Re: [gentoo-user] Beta test Gentoo with mdev instead of udev; version 5 - failure :-(
Canek Peláez Valdés wrote: On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: [ huge snip ] Each time, you've acted as though the new stance is what you've been arguing from all along, but because you haven't communicated that, it's impossible to reasonably discuss specifics in practicality. I think I'm done with this particular discussion. I think I'm done too. I just stated my opinion; do whatever you want with it. Including ignoring it, of course. Regards. I already decided to do that. Someone makes a argument and you change the situation to fit your point then change again when someone points out that is not right either. This just continues on for infinity. I also don't folks like putting down the work Walt is doing. People are not liking where udev is going and are trying to do something different and all you do is belittle them for even trying. Back to my hole. Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:47:16 -0500, Dale wrote: I may end up with a init thingy, which I am currently using. Thing is, the first time it breaks and I can't fix it, I'll install something else. That's why I build the initramfs into the kernel and not as a separate file. If I do something to break the initramfs I just boot the previous kernel knowing it will still work. -- Neil Bothwick Use Colgate toothpaste or end up with teeth like a Ferengi. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
Neil Bothwick wrote: On Wed, 14 Mar 2012 21:47:16 -0500, Dale wrote: I may end up with a init thingy, which I am currently using. Thing is, the first time it breaks and I can't fix it, I'll install something else. That's why I build the initramfs into the kernel and not as a separate file. If I do something to break the initramfs I just boot the previous kernel knowing it will still work. I tried that. It broke. It didn't boot not even once. Google was no help either tho I found others with the same issues but no fix. Right now I am using the dracut thingy. If it breaks, I have no idea how to fix it. That's one reason why I left Mandrake, the init thingy kept breaking every few months. Then after one upgrade, I was just fed up. I moved on. Keep in mind, this is Dale, the one that has issues with things. lol Dale :-) :-) -- I am only responsible for what I said ... Not for what you understood or how you interpreted my words! Miss the compile output? Hint: EMERGE_DEFAULT_OPTS=--quiet-build=n
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 05:10:55 -0500, Dale wrote: That's why I build the initramfs into the kernel and not as a separate file. If I do something to break the initramfs I just boot the previous kernel knowing it will still work. I tried that. It broke. It didn't boot not even once. Google was no help either tho I found others with the same issues but no fix. Right now I am using the dracut thingy. If it breaks, I have no idea how to fix it. That's one reason why I left Mandrake, the init thingy kept breaking every few months. Then after one upgrade, I was just fed up. I moved on. If you're writing your own init, it's bound to fail at first. Just fill it full of echo statements and keep trying. It probably takes longer than dracut, but you end up with something that not only does what you want, but in a way you understand. -- Neil Bothwick Facts are stubborn, but statistics are more pliable signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
On 2012-03-14 9:03 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: *YOUR WIFE'S LAPTOP* won't boot properly without /usr on /, or an initramfs. OK, put /usr on /, or an initramfs*ON YOUR WIFE'S LAPTOP*. I don't have a problem with that. What gets people really upset is the dog-in-the-manger attitude of if my complex/corner-case machine won't boot up without /usr on /, or an initramfs, then by golly*NOBODY'S* machine will be allowed to boot up without /usr on /, or an initramfs. My machine does not use bluetooth/other-weird-stuff. udev doesn't need to find bluetooth drivers on /usr on my machine. Why is udev being deliberately broken to not work on*EVERYBODY'S* machine if they don't have /usr on /, or an initramfs? Why can't this argument simply be satisfied with one or more new profiles?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
On 2012-03-15 5:13 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: That's why I build the initramfs into the kernel and not as a separate file. If I do something to break the initramfs I just boot the previous kernel knowing it will still work. Ok, time to show my ignorance... How would I know if I am using an initramfs, and if I was, whether it was built into the kernel or not?
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:41:38 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: That's why I build the initramfs into the kernel and not as a separate file. If I do something to break the initramfs I just boot the previous kernel knowing it will still work. Ok, time to show my ignorance... How would I know if I am using an initramfs, and if I was, whether it was built into the kernel or not? Well, you built the kernel, so you should know. Technically, we are all using an initramfs as all 2.6/3 kernels mount an initramfs when they load. If does not contain an init script, they fall back to the legacy behaviour. See /usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/ramfs-rootfs-initramfs.txt -- Neil Bothwick It may be that your sole purpose in life is simply to serve as a warning to others. signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
On 2012-03-15 9:05 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:41:38 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: That's why I build the initramfs into the kernel and not as a separate file. If I do something to break the initramfs I just boot the previous kernel knowing it will still work. Ok, time to show my ignorance... How would I know if I am using an initramfs, and if I was, whether it was built into the kernel or not? Well, you built the kernel, so you should know. Well, since I basically just used a kernel .config that someone else originally set up, copying .config over and running make oldconfig when upgrading over the years, stumbling through any changes that broke anything (like when some changes to iptables broke my firewall back around 2.6.2x), I really didn't know - but I just confirmed that it is indeed built into my kernels, so, now, how do I know if I am *using* it or not? Technically, we are all using an initramfs as all 2.6/3 kernels mount an initramfs when they load. If does not contain an init script, they fall back to the legacy behaviour. So, how do I know whether or not 'it contains an init script'? I know, my ignorance is confounding... See /usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/ramfs-rootfs-initramfs.txt Read it, thanks, but it didn't help me answer the above...
RE: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
From: Dale [mailto:rdalek1...@gmail.com] This has been one of my points too. I could go out and buy me a bluetooth mouse/keyboard but I don't because it to complicates matters. I had a long reply to Walt that I (probably wisely) decided not to send, but the basic point of it is also relevant here. My response to his (IMO needlessly aggressive) email was basically this: Why *shouldn't I* be able to go but a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse if I wanted to? Those things *work perfectly fine with udev*. And why wouldn't I want to use the *same* solution for all of my various machines, even if that solution is overkill for half of them? Just because my laptop doesn't need bluetoothd support in udev doesn't mean using udev there *is bad*. (I don't need 80% of what's in the Linux kernel but I still install one...) I am not in any way denigrating the work he's doing. I think it's awesome and I've tried to help where I can. But I'm pretty fed up with people like him acting as if the current udev solution is the end of the world. I've heard it called everything from design mistake to out of control truck full of manure. I have three PCs in my home running Gentoo. Two of them would boot correctly using Walt's new solution (mdev and no /usr mounted at boot) and one would not. *All three of them* boot correctly using udev. 100% success 66% success, so clearly the udev solution is a perfectly legitimate solution to a real world problem. At work, those numbers are likely different, and Walt's solution might be a working approach -- if udev didn't already work fine in 100% of those cases, too. Instead of asking why everyone else should be forced to use the udev solution *that already works*, you should be focusing on explaining to everyone else the reasons why it is worth the time and effort to configure *something different* for those same machines. There was a reason why people stopped using static /dev, and devfs; maybe there is a reason why people should stop using udev, but thus far that reason seems to be initramfs makes us cranky. There's no need to get mean-spirited just because you choose a different audience that freedesktop.org as the target for your solution. It just makes you look petty and childish. Produce an alternative to udev/initramfs/single root that works, provide (accurate) details on the differences, and let users pick which one they want. --Mike
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 09:56:12 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: Well, you built the kernel, so you should know. Well, since I basically just used a kernel .config that someone else originally set up, copying .config over and running make oldconfig when upgrading over the years, stumbling through any changes that broke anything (like when some changes to iptables broke my firewall back around 2.6.2x), I really didn't know - but I just confirmed that it is indeed built into my kernels, so, now, how do I know if I am *using* it or not? If CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE contains a path, that is the initramfs you are using. If it is empty and there is no initrd set in GRUB, you are not using one. -- Neil Bothwick New Intel opcode #007 PUKE: Put unmeaningful keywords everywhere signature.asc Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 6:56 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote: On 2012-03-15 9:05 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote: On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:41:38 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: That's why I build the initramfs into the kernel and not as a separate file. If I do something to break the initramfs I just boot the previous kernel knowing it will still work. Ok, time to show my ignorance... How would I know if I am using an initramfs, and if I was, whether it was built into the kernel or not? Well, you built the kernel, so you should know. Well, since I basically just used a kernel .config that someone else originally set up, copying .config over and running make oldconfig when upgrading over the years, stumbling through any changes that broke anything (like when some changes to iptables broke my firewall back around 2.6.2x), I really didn't know - but I just confirmed that it is indeed built into my kernels, so, now, how do I know if I am *using* it or not? Technically, we are all using an initramfs as all 2.6/3 kernels mount an initramfs when they load. If does not contain an init script, they fall back to the legacy behaviour. So, how do I know whether or not 'it contains an init script'? I know, my ignorance is confounding... See /usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/ramfs-rootfs-initramfs.txt Read it, thanks, but it didn't help me answer the above... I've only used an initramfs/initrd once so I can relate to the confusion. Assuming you have the config in /proc run: c2stable ~ # zcat /proc/config.gz | grep INITRAMFS CONFIG_INITRAMFS_SOURCE= c2stable ~ # Also, if you didn't actually create the initramfs hierarchy and zip it up to be used by your kernel then you're not using one, other than what Neil said that we all use one that does nothing. HTH, Mark
[gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On 2012-03-14, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday 12 Mar 2012 18:34:37 Grant Edwards wrote: On 2012-03-12, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote: No, I simply meant that if you use Postfix you don't have to use anyone else's SMTP server, If you've got a static IP address, a domain, an MX record, and whatever other requirements a lot of sites are now placing upon senders of mail. I used to use my own SMTP server, 10 years ago it worked fine. More recently, too many destinations wouldn't accept mail from me -- so I had to start using mail relays. Perhaps your mail address was blacklisted? Many ISPs IP address blocks are blacklisted these days. I know that was sometimes the case from the rejection message sent by the destination SMTP server. Even though I had a static IP address and an valid MX entry for the sending machine's hostname, some sites wouldn't accept mail because my static IP addres was in a block used for DSL customers (of which I was one). Also some ISPs are blocking ports (like 25 and 2525) to minimise spam sent out of compromised boxen. They would typically allow you to relay through their mailservers though. I've never run into that, but I know people who have. In either case, I wouldn't advise anybody to try using their own SMTP server to deliver mail directly to destinations unless they have their own domain, their own IP block, and the time+skills require to fight with the problems. Anybody with the requisite resources and skills probably wouldn't be asking questions here about how to use Gmail's SMTP server. -- Grant Edwards grant.b.edwardsYow! I Know A Joke!! at gmail.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Mike Edenfield kut...@kutulu.org wrote: From: Dale [mailto:rdalek1...@gmail.com] This has been one of my points too. I could go out and buy me a bluetooth mouse/keyboard but I don't because it to complicates matters. I had a long reply to Walt that I (probably wisely) decided not to send, but the basic point of it is also relevant here. My response to his (IMO needlessly aggressive) email was basically this: Why *shouldn't I* be able to go but a Bluetooth keyboard and mouse if I wanted to? Those things *work perfectly fine with udev*. And why wouldn't I want to use the *same* solution for all of my various machines, even if that solution is overkill for half of them? Just because my laptop doesn't need bluetoothd support in udev doesn't mean using udev there *is bad*. (I don't need 80% of what's in the Linux kernel but I still install one...) I wouldn't say you shouldn't be able to. (Outside that I think Bluetooth is a pile of smelly carp, people shouldn't have to bend over backwards to support, but that's a different issue...) I am not in any way denigrating the work he's doing. I think it's awesome and I've tried to help where I can. But I'm pretty fed up with people like him acting as if the current udev solution is the end of the world. I've heard it called everything from design mistake to out of control truck full of manure. design mistake is a perfectly reasonable description, and I'd agree with that. It's also not pejorative, but I'd say the two vocal sides of the issue are far too polarized to notice that. truck full of manure is probably a bit far, but that description only holds if important things which shouldn't need a dependency on udev gain or keep them. Rather like how installing a console Qt app on a Debian server pulls in X. I have three PCs in my home running Gentoo. Two of them would boot correctly using Walt's new solution (mdev and no /usr mounted at boot) and one would not. *All three of them* boot correctly using udev. 100% success 66% success, so clearly the udev solution is a perfectly legitimate solution to a real world problem. At work, those numbers are likely different, and Walt's solution might be a working approach -- if udev didn't already work fine in 100% of those cases, too. Sure. Instead of asking why everyone else should be forced to use the udev solution *that already works*, you should be focusing on explaining to everyone else the reasons why it is worth the time and effort to configure *something different* for those same machines. There's little use in explaining to someone why they should use something apart from what they're comfortable with. Moving out of a comfort zone requires personal motivation, not external. If udev works for someone, they should use it. If they discover udev is getting in their way, then they should look for alternatives. I use apache2+squid3 on my server, despite hordes of people telling me I should use nginx. Apache+squid works appropriately well for my circumstance. There was a reason why people stopped using static /dev, and devfs; maybe there is a reason why people should stop using udev, but thus far that reason seems to be initramfs makes us cranky. *That* is a matter of systemic complexity and maintenance difficulty; the increased complexity tickles the spider senses of anyone who's had to design, develop or maintain very complex systems with few leave-alone black boxes. It's very difficult to increase the complexity of a system without adding bugs or mistakes anywhere from code to testing procedures to package management to end-user maintenance. So when a system starts becoming more complex, and I'm told that I'm going to have to go along for the ride, I get concerned. Before Walt started pulling mdev from being a busybox-only component, that was exactly the scenario. (Thank you, Walt!) The only cases I've ever conceivably needed to use an initramfs have been where I needed a kernel module available early. Rather than build that as a module and build an initramfs, I simply build it into the kernel. Certainly, there are portions of the kernel (particularly some sound cards) where that doesn't work, and if someone needs those portions available early, then an initramfs is going to be the tool for them. There's no need to get mean-spirited just because you choose a different audience that freedesktop.org as the target for your solution. That's really not the reason for it. I mean, sure, I think the initial reactions were mostly grumpiness and misinformed outrage, but I don't think the contrariness really *baked* in until people got a twofer of you're going to use udev unless you write the code to get around it and oh, you're writing the code? You're wasting your time and you're going to fail. That, I think, is when the real malaise set in. It just makes you look petty and childish. Produce an alternative to udev/initramfs/single root that
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-14, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Monday 12 Mar 2012 18:34:37 Grant Edwards wrote: On 2012-03-12, Stroller strol...@stellar.eclipse.co.uk wrote: No, I simply meant that if you use Postfix you don't have to use anyone else's SMTP server, If you've got a static IP address, a domain, an MX record, and whatever other requirements a lot of sites are now placing upon senders of mail. I used to use my own SMTP server, 10 years ago it worked fine. More recently, too many destinations wouldn't accept mail from me -- so I had to start using mail relays. Perhaps your mail address was blacklisted? Many ISPs IP address blocks are blacklisted these days. I know that was sometimes the case from the rejection message sent by the destination SMTP server. Even though I had a static IP address and an valid MX entry for the sending machine's hostname, some sites wouldn't accept mail because my static IP addres was in a block used for DSL customers (of which I was one). Yeah, I can't even send email to my gmail account from my Comcast public IPv4 address. Also some ISPs are blocking ports (like 25 and 2525) to minimise spam sent out of compromised boxen. They would typically allow you to relay through their mailservers though. I've never run into that, but I know people who have. In either case, I wouldn't advise anybody to try using their own SMTP server to deliver mail directly to destinations unless they have their own domain, their own IP block, and the time+skills require to fight with the problems. Anybody with the requisite resources and skills probably wouldn't be asking questions here about how to use Gmail's SMTP server. My workaround involved relaying my network's outgoing email through my VPS node's email server. (My VPS provider, prgmr.com, doesn't seem to be on any blocklists, etc.) -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] Xorg on HP Pavilion ZE2026ea
Am 15.03.2012 01:41, schrieb Silvio Siefke: Hello, my neighbor gave me the notebook. First, I installed Sabayon, as a test. Now i has installed direct Gentoo and the Xorg.Server. When i run Xorg -configure and test the config i become error messages. No Screen found and No devices detected. On the system run a gen Kernel, because i not know what is in it. lspci [...] 00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 82852/855GM Integrated Graphics Device (rev 02) 00:02.1 Display controller: Intel Corporation 82852/855GM Integrated Graphics Device (rev 02) [...] The xorg.log found on http://pastie.org/3597633. Has someone a idea what can do? Thx for help. Regards Silvio I don't think you need to configure xorg at all. These things usually work better with their auto-configuration nowadays. Have you tried removing xorg.conf and then starting X? Regards, Florian Philipp signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
On Mar 15, 2012 9:50 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: 8 snip That's really not the reason for it. I mean, sure, I think the initial reactions were mostly grumpiness and misinformed outrage, but I don't think the contrariness really *baked* in until people got a twofer of you're going to use udev unless you write the code to get around it and oh, you're writing the code? You're wasting your time and you're going to fail. That, I think, is when the real malaise set in. This. On hindsight, I do admit that after I woke up this morning, my emails are perhaps too vitriolic. Blame it on a late night posting *just* before I go to bed ;-) But still, my emails indeed captured my emotions at the moment. It's 23:38 here, and I'll quickly bow out if this thread, for now :-) Rgds,
Re: [gentoo-user] How can I trigger kernel panic?
On 14-Mar-12 19:41, ZHANG, Le wrote: So my question is: Can I somehow deliberately trigger kernel panic (or kernel oops)? For panic, echo c /proc/sysrq-trigger After I issued the above mentioned command, my system instantly froze to death. Nothing changed on screen, no kernel panic or Ooops screen. Just frozen... No reaction to keyboard or mouse. No auto-reboot either. The only thing I could do is to press Reset. Not exactly what I have been expecting... Jarry -- ___ This mailbox accepts e-mails only from selected mailing-lists! Everything else is considered to be spam and therefore deleted.
Re: [gentoo-user] How can I trigger kernel panic?
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote: On 14-Mar-12 19:41, ZHANG, Le wrote: So my question is: Can I somehow deliberately trigger kernel panic (or kernel oops)? For panic, echo c /proc/sysrq-trigger After I issued the above mentioned command, my system instantly froze to death. Nothing changed on screen, no kernel panic or Ooops screen. Just frozen... No reaction to keyboard or mouse. No auto-reboot either. The only thing I could do is to press Reset. Not exactly what I have been expecting... Were you running under X? The panic would have killed X, which wouldn't have released control over the video hardware. There's a SysRq sequence to get around this, but I don't remember it. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] How can I trigger kernel panic?
On Thursday 15 Mar 2012 17:02:15 Michael Mol wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote: On 14-Mar-12 19:41, ZHANG, Le wrote: So my question is: Can I somehow deliberately trigger kernel panic (or kernel oops)? For panic, echo c /proc/sysrq-trigger After I issued the above mentioned command, my system instantly froze to death. Nothing changed on screen, no kernel panic or Ooops screen. Just frozen... No reaction to keyboard or mouse. No auto-reboot either. The only thing I could do is to press Reset. Not exactly what I have been expecting... Were you running under X? The panic would have killed X, which wouldn't have released control over the video hardware. There's a SysRq sequence to get around this, but I don't remember it. Ctrl+Alt+ R E I S U B (busier in reverse) After a E or I you should be back into a console, unless things are badly screwed. -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] How can I trigger kernel panic?
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday 15 Mar 2012 17:02:15 Michael Mol wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote: On 14-Mar-12 19:41, ZHANG, Le wrote: So my question is: Can I somehow deliberately trigger kernel panic (or kernel oops)? For panic, echo c /proc/sysrq-trigger After I issued the above mentioned command, my system instantly froze to death. Nothing changed on screen, no kernel panic or Ooops screen. Just frozen... No reaction to keyboard or mouse. No auto-reboot either. The only thing I could do is to press Reset. Not exactly what I have been expecting... Were you running under X? The panic would have killed X, which wouldn't have released control over the video hardware. There's a SysRq sequence to get around this, but I don't remember it. Ctrl+Alt+ R E I S U B (busier in reverse) After a E or I you should be back into a console, unless things are badly screwed. Is that Ctrl+Alt+SysRq+(R E I S U B), or is the SysRq key not actually used? -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] How can I trigger kernel panic?
On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 15:25:43 -0400, Michael Mol wrote:
Is that Ctrl+Alt+SysRq+(R E I S U B), or is the SysRq key not actually
used?
Alt+SysReq+{R E I S U B}
--
Neil Bothwick
Did you know that eskimos have 17 different words for linguist?
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
Re: [gentoo-user] How can I trigger kernel panic?
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday 15 Mar 2012 17:02:15 Michael Mol wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote: On 14-Mar-12 19:41, ZHANG, Le wrote: So my question is: Can I somehow deliberately trigger kernel panic (or kernel oops)? For panic, echo c /proc/sysrq-trigger After I issued the above mentioned command, my system instantly froze to death. Nothing changed on screen, no kernel panic or Ooops screen. Just frozen... No reaction to keyboard or mouse. No auto-reboot either. The only thing I could do is to press Reset. Not exactly what I have been expecting... Were you running under X? The panic would have killed X, which wouldn't have released control over the video hardware. There's a SysRq sequence to get around this, but I don't remember it. Ctrl+Alt+ R E I S U B (busier in reverse) After a E or I you should be back into a console, unless things are badly screwed. Is that Ctrl+Alt+SysRq+(R E I S U B), or is the SysRq key not actually used? Sysrq is definitely required :) Ctrl, on the other hand, is optional. And AltGr may be substituted for Alt.
Re: [gentoo-user] How can I trigger kernel panic?
On Thursday 15 Mar 2012 19:36:16 Paul Hartman wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Michael Mol mike...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:17 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday 15 Mar 2012 17:02:15 Michael Mol wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Jarry mr.ja...@gmail.com wrote: On 14-Mar-12 19:41, ZHANG, Le wrote: So my question is: Can I somehow deliberately trigger kernel panic (or kernel oops)? For panic, echo c /proc/sysrq-trigger After I issued the above mentioned command, my system instantly froze to death. Nothing changed on screen, no kernel panic or Ooops screen. Just frozen... No reaction to keyboard or mouse. No auto-reboot either. The only thing I could do is to press Reset. Not exactly what I have been expecting... Were you running under X? The panic would have killed X, which wouldn't have released control over the video hardware. There's a SysRq sequence to get around this, but I don't remember it. Ctrl+Alt+ R E I S U B (busier in reverse) After a E or I you should be back into a console, unless things are badly screwed. Is that Ctrl+Alt+SysRq+(R E I S U B), or is the SysRq key not actually used? Sysrq is definitely required :) Ctrl, on the other hand, is optional. And AltGr may be substituted for Alt. Oops! yes, I meant to write SysRq ... sorry! -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] How can I trigger kernel panic?
Just to be sure, r e i s u b may be input in low case, without shift, right? Like hold Alt + SysRq and type r e i s u b then release Alt + SysRq?
[gentoo-user] Re: How can I trigger kernel panic?
On 15/03/12 21:45, Claudio Roberto França Pereira wrote: Just to be sure, r e i s u b may be input in low case, without shift, right? Like hold Alt + SysRq and type r e i s u b then release Alt + SysRq? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_SysRq_key
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On Thursday 15 Mar 2012 14:51:10 Michael Mol wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-14, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps your mail address was blacklisted? Many ISPs IP address blocks are blacklisted these days. I know that was sometimes the case from the rejection message sent by the destination SMTP server. Even though I had a static IP address and an valid MX entry for the sending machine's hostname, some sites wouldn't accept mail because my static IP addres was in a block used for DSL customers (of which I was one). Yeah, I can't even send email to my gmail account from my Comcast public IPv4 address. Have you tried using port 587? Comcast should accept relaying on that port IIRC with your customer username/passwd. Or are you saying that Google will not accept incoming mail from Comcast addresses/IP blocks? -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday 15 Mar 2012 14:51:10 Michael Mol wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Grant Edwards grant.b.edwa...@gmail.com wrote: On 2012-03-14, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps your mail address was blacklisted? Many ISPs IP address blocks are blacklisted these days. I know that was sometimes the case from the rejection message sent by the destination SMTP server. Even though I had a static IP address and an valid MX entry for the sending machine's hostname, some sites wouldn't accept mail because my static IP addres was in a block used for DSL customers (of which I was one). Yeah, I can't even send email to my gmail account from my Comcast public IPv4 address. Have you tried using port 587? Comcast should accept relaying on that port IIRC with your customer username/passwd. Researched that, but I ultimately didn't go that route because I couldn't find any good documentation on the appropriate settings. Or are you saying that Google will not accept incoming mail from Comcast addresses/IP blocks? Not saying that; to my knowledge, Gmail accepts relay through Comcast's relay points, but I haven't tested that. I've only tested direct connections. -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] How can I trigger kernel panic?
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Claudio Roberto França Pereira spide...@gmail.com wrote: Just to be sure, r e i s u b may be input in low case, without shift, right? Like hold Alt + SysRq and type r e i s u b then release Alt + SysRq? correct! :)
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On Thursday 15 Mar 2012 20:07:54 Michael Mol wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: Have you tried using port 587? Comcast should accept relaying on that port IIRC with your customer username/passwd. Researched that, but I ultimately didn't go that route because I couldn't find any good documentation on the appropriate settings. OK, have a look at this in case it helps. http://www.linuxha.com/other/sendmail/index.html -- Regards, Mick signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: gmail smtp overwrites the sender
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday 15 Mar 2012 20:07:54 Michael Mol wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 3:54 PM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote: Have you tried using port 587? Comcast should accept relaying on that port IIRC with your customer username/passwd. Researched that, but I ultimately didn't go that route because I couldn't find any good documentation on the appropriate settings. OK, have a look at this in case it helps. http://www.linuxha.com/other/sendmail/index.html Cool beans. I'm not likely to change things (for now), but I'll remember where I saw it, if I need it. :) -- :wq
Re: [gentoo-user] mdev + xorg + Gnome up and running. :-)
On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 04:17:14AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote Hi, Gentoo. Yes, I've got Gnome going under mdev. Thanks to Mike Edenfield for the tip about needing to configure things in xorg.conf. Here's how I did it: Great. Is that GNOME version 2 or version 3? I'm working on getting a simple webpage set up. The instructions and special cases are getting to be a bit much for an email. I hope to have the webhosting account set up on Friday, and DNS for the webpage propagated over the weekend. -- Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org
[gentoo-user] A systemd-only Gentoo system, version 2
Hi; just to let you guys know that my overlay for having a systemd-only Gentoo machine (no OpenRC, no baselayout, no sysvinit), it's available, sync'ed with the portage tree of March 11 (it took me a few days to update all my machines and to check everything was working OK). You can grab the overlay directly with: git clone git://github.com/canek-pelaez/gentoo-systemd-only.git and the instructions (as usual) are in http://xochitl.matem.unam.mx/~canek/gentoo-systemd-only/ With the re-introduction of virtual/modutils everything got easier, and now the major problem (IMHO) is bug 373219: https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=373219 Basically, several scripts on the tree source /etc/init.d/functions.sh, *without* explicitly depending on sys-apps/openrc. Since I'm actually running my machines without /etc/init.d (nor /etc/conf.d, nor /etc/runleves, etc.), this resulted in some surprises when some ebuilds called scripts that no longer worked because /etc/init.d/functions.sh was no longer there. The overlay provides a package (sys-libs/elib-functions) with a tiny script that has the same functionality (as far as I have tested) of /etc/init.d/functions.sh, and alternatives to the scripts on the tree that source it, which are (currently): * app-admin/perl-cleaner * app-admin/python-updater * app-portage/gentoolkit * dev-java/java-config-wrapper * sys-devel/binutils-config * sys-devel/gcc-config sys-devel/gcc and sys-libs/glibc also use scripts sourcing /etc/init.d/functions.sh; I prefer not to mess with such critical packages on the system, so instead I provide the patched scripts (fix_libtool_files.sh and locale-gen) so you can replace them by hand. Apart from that, the packages on the overlay seem to be working great, and the changes are rather minimal. If you are interested in testing a Gentoo system with the latest technologies, or have fun risking your machines to break in new and funny ways, you are more than welcome to try the overlay. Oh, and just to be clear, since the overlay is testing the really bleeding edge of new technologies, setups with a separate /usr partition that refuse to use an initramfs are obviously not supported, and they will never be (see http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.devel/75724). If you use an initramfs to mount a separate /usr, or have /usr in the same partition as /, everything *should* work (doesn't mean it *would* work, but it *should*). Disclaimer: it *is* rather possible that you will break your system in new and funny ways if you try the overlay, specially if you don't know what you are doing. I take no responsibility of any harm you or your computer may suffer by using it. You have been warned. Regars -- Canek Peláez Valdés Posgrado en Ciencia e Ingeniería de la Computación Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México
Re: [gentoo-user] mdev + xorg + Gnome up and running. :-)
On Mar 16, 2012 7:59 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote: On Thu, Mar 15, 2012 at 04:17:14AM +, Alan Mackenzie wrote Hi, Gentoo. Yes, I've got Gnome going under mdev. Thanks to Mike Edenfield for the tip about needing to configure things in xorg.conf. Here's how I did it: Great. Is that GNOME version 2 or version 3? I'm working on getting a simple webpage set up. The instructions and special cases are getting to be a bit much for an email. I hope to have the webhosting account set up on Friday, and DNS for the webpage propagated over the weekend. Hmmm... are you planning to host an overlay? If so, I'll be willing to donate some of my time to provide some patched ebuilds for packages that can function without udev but lazily specify DEPEND=sys-fs/udev... ... and while at it, let's see if I can make a package containing scripts to ease transitioning from udev to mdev. Maybe call it, sys-utils/mdev-helper? Rgds,
Re: [gentoo-user] Re: LVM, /usr and really really bad thoughts.
On Thursday, March 15, 2012 01:05:12 PM Neil Bothwick wrote: On Thu, 15 Mar 2012 08:41:38 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote: That's why I build the initramfs into the kernel and not as a separate file. If I do something to break the initramfs I just boot the previous kernel knowing it will still work. Ok, time to show my ignorance... How would I know if I am using an initramfs, and if I was, whether it was built into the kernel or not? Well, you built the kernel, so you should know. Technically, we are all using an initramfs as all 2.6/3 kernels mount an initramfs when they load. If does not contain an init script, they fall back to the legacy behaviour. See /usr/src/linux/Documentation/filesystems/ramfs-rootfs-initramfs.txt Even when the init-options are not set? *** admin@hera ~ $ uname -a Linux hera 2.6.34-xen-r4_dom0 #1 SMP Wed Dec 8 15:52:31 CET 2010 x86_64 AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 955 Processor AuthenticAMD GNU/Linux admin@hera ~ $ zcat /proc/config.gz | grep -i init CONFIG_INIT_ENV_ARG_LIMIT=32 # CONFIG_BLK_DEV_INITRD is not set # CONFIG_SCSI_OSD_INITIATOR is not set CONFIG_DEBUG_MEMORY_INIT=y # CONFIG_PROVIDE_OHCI1394_DMA_INIT is not set *** -- Joost
