Re: [gentoo-user] how to install mailman3 on gentoo
John Covici wrote: > Hi. I have to convert my mailman2 to mailman3 because of the python > business. I installed the appropriate packages, but their > documentation as to how to set it up and upgrade mailman2 is quite > inscrutible -- also it assumes ubunto and some strange python things > such as installing in a virtual environment, and assumes postgresql > which I might or might not want to do. Anyway, I have no idea what I > am doing here, so if anyone has figured this out, I would appreciate > some assistance. Same here. My solution: I changed to mlmmj - http://mlmmj.org/ (available with Portage) - and everything works fine. Configuration is done by simple text files, and transferring the list members is just copy-and-paste. If you're not stuck to mailman, you could take this into consideration. -Matt
[gentoo-user] how to install mailman3 on gentoo
Hi. I have to convert my mailman2 to mailman3 because of the python business. I installed the appropriate packages, but their documentation as to how to set it up and upgrade mailman2 is quite inscrutible -- also it assumes ubunto and some strange python things such as installing in a virtual environment, and assumes postgresql which I might or might not want to do. Anyway, I have no idea what I am doing here, so if anyone has figured this out, I would appreciate some assistance. Thanks. -- Your life is like a penny. You're going to lose it. The question is: How do you spend it? John Covici wb2una cov...@ccs.covici.com
Re: [gentoo-user] Weird harddisk problem: AHCI disks sometimes not found
On 11/03/2021 19:39, Alexander Puchmayr wrote: Only one of the two SSDs is attached at the same time to the system, the other one is disconnected. One contains a gentoo installation (just updated yesterday), the other one an Ubuntu LTS 20.04. This allows dual-.boot by switching connection cables. By switching cables. Is that moving the cables from one drive to the other? Or by disconnecting one drive from the mobo, and plugging in the other? Or what? A pretty recent mobo I've got says that certain ports are incompatible, so for example if I plug in a video card, certain sata ports disappear, or if I use NVMe, something else goes ... Could it be you have a collision like that, if your two SSDs don't end up plugged into the exact same SATA port (or whatever it is). Cheers, Wol
Re: [gentoo-user] Weird harddisk problem: AHCI disks sometimes not found
On 3/11/21 12:39 PM, Alexander Puchmayr wrote: Hi there, Hi, I have a weird harddisk detection problem which rises the questio: what does the gentoo-kernel make differently than the ubuntu kernel? Probably multiple things. They probably have configurations that are at least slightly different. I wouldn't be surprised if there is slightly different levels of patching too. My understanding is that gentoo-kernel differs slightly from a vanilla kernel source. Without the Ubuntu observation I'd say its a hardware problem I'd still be inclined to question hardware. But I agree that difference in behavior based on different software is suspicious. I wonder if the Gentoo kernel is tickling a bug in the drive's firmware. and the old HDDs are simply beyond their age, but why are they working in ubuntu and not in gentoo? I don't think that older drives would fail in the way that you are describing. And what is it doing with BIOS/Harddisk that even Bios does not find it anymore? That sounds to me like the drive itself is misbehaving and not responding the way the BIOS expects. I need a full powercycle to make bios find it again. That really sounds like the drive is having a problem. Or that the Gentoo kernel is inducing the drive into a state that is a problem. What happens if you unplug power and data cables from the drive and then reconnect them? Does the BIOS then see the drive? I'm wondering if it's the drive and / or controller that's getting wedged. This indicates a gentoo kernel problem, and I have no idea where to start looking, and AFAIK there's nothing much to configure a SATA/AHCI drive. As Mark indicated, you should be able to compare kernel configs. I don't remember hearing about such a bug. I wonder if the Gentoo kernel is trying to do something slightly different and tickling a subtle bug that is causing the drive and / or controller to lock up. I'd think that it would be easy to remove power and data cables from the drive while the computer is powered on to see if that also revives the drive. Any ideas? Not really. Just threads to chase. -- Grant. . . . unix || die
Re: [gentoo-user] Weird harddisk problem: AHCI disks sometimes not found
On Thu, Mar 11, 2021 at 12:39 PM Alexander Puchmayr < alexander.puchm...@linznet.at> wrote: > > Hi there, > > I have a weird harddisk detection problem which rises the questio: what does > the gentoo-kernel make differently than the ubuntu kernel? > > The system in question has 2 identical SSDs (Kingston SV300S3 60GB) and two > identical HDDs (older Maxtor7V300F0 300GB) , all connected to SATA/AHCI ports; > the HDDs are combined to a LVM-raid1 volume. SATA controller is a onboard SB7x > on an Asus M3A78 mainboard in AHCI mode. > > Only one of the two SSDs is attached at the same time to the system, the other > one is disconnected. One contains a gentoo installation (just updated > yesterday), the other one an Ubuntu LTS 20.04. This allows dual-.boot by > switching connection cables. > > When I connect the gentoo-SSD and boot it, BIOS finds all HDDs and the SSD, and > starts booting; but gentoo does not recognize at least one of the HDDs (/dev/ > sdc missing, dmesg shows link down on Sata-Interface > . Going back to the bios shows that even BIOS does not recognize the disk > anymore. A full powercycle (pressing reset button is not sufficent) to make BIOS > to recognize the disks again. > > Doing the same with the Ubuntu-Disk works absolutely fine, all HDDs are > recognized and the raid is working fine, not a single time that one of the > disks was not recognized. > > Without the Ubuntu observation I'd say its a hardware problem and the old HDDs > are simply beyond their age, but why are they working in ubuntu and not in > gentoo? And what is it doing with BIOS/Harddisk that even Bios does not find it > anymore? I need a full powercycle to make bios find it again. This indicates a > gentoo kernel problem, and I have no idea where to start looking, and AFAIK > there's nothing much to configure a SATA/AHCI drive. > > Any ideas? > > Thanks > Alex > > PS: > Sys-kernel/gentoo-kernel-5.4.97, default configuration > Hardware: > 00:00.0 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] RS780 Host Bridge > 00:01.0 PCI bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] RS780/RS880 PCI to PCI > bridge (int gfx) > 00:06.0 PCI bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] RS780 PCI to PCI bridge > (PCIE port 2) > 00:11.0 SATA controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0/SB8x0/ > SB9x0 SATA Controller [AHCI mode] > 00:12.0 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0/SB8x0/ > SB9x0 USB OHCI0 Controller > 00:12.1 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0 USB OHCI1 > Controller > 00:12.2 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0/SB8x0/ > SB9x0 USB EHCI Controller > 00:13.0 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0/SB8x0/ > SB9x0 USB OHCI0 Controller > 00:13.1 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0 USB OHCI1 > Controller > 00:13.2 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0/SB8x0/ > SB9x0 USB EHCI Controller > 00:14.0 SMBus: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SBx00 SMBus Controller > (rev 3a) > 00:14.1 IDE interface: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0/SB8x0/ > SB9x0 IDE Controller > 00:14.2 Audio device: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SBx00 Azalia > (Intel HDA) > 00:14.3 ISA bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0/SB8x0/SB9x0 > LPC host controller > 00:14.4 PCI bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SBx00 PCI to PCI > Bridge > 00:14.5 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0/SB8x0/ > SB9x0 USB OHCI2 Controller > 00:18.0 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] > HyperTransport Technology Configuration > 00:18.1 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] > Address Map > 00:18.2 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] > DRAM Controller > 00:18.3 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] > Miscellaneous Control > 01:05.0 VGA compatible controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] > RS780 [Radeon HD 3200] > 01:05.1 Audio device: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] RS780 HDMI Audio > [Radeon 3000/3100 / HD 3200/3300] > 02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8111/8168/8411 > PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 02) > > > I'm going to assume that you built your Gentoo kernel and have the config file. Ubuntu ships the config file along with whatever kernel you are running which you can obtain with less /boot/config-$(uname -r) Ubuntu 'tends' to ship everything as a module and ships nearly every module vs your Gentoo kernel where you may be building things into the kernel. You should be able to do a diff on the two config files as a starting point assuming you are using the same kernel version. lsmod should give you an idea what modules are loaded for each kernel. HTH, Mark
[gentoo-user] Weird harddisk problem: AHCI disks sometimes not found
Hi there, I have a weird harddisk detection problem which rises the questio: what does the gentoo-kernel make differently than the ubuntu kernel? The system in question has 2 identical SSDs (Kingston SV300S3 60GB) and two identical HDDs (older Maxtor7V300F0 300GB) , all connected to SATA/AHCI ports; the HDDs are combined to a LVM-raid1 volume. SATA controller is a onboard SB7x on an Asus M3A78 mainboard in AHCI mode. Only one of the two SSDs is attached at the same time to the system, the other one is disconnected. One contains a gentoo installation (just updated yesterday), the other one an Ubuntu LTS 20.04. This allows dual-.boot by switching connection cables. When I connect the gentoo-SSD and boot it, BIOS finds all HDDs and the SSD, and starts booting; but gentoo does not recognize at least one of the HDDs (/dev/ sdc missing, dmesg shows link down on Sata-Interface . Going back to the bios shows that even BIOS does not recognize the disk anymore. A full powercycle (pressing reset button is not sufficent) to make BIOS to recognize the disks again. Doing the same with the Ubuntu-Disk works absolutely fine, all HDDs are recognized and the raid is working fine, not a single time that one of the disks was not recognized. Without the Ubuntu observation I'd say its a hardware problem and the old HDDs are simply beyond their age, but why are they working in ubuntu and not in gentoo? And what is it doing with BIOS/Harddisk that even Bios does not find it anymore? I need a full powercycle to make bios find it again. This indicates a gentoo kernel problem, and I have no idea where to start looking, and AFAIK there's nothing much to configure a SATA/AHCI drive. Any ideas? Thanks Alex PS: Sys-kernel/gentoo-kernel-5.4.97, default configuration Hardware: 00:00.0 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] RS780 Host Bridge 00:01.0 PCI bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] RS780/RS880 PCI to PCI bridge (int gfx) 00:06.0 PCI bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] RS780 PCI to PCI bridge (PCIE port 2) 00:11.0 SATA controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0/SB8x0/ SB9x0 SATA Controller [AHCI mode] 00:12.0 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0/SB8x0/ SB9x0 USB OHCI0 Controller 00:12.1 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0 USB OHCI1 Controller 00:12.2 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0/SB8x0/ SB9x0 USB EHCI Controller 00:13.0 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0/SB8x0/ SB9x0 USB OHCI0 Controller 00:13.1 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0 USB OHCI1 Controller 00:13.2 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0/SB8x0/ SB9x0 USB EHCI Controller 00:14.0 SMBus: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SBx00 SMBus Controller (rev 3a) 00:14.1 IDE interface: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0/SB8x0/ SB9x0 IDE Controller 00:14.2 Audio device: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SBx00 Azalia (Intel HDA) 00:14.3 ISA bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0/SB8x0/SB9x0 LPC host controller 00:14.4 PCI bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SBx00 PCI to PCI Bridge 00:14.5 USB controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] SB7x0/SB8x0/ SB9x0 USB OHCI2 Controller 00:18.0 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] HyperTransport Technology Configuration 00:18.1 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] Address Map 00:18.2 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] DRAM Controller 00:18.3 Host bridge: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD] K8 [Athlon64/Opteron] Miscellaneous Control 01:05.0 VGA compatible controller: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] RS780 [Radeon HD 3200] 01:05.1 Audio device: Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. [AMD/ATI] RS780 HDMI Audio [Radeon 3000/3100 / HD 3200/3300] 02:00.0 Ethernet controller: Realtek Semiconductor Co., Ltd. RTL8111/8168/8411 PCI Express Gigabit Ethernet Controller (rev 02)
Re: [gentoo-user] Why do we add the local host name to the 127.0.0.1 / ::1 entry in the /etc/hosts file?
On 3/11/21 6:38 AM, Michael wrote:
The syntax is:
IP_address canonical_hostname [aliases...]
The man page for hosts has the following to say:
DESCRIPTION
This manual page describes the format of the /etc/hosts file.
This file is a simple text file that associates IP addresses with
hostnames, one line per IP address. For each host a single line
should be present with the following information:
IP_address canonical_hostname [aliases...]
The IP address can conform to either IPv4 or IPv6. Fields of the
entry are separated by any number of blanks and/or tab characters.
Text from a "#" character until the end of the line is a comment, and
is ignored. Host names may contain only alphanumeric characters, minus
signs ("-"), and periods ("."). They must begin with an alphabetic
character and end with an alphanumeric character. Optional aliases
provide for name changes, alternate spellings, shorter hostnames,
or generic hostnames (for example, localhost). If required, a host
may have two separate entries in this file; one for each version of
the Internet Protocol (IPv4 and IPv6).
I want to call out "For /each/ /host/ a *single* *line* should be
present" and "a host /may/ /have/ *two* /separate/ /entries/ in this
file; *one* /for/ /each/ /version/ /of/ /the/ /Internet/ /Protocol/".
I interpret this to mean that any given host name (alias or canonical)
should appear on at most one line per protocol family.
As such, having the local host's name, qualified or not, appear on
multiple lines for the same protocol is contrary to what the man page
states.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
Re: [gentoo-user] Why do we add the local host name to the 127.0.0.1 / ::1 entry in the /etc/hosts file?
On 3/11/21 6:38 AM, Michael wrote: I'm losing my thread in this ... thread, but what I'm trying to say is the AD/ DC and Kerberos way of processing the /etc/hosts entries, when an /etc/hosts file is used, is different to your run of the mill Linux box and server. I disagree. First, AD/DC ~ Kerberos don't process the /etc/hosts file. They do ask the system to resolve names to IP addresses. Second, the system will process the /etc/hosts file, DNS, NIS(+) in the order configured in the /etc/nsswitch file so that it can resolve names to IP addresses for programs that ask it to do so. Third, both non-AD / non-Kerberos and AD / Kerberos systems ask the system to resolve names to IP addresses. Further, I'll bet dollars to donuts that they call the same functions and use the same subsystems. I will agree that non-AD / non-Kerberos systems are not sensitive to -- what some consider to be -- the misconfigurations that AD / Kerberos systems are. The Samba link in a previous message makes it clear the DC must have a DNS domain, which corresponds to the domain for the AD forest, this will be used by the Kerberos AD realm; and, the DC must have a static IP address. Yes. But that has nothing to do with the contents of the /etc/hosts file. The syntax is: IP_address canonical_hostname [aliases...] Agreed. That's what it should be. Though I've seen all sorts of failures. Therefore, in an entry like: 127.0.0.1 localhost host.example.net host the "host.example.net" and "host" are both entered as aliases, but will nevertheless resolve to 127.0.0.1 - which will break the Samba AD DC requirement. Agreed. The host name and FQDN must resolve to the static IP of the DC on the LAN. Remember, that this also applies to clients, not just DCs. Since /etc/hosts is parsed from the top, things may work fine when the localhost entry is further down the list and further down than any other entries acting as AD DNS resolvers - I don't recall testing this on Samba to know for sure. Why are you putting entries for the DNS servers in the /etc/hosts file? The same syntax won't break a LAMP, or vanilla linux PC, as long as the same box is not acting as a DC. Actually it can. I've seen it multiple times in the past. Bind a service to /only/ the LAN IP. Then have the system try to connect to itself. It will fail because the service isn't listening on the loopback IP. This is (or was) common on web servers that had multiple IP addresses to use different TLS certificates before SNI became a viable thing. Have each virtual web server listen on only it's specific IP address. Have the virtual web server for the system's FQDN follow suit for consistency reasons. Then trying to connect to the FQDN would fail if it was an alias for 127.0.0.1 or ::1. See my statement above re. entries for AD DNS resolvers, if these are listed in the /etc/hosts file. You didn't answer my question. What does the number of DNS servers (configured in /etc/resolv.conf) have to do with the contents of the /etc/hosts file? The /etc/hosts file specifies the LAN IP address(es) of the DC which acts as DNS resolver for the AD DNS zones. No, the /etc/hosts file has nothing to do with how /DNS/ resolution operates. The DC's /etc/resolv.conf shouldn't be pointing to non-AD compatible resolvers. Which has nothing to do with the contents of /etc/hosts. ACK. I hope what I've written above better reflects my understanding, although it could be factually incorrect. Other contributors should soon put me right. :-) I'm wondering if your understanding is that there's a close relationship and interaction between the contents of /etc/hosts and /etc/resolv.conf as in the former effects the latter. This is not the case. /etc/hosts and /etc/resolv.conf are completely independent and can each quite happily exist without the other. You can even run systems without one or the other. Running without both is technically possible, but things start to get ... cumbersome. You can add entries in /etc/hosts for the DNS servers as a convenience. But doing so has no influence on how the DNS resolution subsystem functions. The DNS resolution subsystem is driven by options in the /etc/resolv.conf file. And it's done independently of the contents of the /etc/hosts file. Yes, the /etc/hosts file and the /etc/resolv.conf file both have to do with name to IP (and IP to name) resolution. But they are as independent of each other as looking up a phone number in the phone book vs calling and asking the operator to look it up for you. They achieve the same goal, but do so completely different ways and completely independently of each other. This has been and is an interesting discussion. However, I'm still no closer to learning why the Gentoo handbook wants the local host name added to the 127.0.0.1 / ::1 entry in the /etc/hosts file. Something which I believe is wrong and bad
Re: [gentoo-user] Why do we add the local host name to the 127.0.0.1 / ::1 entry in the /etc/hosts file?
On Wednesday, 10 March 2021 16:58:47 GMT Grant Taylor wrote: > On 3/10/21 8:25 AM, Michael wrote: > > I think this is relevant to DNS resolution of/with domain controllers > > and may depend on the AD/DC topology. > > I disagree. Pure Linux in a MIT / Heimdal Kerberos environment has the > same requirements. Hence having nothing specific to do with Active > Directory, much less the AD topology. I'm losing my thread in this ... thread, but what I'm trying to say is the AD/ DC and Kerberos way of processing the /etc/hosts entries, when an /etc/hosts file is used, is different to your run of the mill Linux box and server. The Samba link in a previous message makes it clear the DC must have a DNS domain, which corresponds to the domain for the AD forest, this will be used by the Kerberos AD realm; and, the DC must have a static IP address. > > The idea is to use the LAN address of the box as the first address > > in /etc/hosts and use 127.0.0.1 as the second address in the file. > > Please elaborate. Because I believe the following qualifies with your > statement: > > 192.0.2.1 host.example.net host > 127.0.0.1 localhost > > Which is effectively the same as the following: > > 127.0.0.1 localhost > 192.0.2.1 host.example.net host > > Both of which are different than the following: > > 192.0.2.1 host.example.net host > 127.0.0.1 localhost host.example.net host Yes. > Putting host.example.net and host on the 127.0.0.1 line doesn't > accomplish anything. And it still suffers from -- what I think is -- > the poor recommendation that I'm inquiring about. The syntax is: IP_address canonical_hostname [aliases...] Therefore, in an entry like: 127.0.0.1 localhost host.example.net host the "host.example.net" and "host" are both entered as aliases, but will nevertheless resolve to 127.0.0.1 - which will break the Samba AD DC requirement. The host name and FQDN must resolve to the static IP of the DC on the LAN. Since /etc/hosts is parsed from the top, things may work fine when the localhost entry is further down the list and further down than any other entries acting as AD DNS resolvers - I don't recall testing this on Samba to know for sure. The same syntax won't break a LAMP, or vanilla linux PC, as long as the same box is not acting as a DC. > > If more AD/DNS servers exist in the network, then 127.0.0.1 could be > > even further down the list. > > > > https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/previous-versions/windows/it-pro/windows-> > > > server-2008-R2-and-2008/ff807362(v=ws.10)?redirectedfrom=MSDN > > What does the number of DNS servers have to do with the contents of the > /etc/hosts file? See my statement above re. entries for AD DNS resolvers, if these are listed in the /etc/hosts file. > How is the contents of the /etc/hosts file related to the > /etc/resolv.conf file? The /etc/hosts file specifies the LAN IP address(es) of the DC which acts as DNS resolver for the AD DNS zones. The DC's /etc/resolv.conf shouldn't be pointing to non-AD compatible resolvers. > > I haven't over-thought this and there may be more to it, but on a > > pure linux environment I expect this would not be a requirement, > > hence the handbook approach. > > Apples and bowling balls. /etc/hosts is not the same concept as > /etc/resolv.conf. ACK. I hope what I've written above better reflects my understanding, although it could be factually incorrect. Other contributors should soon put me right. :-) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: [gentoo-user] Why do we add the local host name to the 127.0.0.1 / ::1 entry in the /etc/hosts file?
On 10/03/21 18:37, Grant Taylor wrote: > ACK > > By default, Kerberos includes IP restrictions in tickets. It chooses > the IP based on what the system returns. So if the system returns > 127.0.0.1 (or ::1) for the hostname, any tickets that use that IP will > be non-viable / useless anywhere but localhost. Could it be (I don't use Kerberos) this tricks Kerberos into associating 127.0.0.1 with your FQDN, so it works for the first person to request it, and then breaks for everyone else? Also, bear in mind I think in certain setups /etc/hosts is redundant. Don't you specify somewhere a list of services to use to look up computer names, and if /etc/hosts is missing/disabled in that list, it gets ignored? Cheers, Wol
