F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
I'm just curious - Has anyone made any progress on figuring out why VMware Server 2.0 does NOT run on F10 unless selinux is disabled? Even running selinux in permissive mode causes VMware Server fits. This has been this way at least since VMware Server 1.x running on F8. I know because I can recall having to fully disable selinux on my VMware Server systems for at least that long. It never seems to have been fixed to this day, and that's a long time for such an issue to exist. Is anyone working to resolve it? Cheers, Chris -- == "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Christopher A. Williams wrote: > I'm just curious - Has anyone made any progress on figuring out why > VMware Server 2.0 does NOT run on F10 unless selinux is disabled? Even > running selinux in permissive mode causes VMware Server fits. > > This has been this way at least since VMware Server 1.x running on F8. I > know because I can recall having to fully disable selinux on my VMware > Server systems for at least that long. > > It never seems to have been fixed to this day, and that's a long time > for such an issue to exist. Is anyone working to resolve it? > > Cheers, > > Chris > Do you have a bugzilla on this? I am not aware of the problem. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAklCeWwACgkQrlYvE4MpobPuqACdHdLTygrCPvb4iMQa1ivZWiTG 8C0AniqIJLafkp1kR2VCSKIjBc+Cp3Tz =t34/ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 09:47 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Christopher A. Williams wrote: > > I'm just curious - Has anyone made any progress on figuring out why > > VMware Server 2.0 does NOT run on F10 unless selinux is disabled? Even > > running selinux in permissive mode causes VMware Server fits. > > > > This has been this way at least since VMware Server 1.x running on F8. I > > know because I can recall having to fully disable selinux on my VMware > > Server systems for at least that long. > > > > It never seems to have been fixed to this day, and that's a long time > > for such an issue to exist. Is anyone working to resolve it? > > > > Cheers, > > > > Chris VMWare's SELinux problem is caused by their shady RPM's and have nothing to do with F9/F10. Officially, VMWare only supports RHEL 4.x and 5.x. Fedora is not supported and their SELinux support (built into their RPMs) was designed to support RHEL. In short, unless RHEL starts supporting distributions beyond EPEL and SLES, there's nothing to be done in the Fedora side of things. - Gilboa -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Sunday 14 December 2008 11:07:53 Gilboa Davara wrote: > On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 09:47 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Christopher A. Williams wrote: > > > I'm just curious - Has anyone made any progress on figuring out why > > > VMware Server 2.0 does NOT run on F10 unless selinux is disabled? Even > > > running selinux in permissive mode causes VMware Server fits. > > > > > > This has been this way at least since VMware Server 1.x running on F8. > > > I know because I can recall having to fully disable selinux on my > > > VMware Server systems for at least that long. > > > > > > It never seems to have been fixed to this day, and that's a long time > > > for such an issue to exist. Is anyone working to resolve it? > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Chris > > VMWare's SELinux problem is caused by their shady RPM's and have nothing > to do with F9/F10. > Officially, VMWare only supports RHEL 4.x and 5.x. Fedora is not > supported and their SELinux support (built into their RPMs) was designed > to support RHEL. > > In short, unless RHEL starts supporting distributions beyond EPEL and > SLES, there's nothing to be done in the Fedora side of things. > > - Gilboa I happen to have VMWare Server 1.07 running at this very moment. Is this a Ver 2 problem? -- Claude Jones Brunswick, MD -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 11:39 -0500, Claude Jones wrote: > On Sunday 14 December 2008 11:07:53 Gilboa Davara wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-12-12 at 09:47 -0500, Daniel J Walsh wrote: > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > > > Christopher A. Williams wrote: > > > > I'm just curious - Has anyone made any progress on figuring out why > > > > VMware Server 2.0 does NOT run on F10 unless selinux is disabled? Even > > > > running selinux in permissive mode causes VMware Server fits. > > > > > > > > This has been this way at least since VMware Server 1.x running on F8. > > > > I know because I can recall having to fully disable selinux on my > > > > VMware Server systems for at least that long. > > > > > > > > It never seems to have been fixed to this day, and that's a long time > > > > for such an issue to exist. Is anyone working to resolve it? > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > > > Chris > > > > VMWare's SELinux problem is caused by their shady RPM's and have nothing > > to do with F9/F10. > > Officially, VMWare only supports RHEL 4.x and 5.x. Fedora is not > > supported and their SELinux support (built into their RPMs) was designed > > to support RHEL. > > > > In short, unless RHEL starts supporting distributions beyond EPEL and > > SLES, there's nothing to be done in the Fedora side of things. > > > > - Gilboa > > I happen to have VMWare Server 1.07 running at this very moment. Is this a > Ver > 2 problem? > -- To be honest, AFAIR VMWare Server 1.0.x, beyond being EOL, doesn't support kernels >= 2.6.26 - even with the latest any-to-any patch. Though, AFAIK, it didn't have SELinux problem under both F8 and F9. On the other side VMWare Server 2.x hass replaced the GTK console application with a super-complex web-client which, coupled with VMWare's known tendency to release half-broken RPMs, makes it an SELinux accident waiting to happen... Either way, given the nature of VMWare Server (closed source, proprietary RPM's, out-of-tree kernel drivers) - there's nothing Fedora can (or should) do about it. On the up side, if you have semi-new hardware (w/ Intel VT or AMD SVN), qemu-kvm is a very good OSS alternative. (I recently migrated all my VMWare Server 1.0.x VM's to qemu-kvm [manually - I have yet to use virt-manager] and I'm very happy with it) - Gilboa -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Sunday 14 December 2008 12:08:44 Gilboa Davara wrote: > To be honest, AFAIR VMWare Server 1.0.x, beyond being EOL, doesn't > support kernels >= 2.6.26 - even with the latest any-to-any patch. > Though, AFAIK, it didn't have SELinux problem under both F8 and F9. > On the other side VMWare Server 2.x hass replaced the GTK console > application with a super-complex web-client which, coupled with VMWare's > known tendency to release half-broken RPMs, makes it an SELinux accident > waiting to happen... Let me be precise. I have VMWare server running right now on this laptop on which I'm typing this message. In 'About' it says it is version 1.0.7 build-108231; my running kernel is - # uname -r 2.6.27.7-134.fc10.i686 the patch I'm using to make it work is called vmware-update-2.6.27-5.5.7-2 which I found using Google - it has survived several kernel upgrades and supercedes the any-any patches I haven't bothered to install VMWare Server 2.X because at the moment, I have no need for it, and as you point out, it's a bit more complicated. I haven't tried any of the linux-land alternatives yet for the same reason. My approach may work for some, if not for all, but, to simply make the blanket statement that VMWare server is broken for F10 or for Kernels > 2.6.26 is wrong. -- Claude Jones Brunswick, MD -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 13:26 -0500, Claude Jones wrote: > On Sunday 14 December 2008 12:08:44 Gilboa Davara wrote: > > To be honest, AFAIR VMWare Server 1.0.x, beyond being EOL, doesn't > > support kernels >= 2.6.26 - even with the latest any-to-any patch. > > Though, AFAIK, it didn't have SELinux problem under both F8 and F9. > > On the other side VMWare Server 2.x hass replaced the GTK console > > application with a super-complex web-client which, coupled with VMWare's > > known tendency to release half-broken RPMs, makes it an SELinux accident > > waiting to happen... > > Let me be precise. I have VMWare server running right now on this laptop on > which I'm typing this message. In 'About' it says it is version 1.0.7 > build-108231; my running kernel is - > # uname -r > 2.6.27.7-134.fc10.i686 > the patch I'm using to make it work is called vmware-update-2.6.27-5.5.7-2 > which I found using Google - it has survived several kernel upgrades and > supercedes the any-any patches > > I haven't bothered to install VMWare Server 2.X because at the moment, I have > no need for it, and as you point out, it's a bit more complicated. I haven't > tried any of the linux-land alternatives yet for the same reason. My approach > may work for some, if not for all, but, to simply make the blanket statement > that VMWare server is broken for F10 or for Kernels > 2.6.26 is wrong. A couple of things before I have to go catch a plane... First - This question was not an invitation to poop on VMware Server, Workstation, or anyone else's virtualization products (except _maybe_ Hyper-V ). VMware happens to be the market leader for a reason, and they have historically been reasonably good corporate citizens to the world of Open Source. I asked if anyone knew what the problem was and if it had been fixed. OK - so it hasn't yet. I challenge that "shady RPMs" and other stuff is a reason _not_ to investigate the issue. By the by - VMware Server 2.0 doesn't use an RPM based installer anymore (a HUGE MISTAKE if you ask me), and the same issues exist. Since RHEL tends to trail Fedora, I'll bet this gets fixed with the next major RHEL release, if not sooner because many people do run VMware Server on Fedora. As to how long this has gone on, it has since F8 and VMware Server 1.0.x. The only known work-around I am aware of is to disable selinux, after which it runs impressively well. It compiles and runs on F9 and F10 out of the box with no patches needed. VMware Server 2.0 is no more complicated than 1.0.x by the way. In fact, a TON of things are much nicer! But it is definitely different than 1.0.x in many important ways. Examples include the ability to control everything about it via a browser, run a VM's console remotely using a Firefox extension, and directly managing a variety of kinds of storage on the fly. It is not, however, something I would recommend for a workstation setup. Use VMware Workstation, VirtualBox, KVM, etc. for that. VMware Server 2.0 is absolutely intended as a lightweight, server based virtualization solution. Trying to make it do something else is asking for issues. Cheers, Chris -- == By all means marry; If you get a good wife, you'll be happy. If you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher. --Socrates -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Sunday 14 December 2008 18:21:44 Christopher A. Williams wrote: > As to how long this has gone on, it has since F8 and VMware Server > 1.0.x. The only known work-around I am aware of is to disable selinux, > after which it runs impressively well. It compiles and runs on F9 and > F10 out of the box with no patches needed. Sorry, Christopher, but I am not posting these replies because I'm a VMWare booster. As I stated, my solution may not work for all, but, you are simply misstating things, or not speaking clearly. To repeat, I am currently running VMWare Server version 1.0.7 build-108231; I've been running some version of VMWare server since it was first made available free, on several versions of Fedora including this machine, which is on F10; I have another machine right beside it that is running F9 and also runs VMWareServer; I do NOT disable selinux on any of my machines, ever, except for brief testing purposes; VMWare server has been running all day on this machine I'm typing on, and I have a WinXP vm running in it through which I run Outlook so I can connect to my company's Exchange 2008 mail server. I am merely posting this because I consider most of the information in this thread to be misleading, which could discourage others. It would be useful if you really care, to attempt to run VMWare server on your machine, post the errors you get, and get some help - to assert that it won't run because you can't get it to run, without explaining your procedures is not helpful. -- Claude Jones Brunswick, MD -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 08:28 -0500, Claude Jones wrote: > On Sun December 14 2008, Christopher A. Williams wrote: > > By the by - VMware Server 2.0 > > doesn't use an RPM based installer anymore (a HUGE MISTAKE if you ask > > me), and the same issues exist. > > Another question came up in my mind this morning and I decided to go and > check > the above statement. For your information, there is an .rpm available for the > latest VMServer 2.0 - I'm downloading it right now. For your information (and you would know this if you had participated in the 2.0 betas), the RPM installer is being officially depricated. In the betas, it was completely disabled. Good luck installing it... -- == "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Christopher A. Williams wrote: > On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 21:27 -0500, Claude Jones wrote: >> On Sunday 14 December 2008 18:21:44 Christopher A. Williams wrote: >>> As to how long this has gone on, it has since F8 and VMware Server >>> 1.0.x. The only known work-around I am aware of is to disable selinux, >>> after which it runs impressively well. It compiles and runs on F9 and >>> F10 out of the box with no patches needed. >> Sorry, Christopher, but I am not posting these replies because I'm a VMWare >> booster. As I stated, my solution may not work for all, but, you are simply >> misstating things, or not speaking clearly. > > I think you may have misunderstood my point here. As the OP on this > thread, I asked a question and someone (not you) decided to use that as > a platform to trash VMware. I thought that was inappropriate. I see the > problem I'm having with selinux as an inconvenience at this point, but > would like to know how to fix it. > >> To repeat, I am currently running VMWare Server version 1.0.7 build-108231; >> I've been running some version of VMWare server since it was first made >> available free, on several versions of Fedora including this machine, which >> is >> on F10; I have another machine right beside it that is running F9 and also >> runs VMWareServer; I do NOT disable selinux on any of my machines, ever, >> except for brief testing purposes; VMWare server has been running all day on >> this machine I'm typing on, and I have a WinXP vm running in it through >> which >> I run Outlook so I can connect to my company's Exchange 2008 mail server. > > I have been running VMware Server since it was originally GSX Server 1.0 > and a "for pay" product. I've also run VMware Workstation since the > first public beta of version 1.0 - right up through the latest build of > 6.5 on F10 on the laptop I'm using to write this. Unity, by the way, has > a few minor flaws, but is otherwise very cool. I'm also a seasoned > VMware Certified Professional (working on a VCDX), so I think I have a > bit of qualified experience with these product lines. At least VMware > seems to think so... > > I'm happy to see you have Server 1.0 working with selinux enabled. This > has never worked for me, and if you follow the VMware community forums > (maybe where I should have posted this to begin with), you would see > that I'm not alone in that. With selinux enabled and using a targeted > policy, VMware Server will refuse to start. Placing selinux in > permissive mode to try and catch issues produces the same result. No > errors that I could see/find on it either. If you follow the VMware > Community threads on this, the acknowledged work-around remains > disabling selinux. > > I occasionally try re-enabling selinux with no luck. I admit I have not > yet tried that on the latest build of 2.0 on a recently patched F10 > system. That build only came out a couple of weeks ago and I've been > traveling heavily - there's only so much of me to go around. > >> I am merely posting this because I consider most of the information in this >> thread to be misleading, which could discourage others. It would be useful >> if >> you really care, to attempt to run VMWare server on your machine, post the >> errors you get, and get some help - to assert that it won't run because you >> can't get it to run, without explaining your procedures is not helpful. > > Sorry you feel that way. In light of what I have written above, your "It > works for me, so it must be something you're doing," statement doesn't > make the info I have reported misleading. It just means your experience > has been different (along with your opinion). I have posted this issue > here and elsewhere before. I also have used some of my connections with > technical people I know inside of VMware to find more on the problem. > The answer: disable selinux. As you saw with another post, there is also > an "anti-VMware crowd" lurking who then cries foul on VMware rather than > advocate investigating the problem further. I don't think I have written > anything that would confuse or discourage someone from trying or using > VMware products. I certainly have not done so intentionally. > > Since you seem to have VMware Server 1.0 working with selinux on F9 and > F10, perhaps you should post your procedure for loading it. I might be > able to duplicate that with a 2.0 installation. As also has been > mentioned, you should seriously consider that VMware Server 1.x is > reaching EOL, and you really should move to something else shortly. > > Outside of the issues with selinux, I repeat that my experiences with > 2.0 have been very positive. It's a major step forward from 1.0 as a > server based solution. > > I repeat that I would personally not recommend it as a _desktop_ > solution - but VMware Server isn't intended for that, and there are > better desktop alternatives. I'm planning to load up another ser
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 13:26 -0500, Claude Jones wrote: > On Sunday 14 December 2008 12:08:44 Gilboa Davara wrote: > > To be honest, AFAIR VMWare Server 1.0.x, beyond being EOL, doesn't > > support kernels >= 2.6.26 - even with the latest any-to-any patch. > > Though, AFAIK, it didn't have SELinux problem under both F8 and F9. > > On the other side VMWare Server 2.x hass replaced the GTK console > > application with a super-complex web-client which, coupled with VMWare's > > known tendency to release half-broken RPMs, makes it an SELinux accident > > waiting to happen... > > Let me be precise. I have VMWare server running right now on this laptop on > which I'm typing this message. In 'About' it says it is version 1.0.7 > build-108231; my running kernel is - > # uname -r > 2.6.27.7-134.fc10.i686 > the patch I'm using to make it work is called vmware-update-2.6.27-5.5.7-2 > which I found using Google - it has survived several kernel upgrades and > supercedes the any-any patches A. I was unaware of the vmware-update-2.6.27-5.5.7-2 patch. Last time I checked (~1.5 months ago) only the any-to-any patch was available and it didn't support kernels >= 2.6.26. B. Much like the any-to-any patch, (and at least according to google) this patch is unofficial. C. As I previously said, -officially-, VMWare doesn't support Fedora. [1] D. As you recall, the OP asked if can send a BZ about his SELinux problems in bugzilla.redhat.com - my original answer was rather simple: VMware is proprietary and closed source, and doesn't officially support Fedora. [1] VMWare server, user's guide, page 26. > > I haven't bothered to install VMWare Server 2.X because at the moment, I have > no need for it, and as you point out, it's a bit more complicated. I haven't > tried any of the linux-land alternatives yet for the same reason. My approach > may work for some, if not for all, but, to simply make the blanket statement > that VMWare server is broken for F10 or for Kernels > 2.6.26 is wrong. Let me rephrase, the official VMWare 1.0.x release doesn't support F10. Happy? - Gilboa -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 21:27 -0500, Claude Jones wrote: > On Sunday 14 December 2008 18:21:44 Christopher A. Williams wrote: > > As to how long this has gone on, it has since F8 and VMware Server > > 1.0.x. The only known work-around I am aware of is to disable selinux, > > after which it runs impressively well. It compiles and runs on F9 and > > F10 out of the box with no patches needed. > > Sorry, Christopher, but I am not posting these replies because I'm a VMWare > booster. As I stated, my solution may not work for all, but, you are simply > misstating things, or not speaking clearly. I think you may have misunderstood my point here. As the OP on this thread, I asked a question and someone (not you) decided to use that as a platform to trash VMware. I thought that was inappropriate. I see the problem I'm having with selinux as an inconvenience at this point, but would like to know how to fix it. > To repeat, I am currently running VMWare Server version 1.0.7 build-108231; > I've been running some version of VMWare server since it was first made > available free, on several versions of Fedora including this machine, which > is > on F10; I have another machine right beside it that is running F9 and also > runs VMWareServer; I do NOT disable selinux on any of my machines, ever, > except for brief testing purposes; VMWare server has been running all day on > this machine I'm typing on, and I have a WinXP vm running in it through which > I run Outlook so I can connect to my company's Exchange 2008 mail server. I have been running VMware Server since it was originally GSX Server 1.0 and a "for pay" product. I've also run VMware Workstation since the first public beta of version 1.0 - right up through the latest build of 6.5 on F10 on the laptop I'm using to write this. Unity, by the way, has a few minor flaws, but is otherwise very cool. I'm also a seasoned VMware Certified Professional (working on a VCDX), so I think I have a bit of qualified experience with these product lines. At least VMware seems to think so... I'm happy to see you have Server 1.0 working with selinux enabled. This has never worked for me, and if you follow the VMware community forums (maybe where I should have posted this to begin with), you would see that I'm not alone in that. With selinux enabled and using a targeted policy, VMware Server will refuse to start. Placing selinux in permissive mode to try and catch issues produces the same result. No errors that I could see/find on it either. If you follow the VMware Community threads on this, the acknowledged work-around remains disabling selinux. I occasionally try re-enabling selinux with no luck. I admit I have not yet tried that on the latest build of 2.0 on a recently patched F10 system. That build only came out a couple of weeks ago and I've been traveling heavily - there's only so much of me to go around. > I am merely posting this because I consider most of the information in this > thread to be misleading, which could discourage others. It would be useful if > you really care, to attempt to run VMWare server on your machine, post the > errors you get, and get some help - to assert that it won't run because you > can't get it to run, without explaining your procedures is not helpful. Sorry you feel that way. In light of what I have written above, your "It works for me, so it must be something you're doing," statement doesn't make the info I have reported misleading. It just means your experience has been different (along with your opinion). I have posted this issue here and elsewhere before. I also have used some of my connections with technical people I know inside of VMware to find more on the problem. The answer: disable selinux. As you saw with another post, there is also an "anti-VMware crowd" lurking who then cries foul on VMware rather than advocate investigating the problem further. I don't think I have written anything that would confuse or discourage someone from trying or using VMware products. I certainly have not done so intentionally. Since you seem to have VMware Server 1.0 working with selinux on F9 and F10, perhaps you should post your procedure for loading it. I might be able to duplicate that with a 2.0 installation. As also has been mentioned, you should seriously consider that VMware Server 1.x is reaching EOL, and you really should move to something else shortly. Outside of the issues with selinux, I repeat that my experiences with 2.0 have been very positive. It's a major step forward from 1.0 as a server based solution. I repeat that I would personally not recommend it as a _desktop_ solution - but VMware Server isn't intended for that, and there are better desktop alternatives. I'm planning to load up another server with F10 and VMware Server 2.0 this weekend. I'll try this with selinux enabled again and report back. Cheers, Chris -- "If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influe
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Mon December 15 2008 9:11:48 am Christopher A. Williams wrote:
> > Another question came up in my mind this morning and I
> > decided to go and check the above statement. For your
> > information, there is an .rpm available for the latest
> > VMServer 2.0 - I'm downloading it right now.
>
> For your information (and you would know this if you had
> participated in the 2.0 betas), the RPM installer is being
> officially depricated. In the betas, it was completely
> disabled. Good luck installing it...
We seem to drifting towards a pissing match here, and it's not my
intention. If my tone seemed hyper-confrontational, it was
unintentional. I saw blanket statements being made that directly
contradicted my experience across many machines, without much
explanation. You then got annoyed and accused me of the same sin
in reverse ("it works for me, so...") - an attitude I actually
tend to detest when I see it - my point was that it was not right
to make blanket statements on the subject, that clearly
contradicted my experience in the matter and the evidence I've
seen on this list repeatedly, where people have posted solutions
to issues with running VMWare on Fedora - implying that they were
successfully doing so, at least as I saw it.
So far as the Ver 2 statement above, note how I phrased it - I
was very careful about what I said; if VMWare rpms are indeed
being deprecated, why are they continuing to offer the download?
Are you saying it won't install if I try to run the .rpm?
--
Claude Jones
Brunswick, MD, USA
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Mon December 15 2008 11:20:49 am Gilboa Davara wrote: > Let me rephrase, the official VMWare 1.0.x release doesn't > support F10. Happy? mostly bemused -- by yours and Christopher's touchiness -- Claude Jones Brunswick, MD, USA -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Sun December 14 2008, Christopher A. Williams wrote: > By the by - VMware Server 2.0 > doesn't use an RPM based installer anymore (a HUGE MISTAKE if you ask > me), and the same issues exist. Another question came up in my mind this morning and I decided to go and check the above statement. For your information, there is an .rpm available for the latest VMServer 2.0 - I'm downloading it right now. -- Claude Jones Brunswick, MD, USA -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 18:20 +0200, Gilboa Davara wrote: > On Sun, 2008-12-14 at 13:26 -0500, Claude Jones wrote: > > On Sunday 14 December 2008 12:08:44 Gilboa Davara wrote: > > > To be honest, AFAIR VMWare Server 1.0.x, beyond being EOL, doesn't > > > support kernels >= 2.6.26 - even with the latest any-to-any patch. > > > Though, AFAIK, it didn't have SELinux problem under both F8 and F9. > > > On the other side VMWare Server 2.x hass replaced the GTK console > > > application with a super-complex web-client which, coupled with VMWare's > > > known tendency to release half-broken RPMs, makes it an SELinux accident > > > waiting to happen... > > > > Let me be precise. I have VMWare server running right now on this laptop on > > which I'm typing this message. In 'About' it says it is version 1.0.7 > > build-108231; my running kernel is - > > # uname -r > > 2.6.27.7-134.fc10.i686 > > the patch I'm using to make it work is called vmware-update-2.6.27-5.5.7-2 > > which I found using Google - it has survived several kernel upgrades and > > supercedes the any-any patches > > A. I was unaware of the vmware-update-2.6.27-5.5.7-2 patch. Last time I > checked (~1.5 months ago) only the any-to-any patch was available and it > didn't support kernels >= 2.6.26. > B. Much like the any-to-any patch, (and at least according to google) > this patch is unofficial. > C. As I previously said, -officially-, VMWare doesn't support Fedora. > [1] > D. As you recall, the OP asked if can send a BZ about his SELinux > problems in bugzilla.redhat.com - my original answer was rather simple: > VMware is proprietary and closed source, and doesn't officially support > Fedora. > > [1] VMWare server, user's guide, page 26. As the OP, I would say your response was a little touchier than that. Moreover, it did not even approach being helpful. In the context I originally asked, it doesn't matter that VMware doesn't officially support Fedora. If it were, I would have escalated it with VMware, especially since I have access to special support that many who use VMware don't. Lots of stuff, both open source and proprietary, isn't supported on Fedora by their respective vendors, but that doesn't stop people on the Fedora team from figuring out how to make it work. That also goes for VMware. I also know that they would be interested in documenting a fix for this problem. The original question was if anyone on the Fedora team knew of status of any potential fix (BZ or not - but I didn't mention BZ). Fortunately, someone does care enough to look into it (thanks Daniel Walsh). I'll send what I find with F10 and the latest Server 2.0 build this weekend... -- == "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Mon, 2008-12-15 at 12:14 -0500, Claude Jones wrote:
> On Mon December 15 2008 9:11:48 am Christopher A. Williams wrote:
> > > Another question came up in my mind this morning and I
> > > decided to go and check the above statement. For your
> > > information, there is an .rpm available for the latest
> > > VMServer 2.0 - I'm downloading it right now.
> >
> > For your information (and you would know this if you had
> > participated in the 2.0 betas), the RPM installer is being
> > officially depricated. In the betas, it was completely
> > disabled. Good luck installing it...
>
> We seem to drifting towards a pissing match here, and it's not my
> intention. If my tone seemed hyper-confrontational, it was
> unintentional. I saw blanket statements being made that directly
> contradicted my experience across many machines, without much
> explanation. You then got annoyed and accused me of the same sin
> in reverse ("it works for me, so...") - an attitude I actually
> tend to detest when I see it - my point was that it was not right
> to make blanket statements on the subject, that clearly
> contradicted my experience in the matter and the evidence I've
> seen on this list repeatedly, where people have posted solutions
> to issues with running VMWare on Fedora - implying that they were
> successfully doing so, at least as I saw it.
Agreed - let's bury the hatchet on this. My "testiness" wasn't directed
at you to begin with.
> So far as the Ver 2 statement above, note how I phrased it - I
> was very careful about what I said; if VMWare rpms are indeed
> being deprecated, why are they continuing to offer the download?
> Are you saying it won't install if I try to run the .rpm?
No. What I'm saying is that the RPM versions are going away, probably
after this next release or so. VMware wants to move to a common
installer between Debian and RPM (and others) based distros. My own
philosophical issue with this decision is, allegorically speaking, their
solution to dealing with 3 different package installation methods has
been (unfortunately) to add a fourth.
That said, the .bundle installer works pretty well and automates lots of
things, but it violates the sanctity of the built-in package management
tools. That's not a very good thing to do in an RPM (or Debian) based
distro.
During the 2.0 betas, they all but scuttled the RPMs because they wanted
people to start using the .bundle installer. So it still should work for
now, but you should plan for that the .bundle installer will be the way
forward in the future.
I'm holding out that future capabilities in Package Kit might help
alleviate this. We'll see...
Cheers,
Chris
--
==
Warning: You are logged into reality as the root user...
--Unknown
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Mon December 15 2008 4:04:28 pm Christopher A. Williams wrote: > No. What I'm saying is that the RPM versions are going away, > probably after this next release or so. VMware wants to move > to a common installer between Debian and RPM (and others) > based distros. My own philosophical issue with this decision > is, allegorically speaking, their solution to dealing with 3 > different package installation methods has been > (unfortunately) to add a fourth. > > That said, the .bundle installer works pretty well and > automates lots of things, but it violates the sanctity of the > built-in package management tools. That's not a very good > thing to do in an RPM (or Debian) based distro. > > During the 2.0 betas, they all but scuttled the RPMs because > they wanted people to start using the .bundle installer. So it > still should work for now, but you should plan for that the > .bundle installer will be the way forward in the future. > > I'm holding out that future capabilities in Package Kit might > help alleviate this. We'll see... ah...well, this may be the excuse I need to really start investigating the linux based alternatives - my needs are rather small in the great scheme of things - I can run Word natively now, which is one reason I used to want a Windows VM; unfortunately, connecting to a Win2008 Exchange Server is not working except through IMAP, which isn't available in my environment; most of my other needs are purely of a hobbyist nature - thanks for the explanation -- Claude Jones Brunswick, MD, USA -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Mon, Dec 15, 2008 at 10:49 PM, Christopher A. Williams wrote: > > > > A. I was unaware of the vmware-update-2.6.27-5.5.7-2 patch. Last time I > > checked (~1.5 months ago) only the any-to-any patch was available and it > > didn't support kernels >= 2.6.26. > > B. Much like the any-to-any patch, (and at least according to google) > > this patch is unofficial. > > C. As I previously said, -officially-, VMWare doesn't support Fedora. > > [1] > > D. As you recall, the OP asked if can send a BZ about his SELinux > > problems in bugzilla.redhat.com - my original answer was rather simple: > > VMware is proprietary and closed source, and doesn't officially support > > Fedora. > > > > [1] VMWare server, user's guide, page 26. > > As the OP, I would say your response was a little touchier than that. > Moreover, it did not even approach being helpful. In the context I > originally asked, it doesn't matter that VMware doesn't officially > support Fedora. If it were, I would have escalated it with VMware, > especially since I have access to special support that many who use > VMware don't. My answer might have been too aggressive - Sorry for that. However, I've already tried contacting VMware concerning their problematic Fedora / upstream support (Either using their Forums [as a private client] and as an enterprise user) and in both cases, their the people that I spoke with gave me the company line - read: RHEL and SLES only. > Lots of stuff, both open source and proprietary, isn't supported on > Fedora by their respective vendors, but that doesn't stop people on the > Fedora team from figuring out how to make it work. That also goes for > VMware. I also know that they would be interested in documenting a fix > for this problem. Problem is - I'm not sure that we should - and I'm not talking about the close vs. open source problem. Seems to me that VMWare is treating Linux users (especially non RHEL/SLES users) as free-loaders. E.g. - VMware's refusal to issue official vmnet/vmmon kernel driver patches (as opposed to the 3'rd party any-to-any patches). - Broken RPMs (Missing reqs) that are being ignored. - GTK hacks in their console, that semi-work on anything >= Fedora 8. - VMWare's VI client is Windows only. Want Linux host? Use the (@#...@%) web client. - etc. I don't really like VirtualBox - but compare VBOX's Fedora support to VMWare's (Specific RPM for each Fedora release), and you'll understand my point. Last and not least, the OP (at least the message I saw) was talking about VMWare Server 2.x which had a known issue with PAM [1] and SELinux (...) that didn't really seem to get VMWare's attention. When I tried getting support (mind you, at the time we were thinking about spending a lot of money on ESX - for me the VMWare Server 2.x deployment was just testing purpose) - I got the ever-annoying-company line - we only support RHEL and SLES > The original question was if anyone on the Fedora team knew of status of > any potential fix (BZ or not - but I didn't mention BZ). Fortunately, > someone does care enough to look into it (thanks Daniel Walsh). I missed the OM. I only saw the one that I answered to. > I'll send what I find with F10 and the latest Server 2.0 build this > weekend... Well, as you understand, my experience with - Gilboa [1] http://tommi.org/2008/09/vmware-server-20-and-fedora-9/ -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Gilboa Davara wrote: >> I'll send what I find with F10 and the latest Server 2.0 build this >> weekend... > > Well, as you understand, my experience with ...Well, as you understand, my experience with VMWare Server 2.0 was far from satisfying. Hopefully (for you) YMWV. - Gilboa -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
Gilboa Davara wrote: Sorry to snip so muchbut one thing struck me You said: > Last and not least, the OP (at least the message I saw) was talking > about VMWare Server 2.x which had a known issue with PAM [1] and > SELinux (...) that didn't really seem to get VMWare's attention. > When I tried getting support (mind you, at the time we were thinking > about spending a lot of money on ESX - for me the VMWare Server 2.x > deployment was just testing purpose) - I got the ever-annoying-company > line - we only support RHEL and SLES > I wonder how you could find their response annoying.. They state very clearly in their documentation what 32-bit and 64-bit host Linux OS they support. They also state very clearly what 32-bit and 64-bit host Windows OS they support. They also state the requirements for guest OS as well as what levels of the various browsers are supported. So I don't understand. Are you saying that VMware has no right to impose some boundaries on what they will and will not support? Are they bound by some contract to provide answers/solutions to a free product for every flavor of Linux used as host OS? Or, are you saying that their only obligation is to support every version of Fedora for free? And if so, what make Fedora so special to get support? -- Feel disillusioned? I've got some great new illusions, right here! mei-mei.gres...@greshko.com signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
My recollection is that I did not have a problem with VMWare Server 1.x on FC7-10 and SELinux. I was unpleasantly surprised after being somewhat forced to V2.0 by a FC10 Kernel update that I had to turn off SELinux. Does anyone know for sure that V2.0 does run with RHEL5 and SELinux? If it works as suggested, then that would be a line of attack to fix the problem. One issue of interest for me is V20. fails and I can find nothing logged that points to the problem. Is there any way to get better diagnostics on the problem? -- This is an email sent via The Fedora Community Portal https://fcp.surfsite.org https://fcp.surfsite.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?post_id=312423&topic_id=65340&forum=10#forumpost312423 If you think, this is spam, please report this to webmas...@fcp.surfsite.org and/or blame l...@yless4u.com.au. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 08:32 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > Gilboa Davara wrote: > > Sorry to snip so muchbut one thing struck me > > You said: > > > Last and not least, the OP (at least the message I saw) was talking > > about VMWare Server 2.x which had a known issue with PAM [1] and > > SELinux (...) that didn't really seem to get VMWare's attention. > > When I tried getting support (mind you, at the time we were thinking > > about spending a lot of money on ESX - for me the VMWare Server 2.x > > deployment was just testing purpose) - I got the ever-annoying-company > > line - we only support RHEL and SLES > > > I wonder how you could find their response annoying.. > > They state very clearly in their documentation what 32-bit and 64-bit > host Linux OS they support. They also state very clearly what 32-bit > and 64-bit host Windows OS they support. They also state the > requirements for guest OS as well as what levels of the various browsers > are supported. > > So I don't understand. Are you saying that VMware has no right to > impose some boundaries on what they will and will not support? Are > they bound by some contract to provide answers/solutions to a free > product for every flavor of Linux used as host OS? Or, are you saying > that their only obligation is to support every version of Fedora for > free? And if so, what make Fedora so special to get support? Right? They have a right to do what-ever they want. I never argued otherwise. Question is - should Fedora go along with their decision, and support their semi-broken RPMs, half-working SELinux support, missing upstream kernel support and their decision to keep certain features Windows-only. FWIW my vote is a (big) no - Fedora's resources will be better spent on qemu-kvm and virt-*. - Gilboa -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
Gilboa Davara wrote: > On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 08:32 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > >> Gilboa Davara wrote: >> >> Sorry to snip so muchbut one thing struck me >> >> You said: >> >> >>> Last and not least, the OP (at least the message I saw) was talking >>> about VMWare Server 2.x which had a known issue with PAM [1] and >>> SELinux (...) that didn't really seem to get VMWare's attention. >>> When I tried getting support (mind you, at the time we were thinking >>> about spending a lot of money on ESX - for me the VMWare Server 2.x >>> deployment was just testing purpose) - I got the ever-annoying-company >>> line - we only support RHEL and SLES >>> >>> >> I wonder how you could find their response annoying.. >> >> They state very clearly in their documentation what 32-bit and 64-bit >> host Linux OS they support. They also state very clearly what 32-bit >> and 64-bit host Windows OS they support. They also state the >> requirements for guest OS as well as what levels of the various browsers >> are supported. >> >> So I don't understand. Are you saying that VMware has no right to >> impose some boundaries on what they will and will not support? Are >> they bound by some contract to provide answers/solutions to a free >> product for every flavor of Linux used as host OS? Or, are you saying >> that their only obligation is to support every version of Fedora for >> free? And if so, what make Fedora so special to get support? >> > > Right? They have a right to do what-ever they want. I never argued > otherwise. > Then you should not be getting "annoyed". Maybe disappointed...but certainly not annoyed. > Question is - should Fedora go along with their decision, and support > their semi-broken RPMs, half-working SELinux support, missing upstream > kernel support and their decision to keep certain features Windows-only. > FWIW my vote is a (big) no - Fedora's resources will be better spent on > qemu-kvm and virt-*. > > What do you mean "should Fedora go along with their decision"? Fedora isn't supporting anything with regards to VMware and VMware isn't giving any consideration to Fedora. I think you have created a relationship where none exists. -- Wernher von Braun settled for a V-2 when he coulda had a V-8. mei-mei.gres...@greshko.com signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 04:25 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > Gilboa Davara wrote: > > On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 08:32 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > > > >> Gilboa Davara wrote: > >> > >> Sorry to snip so muchbut one thing struck me > >> > >> You said: > >> > >> > >>> Last and not least, the OP (at least the message I saw) was talking > >>> about VMWare Server 2.x which had a known issue with PAM [1] and > >>> SELinux (...) that didn't really seem to get VMWare's attention. > >>> When I tried getting support (mind you, at the time we were thinking > >>> about spending a lot of money on ESX - for me the VMWare Server 2.x > >>> deployment was just testing purpose) - I got the ever-annoying-company > >>> line - we only support RHEL and SLES > >>> > >>> > >> I wonder how you could find their response annoying.. > >> > >> They state very clearly in their documentation what 32-bit and 64-bit > >> host Linux OS they support. They also state very clearly what 32-bit > >> and 64-bit host Windows OS they support. They also state the > >> requirements for guest OS as well as what levels of the various browsers > >> are supported. > >> > >> So I don't understand. Are you saying that VMware has no right to > >> impose some boundaries on what they will and will not support? Are > >> they bound by some contract to provide answers/solutions to a free > >> product for every flavor of Linux used as host OS? Or, are you saying > >> that their only obligation is to support every version of Fedora for > >> free? And if so, what make Fedora so special to get support? > >> > > > > Right? They have a right to do what-ever they want. I never argued > > otherwise. > > > Then you should not be getting "annoyed". Maybe disappointed...but > certainly not annoyed. > > Question is - should Fedora go along with their decision, and support > > their semi-broken RPMs, half-working SELinux support, missing upstream > > kernel support and their decision to keep certain features Windows-only. > > FWIW my vote is a (big) no - Fedora's resources will be better spent on > > qemu-kvm and virt-*. > > > > > What do you mean "should Fedora go along with their decision"? Fedora > isn't supporting anything with regards to VMware and VMware isn't giving > any consideration to Fedora. I think you have created a relationship > where none exists. ...Well, FWIW, VMware has announced there will be a Linux VI client in their next major release. VMware is not anti-Fedora either. They are willing to help in the community lists on an as available basis, and they are certainly willing to capture fixes. Because it isn't "officially" supported, that means you can't call VMware support for help with it like you would RHEL or SLES. But you can get VMware resources to help if you know where to ask, because many of them use Fedora too. Even though I don't really like the .bundle installer they are moving to, it does now at least check for the presence of required components (like kernel-headers) and tells you in plain English if it isn't there and should be installed. It also automates the old vmware-config.pl program in Workstation 6.5 and automatically re-compiles required modules on the fly if a new kernel is detected. So there is some improvement happening as new versions are released. I have yet to need any kind of kernel patch for VMware products on F10. Oh, and VMware Server 2.0 does work with PAM nicely in the newest build. If the selinux problem could just get fixed once and for all, it would be quite livable for most folks. -- == "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Tue, 2008-12-16 at 08:09 +0100, Greyghost wrote: > My recollection is that I did not have a problem with VMWare Server 1.x on > FC7-10 and SELinux. I was unpleasantly surprised after being somewhat forced > to V2.0 by a FC10 Kernel update that I had to turn off SELinux. > > Does anyone know for sure that V2.0 does run with RHEL5 and SELinux? If it > works as suggested, then that would be a line of attack to fix the problem. > > One issue of interest for me is V20. fails and I can find nothing logged that > points to the problem. Is there any way to get better diagnostics on the > problem? This is the symptom I (and others) have found that is related to selinux on F9 and F10. Several components just plain fail to start unless selinux is completely disabled (not just putting it i permissive mode). Just for grins, try disabling selinux and rebooting the system. I'll bet you will find VMware Server will compile and run without incident. -- == "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Tue, Dec 16, 2008 at 10:25 PM, Ed Greshko wrote: >> >> Right? They have a right to do what-ever they want. I never argued >> otherwise. >> > Then you should not be getting "annoyed". Maybe disappointed...but > certainly not annoyed. >> Question is - should Fedora go along with their decision, and support >> their semi-broken RPMs, half-working SELinux support, missing upstream >> kernel support and their decision to keep certain features Windows-only. >> FWIW my vote is a (big) no - Fedora's resources will be better spent on >> qemu-kvm and virt-*. >> >> > What do you mean "should Fedora go along with their decision"? Fedora > isn't supporting anything with regards to VMware and VMware isn't giving > any consideration to Fedora. I think you have created a relationship > where none exists. Sight. The OP talked about reporting SELinux issues w/ VMWare to bugzilla.redhat.com. This constitute spending Fedora resources (read: Fedora's SELinux maintainer's time) on supporting VMWare's decision. - Gilboa -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
Gilboa Davara wrote: > > Sight. > The OP talked about reporting SELinux issues w/ VMWare to bugzilla.redhat.com. > This constitute spending Fedora resources (read: Fedora's SELinux > maintainer's time) on supporting VMWare's decision. > > Only *if* the developer chooses to do the work. Nothing suggests that the person needs to or is compelled to do so. You are reaching. FWIW, the latest Version: 2.0 | 2008/10/29 | Build: 122956. If memory serves me, F10 was released mid-November. So, even if VMWare did support Fedora it would be unreasonable to expect the current release of Workstation to support F10. -- Be careful what you set your heart on -- for it will surely be yours. -- James Baldwin, "Nobody Knows My Name" mei-mei.gres...@greshko.com signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
Gilboa Davara wrote: So I don't understand. Are you saying that VMware has no right to impose some boundaries on what they will and will not support? Are they bound by some contract to provide answers/solutions to a free product for every flavor of Linux used as host OS? Or, are you saying that their only obligation is to support every version of Fedora for free? And if so, what make Fedora so special to get support? Right? They have a right to do what-ever they want. I never argued otherwise. Question is - should Fedora go along with their decision, and support their semi-broken RPMs, half-working SELinux support, missing upstream kernel support and their decision to keep certain features Windows-only. Fedora, support?? What's that? FWIW my vote is a (big) no - Fedora's resources will be better spent on qemu-kvm and virt-*. I suppose working toward a linux binary standard that would actually make it possible for 3rd parties to build programs that install and run as expected on different distributions is too much to ask... As, obviously, is asking for interface stability for more than a week at a time so 3rd parties could specifically target the distribution's nonstandard quirks in a useful way. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 12:39 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > Gilboa Davara wrote: > > > > Sight. > > The OP talked about reporting SELinux issues w/ VMWare to > > bugzilla.redhat.com. > > This constitute spending Fedora resources (read: Fedora's SELinux > > maintainer's time) on supporting VMWare's decision. > > > > > Only *if* the developer chooses to do the work. Nothing suggests that > the person needs to or is compelled to do so. You are reaching. > > FWIW, the latest Version: 2.0 | 2008/10/29 | Build: 122956. If memory > serves me, F10 was released mid-November. So, even if VMWare did > support Fedora it would be unreasonable to expect the current release of > Workstation to support F10. Actually, I'm the OP. I talked about selinux issues with VMware and asked if anyone knew if a fix was being worked on. I did _not_ mention this in relation to Bugzilla. Oh, and the latest builds of Workstation 6.5 work on F10 just fine. The latest build of VMware Server 2.0 (referenced above) also works just fine on F9, but only if you disable selinux. That was part of the basis of my original question. I'll be working on loading up VMware Server 2.0 on an F10 server this weekend and will report back what I find. Cheers, Chris -- == "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." -- Albert Einstein -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Wed, 2008-12-17 at 13:18 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > Gilboa Davara wrote: > > > >> So I don't understand. Are you saying that VMware has no right to > >> impose some boundaries on what they will and will not support? Are > >> they bound by some contract to provide answers/solutions to a free > >> product for every flavor of Linux used as host OS? Or, are you saying > >> that their only obligation is to support every version of Fedora for > >> free? And if so, what make Fedora so special to get support? > > > > Right? They have a right to do what-ever they want. I never argued > > otherwise. > > Question is - should Fedora go along with their decision, and support > > their semi-broken RPMs, half-working SELinux support, missing upstream > > kernel support and their decision to keep certain features Windows-only. > > Fedora, support?? What's that? . Arghh. > > > FWIW my vote is a (big) no - Fedora's resources will be better spent on > > qemu-kvm and virt-*. > > I suppose working toward a linux binary standard that would actually > make it possible for 3rd parties to build programs that install and run > as expected on different distributions is too much to ask... As, > obviously, is asking for interface stability for more than a week at a > time so 3rd parties could specifically target the distribution's > nonstandard quirks in a useful way. ... I'd accept that - but there's a problem with your argument: VMWare already uses a rather wildly accepted binary distribution system (RPM). Problem is - their RPM's are poorly built... - Gilboa -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
>> I suppose working toward a linux binary standard that would actually >> make it possible for 3rd parties to build programs that install and run >> as expected on different distributions is too much to ask... As, >> obviously, is asking for interface stability for more than a week at a >> time so 3rd parties could specifically target the distribution's >> nonstandard quirks in a useful way. > > ... I'd accept that - but there's a problem with your argument: VMWare > already uses a rather wildly accepted binary distribution system (RPM). > Problem is - their RPM's are poorly built... > > - Gilboa > How do you define poorly built? I don't know much about rpm's beyond how to install and uninstall them. Can someone tell me what makes for a poorly built rpm? -- "Any fool can know. The point is to understand." -Albert Einstein -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
max bianco wrote: > How do you define poorly built? I don't know much about rpm's beyond > how to install and uninstall them. Can someone tell me what makes for > a poorly built rpm? Well, one example might be a package that leaves crap around after you remove it. This might happen if the package creates files or directories in it's %post install section and doesn't remove them in the %postun section. One of the issues that the VMware rpm has had for ages is that it screws up the SELinux context on /etc/services. I've not looked closely at the the VMware packages in a while, so I don't know what other issues they might have. Making rpm packages is easy. Making goo rpm packages is a little bit more difficult, as there are many little details that can trip you up. This is why Fedora has such extensive packaging guidelines¹ and requires all packages to be submitted for a review before they can enter the distribution. ¹ http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines -- ToddOpenPGP -> KeyID: 0xBEAF0CE3 | URL: www.pobox.com/~tmz/pgp ~~ The sunshine bores the daylights out of me. Chasing shadows moonlight mystery. pgpxMKIOg3CDe.pgp Description: PGP signature -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F10, VMware Server 2.0, and selinux
On Fri, 2008-12-19 at 10:18 -0500, max bianco wrote: > >> I suppose working toward a linux binary standard that would actually > >> make it possible for 3rd parties to build programs that install and run > >> as expected on different distributions is too much to ask... As, > >> obviously, is asking for interface stability for more than a week at a > >> time so 3rd parties could specifically target the distribution's > >> nonstandard quirks in a useful way. > > > > ... I'd accept that - but there's a problem with your argument: VMWare > > already uses a rather wildly accepted binary distribution system (RPM). > > Problem is - their RPM's are poorly built... > > > > - Gilboa > > > > How do you define poorly built? I don't know much about rpm's beyond > how to install and uninstall them. Can someone tell me what makes for > a poorly built rpm? > -- > "Any fool can know. The point is to understand." > > -Albert Einstein > Mostly missing "Requires" and the use of statically linked GTK libs. You can actually install the RPM (one new[er] Fedoras) but have a non/semi-working installation due to missing libraries. - Gilboa -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
