[CentOS-docs] CentOS5 OpenVPN cheatsheet
Searching for a detail of OpenVPN configuration, I noticed my draft of an OpenVPN for CentOS5 cheat sheet popped up as the second result. I didn't realize my drafts would be searchable, but that's OK, it looks relatively complete. I'd work out updates for CentOS 6 7, if I used them, but I don't, yet. Anyway, should I leave it where it is or should we move it from http://wiki.centos.org/EdHeron/CentOS5OpenVPN to http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/CentOS5OpenVPN ? ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Question about memory upper limit
My 32 bit CentOS 5 servers only report a little over 14G. On Thu, 2013-01-10 at 09:20 -0300, Héctor Herrera wrote: Oh yes, it will recognize until 16 Gb. I made the test a few months ago. 2013/1/10 Gerald Nathan gerald.airfo...@gmail.com I guess it should On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Dae James daeda...@126.com wrote: My CPU is 64 bit, but my CentOS is 32 bit version. Does my system support memory larger than 4G? __ Dae James ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs -- Saludos Héctor Herrera Anabalón Egresado ICCI UNAP Servicio Arquitectura Galatea - Oficina Técnica http://www.galatea.cl Miembro USoLIX Victoria Registered User #548600 (LinuxCounter.net) ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Access request to page TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir
On Thu, 2012-07-12 at 13:07 -0600, Ed Heron wrote:
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 19:40 -0400, Brian Mathis wrote:
The use of mv -v ...{,_} is too clever for this kind of educational
document, and should be changed to spell out the full mv command. I
get what you're doing there, but the purpose of the document is not to
teach clever uses of bash, it's to make it obvious to people that
you're renaming the file. It will trip up the flow of reading for all
but the most knowledgeable users, and users who don't understand it
will be totally lost.
I'm not trying to be clever, I just don't like to type it twice if I
can avoid it and the typing the higher the chance for a typo. I don't
have a problem having both forms. I'll add it and see what you think.
In most documents and scripts, I usually spell out the short form
options as well, such as using --verbose. Short forms save you
typing, but documentation should not trip people up if they don't know
what the option means.
Normally, I expect, if people don't understand a command, they will
refer to the man page for the command. However, to my constant
disappointment, I understand that many people aren't looking for long
term knowledge improvement, they are looking for a recipe to blindly
follow.
Also, I find the use of _ to be obtuse and highly error prone if one
were to actually run a server that way. It's far more obvious to use
disabled, which makes it very clear that those items are disabled.
It may work for you but only because that's a convention you came up
with so you're used to it, but we're not in dos 8.3 days with
filenames, so why not be more descriptive?
Having both forms should make it plain that people can use any
convention they wish. System administration is not a fixed target.
Like many things, there are many ways to accomplish the same result.
When approaching a system that someone else is administrating, we should
try to maintain the existing conventions instead of forcing our own
ideas onto a server for which we are not the primary responsible party.
In section 6.4, is there a reason not to make a vhosts.conf file
that contains the Include in the in the conf.d/ directory, instead
of appending to the httpd.conf, or do you run into ordering issues
there? I try to avoid changing the distro files if possible.
Sections 6 and 7 are optional. There are certainly arguments against
customization. In the past, upgrades might have replaced all files
including configuration files. In that case, creating a vhosts.conf
file in the conf.d directory to separate the directive would have been a
must. However, the Linux distributions I have used for the past decade
or so have avoided replacing existing configuration files, expecting
they might be customized.
That said, I like the suggestion. It would allow for the virtual host
files to be packaged into an RPM file that could be installed on
multiple web hosts.
❧ Brian Mathis
I made the changes I've described about a week ago. Brian, does that
satisfy your concerns? Does anybody else agree with Brian? Have the
changes I've made make it easier to read the document?
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Access request to page TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 19:40 -0400, Brian Mathis wrote:
The use of mv -v ...{,_} is too clever for this kind of educational
document, and should be changed to spell out the full mv command. I
get what you're doing there, but the purpose of the document is not to
teach clever uses of bash, it's to make it obvious to people that
you're renaming the file. It will trip up the flow of reading for all
but the most knowledgeable users, and users who don't understand it
will be totally lost.
I'm not trying to be clever, I just don't like to type it twice if I
can avoid it and the typing the higher the chance for a typo. I don't
have a problem having both forms. I'll add it and see what you think.
In most documents and scripts, I usually spell out the short form
options as well, such as using --verbose. Short forms save you
typing, but documentation should not trip people up if they don't know
what the option means.
Normally, I expect, if people don't understand a command, they will
refer to the man page for the command. However, to my constant
disappointment, I understand that many people aren't looking for long
term knowledge improvement, they are looking for a recipe to blindly
follow.
Also, I find the use of _ to be obtuse and highly error prone if one
were to actually run a server that way. It's far more obvious to use
disabled, which makes it very clear that those items are disabled.
It may work for you but only because that's a convention you came up
with so you're used to it, but we're not in dos 8.3 days with
filenames, so why not be more descriptive?
Having both forms should make it plain that people can use any
convention they wish. System administration is not a fixed target.
Like many things, there are many ways to accomplish the same result.
When approaching a system that someone else is administrating, we should
try to maintain the existing conventions instead of forcing our own
ideas onto a server for which we are not the primary responsible party.
In section 6.4, is there a reason not to make a vhosts.conf file
that contains the Include in the in the conf.d/ directory, instead
of appending to the httpd.conf, or do you run into ordering issues
there? I try to avoid changing the distro files if possible.
Sections 6 and 7 are optional. There are certainly arguments against
customization. In the past, upgrades might have replaced all files
including configuration files. In that case, creating a vhosts.conf
file in the conf.d directory to separate the directive would have been a
must. However, the Linux distributions I have used for the past decade
or so have avoided replacing existing configuration files, expecting
they might be customized.
That said, I like the suggestion. It would allow for the virtual host
files to be packaged into an RPM file that could be installed on
multiple web hosts.
❧ Brian Mathis
___
CentOS-docs mailing list
CentOS-docs@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Access request to page TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir
On Wed, 2012-07-11 at 10:42 -0400, Brian Mathis wrote: Requesting access to edit page TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir Looking to make some small edits for clarity. ❧ Brian Mathis Yay, somebody read it! What are you suggesting? ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] http://www.centos.org/docs
On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 16:05 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote: ... But, most of it can be automated isnt it ? and the docs are only ever updated once every 6 to 8 months. Its more of a case of someone taking the task up, and spending the day or two needed to get to grips with whats involved and doing 1 doc. We can then scale up the effort from there. Breaking inertia is key. I would say the RHEL docs are a starting point. The first step is to remove the RHEL logos and such. The next step is to change the pieces that don't apply and add any sections for stuff that isn't close. At that point, the docs become an animal completely separate from the RHEL docs. Future RHEL docs would then have to be diff'd to discover what changes they've made and decide if we wish to add their changes to CentOS docs. I can fantasize that RHEL might even check out our docs and see if any of our changes are worth adding back into their docs. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] http://www.centos.org/docs
On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 23:35 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote: ... I'll setup a resource in .centos.org space that allows us ( and whoever wants to join the effort ) the ability to collaborate and share files. details in personal email, early on Monday morning Some sort of revision control system would be nice. Is it possible to export a set of pages from the wiki into a pdf or e-pub format? Having the wiki and docs go to my kindle when they are changed would be pretty cool. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] http://www.centos.org/docs
On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 21:29 -0300, Paul R. (Crunch) wrote: ...On 04/21/2012 08:38 PM, Ed Heron wrote: On Sat, 2012-04-21 at 23:35 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote: ... I'll setup a resource in .centos.org space that allows us ( and whoever wants to join the effort ) the ability to collaborate and share files. details in personal email, early on Monday morning Some sort of revision control system would be nice. That's not a bad idea. Something like CVS. The wiki has the equivalent of a revision control. Is it possible to export a set of pages from the wiki into a pdf or e-pub format? I don't see why not. It should be easy enough to run some conversion utility on the finished HTML docs. Although it'll probably take some tweaking. It'd be better to pull the raw page(s) and build the book from that. Having the wiki and docs go to my kindle when they are changed would be pretty cool. True enough. There is already a subscription to changes feature of the wiki. It'd be interesting if the page could prepared and mailed with the notification. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] http://www.centos.org/docs
On Fri, 2012-04-20 at 14:44 -0300, Crunch wrote: ... 1) Why if the original document was licensed with an open commons license is the document being relicensed as an open publication license. I think Red Hat changed their license since that footer was written. 2) Why does the foot note say that you can't modify the document? open commons states that you can do anything you like to the document so long as it retains a reference to the original document and licensor. Assuming that one could actually distribute the documentation as I described in points (2) above: 1) Would it be right to relabel their documentation as CentOS after they worked so hard on it. 2) The howto documentation style seems to be more practical or have more utility. Although, more may be better when it comes to information. There are pieces of the RHEL manuals that reference pieces that don't exist in CentOS. RHN being one example. Changing those pieces makes sense. HowTos explain a process which is usually abbreviated for a specific or narrow use-case. Manuals can discuss theory and be a reference. The HowTos, as they exist, don't store well on an e-reader. The RHEL manuals are offered in an epub format in an apparent attempt to be stored on an e-reader or printed. If we change anything, we should change the graphics and re-distribute the changed version. After thinking about this, CentOS(your) project goals and KB's comments, maybe keeping the current style of http://www.centos.org/docs is not such a bad idea. Although I'm not to sure the foot note is in line with the original license. Regards, Paul R. I agree that modifying and subsequently maintaining the manuals is a rather large project. That isn't to say I'm advocating either for or against. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Grub Installation for CentOS 5 and 6 HowTo
On Fri, 2012-03-02 at 19:02 -0500, Yves Bellefeuille wrote: ... I couldn't figure out how to do the two internal links at the very bottom, so please fix that. ... I modified the internal links. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] wiki request
On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 09:36 +, Karanbir Singh wrote: On 02/10/2012 06:36 PM, Aaron Anderson wrote: Probably best if I started out with a complete OpenVPN tutorial. I also have good information about font rendering. ok, I've created: http://wiki.centos.org/AaronAnderson/OpenVPN under your homepage at http://wiki.centos.org/AaronAnderson ( you should have edit rights to both places ). Also, noticed that Ed had a OpenVPN page that seems to have started off, but been abandoned - Ed, can you confirm ? if so, please delete that page or mark it All -read, so it does not cause search result mixup. Ref: http://wiki.centos.org/EdHeron/OpenVPN Oops. I can confirm I got side-tracked. Maybe we can work together to complete the document. Aaron, does your process differ from what's included, so far, in my document? Karanbir, let me know if I've marked it appropriately to prevent search engines from finding it. I guess I should do that for any other partial draft documents? ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] wiki request
On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 09:26 -0700, Ed Heron wrote: On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 09:36 +, Karanbir Singh wrote: Also, noticed that Ed had a OpenVPN page that seems to have started off, but been abandoned - Ed, can you confirm ? if so, please delete that page or mark it All -read, so it does not cause search result mixup. Ref: http://wiki.centos.org/EdHeron/OpenVPN Oops. I can confirm I got side-tracked. Maybe we can work together to complete the document. Aaron, does your process differ from what's included, so far, in my document? Karanbir, let me know if I've marked it appropriately to prevent search engines from finding it. I guess I should do that for any other partial draft documents? I tried a few ways of changing the rights. From your hint and looking at another page, it looks like I should do '#acl All:-read', but it doesn't let me because I'm not admin. I assume people in the admin group override any acl in a document. Would I lose access with this command? Shouldn't it be something like '#acl EdHeron:read,write,revert,delete,All:-read' Or does edit group override some of this. Should restricted access rights be standard for draft documents? To prevent them from being found by search engines but still accessible by creator, EditGroup and AdminGroup (and maybe all logged in users)? I've forgotten the name of the Wiki software we are using. Please remind me, so I could look there for docs relating to acl? ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] wiki request
On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 18:07 +, Karanbir Singh wrote: if you are working on it - dont worry, once a final version gets moved into the howto's area - we can just setup redirects from this page. till such time just add a draft tag to the top of the page.. Mostly, I just needed a reminder it was there. QQThey laid off my staff about 2 years ago, so I've been rather busy/QQ I was working on a rewrite of the PXE documentation, too. How can I prevent my pages from competing with the existing page in search engines? Shall we consider the draft tag sufficient to warn potential searchers that my page might be incomplete? Aaron, my OpenVPN page was started before CentOS 6 was out. I haven't touched CentOS 6, yet. If you are going to focus on the CentOS 6 aspects, we could collaborate. Or, if they are sufficiently different, we could just specify version in the title. Or, certainly, you are welcome to fill in missing pieces in my draft... Whatever gets the job done. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] RFC: Install OpenVPN on CentOS 5
Please review http://wiki.centos.org/EdHeron/CentOS5OpenVPN ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] proposal TipsAndTricks/EditorDefaultNano
On my systems, I set nano to be the default editor. Is this something that can be done with some sort of configuration script? I don't find anything like system-switch-mail for editors. I do it in my kickstart files, but it can easily be done from a command line. Since nano is only useful to people using the command line, I think it completely appropriate... Is a document describing this short process desirable to have on the wiki? yum install -y nano echo set nowrap /etc/nanorc cat EOF /etc/profile.d/nano.sh export VISUAL=nano export EDITOR=nano EOF ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] proposal TipsAndTricks/EditorDefaultNano
On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 22:12 +0100, Marcus Moeller wrote: Is a document describing this short process desirable to have on the wiki? You may want to add some notes about the ability to define these variables on per user base: I've thrown a quick page together and included your suggestion at http://wiki.centos.org/EdHeron/EditorDefaultNano ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] copying upstream docs to centos.org
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 10:15 +0200, Tru Huynh wrote: ... I don't think that Red Hat as provided any updated guide, if we are missing any please point them here or add them to bugs.centos.org. According to http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/, Installation Guide was published Mar 2010 and has a 5.5 link. I haven't compared actual content, though. Even if there haven't been any updates to guide content, we should link the guides under 5.5 so people don't think our guides are out-dated. Out-dated guides are an indirect indication of inadequate project resources. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] copying upstream docs to centos.org
On Thu, 2010-06-03 at 10:15 +0200, Tru Huynh wrote: ... I don't think that Red Hat as provided any updated guide, if we are missing any please point them here or add them to bugs.centos.org. One interesting change is the license. 5.4 and 5.5 Installation Guides are released under Creative Commons Attribution - Share Alike which appears to grant us the ability to edit it to replace the Redhat logos with CentOS and to remove the references to RHN as long as we attribute Redhat and provide a link to the original docs. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] copying upstream docs to centos.org
Is there a place, from the upstream provider, where we can download the multi-file html docs in a single file? Otherwise, I can download each page manually or use wget to get everything recursively... Is the footer the only difference? (besides any links) Do we want to encapsulate each page into the centos site or keep it printable, like it kind of is, currently. Do we just copy the current pdf? or do we modify it? Since the manual is on the main centos.org site, do I need a sine in or access to start adding the manuals? I should still have an EdHeron login over there. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Tips and Tricks: Install from GRUB
On Fri, 2010-05-28 at 11:57 -0400, Phil Schaffner wrote: Ed Heron wrote on 05/27/2010 04:27 PM: On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 10:30 -0400, Phil Schaffner wrote: Proposed new page for comment: http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/InstallFromGRUB Phil I suggest adding links to some supporting documentation. For example, you could add a prerequisites section saying this technique or trick requires the install media available, either on the network or on the local disk. Instructions for setting up the install media on the network can be found in the Installation guide, chapter 2.5 Preparing for a Network Installation http://centos.org/docs/5/html/5.2/Installation_Guide/s1-steps-network-installs-x86.html Instructions for putting the install media on the local disk can be found in the Installation guide, chapter 2.6 Preparing for a hard drive Installation http://centos.org/docs/5/html/5.2/Installation_Guide/ch02s06.html It looks like the version 5.2 docs are the most recent on the centos.org site. Ed, Thanks for the suggestion. For a short Tips page I'm reluctant to add too much, and also don't like linking to the obsolete docs. Feel free to edit the page if you feel differently. :-) I feel linking is better than not giving the reader an idea of where to go next. I felt linking to the obsolete CentOS docs was better than linking to upstream docs, since that part hasn't really changed. I suppose if we used http://centos.org/docs/5/html/Installation_Guide-en-US/ as the base, it would be re-linked when a document was updated and could (theoretically) be changed by the translators (assuming alternate language manuals existed). OT: So what's happening with updating docs? Phil I had an urge to ask the same about updating CentOS docs, but that is commonly interpreted as volunteering to lead the task. I'd volunteer to help, though. Is someone currently in charge of that? http://www.centos.org/docs/5/ suggests that the CentOS project redistributes without modification. Since this isn't code, I assume (subject to correction) that this process is different than the process at http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/General/RebuildReleaseProcess but possibly similar in some respects for the equivalent rpms. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Tips and Tricks: Install from GRUB
On Wed, 2010-05-26 at 10:30 -0400, Phil Schaffner wrote: Proposed new page for comment: http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/InstallFromGRUB Phil I suggest adding links to some supporting documentation. For example, you could add a prerequisites section saying this technique or trick requires the install media available, either on the network or on the local disk. Instructions for setting up the install media on the network can be found in the Installation guide, chapter 2.5 Preparing for a Network Installation http://centos.org/docs/5/html/5.2/Installation_Guide/s1-steps-network-installs-x86.html Instructions for putting the install media on the local disk can be found in the Installation guide, chapter 2.6 Preparing for a hard drive Installation http://centos.org/docs/5/html/5.2/Installation_Guide/ch02s06.html It looks like the version 5.2 docs are the most recent on the centos.org site. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] www.centos.org and the wildcard dns
From: Karanbir Singh, Friday, April 16, 2010 8:57 AM ... At the moment there is a www.centos.org site. There is also a wildcard dns setup that directs anything.centos.org to www.centos.org's content ... Unless I'm missing something, http://yadda.centos.org doesn't redirect, it displays a copy of the (www.)centos.org content. I'm not that knowledgeable about SEO stuff, but wouldn't a redirect be better? Assuming an Apache setup, adding something like a catch-all virtual host after any other centos.org host definitions. I prefer URL's without the www unless there is a good reason... VirtualHost *:80 ServerAlias *.centos.org Redirect permanent / http://centos.org /VirtualHost That should get the browser client to notice and change where it is going. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] EdHeron/DomU_LVM_NTFS_resize
From: Fabian Arrotin, Monday, February 08, 2010 12:52 PM Ed Heron wrote: Please, if anybody has time, take a look at http://wiki.centos.org/EdHeron/DomU_LVM_NTFS_resize Contructive criticism welcome. Well, why using ntfsprog when the Windows guest can resize the FS itself with diskpart ? (of course, if it's not on the system/boot disk) ... I've always only used lvextend and then used that in the VM itself (for Windows guests, that is) Thanks. I didn't realize that was supported. I'll check it out. -- Fabian Arrotin test -e /dev/human/brain || ( echo 1 /proc/sys/kernel/sysrq ; echo c /proc/sysrq-trigger ) ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] EdHeron/DomU_LVM_NTFS_resize
Please, if anybody has time, take a look at http://wiki.centos.org/EdHeron/DomU_LVM_NTFS_resize Contructive criticism welcome. Ed Heron ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir re-org
From: Ralph Angenendt, Thursday, January 21, 2010 5:56 AM On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 8:47 PM, Ed Heron e...@heron-ent.com wrote: Hopefully, this will make the document easier to read for those that don't have any interest in the optional alternatives or reading it entirely. Too me it looks more clearly arranged this way. Thank you. I tend to read documentation all the way through before following it, when I read it at all ;). So, I didn't initially understand the depth of emotion that appeared to be expressed over the previous version. (simplified english: Russ seemed very annoyed.) But, with Russ's patient explanation and a bit of thought, I think I understand what he was saying. I think both points of view are valid but the new organization is probably more applicable to our audience. I hope the new document is more useful as a reference document and produces less confusion. It occurs to me that I could separate the vhost.d/ and virtual disabling sections into separate Tips articles. Please let me know if this is desireable. Is that desirable? You're weighing options here (do it this way or do it the other way), so I don't really see how that could be split out in a sane way. Yes. I think so, as well. However, the document is getting a bit large for a tips page and goes slightly beyond the stated scope. If that isn't an issue, yet, I don't have an issue with leaving it as a single document. For example, we could split the restart section into a separate document and expand the explanation a little.. Then, this page and other potential Apache tips pages could refer to it by command and link. The disabling virtual hosts could probably be put into a separate doc, though it depends on putting the virtual host config files in a directory, so both docs would need to refer to each other. The potential pitfall here is that no single document completes a thought and the referrals fly, apparently endlessly. I sometimes have trouble drawing the line. The axiom, In for a penny; In for a pound, seems to exclude, or maybe ignore, the idea of only being in for tupence. Certainly wouldn't be the first to question my sanity, though. The other thought I had is collecting all the Apache tips into a howto, but I'm not ready to accept the responsibility to create and maintain it, nor do I have the confidence that it would be sufficiently authoritative. Other's mileage may vary, though :) Cheers, Ralph ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir re-org
After much ruminating about Russ's suggestions, including his addition of a second example vhost conf file, I've made some additional changes. I've added a single level contents section to give readers an idea of what's in the document, since it is getting a little large for a Tips article. I've integrated the 2 example sections. I've placed the vhost.d/ section last because it is rather large and breaks the flow for people using the existing conf.d/. The vhost.d/ section included a subsection on toggling whether a virtual host was active. I've broken this out to it's own section, since it is applicable to the conf.d/ method. Hopefully, this will make the document easier to read for those that don't have any interest in the optional alternatives or reading it entirely. It occurs to me that I could separate the vhost.d/ and virtual disabling sections into separate Tips articles. Please let me know if this is desireable. Ed Heron ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir changes for virtual host source files
From: R P Herrold, Wednesday, December 16, 2009 4:24 PM
On Wed, 16 Dec 2009, Ed Heron wrote:
I see someone has noticed my lack of suggestions or recommendations for
placement of virtual host source files...
That would be me
A questioner reading the page in IRC today was confused by the
article. I added the pointer to the 'official' doco location
for the conf files, a sample stanza showing an approach
without alias wildcarding, and a reasonable approach
consistent with SELinux for location of content pages and CGI
that does not break SElinux expectations.
Thanks. I appreciate the overview of your process.
Since there are many places to put virtual host source files, I had
intentionally avoided the discussion due to the complexities and to keep
the
document restricted to a single topic. I had planned to create a
separate
document devoted to the discussion. Specifically, there are a couple of
SELinux related issues to work out with a couple of them. I would start
a
discussion of the various places to put virtual host source files and the
issues associated with them. Where should such a discussion take place?
In
one of the forums or on this list?
The wiki diff's speak, this mailing list speaks; as noted in
the reorg discussion on web presence, the Forums seem to
attract a different type of editor; it drew a proposal for yet
another FAQ, it drew Les M with a request for (but no work
done to make) a recap of the mailing list with editorial
cleanup.
The issue remains: Who does work and who cleans up when there
is not funding to incentivize such, and why? My answer is to
clean up when CentOS' reputation is impaired. As I read it,
this particular content has rotted (seemingly half done
without warning guards, as I read your comment) with your
'inside' intent to come back to the topic unknown and
unknowable to an outside observer.
I agree that the docs need to be clear. I have my documents in my watch
list specifically so I can maintain them. I will try to make them less
likely to be misinterpreted. Though I disagree with putting information
into this document about where to put virtual host source files.
However, I'm not sure what is meant by The following section is the
approach advocated by its initial author, EdHeron. It is not clear that
varying from the approach above is warranted, and by the version from
him,
does not explain the needed SElinux changes.
It appears to suggest my disclaimer, Another method, for those of us
that
might have a tendency to 'over engineer', is creating a new directory,
vhost.d for example, and putting an include where the configuration, as
distributed, has the virtual host example. This retains the position of
the
virtual host definitions in the Apache configuration, isn't enough to
discourage most system administrators from using it or explain my reasons
and
give a reader a hint that there are other ways, even, from the three
discussed?
Do you explain a _good_ reason that warrants a non-standard
approach? I sure don't see one. More on SElinux matters in a
bit
The terms, 'non-standard' and 'good', are fuzzy here. Many people use
vhost.d/ for virtual host container files. With Linux, the standard is as
people do. Upstream doesn't prohibit using vhost.d/ and it doesn't break
the standard. To satisfy the standard of 'good' for you is probably never
going to happen as you don't agree with segregating the module configuration
files and the virtual host container files. I don't have an issue with your
opinion being different from mine.
I put the discouragement in because the reader was confused.
In so far as the questioner was reading it -- the absence of a
set off, and no ! caused him to ** not ** see the issues.
As such I added the
-
and the !
and made the {{{ }}} box around it
I do not consider your approach some cute form of
'over-engineering' but rather a method ignoring the well
docoed ways in the doco we provide. Personal makework
perhaps, not rationalized as, say, part of a larger VHost
management automation system. Not durably integrated as
the CentOS operating system reputation implies. Change for
its own sake, alone. Basically, out of place.
I put the 'cute' over-engineering comment in there (and I don't deny that
it wasn't appropriate) because I didn't have a simpler cohesive reason for
using vhost.d/. I'm not the one that created the concept, but I like it for
it's esthetics. I am endevouring to explain the concept and reasons behind
it with updates to the article.
As far as the SELinux issue, from the directory listing
that accompanies the
directory creation instruction, a reader might notice that the SELinux
user
is listed as root instead of system_u. The SELinux user discrepancy is
resolved with the chcon command shown. Is there a desire for additional
explanation of the process?
That a person *might* notice
[CentOS-docs] TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir changes for virtual host source files
I see someone has noticed my lack of suggestions or recommendations for placement of virtual host source files... Since there are many places to put virtual host source files, I had intentionally avoided the discussion due to the complexities and to keep the document restricted to a single topic. I had planned to create a separate document devoted to the discussion. Specifically, there are a couple of SELinux related issues to work out with a couple of them. I would start a discussion of the various places to put virtual host source files and the issues associated with them. Where should such a discussion take place? In one of the forums or on this list? However, I'm not sure what is meant by The following section is the approach advocated by its initial author, EdHeron. It is not clear that varying from the approach above is warranted, and by the version from him, does not explain the needed SElinux changes. It appears to suggest my disclaimer, Another method, for those of us that might have a tendency to 'over engineer', is creating a new directory, vhost.d for example, and putting an include where the configuration, as distributed, has the virtual host example. This retains the position of the virtual host definitions in the Apache configuration, isn't enough to discourage most system administrators from using it or explain my reasons and give a reader a hint that there are other ways, even, from the three discussed? As far as the SELinux issue, from the directory listing that accompanies the directory creation instruction, a reader might notice that the SELinux user is listed as root instead of system_u. The SELinux user discrepancy is resolved with the chcon command shown. Is there a desire for additional explanation of the process? The additional warning against the vhost.d/ section seems to excessively disparage my contribution and discourage other options. Certainly, it could be considered impolite to expand and significantly modify the content of a document when the author is available and willing to make changes. As well, I seek to improve my documentation technique and by-passing me deprives me of the opportunity. I'd like to know the process that culminated in the changes to my document. Are there a large number of people reading the document, not understanding it but making non standard changes to their systems, and requesting support? Ed Heron attention.png___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] CentOS 5.4 Network install
From: Toshikazu Aiyama, Sunday, November 01, 2009 1:07 AM I have just completed to write up the procedure to install 5.4 through network There is an interesting article that that you might want to read at http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/PXE/InternetInstallation ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
From: Ralph Angenendt, Tuesday, October 06, 2009 7:22 AM On Mon, Oct 5, 2009 at 7:05 PM, Ed Heron e...@heron-ent.com wrote: From my point of view, the process wasn't onerous in itself. The only issues I had/have are the sparse guidelines of acceptable content and the voracity of the reaction, by some, to what they viewed as unacceptable content. It appears there are multiple standards for content. This is true. While I'm for rather more content (as long as quality doesn't go down) others have a different view of that. And I think we have to find some common ground here. It appears that the people who are preferring the more restricted content guidelines are saying they will accept content separation. But having 2 separate content systems seems redundant. Is there a way to have a section (directory) of the wiki that is core and an expanded section? This might satisfy both sides? For aspiring content producers that suggest modification to existing content, those changes should go through the page's creator or maintainer or someone else in the edit group. If they describe the changes on this list, it should be a simple matter for someone else to implement or possibly give them access to that page. Once those people have sufficient history, I assume adding them to the edit group so they can make changes directly would follow. This is roughly how it is working at the moment, if I didn't misunderstand you. I'm summarizing intentionally. I don't think there is anything wrong with the current process. Being a recent addition to the 'edit group', even though it took some time to get there, it wasn't too bad. A little patience was all I really needed. Opening up the content to the public could put a rather large burden on the existing admin/edit group. Going through the current process should result in greater longevity of contributors compared to instant edit access. Making edit access easier for people 'passing through' could result in more orphaned content. The only thing that comes to mind is possibly allowing someone to edit a page without committing the changes. These could be the equivalent of submitted patches pending approval. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
From: Ralph Angenendt, Monday, October 05, 2009 9:54 AM ... Okay, than I did misunderstand that. Mind, that I'm not native speaker either. Then *everybody* please be not vague: I think my last post might have fallen in to the vague category... I was trying to say that as one of those new members, I was trying to ease into the job. New members are being added... How would openness work in your view a) without compromising the wiki's spam-free-ness (?) b) with making people adhere to a CC license beforehand c) with making sure that the content quality doesn't get worse (I think we have a rather high quality at the moment) d) with making sure that there's no off topic content I'd really be interested to hear that. I have a view how that can work, but that is a view which still makes some people better than other people - and will create more work for them. I know we had that discussion about a year and a half ago, and I have some ideas - but the result from last year was, that there would be around 5 to 6 people who watch over the content. I think that that isn't enough. ... From my point of view, the process wasn't onerous in itself. The only issues I had/have are the sparse guidelines of acceptable content and the voracity of the reaction, by some, to what they viewed as unacceptable content. It appears there are multiple standards for content. I don't have a problem with easing people into the 'trusted' position of the edit group. It is already possible to get a user account and access to create a user page with little 'qualification'. For new conttibutors, this provides a sandbox to both say something about themselves and produce content, or spam. For aspiring content producers that suggest modification to existing content, those changes should go through the page's creator or maintainer or someone else in the edit group. If they describe the changes on this list, it should be a simple matter for someone else to implement or possibly give them access to that page. Once those people have sufficient history, I assume adding them to the edit group so they can make changes directly would follow. The only people excluded by the current process are the impatient. This is a long-term project. Impatience is for more transitory media, like on-line chat and lists/forums. The world isn't going to end if a page isn't updated or access isn't granted for a few days. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New User Wishes to Contribute
From: Ralph Angenendt, Friday, October 02, 2009 6:11 AM We already have 70 people who would be able to do so (no idea how many of these accounts are still in use). Do I see those going over pages? Rarely, it's nearly always the same persons. I'm OK with helping to update/maintain the wiki. I've made a couple of minor changes and I started on a revision of the PXE stuff. Since much of the PXE articles are not core, but a generic discussion of how to configure it and related software, I'm interested in the result of this discussion. In general, I'm asking myself, How deep do I jump in and how fast? I don't want to step on toes or take articles in non-intended directions. I certainly don't want to create work for others if my changes aren't desired by forcing admins to roll back my changes. Or, would you rather I made the changes I think need to be made, attempt to describe them in the space provided and allow others to censure me if I wander or mangle? ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] HowTos/PXE/PXE_Setup add?
From: Vitor Afonso Strabello, Friday, September 11, 2009 5:51 PM Also I got one link about this. I think that is better a checkou, not sure if this will be usefult: http://www.linux-mag.com/id/6747 Have a nice weekend, Vitor Yes, that is an excellent article. It has a a few things specific to their setup, though. They have multiple subnets. They provide IP addresses only for defined machines; They must have a separate mechanism for other machines. Of course, the extra information can be useful as an extensive example, provided the person using it can filter out what they don't need. Thank you for the reference. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] HowTos/PXE/PXE_Setup add?
Anybody mind if I add explanations to HowTos/PXE/PXE_Setup and maybe make it a little prettier? Ed Heron ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] doc: TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhost[Dir,Default]
From: Ralph Angenendt, Thursday, September 10, 2009 3:30 AM Am I able to rename them to move them from my directory to the TipsAndTricks directory? Yes, now you can. Thanks. After renaming, I had to verify the change log. Very nice that it is still available. Or should they go to HowTos? No. And please add a section Apache Tips to the page while you are at it (when linking from the TipsAndTricks main page. Done. I put it after Tools and Applications. I considered making Apache Tips a sub-section, but there wasn't precedence. If you have any questions, ask. All set. Ralph ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] doc: TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhost[Dir,Default]
Has there been sufficient discussion about these pages? Am I able to rename them to move them from my directory to the TipsAndTricks directory? Or should they go to HowTos? Ed Heron ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] modification notification messages
From: Ralph Angenendt, Friday, September 04, 2009 4:33 AM On Thu, 2009-09-03 at 15:41 -0600, Ed Heron wrote: Spam filtering is rather limited on this account, so I think it unlikely, but not impossible. You should have gotten a mail. Yes! I received a lovely message with a diff-like description of changes. Did you do anything? I didn't get a notification message when TimothyLee made changes on 2009-07-26... If it is working, now, I'll trust it will continue to work. When I make a change, I don't see my username listed as being notified... Yes, that doesn't work. You changed it yourself, so you don't get a notification. I assumed it would make that choice. Status of sending notification mails: [en] [...] EdHeron, [...]: Mail sent OK Thanks! ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] doc?: TipsAndTricks/ApacheVHostDir
From: Manuel Wolfshant, Thursday, September 03, 2009 5:39 PM I would provide a few more details under the Virtual Host files can be placed in the configuration directory directly or by link. category (i.e. about the separate folder with configs and symlinks to conf.d/vhost.d). Do you (or anybody else, since Manuel might be on vacation, already) know of a url that might describe linking files? I was nervous that if I put it 'in line' I'd be opening a larger can of worms and expanding the document beyond what a TipsAndTricks page should be. An applicable example might make too strong a suggestion about where to put virtual host web data... Or should I stir things up and write a page about where to put virtual hosts? (hint: I don't like /var/www, I like creating a group and user for the website and putting it into that user's home directory. It simplifies access control, including updates. It also makes it less wierd when sharing the webspace out using NFS or Samba) But yes, now it looks much better. Even though your over engineered method is way too complex, given that simply dropping the configuration files in the default conf dir achieves the very same result with much less effort and, more important, no risk of breakage during updates. I can't bring myself to put virtual host files in conf.d. Let's just say I'm borderline OCD... I don't like my module config files and my virtual host files touching. ot type='personal'Oddly enough, though, I have no problem with my vegetables touching my protein and/or my starch./ot The extra information might be useful in a conceptual way to someone. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] doc?: TipsAndTricks/ApacheVHostDir
Are there any other opinions? Questions? Is my suggestion to add ./vhost.d/ to the Apache configuration as a user installable option not acceptable? ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] modification notification messages
Is there a way for us to add ourselves to the list of people notified of modifications for the documents we are writing/supporting? Ed Heron ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] modification notification messages
From: Patrice Guay, Thursday, September 03, 2009 11:52 AM Ed Heron wrote: Is there a way for us to add ourselves to the list of people notified of modifications for the documents we are writing/supporting? On the top of wiki pages, there is a 'Subscribe' link pointing to http://wiki.centos.org/__your_page_of_interest?action=subscribe I imagine subsequent modifications will be sent to subscribers. That is what I assumed. Pages that I have created have the unsubscribe option, when I view them, implying I am subscribed... I have verified that I have Subscribe to trivial changes checked in my profile and my pages are listed in Subscribed wiki pages. However, I have not received notification of changes to my pages made by others. (I'm not expecting notification of changes that I've made) ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] doc?: TipsAndTricks/ApacheVHostDir
From: Manuel Wolfshant, Thursday, September 03, 2009 12:39 PM On 09/03/2009 07:02 PM, Ed Heron wrote: Are there any other opinions? Questions? Is my suggestion to add ./vhost.d/ to the Apache configuration as a user installable option not acceptable? From a technical point of view, your suggestion seems 100% correct, including the selinux context needed for the new directory [*]. However I still think that it simply duplicates the existing functionality of the conf.d folder (which, in my opinion, exists with the very purpose of adding new configuration files -- including the definition of virtual hosts) and therefore it is useless. I added some information to describe my position. I have no problem if you want to add a section describing your point of view. If nothing else, we are providing information to users. On the other hand, I do like your proposal from http://wiki.centos.org/EdHeron/ApacheVhostDefault (minus the first subparagraph of paragraph #5, of course). Thanks! [1] I am not sure what will happen after a full relabeling of the system, since the new directory does not exist in the selinux database (I mean /etc/selinux/targeted/contexts/files/file_contexts, part of selinux-policy) I added a disclaimer. Does it cover it? ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] doc?: TipsAndTricks/ApacheVHostDir
- Original Message - From: Filipe Brandenburger filbran...@gmail.com To: Mail list for wiki articles centos-docs@centos.org Sent: Thursday, September 03, 2009 12:56 PM Subject: Re: [CentOS-docs] doc?: TipsAndTricks/ApacheVHostDir Hi, On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 14:39, Manuel Wolfshantwo...@nobugconsulting.ro wrote: On 09/03/2009 07:02 PM, Ed Heron wrote: Is my suggestion to add ./vhost.d/ to the Apache configuration as a user installable option not acceptable? I still think that it simply duplicates the existing functionality of the conf.d folder (which, in my opinion, exists with the very purpose of adding new configuration files -- including the definition of virtual hosts) and therefore it is useless. +1 on using conf.d/ directory. Your Wiki page reads The issue with [using conf.d/] is that, since the files in conf.d/ are included with the module configuration files, the virtual host definitions would come before other options that could effect them. It is unclear whether the virtual host inherits the configuration items defined after the virtual host is defined. That is not true, VirtualHost sections will inherit everything that is in the main config file, independent of being before or after the virtual host definition. There is an evidence of that in Apache documentation: Sections inside VirtualHost sections are applied after the corresponding sections outside the virtual host definition. This allows virtual hosts to override the main server configuration. (in http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/sections.html) The only thing that matters on position of VirtualHosts in the config file is their relative position to other VirtualHosts used to determine which one of them will be the default, and there I believe your other page gives two very interesting tips on how to define that. Cheers, Filipe ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] doc?: TipsAndTricks/ApacheVHostDir
From: Filipe Brandenburger, Thursday, September 03, 2009 12:56 PM ... Your Wiki page reads The issue with [using conf.d/] is that, since the files in conf.d/ are included with the module configuration files, the virtual host definitions would come before other options that could effect them. It is unclear whether the virtual host inherits the configuration items defined after the virtual host is defined. That is not true, VirtualHost sections will inherit everything that is in the main config file, independent of being before or after the virtual host definition. There is an evidence of that in Apache documentation: Sections inside VirtualHost sections are applied after the corresponding sections outside the virtual host definition. This allows virtual hosts to override the main server configuration. (in http://httpd.apache.org/docs/2.2/sections.html) Thanks for the reference! OK. That helps. That page seems to be saying that the configuration options are stored (reordered) and possibly only processed when a request is received. I still like my method and the other parts of my argument, but I can see that putting virtual host config files in conf.d is not invalid or risky. Give me a few. I'll modify my page to take my new world view into account. The only thing that matters on position of VirtualHosts in the config file is their relative position to other VirtualHosts used to determine which one of them will be the default, and there I believe your other page gives two very interesting tips on how to define that. Thanks! At least I'm not 'just' annoying everyone... Cheers, Filipe ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] doc?: TipsAndTricks/ApacheVHostDir
From: Filipe Brandenburger, Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:27 PM Hi, On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 15:13, Ed Herone...@heron-ent.com wrote: [1] I am not sure what will happen after a full relabeling of the system, since the new directory does not exist in the selinux database (I mean /etc/selinux/targeted/contexts/files/file_contexts, part of selinux-policy) I added a disclaimer. Does it cover it? The right way to fix it is to use semanage fcontext (see man semanage) to make that change permanent even after a relabel. I believe it should be something like: # semanage fcontext -a -t httpd_config_t /etc/httpd/vconf\.d(/.*)? After that, you can use restorecon instead of chcon: # restorecon -R /etc/httpd/vconf.d I did not test those above, so if you want to add them to the Wiki page you should test them before you do. Interestingly... # semanage fcontext -l | grep http returns, among other things, /etc/httpd(/.*)? all files system_u:object_r:httpd_config_t:s0 so, the newly created directory is covered... I also found... /etc/vhostsregular file system_u:object_r:httpd_config_t:s0 Not entirely sure what that is there for, except to cover people doing wierded things than I'm proposing... When I: # mkdir /etc/httpd/yadda # ls -lZ /etc/httpd I get: drwxr-xr-x root root system_u:object_r:httpd_config_t conf drwxr-xr-x root root root:object_r:httpd_config_t yadda next: # restorecon -R /etc/httpd and # ls -lZ I get the same thing. So, it isn't changing the SELinux user.. I'm guessing we should... # chcon --user=system_u yadda but it would be optional? But I still agree that just using conf.d achieves exactly the same results with a lot less work, so it would still be my advice... I now agree that the same results are achieved with virtual host files in conf.d I have updated the page. Have I acceptably promoted the 'preferred' method? ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] modification notification messages
From: Ralph Angenendt, Thursday, September 03, 2009 1:26 PM Am 03.09.09 20:35, schrieb Ed Heron: I have verified that I have Subscribe to trivial changes checked in my profile and my pages are listed in Subscribed wiki pages. However, I have not received notification of changes to my pages made by others. (I'm not expecting notification of changes that I've made) That shouldn't happen. Are you sure that those don't land in some sort of spam filter on your side? Spam filtering is rather limited on this account, so I think it unlikely, but not impossible. Do you have a page handy with which I could test? When I make a change, I don't see my username listed as being notified... Please, I am subscribed to http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/CentOS5ConvertToRAID and http://wiki.centos.org/EdHeron/ApacheVhostDefault ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] document proposal: TipsAndTricks/ApacheVHostDir
On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Ed Herone...@heron-ent.com wrote: ... I've written a quick little article detailing how to create a vhost directory under CentOS. ... From: Brian Mathis, Friday, August 21, 2009 1:52 PM I always figured that the CentOS way to handle that was to put them into the conf.d folder. Is there an advantage to using this method? One thing I can think of is that the conf.d is included in the middle of the httpd.conf file, while this would be at the bottom. On 08/22/2009 12:12 AM, Ed Heron wrote: That is exactly my reasoning. The config file, as distributed, has the virtual host containers at the end of the file. From: Manuel Wolfshant, Friday, August 21, 2009 3:31 PM No, the config file as distributed has - just like the original apache config - an example at the end of it. I do understand that there is already a config file directory. However, the example virtual host is at the end of the the distributed Apache config file. From that positioning, I conclude that it is recommended to have the virtual host stuff at the end, rather than the middle. The existing include is in the middle, therefore, (I'm concluding that) it is not recommended. conf.d appears to be for module config files. I don't know if the virtual host only inherits configuration directives that are defined before it is. If that is the case, any configuration items after the conf.d include would not apply to the virtual hosts (though this is easy to test). Even if that is not the case, it still seems that putting virtual host files in conf.d is improper. Putting virtual host files in conf.d may work but appears to be a shortcut. While nobody would suggest you can't take a shortcut, if it works for you, there should be an official method. To me, moving virtual hosts out of the main config file requires a separate directory. It may be my 'heritage' but separate directories is how it is done in Gentoo. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] document proposal: TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDefault
Draft at http://wiki.centos.org/EdHeron/ApacheVhostDefault Obviously, if ApacheVhostDir is not accepted, I'd remove the parts that refer to my vhost.d... ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] document proposal: TipsAndTricks/ApacheVHostDir
From: Manuel Wolfshant, Saturday, August 22, 2009 2:00 PM While we are at it, let's also add a folder for all existing modules and another one for symlinks of active modules, pointing back to the first folder. And also, let's have all vhosts in a folder, but all active vhosts should be symlinks to them, from another folder. And why not compile the binary from source, that's how gentoo does it ! I didn't realize I was inviting sarcasm. I don't think it is appropriate in this forum. I was, apparently unreasonably, expecting calm, thought out discussion followed by a consensus. I was merely suggesting I am not alone in my opinion. As were you when you made reference to Fedora method. Both Fedora and Gentoo are merely alternate examples of GNU/Linux distributions. Just because an idea is used in another distribution, whose basic tenents you don't agree with, doesn't make the idea useless or valueless or, worse, worthy of scorn. CentOS has a philosophy of method. Apache has a philosophy of method. I am making a suggestion that I believe fits with both that would make a more proper solution than putting the virtual host files in conf.d. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] document proposal: TipsAndTricks/ApacheVHostDir
I use named virtual hosts on my web servers, as I'm sure many others do. I'm used to the method of using a vhost directory for the container files. I didn't find documentation for it in the CentOS docs or the Apache docs. I'm not sure if I should take it as a hint that it is depreciated... If I've missed something, please point me to it. I've written a quick little article detailing how to create a vhost directory under CentOS. It is at http://wiki.centos.org/EdHeron/ApacheVhostDir Please, consider this a request to create the page TipsAndTricks/ApacheVhostDir with access given to wiki user EdHeron. Ed Heron ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] document proposal: TipsAndTricks/ApacheVHostDir
From: Brian Mathis, Friday, August 21, 2009 1:52 PM On Fri, Aug 21, 2009 at 3:41 PM, Ed Herone...@heron-ent.com wrote: ... I've written a quick little article detailing how to create a vhost directory under CentOS. ... I always figured that the CentOS way to handle that was to put them into the conf.d folder. Is there an advantage to using this method? One thing I can think of is that the conf.d is included in the middle of the httpd.conf file, while this would be at the bottom. That is exactly my reasoning. The config file, as distributed, has the virtual host containers at the end of the file. Using a separate vhost directory maintains this. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] document proposal: TipsAndTricks/ApacheVHostDir
From: Filipe Brandenburger, Friday, August 21, 2009 2:03 PM # service httpd graceful Thanks! ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] New template for Homepage
From: Dag Wieers, Thursday, June 04, 2009 7:08 PM Hey, I reworked the HomepageTemplate since the original one was pretty empty. You can find my proposal here: http://wiki.centos.org/HomepageTemplate But to see how it looks properly, I adapted my Homepage to look like it: http://wiki.centos.org/DagWieers I'd like to open a discussion about what items belong on this page and how we can improve it. ... So what do people think ? What is missing ? ... A more fleshed out template certainly does a better job of guiding new personal page developement and providing examples. I think I see that the new template encourages a specific ordering of sections that focuses on the person's relationship to the project. Meaning you've put the relationship before the person's biography. I agree. I suggest that 'List of Achievements' might sound better as 'Contributions'. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] Tips and tricks : create image file from CD/DVD?
Should the wiki have a Tips and Tricks page for creating a ISO file from a CD or DVD? I realize this information is everywhere. Including http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/Installation_Guide-en-US/s1-steps-network-installs-ppc.html I don't, however, find it on the wiki... Is it within the scope of the wiki project to have it somewhere? ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Tips and tricks : create image file from CD/DVD?
From: JohnS, Friday, May 15, 2009 12:18 PM On Fri, 2009-05-15 at 12:01 -0600, Ed Heron wrote: Should the wiki have a Tips and Tricks page for creating a ISO file from a CD or DVD? I realize this information is everywhere. Including http://www.centos.org/docs/5/html/Installation_Guide-en-US/s1-steps-network-installs-ppc.html I don't, however, find it on the wiki... Is it within the scope of the wiki project to have it somewhere? --- http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/CDtoDVDMedia The description on that page... -- The following script (mkdvdiso.sh) has been tested for CentOS 4 and 5 i386 to create DVD ISO images from CD images, or from an installation tree. If the installation tree does not contain a .discinfo file, one must be obtained from the top level of a CD. -- seems to be describing creating a DVD image from a CD image or a source directory, not how to create a image from a CD or DVD. I'm just talking about the dd if=/dev/cd of=/usr/share/cd.iso command. Useful for creating boot images for virtual machines and cd images for cd/dvd servers. with maybe a suggestion of where to put the image, like /var/lib/xen/images for xen or maybe /usr/share for other uses. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Comments? HowTos/CentOS5ConvertToRAID
From: Phil Schaffner, Wednesday, May 13, 2009 6:20 AM It just works. I habitually use rsync for incremental updates across directories or systems, but tar is often more robust for this type of job, just because of things like needing to remember to use -H. Both rsync and cpio will work if used properly, just like tar. Like I said, largely a matter of preference. I read somewhere that tar doesn't save extended attributes. Is this still the case or did I read old news? Should we submit a bug report somewhere for rsync not correctly copying SELinux attributes? Or is it some mistake of mine that it didn't appear to work? ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Comments? HowTos/CentOS5ConvertToRAID
From: Ralph Angenendt, Wednesday, May 13, 2009 9:42 AM What happens when you set --xattrs in rsync, too? Their manual page does not mention SELinux, though. That's the X that I added to the rsync command. It does not successfully copy SELinux attributes. That's why I had to set the relabel flag. I'll have to try the process again with the --xattrs in tar and see if the system is functional without re-labeling. Thanks. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] Comments? HowTos/CentOS5ConvertToRAID
From: Ed Heron, Tuesday, May 05, 2009 2:16 PM My first draft of http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/CentOS5ConvertToRAID is complete. Please, give it a once or thrice over and let me know what you think. I didn't go into too much detail with some steps. If you think a specific step needs more explanation, let me know. Has anybody had a chance to look at this? ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Comments? HowTos/CentOS5ConvertToRAID
haven't yet, but will do so later today. And if nobody complains, hey, it probably is a good article :) Ralph Either that or I've hit a target nobody is interested in... OK. It's a great article and nobody has any suggestions or problems... I'm batting 1000... yeah, that. Thanks. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Comments? HowTos/CentOS5ConvertToRAID
From: Phil Schaffner, Tuesday, May 12, 2009 2:11 PM Ed Heron wrote: Has anybody had a chance to look at this? Moving it up on my to-do list... Thanks. When cloning the root partition need to add H to the rsync flags to preserve hard links. Don't think /boot uses hard links, but wouldn't hurt to use it there also... I'm not sure how well it would do that, but it won't hurt to add. I'll have to put in a hard link and copy across devices and see if the hard linked files are hard linked on the dest dev. Thanks for catching that. I don't use hard links much... ... An often-recommended alternative is to use tar: tar -C /mnt/boot.old -cf - . | tar -C /mnt/boot.new -xf - tar -C /mnt/root.old -cf - . | tar -C /mnt/root.new -xf - Probably a matter of preference. I think so. I use rsync to synchronize samba shares and web sites between servers so I've gotten used to using it for other things. It also looks more like a copy, which might be easier to understand for those less familiar. I was considering adding the tar option. How does tar handle hard links? At step 6, since everything has already been cleanly unmounted, should just be able to hit the power button. Add something to the effect of Remove the rescue media before rebooting. I've added the cleanly unmounted / power switch aspect and moved the 'remove rescue media' to the booting back up portion of the testing step. Does that look better? I debated briefly with myself over suggesting they could simply power it off and had discarded it as not best practice. I'm reasonably happy with the compromise. I'll have to check if install / rescue has a shutdown command available... That's all the comments I have without actually going through testing the procedure. Will try that later if I get a round tuit. :-) Nice job. Will reference it from the HowTos/SoftwareRAIDonCentOS5 page when it goes live. Thanks. Writing documentation is always a balancing act between not putting enough detail in because it seems intuitive to the person who does it every day and putting too much in with the effect of it being too pedantic. I like that the contents becomes a checklist for repeatable processes. Do you have a source for round tuits? I can only find finite sided ones... Phil ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] HowTo/RAID/convert non-RAID CentOS 5 system tosoftware RAID1 using rescue mode
From: Phil Schaffner, Wednesday, April 29, 2009 8:31 AM Having a RAID section in the HowTos page makes sense to me, rather than cluttering up Misc. Does not require /RAID/ in the directory structure. How about HowTos/CentOS5ConvertToRAID for a more Wiki-like name? Works for me. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Updated How to Setup a Software RAID on CentOS 5
From: Phil Schaffner, Tuesday, April 28, 2009 5:36 PM I have attempted to address all comments: http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/SoftwareRAIDonCentOS5 Give me your best shot! :-D Phil There's always going to be an argument about whether to put /boot and swap on RAID. It's all about performance most of the time being slightly better versus stability in the event of device failure. What's the disaster recovery plan here? Obviously, if the second drive fails, there's no issue. Standard removal and eventual addition of replacement device(s). If the first drive fails, are we hoping the computer will boot off the second drive or are we moving the second drive to the first interface? Is it outside the scope of this document to describe and test disaster recovery? I think it is. I'm just making a note to suggest a further complimentary page at some time in the future... (though, at this time, I am NOT volunteering to write it) Is there a wiki page todo list somewhere? ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] HowTo/RAID/convert non-RAID CentOS 5 system to software RAID1 using rescue mode
Does documentation exist describing how to convert a simple, single disk non-RAID CentOS 5 system to software RAID1 using the CentOS install CD/DVD as a rescue disk? (Assuming not) Is there a need for such? (Assuming need) I volunteer to produce it. Ed Heron ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] HowTo/RAID/convert non-RAID CentOS 5 system tosoftware RAID1 using rescue mode
From: Marcus Moeller, Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:18 AM Dear Ed. Does documentation exist describing how to convert a simple, single disk non-RAID CentOS 5 system to software RAID1 using the CentOS install CD/DVD as a rescue disk? (Assuming not) Is there a need for such? (Assuming need) I volunteer to produce it. Maybe you could get in contact with Phil Schaffner who is currently writing a SoftwareRaidonCentOS HowTo: http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/SoftwareRAIDonCentOS5 This page appears to be How To install CentOS 5 on software RAID 1 using mostly graphical tools. We should first clear this up a bit. Then we could create a new page for non-RAID to RAID migration. Best Regards Marcus I'm proposing a page to describe how to convert a running CentOS 5 system (though not while it is running) that was previously installed without RAID to a RAID 1 system using the CentOS install disk in rescue mode. Since rescue mode is text based, there would be lots of differences. There is a little overlap, mostly concepts. I plan on including LVM, though I find LVM very annoying. I don't see any conflict or duplication between his page and my proposed page. Actually, I see the pages as complimentary. If Phil is going to broaden the scope of his page, then, of course, I would withdraw my request. However, I would recommend against having too much on a single page. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] HowTo/RAID/convert non-RAID CentOS 5 system tosoftware RAID1 using rescue mode
From: Ed Heron, Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:09 AM Does documentation exist describing how to convert a simple, single disk non-RAID CentOS 5 system to software RAID1 using the CentOS install CD/DVD as a rescue disk? (Assuming not) Is there a need for such? (Assuming need) I volunteer to produce it. If/when a page is created, would HowTos/RAID/CentOS5-rescue-convert2RAID be a good document name? I'm advocating the creation of a new section labelled RAID... Also, username EdHeron... ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] new page? - Virtualization/Install MS Windows XP as a CentOS5/Xen guest
From: Manuel Wolfshant, Tuesday, April 21, 2009 6:36 PM No GUI is needed on the server. One only needs to make sure that virt-viewer can be used (which happens if your remote workstation has an X server + you install xorg-x11-xauth on the the server running Xen. ssh X forwarding takes care of the rest). Let's just say, I'm in a limited environment and this is not an option at the moment. I think there is some value in a wiki page documenting the method of creating a WinXP Xen guest using the command-line. Considering the various pages I've run into while collecting info to produce my process, I'm not the only one trying to do this. Besides, if we are trying to convert Windows administrators, we have to keep it simple. (I am not suggesting that Windows admins are not smart. Just that we need to make the learning curve manageable.) And as an alternative option one can start vncviewer on the workstation and connect to the correct port of the Xen server. Only problem in this case is that you must manually identify the said port. But once again, no rocket science, just a bit of of comprehending the process. Using a VNC Viewer on a remote workstation to complete the WinXP install is where I'd be going with the page. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] new page? - Virtualization/Install MS Windows XP as a CentOS5/Xen guest
I don't see a How To, on this wiki, specifically designed to address the task of creating a Microsoft Windows XP virtual machine as a Xen guest under CentOS 5. Many of the concepts are covered in http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Xen/InstallingHVMDomU, but it appears to leave some things to the reader. I (EdHeron) would be willing to make the attempt at a page to focus on this task. It could be HowTos/Xen/DomU-WinXP-Install. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Authorship and Attribution
Is the ChangeLog, filtered for a specific page, available? Provided notes were made regarding the specific edit (it looks good), that would provide desired information, including original poster and description of relevant changes. The ChangeLog should be adequate from the point of view of the wiki. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Home page access please
Ed Heron wrote: Please give me (EdHeron) access to my homepage. Assuming wiki pages are created the same way as a home page would be created, I'd like to see how to create a page before I commit to creating a wiki page. From: Ralph Angenendt Good idea. Done. Cheers, Ralph Thank you and thank you. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] picture upload?
How would I upload a picture? Specifically for my homepage, but potentially for a wiki page? ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] Home page access please
Please give me (EdHeron) access to my homepage. Assuming wiki pages are created the same way as a home page would be created, I'd like to see how to create a page before I commit to creating a wiki page. ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
