Cannot see a process listening on 127.0.0.1

[Victor Sudakov]

Dear Colleagues,

There is a process listening on 127.0.0.1:8081 but for some reason
netstat/sockstat/ss do not show it listening on IPv4. Is this a bug or a
feature?

root@test4:~# telnet 127.0.0.1 8081
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to 127.0.0.1.
Escape character is '^]'.
dd
HTTP/1.1 400 Bad Request
Connection: close

Connection closed by foreign host.
root@test4:~# netstat -lpn | grep 8081
tcp6   0  0 :::8081 :::*LISTEN  
10872/node /home/ad 
root@test4:~# 


Debian GNU/Linux 9.13 (stretch)

-- 
Victor Sudakov,  VAS4-RIPE, VAS47-RIPN
2:5005/49@fidonet http://vas.tomsk.ru/


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Recommendation for filesystem for USB external drive for backups

[Michael Stone]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 11:33:34AM +1200, Ben Caradoc-Davies wrote:

On 20/08/2020 10:08, David Christensen wrote:

On 2020-08-13 01:31, David Christensen wrote:
Without knowing anything about your resources, needs, 
expectations, "consistent backup plan", etc., and given the 
choices ext2, ext3, or ext4 for an external USB drive presumably 
to store backup repositories, I would also pick ext4.

If you want to access the backup drive from foreign operating systems:


If interoperability is a consideration, FAT32 and NTFS should also be 
considered. 


These days exfat is the best choice. No (practical) file size limit like 
fat32, and more reliable across systems than ntfs.

Re: Recommendation for filesystem for USB external drive for backups

[Ben Caradoc-Davies]

On 20/08/2020 10:08, David Christensen wrote:

On 2020-08-13 01:31, David Christensen wrote:
Without knowing anything about your resources, needs, expectations, 
"consistent backup plan", etc., and given the choices ext2, ext3, or 
ext4 for an external USB drive presumably to store backup 
repositories, I would also pick ext4.

If you want to access the backup drive from foreign operating systems:


If interoperability is a consideration, FAT32 and NTFS should also be 
considered. FAT32 is widely used for removable flash media but has a 4GB 
file size limit, no journaling, and no support for permissions. NTFS is 
widely used for external hard drives and has journaling and support for 
attributes. If you buy a consumer-grade external hard drive, it will 
most likely be formatted with NTFS. Backup archives (such as tar 
archives) can be used to preserve Linux file metadata (permissions and 
timestamps) on foreign filesystems.


Kind regards,

--
Ben Caradoc-Davies 
Director
Transient Software Limited 
New Zealand

Site Suggestion

[Jane Kelly]

Hi,

I am inquiring about whether you may be interested in linking to our site Tutor 
Bot ( https://www.tutorhunt.com/tutor-bot/ ) from your page?

http://wiki.mynooblife.org/index.php?title=Submenu:Divers_autres

Tutor Bot contains completely free online maths games where children can 
practice their mathematics skills.  We feature over 100 different customisable 
games which we hope kids will find to be a fun and new way to improve their 
mathematics fluency, accuracy and speed.

We are currently visited by thousands daily and are connected to over 1000 
schools.

I`m hoping this could be a useful resource for your site readers. Thank you 
very much for your consideration.

Kind Regards,
Jane

Jane Kelly
jane.ke...@teachbot.io
https://www.tutorhunt.com/tutor-bot/

Re: Recommendation for filesystem for USB external drive for backups

[David Christensen]

On 2020-08-13 01:31, David Christensen wrote:

On 8/12/20 5:14 PM, rhkra...@gmail.com wrote:
I'm getting closer to setting up a consistent backup plan, backing up 
to an
external USB drive.  I'm wondering about a reasonable filesystem to 
use, I
think I want to stay in the ext2/3/4 family, and I'm wondering if 
there is any

good reason to use anything beyond ext2?

(Some day I'll try ZFS or BTRFS for my "system" filesystems, but don't 
see any
point (and don't want to learn) either of them at this point -- I 
don't see

much need for a backup filesystem.)

But, I'll listen to opinions ;-)


Without knowing anything about your resources, needs, expectations, 
"consistent backup plan", etc., and given the choices ext2, ext3, or 
ext4 for an external USB drive presumably to store backup repositories, 
I would also pick ext4.


If you want to access the backup drive from foreign operating systems:

https://www.freebsd.org/doc/handbook/filesystems-linux.html

https://www.howtogeek.com/112888/3-ways-to-access-your-linux-partitions-from-windows/

https://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/29842/how-can-i-mount-an-ext4-file-system-on-os-x


David

Re: Disks renamed after update to 'testing'...?

[David Christensen]

On 2020-08-19 03:03, Urs Thuermann wrote:

David Christensen  writes:



When using a drive as backup media, are there likely use-cases that
benefit from configuring the drive with no partition, a single PV,
single VG, single LV, and single filesystem vs. configuring the drive
with a single partition, single UUID fstab entry, and single
filesystem?


You can use a partition or the whole disk for a physical volume


Yes.



... I prefer having a partition table with only one partition
covering the whole disk.  The partition table entry includes a type so
that there is less guessing about what the disk contains:


This is especially true if you access the drive with foreign operating 
systems.




If you then put a single LV into the VG which covers the whole VG you
don't benefit much from LVM's functionality, except that you can
easily change allocations later if you decide so. 


Some backup tools, such as macOS Time Machine and Windows File History, 
automatically delete old backups if and when the destination filesystem 
becomes full.  So, one use-case would be if the drive were the 
destination for several such backup tools -- use LVM to subdivide the 
available space among them.



Another use-case is enlarging the backup filesystem by adding another drive.


Another use-case is mirroring the backup filesystem.


A more complex mirroring use-case -- add, re-silver, and remove drives, 
and rotate them on-line, on-site, near-site, off-site, etc..



Re-partitioning is more complicated. 


For a drive used as a PV for backups, I cannot think of a use-case for 
re-partitioning.



David

Re: migration d'un serveur dédié vers une machine virtuelle

[Frederic]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 04:55:50PM -0400, Olivier Lange wrote:
> Salut,
> 
> Plusieurs solutions, mais de mon coté, je testerais:
> 1. Je crée une VM Debian 9 (garde la meme version) sur ESXi, même si pas
> obligatoire...
> 2. Je boot la VM sur un ISO (style gparted)
> 3. Je boot le dédié en rescue (si hébergeur) ou ISO (style gparted si tu as
> la main dessus)
> 4. Depuis l'un des 2 gparted, je fais un rsync du disque du dédié vers le
> disque de la VM
> 
> Attentions, pour que ca fonctionne, il ne faut pas que tes systèmes soient
> montés (pour ca que je boot sur un ISO des 2 cotés). Et après tu prie que
> ca reparte ;).
> 
> Sinon il existe des solutions VmWare qui permettent de transférer un dédié
> en machine virtuelle. Mais pour moi c'est payant.

Bonsoir,

Uniquement le mode rescue est disponible sur le serveur dédié. Est-ce que 
j'utilise les options de la vidéo youtube?  Sachant qu'il n'y a que le mode 
rescue sur le serveur dédié, je dois démonté la partition quand il est booté en 
rescue ?

Très bonne soirée,
 
-- 
Frederic

Re: migration d'un serveur dédié vers une machine virtuelle

[Frederic]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 04:58:08PM -0400, Olivier Lange wrote:
> directement. Sinon, tu peux aussi faire ton DD sur un disque usb sur le
> serveur, et le rebrancher sur ton ESXi pour faire ton dd de l'autre coté.
> 
> Olivier

Bonsoir,

Je n'ai pas d'accès physique aux machines. Elles sont à l'étranger :(

Très bonne soirée,

-- 
Frederic

comment logger les compilations par GCC...

[Basile Starynkevitch]

Bonsoir


Il y a des cas où il est utile de logger les compilations faites par GCC.


Si vous lisez l'anglais, j'explique en 
https://opensource.stackexchange.com/q/10319/910 les cas où ça pourrait 
être utile. Autrement, on peut songer à faire des statistiques 
(peut-être en vue d'apprentissage machine) en relation avec les 
commandes de compilations.



Sinon, connaissez vous des scripts ou programmes libres ou autres qui 
loguent (avec syslog(3)...) les compilations par GCC.



J'ai codé sur https://github.com/bstarynk/misc-basile/ un programme C++ 
logged-gcc.cc qui le fait.



Merci

--
Basile STARYNKEVITCH   == http://starynkevitch.net/Basile
opinions are mine only - les opinions sont seulement miennes
Bourg La Reine, France; 
(mobile phone: cf my web page / voir ma page web...)

Re: migration d'un serveur dédié vers une machine virtuelle

[Olivier Lange]

Le mer. 19 août 2020 à 16:49, NoSpam  a écrit :

>
>
> Perso je fait (pv pas nécessaire)
>
> sudo dd if=/dev/vg0/DomU5 bs=4096 conv=sync | pv | ssh -C
> user@192.168.10.240 'sudo dd of=/dev/vg0/DomU5 bs=4096 conv=sync
> conv=fsync'
>
> Bien vu le dd over-the-net. Je me demandais justement comment le faire
directement. Sinon, tu peux aussi faire ton DD sur un disque usb sur le
serveur, et le rebrancher sur ton ESXi pour faire ton dd de l'autre coté.

Olivier

Re: migration d'un serveur dédié vers une machine virtuelle

[Olivier Lange]

Salut,

Plusieurs solutions, mais de mon coté, je testerais:
1. Je crée une VM Debian 9 (garde la meme version) sur ESXi, même si pas
obligatoire...
2. Je boot la VM sur un ISO (style gparted)
3. Je boot le dédié en rescue (si hébergeur) ou ISO (style gparted si tu as
la main dessus)
4. Depuis l'un des 2 gparted, je fais un rsync du disque du dédié vers le
disque de la VM

Attentions, pour que ca fonctionne, il ne faut pas que tes systèmes soient
montés (pour ca que je boot sur un ISO des 2 cotés). Et après tu prie que
ca reparte ;).

Sinon il existe des solutions VmWare qui permettent de transférer un dédié
en machine virtuelle. Mais pour moi c'est payant.

Bon courage.
Olivier

Le mer. 19 août 2020 à 16:39, Frederic  a
écrit :

> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 09:09:06PM +0200, Daniel Caillibaud wrote:
> > Plein de monde ;-)
> >
> > Tu trouveras pas mal de littérature sur le net, chaque cas est
> particulier mais y'a des
> > constantes
> > - attention aux conf réseau, hostname & co
> > - idem pour tout ce qui peut concerner le hardware (les points de
> montages fstab, les règles
> >   udev éventuelles, etc.)
> >
> > Ça reste très voisin d'une migration d'un dédié vers un autre, mais
> suivant ta solution de
> > virtualisation certains trucs ne fonctionneront plus comme avant (je
> viens de me galérer avec
> > un vps ovh qui veut absolument pas que je mette mes propres infos dans
> mon resolv.conf et j'ai
> > dû ajouter un check qui l'écrase à la barbare si c'est pas le bon).
>
> Bonsoir,
>
> L'hyperviseur sera vmware esxi. J'ai trouvé cette vidéo sur youtube (en
> anglais) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ovdiaB0rMo. Si j'ai bien
> compris, il utilise rsync pour migrer en excluant certains répertoires.
> Dans les répertoires exclus, je ne vois pas /usr j'en déduis donc qu'il
> faut que la machine virtuelle utilise la même version de debian sinon il y
> aura un problème avec les /usr/bin du serveur dédié et de la machine
> virtuelle crée.
>
> Voila ce que j'ai déjà fais.
>
> 1. Création de la machine virtuelle (Debian 10). Je rappelle que le dédié
> utilise Debian 9.
> 2. Installation des services (Apache, Postfix, et autre applications que
> j'ai besoin)
> 3. Je ne sais pas quoi faire :)
>
> Merci pour vos aides,
>
> Très bonne soirée,
>
> --
> Frederic
>
>

Re: migration d'un serveur dédié vers une machine virtuelle

[Frederic]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 10:49:04PM +0200, NoSpam wrote:
> Perso je fait (pv pas nécessaire)
> 
> sudo dd if=/dev/vg0/DomU5 bs=4096 conv=sync | pv | ssh -C
> user@192.168.10.240 'sudo dd of=/dev/vg0/DomU5 bs=4096 conv=sync conv=fsync'
> 
> Devices et user à adapter bien sûr ;) Ensuite je migre vers Debian10
> 
> -- 
> 
> Daniel
> 

Bonsoir,

Le serveur dédié a deux disques dur de 500 Gigas en raid 1. Le vps a un disque 
de 100 Gigas. Si je ne me trompe pas, la machine virtuelle doit avoir un disque 
de même taille ou supérieur pour réaliser un dd

Bonne soirée,

-- 
Frederic

Re: migration d'un serveur dédié vers une machine virtuelle

[NoSpam]

Bonsoir

Le 19/08/2020 à 22:39, Frederic a écrit :

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 09:09:06PM +0200, Daniel Caillibaud wrote:

Plein de monde ;-)

Tu trouveras pas mal de littérature sur le net, chaque cas est particulier mais 
y'a des
constantes
- attention aux conf réseau, hostname & co
- idem pour tout ce qui peut concerner le hardware (les points de montages 
fstab, les règles
   udev éventuelles, etc.)

Ça reste très voisin d'une migration d'un dédié vers un autre, mais suivant ta 
solution de
virtualisation certains trucs ne fonctionneront plus comme avant (je viens de 
me galérer avec
un vps ovh qui veut absolument pas que je mette mes propres infos dans mon 
resolv.conf et j'ai
dû ajouter un check qui l'écrase à la barbare si c'est pas le bon).

Bonsoir,

L'hyperviseur sera vmware esxi. J'ai trouvé cette vidéo sur youtube (en 
anglais) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ovdiaB0rMo. Si j'ai bien compris, il 
utilise rsync pour migrer en excluant certains répertoires. Dans les 
répertoires exclus, je ne vois pas /usr j'en déduis donc qu'il faut que la 
machine virtuelle utilise la même version de debian sinon il y aura un problème 
avec les /usr/bin du serveur dédié et de la machine virtuelle crée.

Voila ce que j'ai déjà fais.

1. Création de la machine virtuelle (Debian 10). Je rappelle que le dédié 
utilise Debian 9.
2. Installation des services (Apache, Postfix, et autre applications que j'ai 
besoin)
3. Je ne sais pas quoi faire :)


Perso je fait (pv pas nécessaire)

sudo dd if=/dev/vg0/DomU5 bs=4096 conv=sync | pv | ssh -C 
user@192.168.10.240 'sudo dd of=/dev/vg0/DomU5 bs=4096 conv=sync conv=fsync'


Devices et user à adapter bien sûr ;) Ensuite je migre vers Debian10

--

Daniel

Re: migration d'un serveur dédié vers une machine virtuelle

[Frederic]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 09:09:06PM +0200, Daniel Caillibaud wrote:
> Plein de monde ;-)
> 
> Tu trouveras pas mal de littérature sur le net, chaque cas est particulier 
> mais y'a des
> constantes
> - attention aux conf réseau, hostname & co
> - idem pour tout ce qui peut concerner le hardware (les points de montages 
> fstab, les règles
>   udev éventuelles, etc.)
> 
> Ça reste très voisin d'une migration d'un dédié vers un autre, mais suivant 
> ta solution de
> virtualisation certains trucs ne fonctionneront plus comme avant (je viens de 
> me galérer avec
> un vps ovh qui veut absolument pas que je mette mes propres infos dans mon 
> resolv.conf et j'ai
> dû ajouter un check qui l'écrase à la barbare si c'est pas le bon).

Bonsoir,

L'hyperviseur sera vmware esxi. J'ai trouvé cette vidéo sur youtube (en 
anglais) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ovdiaB0rMo. Si j'ai bien compris, il 
utilise rsync pour migrer en excluant certains répertoires. Dans les 
répertoires exclus, je ne vois pas /usr j'en déduis donc qu'il faut que la 
machine virtuelle utilise la même version de debian sinon il y aura un problème 
avec les /usr/bin du serveur dédié et de la machine virtuelle crée.

Voila ce que j'ai déjà fais. 

1. Création de la machine virtuelle (Debian 10). Je rappelle que le dédié 
utilise Debian 9.
2. Installation des services (Apache, Postfix, et autre applications que j'ai 
besoin)
3. Je ne sais pas quoi faire :)

Merci pour vos aides,

Très bonne soirée,

-- 
Frederic

Re: migration d'un serveur dédié vers une machine virtuelle

[Frederic]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 08:13:16PM +0200, Dethegeek wrote:
> Je l'ai déjà fait. Machine physique vers virtuelle. Par contre peut être que 
> ma situation était différente de la vôtre.
> 
> Quel est l'OS du serveur à migrer ? L'hyperviseur sera t il sur le même 
> serveur physique ou un serveur physique  différent ?

Bonsoir,

Comment avez-vous procéder? Debian Stretch (Serveur Dédié), Debian Buster 
(Machine virtuelle). Dois-je avoir la même version de debian dans la machine 
virtuelle ? L'hyperviseur sera un autre serveur

Bonne soirée,

-- 
Frederic

Re: mp3 images on in-dash radio

[Russell L. Harris]

On Thu, Aug 20, 2020 at 02:08:02AM +1200, Richard Hector wrote:

What happens if you play your CD in a computer player like rhythmbox or
similar?


I installed rhythmbox and plugged the USB flash stick into the
computer, which was mounted on \media\.  Whoever put together
rhythmbox made the interface highly dependent upon intuitive
interpretation of symbols, some of which I find inscrutable.  I
finally managed to play a track (no image was displayed), but after
that rhythmbox showed the files greyed out, and then refused to show
anything.  Now I have a very low opinion of rhythmbox; life is too
short to squander messing around with stuff like that.

RLH

Re: kmail - mailadresse and name confused

[Hans]

Answer myself: There is ~/.config/kmailrc, which got the known mailaddresses 
with names. However, when I delete them in this file and restart kmail, the 
mail addresses I sent to in the past. are not forgotten. So there is no change 
in the behavour. 

This led me to the conclusion, that these information must be stored 
somewhwere else.


> Yes, I got a newer one. Kmail2 in debian/testing. And sadly - there is no
> kmailrc any more. I know about that file, but looks like it is needed no
> more. I am not sure, I believe, this is since the introduction of akonadi.
> 
> Best
> 
> Hans



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Problem with USB 3 port

[deloptes]

Mick Ab wrote:

> Could the problem with the USB port possibly cause a problem with an
> attempt to reboot the system ?

what do you mean exactly - you were trying to reboot and then this happened?

ONLINE EN VIVO: Comprension de los Programas de Seguridad CTPAT/OEA

[Como Elegir la Certificacion Correcta para su Empresa]

Este Curso Especializado está disponible para que usted lo vea desde cualquier
dispositivo donde usted se encuentre, ¡o para que lo proyecte a todos sus 
colaboradores!

Comprensión de los Programas de Seguridad CTPAT/OEA
¿Cómo elegir la certificación correcta para mi empresa?

24 y 25 de Septiembre - 3:00 pm a 7:00 pm.
Duración: 8 hrs. - 2 Sesiones de 4 hrs.


Intercar Training le trae hoy un curso que le permitirá conocer las dos 
acreditaciones de seguridad de la cadena de suministro
internacional de mayor utilidad para las empresas mexicanas, de manera que 
usted pueda determinar si su empresa podrá
beneciarse de obtener alguna de las dos, o inclusive ambas. ¡Descubra qué tan 
lejos puede llevar su negocio!

DIRIGIDO A:

Empresarios, directivos, gerentes generales y administradores en empresas en los
ramos logísticos y transportistas; gerentes de planta; gerentes, jefes y 
personas en
posiciones de liderazgo en las áreas de comercio internacional,logística, 
suministro y/o
distribución, así como personal en dichas áreas que aspiren a puestos de mayor 
responsabilidad.

OBTENGA GRANDES BENEFICIOS:

* Conozca los criterios de elegibilidad de cada uno de los programas, y 
determine si alguno de ellos (o ambos)
se ajusta a la operación de su empresa.
* Analice los benecios y obligaciones de las empresas acreditadas en CTPAT/OEA 
y descubra cómo el mundo
se puede abrir a su negocio.
* Realice una auto-auditoría de diagnóstico en su organización y ahorre tiempo, 
dinero y esfuerzo en la
preparación de su certicación.


OBTENGA EL TEMARIO solo responda a esta invitación con sus datos:

NOMBRE COMPLETO:
EMPRESA:
PUESTO:
TELÉFONO:
CELULAR:
EMAIL: debian-user-spanish@lists.debian.org
EMAIL ALTERNATIVO:

En breve un ejecutivo le enviara toda la información a la brevedad.


Obtenga excelentes descuentos en los paquetes empresarial ó corporativo.


Centro de Atención a Clientes: 55 5920 6006
 
Mensajes vía WhatsApp:  (55)6896.43.61


Lic. Brenda Bonilla, Ejecutiva Comercial ¡Será un placer atenderle!


Usted recibe esta invitación por que un amigo lo refirió, tomo un curso con 
nosotros ó solicito alguna vez información. 
Si no desea recibir más actualizaciones solicite su baja con la palabra clave: 
BAJA DEFINITIVA. 
Si solo desea recibir el calendario mensual responda con la palabra CALENDARIO.

Re: migration d'un serveur dédié vers une machine virtuelle

[Daniel Caillibaud]

Le 19/08/20 à 17:58, Frederic  a écrit :
> Bonsoir,
> 
> Comment allez-vous? Qui a déjà migrer un serveur dédié vers une machine 
> virtuelle (kvm ou
> vmware esxi) ?

Plein de monde ;-)

Tu trouveras pas mal de littérature sur le net, chaque cas est particulier mais 
y'a des
constantes
- attention aux conf réseau, hostname & co
- idem pour tout ce qui peut concerner le hardware (les points de montages 
fstab, les règles
  udev éventuelles, etc.)

Ça reste très voisin d'une migration d'un dédié vers un autre, mais suivant ta 
solution de
virtualisation certains trucs ne fonctionneront plus comme avant (je viens de 
me galérer avec
un vps ovh qui veut absolument pas que je mette mes propres infos dans mon 
resolv.conf et j'ai
dû ajouter un check qui l'écrase à la barbare si c'est pas le bon).

-- 
Daniel

Les hommes naissent libres et égaux en droits,
ensuite ils se mettent à boire.
Cavanna

Re: Problem with USB 3 port

[Mick Ab]

Could the problem with the USB port possibly cause a problem with an
attempt to reboot the system ?
On 19 Aug 2020 11:30, "Mick Ab"  wrote:

> There have been problems recently in trying to use the USB 3 port on a
> desktop running Debian.
>
> The kernel doesn't recognise either a new portable hard drive or a new
> flash drive when each have, in turn, be plugged into that port. Neither
> device shows up with fdisk  -l, lsusb or lsblk commands.
>
> Now the following has been done :-
>
> (1) The new flash drive was unplugged from the port
>
> (2) As root, the following command was run :
>
> dmesg  |  tail
>
> The output was as follows :
>
> [3974120.938338] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 66 using
> xhci_hcd
> [3974126.430777] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 67 using
> xhci_hcd
> [3974131.923271] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 68 using
> xhci_hcd
> [3974137.415713] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 69 using
> xhci_hcd
> [3974142.908184] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 70 using
> xhci_hcd
>
> The above sequence continued up to device number 75
>
> (3) The flash drive was plugged back into the USB 3 port
>
> (4) After a few seconds the following command was run as root :
>
> dmesg  |  tail  -50
>
> The output was as follows :
>
> [3973945.175272] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 34 using
> xhci_hcd
> [3973950.667736] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 35 using
> xhci_hcd
> [3973956.164234] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 36 using
> xhci_hcd
> [3973961.660705] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 37 using
> xhci_hcd
> [3973967.153175] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 38 using
> xhci_hcd
> [3973972.645644] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 39 using
> xhci_hcd
> [3973978.138108] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 40 using
> xhci_hcd
>
> The above sequence continued until device number 83
>
> Clearly something is wrong with the port. Can anyone say what is causing
> the problem and how it can be fixed.  Thank you.
>

Re: migration d'un serveur dédié vers une machine virtuelle

[Dethegeek]

Je l'ai déjà fait. Machine physique vers virtuelle. Par contre peut être que ma 
situation était différente de la vôtre.

Quel est l'OS du serveur à migrer ? L'hyperviseur sera t il sur le même serveur 
physique ou un serveur physique  différent ?

Le 19 août 2020 19:58:20 GMT+02:00, Frederic  
a écrit :
>Bonsoir,
>
>Comment allez-vous? Qui a déjà migrer un serveur dédié vers une machine
>virtuelle (kvm ou vmware esxi) ?
>
>D'avance merci, et très bonne soirée,
>
>-- 
>Frederic

-- 
Envoyé de mon appareil Android avec Courriel K-9 Mail. Veuillez excuser ma 
brièveté.

Re: kmail - mailadresse and name confused

[Hans]

> In my older version of kmail (on Wheezy -- I'd expect your using a newer
> version) there is a section (essentially a cache) of Recent Addresses in
> /.kde/share/config/kmailrc.
> 
> If you have the same file, if you go in and edit those addresses that should
> fix the problem.

Yes, I got a newer one. Kmail2 in debian/testing. And sadly - there is no 
kmailrc any more. I know about that file, but looks like it is needed no more. 
I am not sure, I believe, this is since the introduction of akonadi.

Best

Hans

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

migration d'un serveur dédié vers une machine virtuelle

[Frederic]

Bonsoir,

Comment allez-vous? Qui a déjà migrer un serveur dédié vers une machine 
virtuelle (kvm ou vmware esxi) ?

D'avance merci, et très bonne soirée,

-- 
Frederic

Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ?

[Thomas Schmitt]

Hi,

> I think however that it is NOT true that you can link directly from
> BSD/MIT/Apache2 to corresponding strict GPL license.

Well, as said, Apache2-to-GPLv2 conversion is not acknowledged by FSF and
thus by most GPLv2(without+) issuers. If it was GPLv2+, then it would be ok,
because you could then derive GPLv3 from your license and the target
project's license.
>From a BSD license everybody can derive any other usage license.

Formally you and your users derive a license from the target project (as
far as permitted) and a matching one from your project.
If the target project is GPLv2, you cannot derive any other license from it.
So the license derived from your project has to be GPLv2, too.

That's absolute no problem starting from a BSD license.
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ModifiedBSD
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#FreeBSD


> You need to RELICENSE your code to LGPL to be
> able to link it with GPL.

You and your users can relicense it as GPLv2 and link it with the GPLv2
target project, every time you or your users start it.
It is actually an ad-hoc process. You make sure that it can be done,
state that fact to those who are interested, and everybody who runs
that combination runs it as GPLv2 program ... or shall be curesed. ;-)

If it's a complicated network of license derivations, then write it down
and publish it with your license statement. But BSD->GPLv2 is simple.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ?

[Marek Mosiewicz]

W dniu śro, 19.08.2020 o godzinie 18∶29 +0200, użytkownik
to...@tuxteam.de napisał:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 05:30:30PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > Unfortunetly I see that Free Software Foundation claims that
> > MIT(X11)
> > and BSD are GPL compatible [1]
> 
> I don't know what's "unfortunate". They are GPL compatible,
> meaning you can take any BSD/MIT licensed piece of code and
> integrate it into a GPL corpus. As you can integrate them
> into any other proprietary corpus.
> 
> It isn't going to work the other way around (GPL isn't MIT
> compatibe in the above sense). "Compatible" isn't a symmetric
> relation (otherwise, the mentioned diagram would have lines,
> not arrows :-)
Arrows show THE PATH :). You need to RELICENSE your code to LGPL to be
able to link it with GPL. If it is not the case why there is no direct
arrow between for example BSD and GPL2 ?
> 
> > That seems to be serious problem for developers. I'm in process of
> > selecting license for some new work for ADempiere project [2]
> > 
> > That project is GPL2 licensed with commercial options avaialble [3]
> > 
> > One main goal of selecting license is library community. Especially
> > in
> > Java ecosystem there is huge number of libraries written with
> > Apache2
> > license.
> > 
> > It seems that currently only viable option is LGPL2.1+
> 
> That depends on what your goals and ideals are.
> 
> Cheers
>  - t

Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ?

[Marek Mosiewicz]

W dniu śro, 19.08.2020 o godzinie 18∶01 +0200, użytkownik Thomas
Schmitt napisał:
> Hi,
> 
> Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> > That project is GPL2 licensed with commercial options avaialble
> > there is huge number of libraries written with Apache2 license.
> > It seems that currently only viable option is LGPL2.1+
> 
> It could well be Apache2 or BSD, provided that it is _for_ the GPL2
> licensed project, and does not contain copyrighted work _from_ a GPL2
> licensed project.
> 
> If you are legally entitled to issue a permissive license and do it,
It is new project for ADempiere and one of main main consideration is
license
> then each of your releases can swim down the Wikipedia diagram to
> GPLv3+.
I belive it is not how this diagram should be read.

It is true that you can link permissive licensed code with
correspondign LGPL. That is because LGPL does not obligate you to
relicense whole work as strict GPL. You can even link commercial code
with LGPL.

It is also true that you can link LGPL code with corresponding GPL
license code. That is because LGPL contains clause that you can always
switch from LGPL to GPL

I think however that it is NOT true that you can link directly from
BSD/MIT/Apache2 to corresponding strict GPL license.

On diagram there is no direct relation between e.g. MIT and GPL2. In my
opinion it means that you can only link permissive license via LGPL
proxy API. It probably also brings question about distribiuing MIT-
>LGPL->GPL as one program.
> Permissively and copyleftly licensed programs alike can then use it
> by
> their right to re-license it.
> Just make sure your releases are comprised only of permissivel
> licensed
> parts.
> 
> 
> Have a nice day :)
> 
> Thomas
> 

Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ?

[tomas]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 05:30:30PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:

[...]

> Unfortunetly I see that Free Software Foundation claims that MIT(X11)
> and BSD are GPL compatible [1]

I don't know what's "unfortunate". They are GPL compatible,
meaning you can take any BSD/MIT licensed piece of code and
integrate it into a GPL corpus. As you can integrate them
into any other proprietary corpus.

It isn't going to work the other way around (GPL isn't MIT
compatibe in the above sense). "Compatible" isn't a symmetric
relation (otherwise, the mentioned diagram would have lines,
not arrows :-)

> That seems to be serious problem for developers. I'm in process of
> selecting license for some new work for ADempiere project [2]
> 
> That project is GPL2 licensed with commercial options avaialble [3]
> 
> One main goal of selecting license is library community. Especially in
> Java ecosystem there is huge number of libraries written with Apache2
> license.
> 
> It seems that currently only viable option is LGPL2.1+

That depends on what your goals and ideals are.

Cheers
 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ?

[Thomas Schmitt]

Hi,

sorry, i just read that Apache2 cannot be converted to GPLV2 but only
to GPLv3.
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#apache2

So it would have to be BSD, from which everybody can derive what matches
best.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ?

[Thomas Schmitt]

Hi,

Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> That project is GPL2 licensed with commercial options avaialble
> there is huge number of libraries written with Apache2 license.
> It seems that currently only viable option is LGPL2.1+

It could well be Apache2 or BSD, provided that it is _for_ the GPL2
licensed project, and does not contain copyrighted work _from_ a GPL2
licensed project.

If you are legally entitled to issue a permissive license and do it,
then each of your releases can swim down the Wikipedia diagram to GPLv3+.
Permissively and copyleftly licensed programs alike can then use it by
their right to re-license it.
Just make sure your releases are comprised only of permissivel licensed
parts.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ?

[Marek Mosiewicz]

W dniu śro, 19.08.2020 o godzinie 16∶11 +0200, użytkownik
to...@tuxteam.de napisał:
> On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 02:09:01PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> > W dniu śro, 19.08.2020 o godzinie 08∶05 +0200, użytkownik
> > to...@tuxteam.de napisał:
> > > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 09:17:36PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > The thing is: BSD, MIT and friends allow you to combine the stuff
> > > with any other program and relicense the result as you wish (e.g.
> > > proprietary). This includes a GPL work. The result is, then, GPL.
> > BSD and MIT allows you to combine it with other work I agree [...]
> 
> I think Thomas answered that part well.
> 
> Moreover, just have a look at the diagram in the reference [2]
> I linked to in my last answer.
Thanks, I noticed diagram now. This is something I recognized. 

Unfortunetly I see that Free Software Foundation claims that MIT(X11)
and BSD are GPL compatible [1]

That seems to be serious problem for developers. I'm in process of
selecting license for some new work for ADempiere project [2]

That project is GPL2 licensed with commercial options avaialble [3]

One main goal of selecting license is library community. Especially in
Java ecosystem there is huge number of libraries written with Apache2
license.

It seems that currently only viable option is LGPL2.1+

Kind regards,
Marek Mosiewicz
> 
> [...]
> 
> > > The patent grant in Apache2 is why the FSF recommends this one
> > > among the non-copyleft [4] licenses.
> > > 
> > Is it GPL3 compatible ?
> 
> Yes. Again, see the diagram in [2].
> 
> Cheers
> 
> [2] 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#Compatibility_of_FOSS_licenses
> 
>  - t
[1] 
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses
[2] http://adempiere.net/
[3] https://github.com/adempiere/adempiere/blob/develop/license.txt

Re: Alguien a trabajado con SDL2 en C++

[Jose Alfonso]

Si, pienso leer algo sobre java si me gusta lo estudio , creo que así
sera mejor que estudiarlo sin saber nd sobre el

El 18/8/20, Jose Alfonso  escribió:
> Camaleón ya no estoy trabajando con C++, sabes que lo estaba
> estudiando pero no solucione el problema del SDL ni tampoco los de
> gtk-dev , pienso estudiar java , que me dices al respecto ?
>
> El 17/8/20, Camaleón  escribió:
>> El 2020-08-17 a las 03:17 -0700, Jose Alfonso escribió:
>>
>>> El 13/8/20, Jose Alfonso  escribió:
>>> > Aun no he solucionado el problema, tengo que instalar un paquete *-dev
>>> > y no me quiere instalar ningún tupo se esos paquetes de desarroyador
>>> >
>>> > El 13/8/20, Camaleón  escribió:
>>> >> El 2020-08-13 a las 14:20 -0700, Jose Alfonso escribió:
>>> >>
>>> >>> El asunto es que después de la compleja compilación
>>> >>> a código objeto y después a maquina, me pasa que al ejecutar el
>>> >>> programa de da un error diciendo No aviable vídeo divice y yo tengo
>>> >>> modo grafico instalado con xfce4 osea que si tengo modo de video o
>>> >>> dispositivo de vídeo pero me da ese error
>>> >>
>>> >> No available vídeo device sdl2 c++
>>> >> https://www.google.com/search?hl=en=hp=KCI2X9jjG4HQaYGlkegM=No+available+v%C3%ADdeo+device+sdl2+c%2B%2B
>>
>>> Lo compile . no da error de instalación , y cuando compilo un programa
>>> incluyendo esavlibreria tampoco. pero si el programa es grafico me
>>> dice: no vídeo divice
>>
>> ¿Has probado algunas de las sugerencias que indican en los resultados
>> de Google cuando buscas por ese error? Parece que es bastante común.
>>
>> Saludos,
>>
>> --
>> Camaleón
>>
>>
>

Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ?

[tomas]

On Wed, Aug 19, 2020 at 02:09:01PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> W dniu śro, 19.08.2020 o godzinie 08∶05 +0200, użytkownik
> to...@tuxteam.de napisał:
> > On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 09:17:36PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:

[...]

> > The thing is: BSD, MIT and friends allow you to combine the stuff
> > with any other program and relicense the result as you wish (e.g.
> > proprietary). This includes a GPL work. The result is, then, GPL.
> BSD and MIT allows you to combine it with other work I agree [...]

I think Thomas answered that part well.

Moreover, just have a look at the diagram in the reference [2]
I linked to in my last answer.

[...]

> > The patent grant in Apache2 is why the FSF recommends this one
> > among the non-copyleft [4] licenses.
> > 
> Is it GPL3 compatible ?

Yes. Again, see the diagram in [2].

Cheers

[2] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#Compatibility_of_FOSS_licenses

 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: mp3 images on in-dash radio

[Richard Hector]

On 18/08/20 1:38 pm, Russell L. Harris wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 07:31:10PM -0400, Dan Ritter wrote:

>> or looking up "albums" via a web service and trying to display the
>> covers.
> 
> The Tundra does have a GSP navigation system integrated into the
> in-dash radio.  But I am aware of no accounts.  And my cellular stays
> powered down and in my briefcase.  Moreover, my lecture series names
> likely do not match any music album names. 

Have a look at CDDB: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDB

It seems to work on track lengths rather than any track names, so maybe
your lectures happen to be the same length as some music tracks?

What happens if you play your CD in a computer player like rhythmbox or
similar?

Richard

Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ?

[Thomas Schmitt]

Hi,

as for the subject:

None that would allow forth and back excange of copyrightable material.
That's a design goal of GPL. Once in, always in.
See:
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/copyleft.en.html


to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> > BSD, MIT and friends allow you to combine the stuff
> > with any other program and relicense the result as you wish

Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> MIT/BSD license does not have any clue about changing license

BSD/MIT are not intended to claim any restrictions beyond the obligation
not to present as own brain work what was taken for free from BSD licensed
software. I.e. you have to maintain authorship and copyright claims.

It's a license for free science, not for commercial or political goals.


> So how MIT/BSD could be compatible.

It is a one-way relation, about which many BSD-licensing developers are
not happy and some GPL licensers are somewhat embarrassed.
We can take from them, they cannot take from us.

But if both sides uphold their basic license goals, it cannot be made less
injust to the BSD side.

---

For the official classification of licenses by the Free Software Foundation
regarding compatiblity with GPL see:
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

About the licensed developed for or by the FSF:
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html

The FSF does not like the BSD licenses much
  https://www.gnu.org/licenses/bsd.html
but GNU maintainers are known to make their own decisions. :))


Note that not necessarily the FSF but the copyright holder of the software
issues the license. So the FSF's interpretation of its own legal text GPL
still can be overridden by the actual issuer when it comes to legal disputes,
especially since GPL is optimized for the U.S. legal system (cough) and thus
might need in other court systems plausible clarifications by the license
issuer.


Have a nice day :)

Thomas

Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ?

[Marek Mosiewicz]

W dniu śro, 19.08.2020 o godzinie 08∶05 +0200, użytkownik
to...@tuxteam.de napisał:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 09:17:36PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> > Hello,
> 
> hello
> 
> > I'm just curious. According to general perception BSD, MIT or
> > Apache2
> > licenses are GPL3 compatible.
> 
> There are many fine resources out there for you to read. I'd
> recommend [1], [2] and [3] for starters. Yes, [1] is gnu.org:
> one might think they have a bias -- still it's well structured
> and worth a read.
> 
> > Is it true ? I'm not lawyer, but with GPL requirement to cover
> > whole
> > combined work with GPL it seems to be not so obvious.
> 
> The thing is: BSD, MIT and friends allow you to combine the stuff
> with any other program and relicense the result as you wish (e.g.
> proprietary). This includes a GPL work. The result is, then, GPL.
BSD and MIT allows you to combine it with other work I agree. In MIT
license there is even permission to SUBlicense. Unfortunetly we are
talking about GPL (GPL3 especially)license and as from my understanding
it requires to publish WHOLE combined work on corresponding GPL
license. MIT/BSD license does not have any clue about changing license
in that way. That is fixed requirements and it is probably reason why
FSF even says GPL3 is not GPL2 comaptible. So how MIT/BSD could be
compatible.
> 
> > That especially true for GPL3 where combined work must to be
> > covered
> > with GPL3, what means has requirements for patents used by work.
> 
> That only means you lose the protection afforded by GPL3 once you
> assert patent rights (e.g. by submarine patents). Remember -- GPL
> /grants/ you permissions to do things which, by default, would be
> forbidden. So it only can revoke those things, if you are in breach
> of contract.

> 
> > Neither BSD nor MIT licenses have any clue about author patents
> > used in
> > work. It seems obvious that you have patent grant from author as
> > long
> > as you use or modify BSD/MIT software,
> 
> Is it? It will strongly depend on jurisdiction, I guess.
OK. I'm not sure of it. It seems for me that if you can use and modify
some software, that means that author gives You permission to use
patents in given work as long as they are authors patents (THAT IS ONLY
MY ASSUMPTION). That of course does not cover any patents not belonging
to software authors

> > but nothing about any other use
> > of patents.
> 
> Why should the patent grant be tied to the license of the end
> software? Now, if the license explicitly states so, perhaps.
> 
> > I'm not sure for Apache2. There is patent grant from contributors,
> > but
> > I do not see patent grant from copyright holder (who can be not
> > contributor, but also have patents)
> 
> The patent grant in Apache2 is why the FSF recommends this one
> among the non-copyleft [4] licenses.
> 
Is it GPL3 compatible ?

> 
> [1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
> [2] 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#Compatibility_of_FOSS_licenses
> [3] 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences
> [4] I very much prefer this term to the "permissive" you used in the
>subject: permissive is ambiguous. Permissive to whom? Users?
>Programmers? Distributors?
> 
>  - t

Re: kmail - mailadresse and name confused

[rhkramer]

On Wednesday, August 19, 2020 05:58:53 AM Hans wrote:
> Hi folks,
> 
> somehow in kmail the mailadresse and the name are confused. When I want to
> write a mail, by typing the mailadresse is intelligently fullfilled, but
> the belonging name is not correctly added. Also on most mailadresses, I
> get the same name added (guess, there was never a name, so it is added
> some default).
> 
> I believe, this might be a caching thing.
> 
> This happened, when I synced ~/.kde/share/apps/kmail/mail/ between two
> computers with (the same version) of kmail.
> 
> Is there any way, especially an easy way, to get this corrected?
> 
> I also checked kadressbook, here all the names / mailadresses are fine!

In my older version of kmail (on Wheezy -- I'd expect your using a newer 
version) there is a section (essentially a cache) of Recent Addresses in 
/.kde/share/config/kmailrc.

If you have the same file, if you go in and edit those addresses that should 
fix 
the problem.

Problem with USB 3 port

[Mick Ab]

There have been problems recently in trying to use the USB 3 port on a
desktop running Debian.

The kernel doesn't recognise either a new portable hard drive or a new
flash drive when each have, in turn, be plugged into that port. Neither
device shows up with fdisk  -l, lsusb or lsblk commands.

Now the following has been done :-

(1) The new flash drive was unplugged from the port

(2) As root, the following command was run :

dmesg  |  tail

The output was as follows :

[3974120.938338] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 66 using xhci_hcd
[3974126.430777] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 67 using xhci_hcd
[3974131.923271] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 68 using xhci_hcd
[3974137.415713] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 69 using xhci_hcd
[3974142.908184] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 70 using xhci_hcd

The above sequence continued up to device number 75

(3) The flash drive was plugged back into the USB 3 port

(4) After a few seconds the following command was run as root :

dmesg  |  tail  -50

The output was as follows :

[3973945.175272] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 34 using xhci_hcd
[3973950.667736] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 35 using xhci_hcd
[3973956.164234] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 36 using xhci_hcd
[3973961.660705] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 37 using xhci_hcd
[3973967.153175] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 38 using xhci_hcd
[3973972.645644] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 39 using xhci_hcd
[3973978.138108] usb 1-1: new high-speed USB device number 40 using xhci_hcd

The above sequence continued until device number 83

Clearly something is wrong with the port. Can anyone say what is causing
the problem and how it can be fixed.  Thank you.

kmail - mailadresse and name confused

[Hans]

Hi folks, 

somehow in kmail the mailadresse and the name are confused. When I want to 
write a mail, by typing the mailadresse is intelligently fullfilled, but the 
belonging name is not correctly added. Also on most mailadresses, I get the 
same name added (guess, there was never a name, so it is added some default).

I believe, this might be a caching thing.

This happened, when I synced ~/.kde/share/apps/kmail/mail/ between two 
computers with (the same version) of kmail.

Is there any way, especially an easy way, to get this corrected?

I also checked kadressbook, here all the names / mailadresses are fine!

Best regards

Hans

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Disks renamed after update to 'testing'...?

[Urs Thuermann]

David Christensen  writes:

> Thanks for the explanation.  It seems that pvcreate(8) places an LVM
> disk label and an LVM metadata area onto disks or partitions when
> creating a PV; including a unique UUID:
> 
> https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/pvcreate.8.html

Yes, correct.  You can see the UUID with pvdisplay(8) or blkid(8):

# pvdisplay /dev/md0
  --- Physical volume ---
  PV Name   /dev/md0
  VG Name   vg0
  PV Size   1.82 TiB / not usable 3.00 MiB
  Allocatable   yes 
  PE Size   4.00 MiB
  Total PE  476899
  Free PE   96653
  Allocated PE  380246
  PV UUID   uFHSzs-QpCa-GVIX-LKRZ-rIRV-KgfE-taQXQV
   
# blkid /dev/md0
/dev/md0: UUID="uFHSzs-QpCa-GVIX-LKRZ-rIRV-KgfE-taQXQV" TYPE="LVM2_member"

> When using a drive as backup media, are there likely use-cases that
> benefit from configuring the drive with no partition, a single PV,
> single VG, single LV, and single filesystem vs. configuring the drive
> with a single partition, single UUID fstab entry, and single
> filesystem?

You can use a partition or the whole disk for a physical volume, as
you can for a file system.  That is, you can

mkfs /dev/sdaormkfs /dev/sda1

and likewise with LVM you can

pvcreate /dev/sdaorpvcreare /dev/sda1

Long ago I actually created PVs on the whole disk and didn't have
partition tables and therefore no partition on many of my drives.
Today, I prefer having a partition table with only one partition
covering the whole disk.  The partition table entry includes a type so
that there is less guessing about what the disk contains:

# fdisk -l /dev/sda | grep /dev
Disk /dev/sda: 1.8 TiB, 2000397852160 bytes, 3907027055 sectors
/dev/sda12048 3907026943 3907024896  1.8T fd Linux raid autodetect
# fdisk -l /dev/sdf | grep /dev
Disk /dev/sdf: 3.7 TiB, 4000787030016 bytes, 976754646 sectors
/dev/sdf1 256 976754645 976754390  3.7T 8e Linux LVM

If you then put a single LV into the VG which covers the whole VG you
don't benefit much from LVM's functionality, except that you can
easily change allocations later if you decide so.  Re-partitioning is
more complicated.  But even then you have nice and stable device
names.  You could even add or remove drives to the volume group to
extend it, spread logical volumes across the drives and still no LV
name would change.

I like having nice device names like /dev/vg0/root, /dev/vg0/usr,
/dev/vg0/var, /dev/vg0/home, /dev/vg0/swap, /dev/vg0/ for all of
my (currently 4) virtual machines.  And use it a lot, because it so
easy to add/delete/change:

# ls -l /dev/mapper | wc -l
27

For example if I want to test something with btrfs, I can run

lvcreate -n btrfs-test -L 4G vg0

and I have a /dev/vg0/btrfs-test to work with.  No re-partitioning, no
problem with re-reading partition tables which are in use, etc.

urs

Re: Correct syntax of sound devices, rules.d and/or modprobe.d

[Stefan Krusche]

(Resent, after the ever recurring mishap of having replied to private
email address…)

Am Dienstag 18 August 2020 schrieb John Conover:
> In /etc/udev/rules.d/*, and, /lib/modprobe.d/aliases.conf, is the
> correct name for sound devices "snd-usb-audio" or "snd_usb_audio"?

man modprobe says:

DESCRIPTION
   modprobe intelligently adds or removes a module from the Linux kernel:
   note that for convenience, there is no difference between _ and - in
   module names (automatic underscore conversion is performed).

HTH

Kind regards,
Stefan

Re: Disks renamed after update to 'testing'...?

[David Christensen]

On 2020-08-18 23:00, Urs Thuermann wrote:

David Christensen  writes:


AIUI the OP was mounting an (external?) drive partition for use as a
destination for backups.  Prior to upgrading to Testing, the root
partition was /dev/sda1 (no LVM?) and the backup partition was
/dev/sdb1 (no LVM?).  After upgrading to Testing, the root partition
is /dev/sdb1 and the backup partition device node is unknown.  The OP
was confused by the changed root partition device node.


Please describe how LVM would help in this situation.


Instead of using /dev/sdb1 directly for the backup file system, the OP
could put LVM to /dev/sdb1 (or now /dev/sda1).  I.e. he would create a
physical volume on /deb/sdb1, create a volume group e.g. named vgbkup,
and would then create a logical volume, e.g. named lv1.  The device
name for the backup file system would then always be /dev/vgbkup/lv1
regardless of how the kernel will name underlying device (/dev/sda1 or
/dev/sdb1 or whatever).

In addition, you get the flexibility of LVM of adding, deleting, and
resizing volumes without re-partitioning.


Thanks for the explanation.  It seems that pvcreate(8) places an LVM 
disk label and an LVM metadata area onto disks or partitions when 
creating a PV; including a unique UUID:


https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/pvcreate.8.html


When using a drive as backup media, are there likely use-cases that 
benefit from configuring the drive with no partition, a single PV, 
single VG, single LV, and single filesystem vs. configuring the drive 
with a single partition, single UUID fstab entry, and single filesystem?



David

Re: Disks renamed after update to 'testing'...?

[Urs Thuermann]

Urs Thuermann  writes:

> IMO the best solution is to use LVM.  I use it since 2001 on most
> drives and I don't have partitions.  And I prefer to use device names
> over using the *UUID or *LABEL prefixes.  With LVM, device names are
> predictable /dev/mapper/- with symlinks
> /dev//.

Following up myself: The reason I prefer stable device names instead
of UUIDs or LABELs is that device names show up in some places even if
you use UUID or LABEL in /etc/fstab or in your command line:

On my laptop I have UUID in /etc/fstab but df still shows the device
name:

$ grep -w / /etc/fstab
# / was on /dev/nvme0n1p2 during installation
UUID=c73ff331-0ff5-44fb-8aef-228e64a96175 /   ext4
errors=remount-ro 0   1
$ df | grep -w /
/dev/nvme0n1p2  237470384 107725172 117659352  48% /

On my server with LVM I get:

$ grep -w / /etc/fstab
/dev/mapper/vg0-root   /   ext4errors=remount-ro 0   1
$ df | grep -w /
/dev/mapper/vg0-root  2031440 659132   1261556  35% /


urs

Re: Is there permissve GPL3 compatible license ?

[tomas]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2020 at 09:17:36PM +0200, Marek Mosiewicz wrote:
> Hello,

hello

> I'm just curious. According to general perception BSD, MIT or Apache2
> licenses are GPL3 compatible.

There are many fine resources out there for you to read. I'd
recommend [1], [2] and [3] for starters. Yes, [1] is gnu.org:
one might think they have a bias -- still it's well structured
and worth a read.

> Is it true ? I'm not lawyer, but with GPL requirement to cover whole
> combined work with GPL it seems to be not so obvious.

The thing is: BSD, MIT and friends allow you to combine the stuff
with any other program and relicense the result as you wish (e.g.
proprietary). This includes a GPL work. The result is, then, GPL.

> That especially true for GPL3 where combined work must to be covered
> with GPL3, what means has requirements for patents used by work.

That only means you lose the protection afforded by GPL3 once you
assert patent rights (e.g. by submarine patents). Remember -- GPL
/grants/ you permissions to do things which, by default, would be
forbidden. So it only can revoke those things, if you are in breach
of contract.

> Neither BSD nor MIT licenses have any clue about author patents used in
> work. It seems obvious that you have patent grant from author as long
> as you use or modify BSD/MIT software,

Is it? It will strongly depend on jurisdiction, I guess.

> but nothing about any other use
> of patents.

Why should the patent grant be tied to the license of the end
software? Now, if the license explicitly states so, perhaps.

> I'm not sure for Apache2. There is patent grant from contributors, but
> I do not see patent grant from copyright holder (who can be not
> contributor, but also have patents)

The patent grant in Apache2 is why the FSF recommends this one
among the non-copyleft [4] licenses.

Cheers

[1] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
[2] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_compatibility#Compatibility_of_FOSS_licenses
[3] 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences
[4] I very much prefer this term to the "permissive" you used in the
   subject: permissive is ambiguous. Permissive to whom? Users?
   Programmers? Distributors?

 - t


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Disks renamed after update to 'testing'...?

[Urs Thuermann]

David Christensen  writes:

> AIUI the OP was mounting an (external?) drive partition for use as a
> destination for backups.  Prior to upgrading to Testing, the root
> partition was /dev/sda1 (no LVM?) and the backup partition was
> /dev/sdb1 (no LVM?).  After upgrading to Testing, the root partition
> is /dev/sdb1 and the backup partition device node is unknown.  The OP
> was confused by the changed root partition device node.
> 
> 
> Please describe how LVM would help in this situation.

Instead of using /dev/sdb1 directly for the backup file system, the OP
could put LVM to /dev/sdb1 (or now /dev/sda1).  I.e. he would create a
physical volume on /deb/sdb1, create a volume group e.g. named vgbkup,
and would then create a logical volume, e.g. named lv1.  The device
name for the backup file system would then always be /dev/vgbkup/lv1
regardless of how the kernel will name underlying device (/dev/sda1 or
/dev/sdb1 or whatever).

In addition, you get the flexibility of LVM of adding, deleting, and
resizing volumes without re-partitioning.

If the OP had done that before he hadn't noticed the change from
/dev/sdb1 to /dev/sda1 as he hadn't used that name.  He could now
change to LVM and never deal with changing physical device names
again.

Whether it's an internal or external drive doesn't matter.

My backup drive is an external USB-3 hard drive with 1 partition
containing the whole disk space of 4 TB.  That partition contains
volume vgroup "vg2" with currently one logical voulume "snap" of 2 TB
and I mount /dev/vg2/snap to /var/snapshots for backups.  Currently I
don't need more than these 2 TB but I could easily extend the logical
volume or create new ones for backups of my other machines or virtual
machines.

And I actually forget the physical device name of the vg2 volume group
(I have just looked it up using vgdisplay(8), and it's currently
/dev/sdf1).

urs