Re: CIM/WBEM packages (SBLIM) - call to advocate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi again, Ahn, Chang-Won wrote: > Hi, > >> I didn't realize that they made it into Karmic, but I just saw them >> right after I wrote my mail. Sorry that I forgot them. But the problem >> remains the same that there are just too few providers. >> >> Just providing a very basic set isn't enough to compete with the other >> distributions and as the OpenDRIM providers also depend on SFCB it >> shouldn't matter which provider set we provide as long as the enterprise >> users get what they need/want. > > For Karmic version, OpenDRIM project provided 6 provider modules and > common library as a initial step. > > We are going to finish to develop the following provider modules > until the end of this year, and they should be open to other communities. > > OS > CPU > Simple Identity Management > DNS > DHCP > Software Inventory > Bios > Boot Control > PCI Information > Power State Management > Sensor > Software Update > Power Supply > Battery > SSH > > Next year, we hope to cover almost all the management profiles > developed by DMTF. > That's very good news! If you need any help or just a hand please don't hesitate. Can't wait to see Ubuntu get 'enterprised'... Best regards, Ancoron P.S.: Are there any official test suites one can run against a deployed CIMOM to verify profile compliance? I never saw any on the DMTF site. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAksQhXgACgkQHwxOsqv2bG0FLwCgxssI/MKyPRND27SuTSch+4nD UHEAoMcDMik4oFHrt4Nu+tJ7X3kob2QJ =pP2E -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: CIM/WBEM packages (SBLIM) - call to advocate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mathias Gug wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 6:39 AM, Ancoron Luciferis > wrote: >> Hi Guillaume, >> >> I didn't realize that they made it into Karmic, but I just saw them >> right after I wrote my mail. Sorry that I forgot them. But the problem >> remains the same that there are just too few providers. >> >> Just providing a very basic set isn't enough to compete with the other >> distributions and as the OpenDRIM providers also depend on SFCB it >> shouldn't matter which provider set we provide as long as the enterprise >> users get what they need/want. > > If a list of the schemas and profiles supported by existing management > tools could be created, it would be very helpful in choosing which > providers to include (or start developing) in Ubuntu. > Well, I did some research to find out what those management tools but couldn't find any specific documentation about that but on the other hand I found some docs describing the profiles that are provided from the various implementations: Sun ILOM - - - DSP1004 - Base Server Profile - - DSP1009 - Sensors Profile - - DSP1010 - Record Log Profile - - DSP1011 - Physical Asset Profile - - DSP1018 - Service Processor Profile - - DSP1022 - CPU Profile - - DSP1026 - System Memory Profile - - DSP1033 - Profile Registration - - DSP1074 - Indicator LED Profile Reference: http://docs.sun.com/source/820-6413-11/WS_MAN_CIM.html#50647112_53720 IBM System z Hardware Management Console - - - DSP1004 - Base Server Profile - - DSP1011 - Physical Asset Profile - - DSP1012 - Boot Control Profile - - DSP1018 - Service Processor Profile - - DSP1023 - Software Inventory Profile - - DSP1042 - System Virtualization Profile - - DSP1057 - Virtual System Profile Reference: http://www-01.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=isg2633d0c87855f6a2d852573f700527ecb HP Insight Management - - - - DSP1004 - Base Server Profile (specialized) - - DSP1009 - Sensors Profile - - DSP1010 - Record Log Profile - - DSP1011 - Physical Asset Profile - - DSP1013 - Fan Profile - - DSP1014 - Ethernet Port Profile (specialized) - - DSP1015 - Power Supply Profile - - DSP1022 - CPU Profile - - DSP1023 - Software Inventory Profile - - DSP1026 - System Memory Profile - - DSP1027 - Power State Management Profile - - DSP1029 - OS Status Profile 1.0 - - DSP1033 - Profile Registration - - DSP1035 - Host LAN Network Port Profile - - DSP1036 - IP Interface Profile - - DSP1040 - Platform Watchdog Profile - - DSP1052 - Computer System Profile - - DSP1075 - PCI Device Profile Reference: http://h2.www2.hp.com/bc/docs/support/SupportManual/c01382288/c01382288.pdf Although this is regarding Windows servers there are separate docs about the Linux providers HP offers: http://docs.hp.com/en/linuxredhat.html#HP%20Integrity%20Essentials%20Foundation%20Pack%20for%20Linux According to this document: http://sourceforge.net/apps/mediawiki/sblim/index.php?title=SFCB,_How_low_can_you_go#Components.2C_versions_and_test_environment And according to the most common providers (I think the most common ones must be the ones most needed/wanted) I suggest a list of profiles for required implementation: - - DSP1004 - Base Server Profile - - DSP1009 - Sensors Profile - - DSP1010 - Record Log Profile - - DSP1011 - Physical Asset Profile - - DSP1013 - Fan Profile - - DSP1015 - Power Supply Profile - - DSP1022 - CPU Profile - - DSP1023 - Software Inventory Profile - - DSP1026 - System Memory Profile - - DSP1033 - Profile Registration - - DSP1052 - Computer System Profile When I take that and compare it to our choices of implementations so far (SBLIM, OpenDRIM) we have the following situation: None of the SBLIM providers comply completely to any management profile as far as I can see in the code. However, at least parts of the following profiles are implemented (either released or unreleased provider code): - - DSP1002 - Diagnostics Profile - - DSP1004 - Base Server Profile - - DSP1010 - Record Log Profile - - DSP1011 - Physical Asset Profile - - DSP1012 - Boot Control Profile - - DSP1014 - Ethernet Port Profile - - DSP1016 - Telnet Service Profile - - DSP1017 - SSH Service Profile - - DSP1022 - CPU Profile - - DSP1023 - Software Inventory Profile - - DSP1026 - System Memory Profile - - DSP1033 - Profile Registration - - DSP1035 - Host LAN Network Port Profile - - DSP1036 - IP Interface Profile - - DSP1039 - Role Based Authorization Profile - - DSP1052 - Computer System Profile - - DSP1053 - Base Metrics Profile - - DSP1054 - Indications Profile - - DSP1061 - BIOS Management Profile - - DSP1075 - PCI Device Profile - - DSP1080 - Enabled Logical Element Profile The OpenDRIM providers seem to be a lot better here. They seem well designed in terms of profile compliance. The following profiles se
Re: CIM/WBEM packages (SBLIM) - call to advocate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Guillaume, I didn't realize that they made it into Karmic, but I just saw them right after I wrote my mail. Sorry that I forgot them. But the problem remains the same that there are just too few providers. Just providing a very basic set isn't enough to compete with the other distributions and as the OpenDRIM providers also depend on SFCB it shouldn't matter which provider set we provide as long as the enterprise users get what they need/want. Also I could additionally start to package the other OpenDRIM providers if that is officially preferred but I stuck to the SBLIM implementation until now because SFCB is available since Intrepid and their providers are confirmed to work and at least bug reports are available and bugs get fixed by upstream devs rather quickly. In addition it is nice that there's an alternative. Alternatives are always a good thing. However as OpenDRIM is a rather new project (compared to SBLIM) I think SBLIM providers should be preferred for now in terms of security and stability. I also miss some upstream documentation about the matching management profiles of the providers and the providers doesn't even have a ChangeLog file to track upstream changes automatically. This is true for some of the newer providers from SBLIM too but at least they made it into a variety of distributions including RedHat and Suse for years so I would consider them rather stable. What do you think? The work I have done until now and the time I spent shouldn't be wasted. In my PPA I have the following additional providers: sblim-cmpi-service sblim-cmpi-smbios sblim-cmpi-sysfs Others are coming soon. As I have a lot of spare time in the next weeks I would really like to concentrate on packaging to get the last bits in the right place. I will take a closer look at the OpenDRIM providers and see how they work. If we focus on OpenDRIM we should also take another CIM broker as it doesn't make sense to provide nice GPL'ed providers when there is no GPL'ed broker available. Best regards, Ancoron Guillaume Bottex wrote: > Ancoron, are you aware of the existence of other CIM providers in Karmic > called OpenDRIM ? > > Regards > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAksPukwACgkQHwxOsqv2bG0HSACfQQ0iUr5QJfp7KfbL02hvsOrj R5EAn3ARHijf9b88gUmMaFzKLWbZAQ6j =uADe -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
CIM/WBEM packages (SBLIM) - call to advocate
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi *, I would like to get more CIM providers from the SBLIM project into future versions of Ubuntu. Because in the business world it is a requirement that new systems can be managed through existing technology/software. WBEM is a standard here and is widely accepted. As I see that all the big players in the operating system world (Solaris, RHEL, SLES, Windows) are providing the most common providers for system management I also see there is a huge lack in Ubuntu and all other Debian based distributions. Therefore I decided to start packaging the missing providers from the SBLIM project: http://sblim.wiki.sourceforge.net/ I chose SBLIM over the others because of the following reasons: 1. OpenPegasus - big and somewhat monolithic - hard to separate into packages - a lot of build problems 2. OpenWBEM - dead? (last release 2006-10-19) 3. WBEM-Services - dead? (last release 2004-11-01) The SBLIM project is actively under development (almost completely by IBM devs) and the license isn't very attractive to Ubuntu/Debian but it has several advantages: - - small footprint (simple, fast, suitable even for embedded devices) - - providers use CMPI (allows their use in other CIMOM servers) - - SFCB + sblim-cmpi-base already available in universe So I started with the following providers: http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/sblim-cmpi-fsvol http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/sblim-cmpi-network My first try to get them into karmic was not very successful but now I've sorted out a lot of problems and want to get them into lucid as it will be the next LTS release. I also have some other packages packaged until now for a quick look in my launchpad PPA: https://launchpad.net/~ancoron/+archive/cim Please have a look at the packages and comment any errors or things that should be done preventing its inclusion. Thanks, Ancoron -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAksN5mgACgkQHwxOsqv2bG11MACdFys+WC5I0/aTLxBEJVu8HxeC 2DsAoIig8g/Gc43lp/IPshytsR46KJui =vJ25 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Please advocate - WBEM packages fsvol and network
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi there, some time ago I uploaded two new packages for use with the SBLIM SFCB (Small Footprint CIM Broker) that is already in the multiverse repo since Intrepid I think. As there only is the sblim-cmpi-base package available until now I decided to get the source of the other modules and build them up to be fully compliant Ubuntu packages. The two that I came up with are: http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/sblim-cmpi-fsvol http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/sblim-cmpi-network Those two packages work flawlessly without errors on the computers I tested (many different x86 and x64 machines). As I (and others I know of) want those packages into Ubuntu Karmic I encourage any MOTU to have a look and advocate and/or comment if possible. Ubuntu is one of the last big distros that lacks a WBEM stack (I've seen others where OpenPegasus, OpenWBEM AND SBLIM are available with all their modules). So especially if Ubuntu wants to get a piece of the business cake there's no way around WBEM as it is practiced standard. Even Solaris has their own WBEM server fully fledged built-in (although it's buggy and not maintained very well). And SBLIM is a very good start because it's very small and easy to understand (I recently tried compiling OpenPegasus on a Debian 4 system with not much of luck). Regards and thanx in advance for any comments/advocates on these, Ancoron -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkpJUqYACgkQHwxOsqv2bG2SowCgvptyic2nQDHUkDhpfhHGYdLt ReAAn2BmTSU/8H9ccAQ5bAO7om0mkqKh =oBcW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
get-orig-source rule question...
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi there,
I've currently working on fixing the last issue that REVU raises for my
first package: http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/p/sblim-cmpi-fsvol
I have written a small script to download the latest version of the package:
#!/bin/sh
PKGNAME="sblim-cmpi-fsvol"
echo "Creating temporary directory ..."
mkdir DL_TMP || exit 1
cd DL_TMP
echo "Retrieving versions for package ${PKGNAME} ..."
wget -qO files.tmp
"http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=128809&package_id=144611";
|| exit 1
echo "Extracting download URI for latest package version ..."
sed -e '/downloads\.sourceforge\.net/!d' -e
"s/.\+\(http.*downloads\.sourceforge\.net[^']\+\).\+/\1/;q" files.tmp >
filename.tmp || exit 1
echo "Extracting basename of package ..."
PKGBASENAME="`sed -e 's/.\+\(sblim.\+\)\.tar\.bz2/\1/' filename.tmp`"
echo "Extracting version of package ..."
PKGVERSION="`sed -e 's/.\+fsvol\-\(.\+\)\.tar\.bz2/\1/' filename.tmp`"
echo "Downloading the latest package ..."
wget -qO ${PKGBASENAME}.tar.bz2 `cat filename.tmp` || exit 1
echo "Creating ${PKGNAME}_${PKGVERSION}.orig.tar.gz package ..."
bunzip2 ${PKGBASENAME}.tar.bz2 || exit 1
gzip -9 ${PKGBASENAME}.tar || exit 1
mv ${PKGBASENAME}.tar.gz ../${PKGNAME}_${PKGVERSION}.orig.tar.gz || exit 1
cd ..
rm -r DL_TMP
^^ That one first looks into the files page of the package, extracts the
link for the latest version, downloads it and then builds a orig.tar.gz
(as the package is provided as a tar.bz2)
A first integration into the rules file looks like this:
get-orig-source:
echo "Creating temporary directory ..."
mkdir DL_TMP || exit 1
cd DL_TMP
echo "Retrieving versions for package ${PKGNAME} ..."
wget -qO files.tmp
"http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=128809&package_id=144611";
|| exit 1
echo "Extracting download URI for latest package version ..."
sed -e '/downloads\.sourceforge\.net/!d' -e
"s/.\+\(http.*downloads\.sourceforge\.net[^']\+\).\+/\1/;q" files.tmp >
filename.tmp || exit 1
echo "Extracting basename of package ..."
PKGBASENAME = `sed -e 's/.\+\(sblim.\+\)\.tar\.bz2/\1/' filename.tmp`
echo "Extracting version of package ..."
PKGVERSION = `sed -e 's/.\+fsvol\-\(.\+\)\.tar\.bz2/\1/' filename.tmp`
echo "Downloading the latest package ..."
wget -qO $(PKGBASENAME).tar.bz2 `cat filename.tmp` || exit 1
echo "Creating ${PKGNAME}_${PKGVERSION}.orig.tar.gz package ..."
bunzip2 $(PKGBASENAME).tar.bz2 || exit 1
gzip -9 $(PKGBASENAME).tar || exit 1
mv $(PKGBASENAME).tar.gz ../../$(PKGNAME)_$(PKGVERSION).orig.tar.gz ||
exit 1
cd ..
rm -r DL_TMP
The main question I have is:
What happens if the version number changes (e.g. from currently 1.4.4 to
1.4.5)? As the debian directory and its files are located inside the
extracted directory of the package will those be automatically copied
into the new directory?
E.g. before:
sblim-cmpi-fsvol-1.4.4/debian/rules
...would become...
sblim-cmpi-fsvol-1.4.5/debian/rules
...without any other change by the package maintainer?
Thanx for any clarification.
Ancoron
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkod3SUACgkQHwxOsqv2bG07NwCdHI/D+6pZtfDZgH13sfUQ3XS2
gCsAn1q8HiJwrwEMOgJye//vtqoMZsJ8
=6x3E
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
Ubuntu-motu mailing list
Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
Re: [REVU] [DPUT] Upload problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Thanks a lot!!! :) Now I know that DON'T just have to press F5 in the browser to see the current state. Now it seems that the package is almost fine. Thank you. It's just working when you know how it works. Ancoron Nathan Handler wrote: > On Mon, May 18, 2009 at 8:57 PM, Ancoron Luciferis > wrote: >> But the diff should be exactly the other way round as I e.g. changed >> from jaunty to karmic and added the launchpad bug and not removed it. >> >> Or do I misinterpret the debdiff and it works just the other way round? > > Hello Ancoron, > > Without knowing the URL of the diff you are viewing, it is not > possible for me to know for sure why you are seeing the diff that you > are. If I had to guess, I would assume that you are looking at [1], > when you should be looking at [2]. As you can see from the URLs, the > two diffs are of the same two uploads, the only difference is the > order. As a result, The two diffs will show the same changes, but the > +'s and -'s will be reversed. In order to reach [2], you should start > by clicking on ' 09 May 2009 13:51' on the details page for the > package. This will take you to [3]. Now click on the 'debdiff' link > next to '17 May 2009 16:48' to get to [2]. > > I hope this helps, > Nathan Handler > > [1] http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/report.py/diff?upid1=5781&upid2=5710 > [2] http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/report.py/diff?upid1=5710&upid2=5781 > [3] http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?upid=5710 > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoR1HgACgkQHwxOsqv2bG264gCgnanlgASbtFGPKX5CWdCt3oMi QeUAoK7Jltf7iWUtL2XCIkNydSjoTiiO =O6Cn -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
[REVU] [DPUT] Upload problem
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi there, I'm currently on the way to make my first Ubuntu package. Currently all things went well and uploading into REVU worked like a charm but currently I have problems to get my latest changes applied into REVU. The package I'm talking about is here: http://revu.ubuntuwire.com/details.py?upid=5710 I already made the changes according to ttx's comment but REVU refuses to accept them as the current state. In the debdiff it generates I see e.g. this: - -- diff -u sblim-cmpi-fsvol-1.4.4/debian/changelog sblim-cmpi-fsvol-1.4.4/debian/changelog - --- sblim-cmpi-fsvol-1.4.4/debian/changelog +++ sblim-cmpi-fsvol-1.4.4/debian/changelog @@ -1,5 +1,5 @@ - -sblim-cmpi-fsvol (1.4.4-0ubuntu1) karmic; urgency=low +sblim-cmpi-fsvol (1.4.4-0ubuntu1) jaunty; urgency=low - - * First release ever for Ubuntu (LP: #372066) + * First release ever for Ubuntu. - -- But the diff should be exactly the other way round as I e.g. changed from jaunty to karmic and added the launchpad bug and not removed it. Or do I misinterpret the debdiff and it works just the other way round? Thanx in advance for any hints or help. Ancoron -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iEYEARECAAYFAkoRy7sACgkQHwxOsqv2bG3VhQCeOW4fApCP9v9Z8UILQDG9myXr QSwAmwatXni89ovr4wC45infnYZ9R7Eg =6RMd -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Ubuntu-motu mailing list Ubuntu-motu@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-motu
