Re: [CentOS] DNF update

[Jonathan Billings]

> On Sep 8, 2016, at 10:01 PM, Always Learning  wrote:
> 
> Can you tell us the DNF for:-

Get ready to take notes, because this gets complex:

>   yum update

dnf update

>   yum groupinstall

dnf groupinstall

>   yum reinstall

dnf reinstall

>   yum erase

dnf erase


--
Jonathan Billings 


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] DNF update

[Always Learning]

On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 23:22 +0100, J Martin Rushton wrote:

> Under Fedora23 issuing a yum command gets you a warning, then it
> automatically runs the appropriate dnf command.

Can you tell us the DNF for:-

yum update
yum groupinstall
yum reinstall
yum erase

?

Thanks,



-- 
Regards,

Paul.
England, EU.  England's place is in the European Union.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] DNF update

[Always Learning]

On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 14:12 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:

> On 2016-09-08, John R Pierce  wrote:
> > On 9/7/2016 7:02 PM, Keith Keller wrote:

> >>> Staying with excellent C6 until the end.
> >> CentOS 7 is yum based, not dnf.
> >
> > "Always Learning" seems to have a distaste for anything new or different 
> > than what he already knows.
> 
> Don't we all?  I'm not really all that excited about learning systemd,
> for example.  But I'll certainly give it a fair chance before proclaiming
> that they can pry CentOS 6 out of my cold dead hands.

Hopefully my hands will be warm and (probably) FreeBSD will be my next
major leaning experience when C6 fades away  unless C8 surprises
everyone.


-- 
Regards,

Paul.
England, EU.  England's place is in the European Union.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] DNF update

[J Martin Rushton]

On 08/09/16 03:02, Keith Keller wrote:
> On 2016-09-08, Always Learning  wrote:
>>
>> In any single version of Centos there is only one YUM. Having multiple
>> and incompatible versions of Yum in the same software release is
>> bonkers.
> 
> Fedora is the place to try out bonkers stuff.  If RedHat is satisfied
> with dnf then they will include it and not yum in RHELN.  Maybe they
> will make yum an alias to dnf, who knows.  But whatever they do it's
> much less likely to be bonkers.
> 

Under Fedora23 issuing a yum command gets you a warning, then it
automatically runs the appropriate dnf command.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] DNF update

[Keith Keller]

On 2016-09-08, John R Pierce  wrote:
> On 9/7/2016 7:02 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
>>> Staying with excellent C6 until the end.
>> CentOS 7 is yum based, not dnf.
>
> "Always Learning" seems to have a distaste for anything new or different 
> than what he already knows.

Don't we all?  I'm not really all that excited about learning systemd,
for example.  But I'll certainly give it a fair chance before proclaiming
that they can pry CentOS 6 out of my cold dead hands.

--keith


-- 
kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS-build-reports] Build Done: glite-lb-logger-msg 1.2.13-5.el7.aarch64 on c7-epel.a64

[buildsys]

logs/c7-epel.a64/glite-lb-logger-msg/20160826154044/1.2.13-5.el7.aarch64
logs/c7-epel.a64/glite-lb-logger-msg/20160826154044/1.2.13-5.el7.aarch64/build.log
logs/c7-epel.a64/glite-lb-logger-msg/20160826154044/1.2.13-5.el7.aarch64/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-5.el7.aarch64.rpm
logs/c7-epel.a64/glite-lb-logger-msg/20160826154044/1.2.13-5.el7.aarch64/glite-lb-logger-msg-1.2.13-5.el7.src.rpm
logs/c7-epel.a64/glite-lb-logger-msg/20160826154044/1.2.13-5.el7.aarch64/glite-lb-logger-msg-debuginfo-1.2.13-5.el7.aarch64.rpm
logs/c7-epel.a64/glite-lb-logger-msg/20160826154044/1.2.13-5.el7.aarch64/mock.cfg
logs/c7-epel.a64/glite-lb-logger-msg/20160826154044/1.2.13-5.el7.aarch64/mock.exitcode
logs/c7-epel.a64/glite-lb-logger-msg/20160826154044/1.2.13-5.el7.aarch64/root.log
logs/c7-epel.a64/glite-lb-logger-msg/20160826154044/1.2.13-5.el7.aarch64/state.log
logs/c7-epel.a64/glite-lb-logger-msg/20160826154044/1.2.13-5.el7.aarch64/stderr
logs/c7-epel.a64/glite-lb-logger-msg/20160826154044/1.2.13-5.el7.aarch64/stdout
___
CentOS-build-reports mailing list
CentOS-build-reports@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-build-reports

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6.8 and samba

[Philipoff, Andrew]

>  Samba 4.x is an intimidating piece of software. If it can perfrom the same 
> function and use the same config, I'm willing to try it.

Without log messages or process table info, it's hard to advise any further. 
Generally speaking, Samba4 can do everything that Samba 3.6 does. If your 
server is a domain member or standalone, it should be relatively 
straightforward.

I migrated my Samba 3.6 servers to Samba4 when the badlock vulnerability was 
announced. My servers are AD domain members, so the migration was fairly 
simple. Without knowing which role (domain controller, domain member, 
standalone) your Samba server is providing, it's difficult to comment on the 
complexity of migrating your server to Samba4.

Consider spinning up a VM that is similar to your current server, including the 
same Samba 3.6 packages and your current smb.conf. See if you can replicate the 
problem your users are experiencing. Try upgrading the VM to Samba4 to see if 
the enabled features in your smb.conf file work with Samba4. Running testparm 
should tell you if it works (or not). When I performed my upgrade, I first had 
to discover which Samba 3.6.x packages were installed, then I had to remove 
those packages before installing the Samba4 packages. Backup your current 
smb.conf file prior to removing your Samba 3.6 packages. Check here for info on 
updating Samba: https://wiki.samba.org/index.php/Updating_Samba

Andrew
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6.8 and samba

[isdtor]

> 1. What is your output of testparm?

 No errors or warnings, apart from

rlimit_max: increasing rlimit_max (1024) to minimum Windows limit (16384)

> 2. If you run top, are any Samba related processes (winbindd, smbd, etc) 
> consuming excessively high amounts of CPU?

 I did not observe this, although the machine was running at a load of 1+ with 
no apparent culprit.

> 3. Have you considered cranking up or enabling logging to obtain some useful 
> log info?

 Considered, yes, executed, no ;-)

> 4. Has this Samba server run correctly in the past? If so, has anything 
> changed recently?

 Yes, it always has, and works perfectly with -33. Timestamp on smb.conf shows
 it was last modified under 3.6.23-24, followed by updates to -25, -30, -35.
 With trial and error, I settled on -33 as last working version.

> 5. You probably already know this but Samba 3.6.x is ancient. Have you 
> considered running Samba 4.x? Centos 6 repos have Samba 4.2.10 packages.

 Samba 4.x is an intimidating piece of software. If it can perfrom the same 
function and use the same config, I'm willing to try it.

> 6. Have you checked for corrupted Samba *.tbd files? Consider running 
> tdbbackup:
> https://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/manpages-3/tdbbackup.8.html

 See 4. .tdb files look ok and tdbbackup gives no errors.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6.8 and samba

[Philipoff, Andrew]

> Other than the original 6.8 release version 3.6.23-33, samba has not been
> functioning correctly for me under 6.8.
> 
> The symptoms are that about 6-7 days after starting the server, users start
> complaining that they can no longer open documents on their share. Upon
> inspection, I find several, sometimes nearly a dozen smb processes owned
> by a single user, on top of those run under root. Stopping the service does
> not stop these processes. They are only killable with SIGKILL, and after 
> that, a
> service restart does not result in a functioning service, i.e. connections are
> refused, which can be verified easily with smbclient. The only cure is a 
> server
> reboot. And it is not the same user id every time it happens. Useful logs of
> any type are not available.
> 
> I have tested -35 and -36, both show the same behaviour. This is a production
> server and I have no time for tinkering; downgrading to -33 and blocking
> samba updates is the only workaround for now.

1. What is your output of testparm?
2. If you run top, are any Samba related processes (winbindd, smbd, etc) 
consuming excessively high amounts of CPU?
3. Have you considered cranking up or enabling logging to obtain some useful 
log info?
4. Has this Samba server run correctly in the past? If so, has anything changed 
recently?
5. You probably already know this but Samba 3.6.x is ancient. Have you 
considered running Samba 4.x? Centos 6 repos have Samba 4.2.10 packages.
6. Have you checked for corrupted Samba *.tbd files? Consider running tdbbackup:
https://www.samba.org/samba/docs/man/manpages-3/tdbbackup.8.html

Andrew


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] DNF update

[William A. Mahaffey III]

On 09/08/16 09:51, Valeri Galtsev wrote:

On Wed, September 7, 2016 9:59 pm, John R Pierce wrote:

On 9/7/2016 7:02 PM, Keith Keller wrote:

Staying with excellent C6 until the end.

CentOS 7 is yum based, not dnf.

"Always Learning" seems to have a distaste for anything new or different
than what he already knows.


Your, comment is probably correct: with this long frustration Mr. Always
Learning experiences, yet he is not fleeing from Linux to one of the
systems that do not change at this tremendous pace... (One doesn't need to
mention alternatives as everybody cat list named of UNIXes on one's own
;-)

Valeri

PS Sorry, folks, if the above hurts: sometimes whatever hurts helps you
most in a long run..



i.e.: that which does not kill us makes us stronger  Preach it 
*LOUD*, brother 



--

William A. Mahaffey III

 --

"The M1 Garand is without doubt the finest implement of war
 ever devised by man."
   -- Gen. George S. Patton Jr.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] DNF update

[Valeri Galtsev]

On Wed, September 7, 2016 9:59 pm, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 9/7/2016 7:02 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
>>> Staying with excellent C6 until the end.
>> CentOS 7 is yum based, not dnf.
>
> "Always Learning" seems to have a distaste for anything new or different
> than what he already knows.
>

Your, comment is probably correct: with this long frustration Mr. Always
Learning experiences, yet he is not fleeing from Linux to one of the
systems that do not change at this tremendous pace... (One doesn't need to
mention alternatives as everybody cat list named of UNIXes on one's own
;-)

Valeri

PS Sorry, folks, if the above hurts: sometimes whatever hurts helps you
most in a long run..

>
>
> --
> john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>



Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] CentOS 6.8 and samba

[isdtor]

Other than the original 6.8 release version 3.6.23-33, samba has not been 
functioning correctly for me under 6.8.

The symptoms are that about 6-7 days after starting the server, users start 
complaining that they can no longer open documents on their share. Upon 
inspection, I find several, sometimes nearly a dozen smb
processes owned by a single user, on top of those run under root. Stopping the 
service does not stop these processes. They are only killable with SIGKILL, and 
after that, a service restart does not result
in a functioning service, i.e. connections are refused, which can be verified 
easily with smbclient. The only cure is a server reboot. And it is not the same 
user id every time it happens. Useful logs of
any type are not available.

I have tested -35 and -36, both show the same behaviour. This is a production 
server and I have no time for tinkering; downgrading to -33 and blocking samba 
updates is the only workaround for now.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] DNF update

[Always Learning]

On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 19:59 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:

> >> Staying with excellent C6 until the end.


> "Always Learning" seems to have a distaste for anything new or different 
> than what he already knows.


My mind is never ever automatically closed to new 'things'.

I continually embrace new and existing aspects of a range of topics
including law, Linux including Centos, and journalism.

Once something works well, and is customised to be highly efficient and
productive, I am adverse to re-learning an alternative method of
effectively doing the same task. Time wasted on the 'new' method is time
unavailable for the existing workload. 

Perceptions based on incomplete knowledge (idle speculation?) may be
inaccurate.

An abundance of free idle time will obviously assist those wishing to
learn contentious Fedora and C7 "improvements".

Have a very nice day.



-- 
Regards,

Paul.
England, EU.  England's place is in the European Union.

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS-virt] xen 4.6.3-2 packages (with XSAs 185-188) making their way through CBS

[George Dunlap]

Just a heads-up -- 4.6.3-2, for both CentOS 7 and CentOS 6, are making
their way through the build system now and should be in the mirrors
hopefully sometime later this afternoon.

These contain patches for XSAs 185-188, one of which is a fairly
critical update, so please update as soon as they're available.

 -George
___
CentOS-virt mailing list
CentOS-virt@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt