Re: [Nut-upsuser] new NUT release please!

[Sam Varshavchik]

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!

[Marco Walther]

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!

[Sam Varshavchik]

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!

[Sam Varshavchik]

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!

[Mike]

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!

[Charles Lepple]

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!

[Sam Varshavchik]

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!

[Tim Dawson]

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!

[Greg Vickers]

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

[Nut-upsuser] new NUT release please!

[Dutchman01]

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