On Sunday 24 August 2008, Craig White wrote: >On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 13:23 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: >> On Sunday 24 August 2008, Craig White wrote: >> >On Sun, 2008-08-24 at 01:21 -0400, Gene Heskett wrote: >> >> And now, even samba seems to have failed, with ubuntu apparently using >> >> an incompatible version. I was backing up the kubuntu's machines /home >> >> directory with amanda, but I never got around to rebuilding the amanda >> >> client after finding the hard way that that particular machine >> >> apparently cannot tolerate 2 pata hard drives, it seemed to like to >> >> trash the filesystems on both in a week, but with just one drive it >> >> runs for years. >> > >> >---- >> >samba has made a lot of changes from 3.0.23 to current and has broken >> >many setups because they are getting tighter integration into Windows >> >and have disrupted a lot of marginal setups. >> > >> >as far as amanda and pata drives...I wouldn't know because I stopped >> >using amanda (though I liked it) in favor of bacula. >> >> I should get amanda working as a client on that machine, its considerably >> more secure when setup correctly. Unforch, much of that security can be >> perceived as broken by shoehorning the old girl into a packaging system >> such as rpm, which has no (visible) facilities to do some things as the >> user, and some things as root, which the normal amanda install from the >> tarball does. > >---- >been a while since I used amanda and I always used the rpm packages and >never had an issue with that but... > >- amanda IIRC was a member of 'disk' group and thus had sufficient >privileges to backup / restore >- under the notion of least privileges necessary to perform, backups >should never run as super user >- installation is done as root, building should be done as user and >whether you install from tarball or rpm makes no difference...in fact, >when you build an rpm, it compiles the tarball just the same and the rpm >packaging only creates predictable files, processes, locations and >pre/post installation scripts that make things easier for users to >remove/upgrade. >- your commentary above about building/setup from tarballs as opposed to >rpm is utter nonsense which only serves your lack of understanding of >how things work.
It was certainly valid the last time (rpm was in the 3.x series yet, so that certainly dates the experience) that I tried to make an rpm install work. It may be that rpm has become more friendly in the passing years. My scripts to install a new snapshot of amanda, which I do several times a month like I do kernels, maintain all the config details that make it Just Work(TM) with no config changes required, whereas the rpm builder person rarely does 2 versions of amanda that would be fwd/backward compatible with each other. Probably because the next version is built by a new builder person who has his own bag of tricks. Not good or bad, but also not consistent. Amanda has had only one upgrade in its history that was not backwards compatible to version .9. That break occurred at about the 2.3 release, 4 years or so back up the log. Intentional, a security fix. [...] >> >> I did have nfs running between them, for about a week, but local >> >> weather created a power failure that outlasted both UPS's, and that >> >> hasn't worked since the reboots. And typical of nfs when it fails, no >> >> error msg, it just doesn't mount. >> > >> >---- >> >the errors can be cryptic - usually a stale mount and a >> >'umount -l -f /path/to/nfs/mount && mount /path/to/nfs/mount' >> >should fix this. >> >---- >> >> Stale locks at bootup after doing a graceful shutdown? That is buggy >> code... > >---- >I've never seen that occur and can't imagine it occurring - clearly >something that should get bugzilla'd if it is repeatable. >---- > >> >to be honest...I've never fooled with pulseaudio configurations at all >> >and know very little about them...it just works. Sorry for my blissful >> >ignorance. >> > >> >Craig >> >> Chuckle. Now if I could just find someone who does know whereof he speaks >> about pulseaudio configuration details. But I can't get a top secret >> clearance. :( > >---- >Rex pointed you to the developers support list for pulseaudio but you >seem to want spoonfeeding...good luck. > >Craig -- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) Q: Why is Microsoft's Product Support a failure? A: Because Microsoft needs a Support Group instead. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
