around apparently unionfs has a poor reliability reputation. There's a fork call 
aufs which does the same only more stable, faster etc etc. 
(http://aufs.sourceforge.net/). That's actually what I'm using on my desktop.

> If I understand your suggestion before, the /etc directory would be
> un-tar'ed on the CD.  Then a unionfs in memory would be a branch above
> it and all the additions/changes are made there?

Yes, exactly.  The /shm/etc/would be a union of itself and the etc-default.

You do it like this:

mount -t unionfs -o dirs=/shm/etc:/etc-default=ro none /shm/etc

(note:  substitute aufs for unionfs above if you choose that).

Magically etc-default appears in /shm/etc and you can edit and delete file as 
well as add new ones.  I.e untar your own config files into it.

> How do we modify save-config to only save the changes in the upper
> modified branch? 

That's the tricky bit - problem with above config is you'd have to umount 
etc-default to be able to see just the difference files.  Not so good.

You could have 2 directories:  /etc-default and /shm/etc-admin and mount like this:

mount -t unionfs -o dirs=/shm/etc-admin:/etc-default=ro none /shm/etc

Then /shm/etc would look as above but you can also see just the admin changes in 
etc-admin.

That might be better.

> Can we just save that directory?  (I need to play with
> unionfs, except it's not included in my 1.3 either :)

both unionfs and aufs are std in Debian if you've got a deb desktop.

> Another advantage of doing this is the size of the config file saved to
> the floppy/usb would be a LOT smaller!

Yes indeed.

Dick

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

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

> >>> unionfs is a part of DL 1.3
> 
> > As soon as Heiko checks in the latest openldap update, I plan on
> > compiling a fresh 1.3, and will select unionfs.  I can upload the ISO to
> > the ftp server if there is any interest.
> 
> I'm interested but I'm not sure what I'd do with it - my DL is a live system. So 
> it's qualified interest.  I'd much rather some enthusiastic developer leapt on 
> the idea and changed the scripts for a later release.

I like the idea, but I've never used unionfs.  The docs for unionfs seem
to be kind of scarce.  Can you post some examples of how you use it?

If I understand your suggestion before, the /etc directory would be
un-tar'ed on the CD.  Then a unionfs in memory would be a branch above
it and all the additions/changes are made there?

How do we modify save-config to only save the changes in the upper
modified branch?  Can we just save that directory?  (I need to play with
unionfs, except it's not included in my 1.3 either :)

Another advantage of doing this is the size of the config file saved to
the floppy/usb would be a LOT smaller!

 - BS

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

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

Bruce,

>>> unionfs is a part of DL 1.3

> As soon as Heiko checks in the latest openldap update, I plan on
> compiling a fresh 1.3, and will select unionfs.  I can upload the ISO to
> the ftp server if there is any interest.

I'm interested but I'm not sure what I'd do with it - my DL is a live system. So 
it's qualified interest.  I'd much rather some enthusiastic developer leapt on 
the idea and changed the scripts for a later release.

Dick

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

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

Bruce Smith wrote:
>>> unionfs is a part of DL 1.3 and we try to keep the package up-to-date. There are
>>> no scripts for DL with unonfs usage examples of course but you can use it
>>> anyway. I use it often due to my laziness to rebuild ISO :-)
>> Doesn't seem to be part of my system.  There's no kernel module and no tools. No 
>> sign of aufs either.  Is it called something else?
>>
>> I'm using: v1.3.4-2008-04-02-i586
> 
> It's not selected for inclusion in the standard build by default, but
> it's definitely part of 1.3.  Does anyone know if it compiles cleanly?
I know (I use it). It compiles cleanly.

--
Serge

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

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

Dick Middleton wrote:
> Serge,
> 
>> unionfs is a part of DL 1.3 and we try to keep the package up-to-date. There are
>> no scripts for DL with unonfs usage examples of course but you can use it
>> anyway. I use it often due to my laziness to rebuild ISO :-)
> 
> Doesn't seem to be part of my system.  There's no kernel module and no tools. No 
> sign of aufs either.  Is it called something else?
> 
> I'm using: v1.3.4-2008-04-02-i586
Hm.. Quick research and the answer was found out:
[root@z-dev build]# grep -r CONFIG_UNIONF scripts/*
scripts/configuration/unionfs.config:menu_add "System|Filesystems" bool
scripts/configuration/profiles/default:CONFIG_UNIONFS=n

It's disabled by default.

--
Serge Leschinsky

Re: [Devil-Linux-discuss] DL configuration

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

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

>> > unionfs is a part of DL 1.3 and we try to keep the package  
>> up-to-date. There are
>> > no scripts for DL with unonfs usage examples of course but you can use it
>> > anyway. I use it often due to my laziness to rebuild ISO :-)
>>
>> Doesn't seem to be part of my system.  There's no kernel module and  
>> no tools. No
>> sign of aufs either.  Is it called something else?
>>
>> I'm using: v1.3.4-2008-04-02-i586
>
> It's not selected for inclusion in the standard build by default, but
> it's definitely part of 1.3.  Does anyone know if it compiles cleanly?
>
> As soon as Heiko checks in the latest openldap update, I plan on
> compiling a fresh 1.3, and will select unionfs.  I can upload the ISO to
> the ftp server if there is any interest.

Guess what, openldap broke nagios.
We'll see what else. I hope I can finish it today.


-- 

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...>]

> > unionfs is a part of DL 1.3 and we try to keep the package up-to-date. There are
> > no scripts for DL with unonfs usage examples of course but you can use it
> > anyway. I use it often due to my laziness to rebuild ISO :-)
> 
> Doesn't seem to be part of my system.  There's no kernel module and no tools. No 
> sign of aufs either.  Is it called something else?
> 
> I'm using: v1.3.4-2008-04-02-i586

It's not selected for inclusion in the standard build by default, but
it's definitely part of 1.3.  Does anyone know if it compiles cleanly?

As soon as Heiko checks in the latest openldap update, I plan on
compiling a fresh 1.3, and will select unionfs.  I can upload the ISO to
the ftp server if there is any interest.

 - BS