[Bug 231898] Re: evolution-exchange-storage SIGABRT
*** This bug is a duplicate of bug 215904 *** https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/215904 ** Changed in: evolution-exchange Status: Confirmed = Invalid -- evolution-exchange-storage SIGABRT https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/231898 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to openldap2.3 in ubuntu (via bug 215904). -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 231060] Re: packages dnsmasq and libvirt-bin conflict with each other
dnsmasq is a general purpose dns (and DHCP, but let's ignore this for the purpose of this conversation) server. The dnsmasq package installs itself and starts listening on all interfaces. That seems like a reasonable default behaviour for a general purpose caching dns server to me. libvirt uses dnsmasq (the binary, not the service) to provide dns and dhcp services to virtual networks. If you're installing dnsmasq and libvirt-bin alongside each other, you have to work out the conflicts yourself. I'm not convinced there is a reasonable default fix for this case. -- packages dnsmasq and libvirt-bin conflict with each other https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/231060 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 241550] [NEW] package openvpn 2.1~rc7-4build1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: openvpn OpenVPN fails to install every time. Unpacking openvpn (from .../openvpn_2.1~rc7-4build1_i386.deb) ... Processing triggers for man-db ... Setting up openvpn (2.1~rc7-4build1) ... * Starting virtual private network daemon. invoke-rc.d: initscript openvpn, action start failed. dpkg: error processing openvpn (--configure): subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 Errors were encountered while processing: openvpn E: Sub-process /usr/bin/dpkg returned an error code (1) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ lsb_release -rd Description:Ubuntu intrepid (development branch) Release:8.10 ProblemType: Package Architecture: i386 Date: Fri Jun 20 08:25:17 2008 DistroRelease: Ubuntu 8.10 ErrorMessage: subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 Package: openvpn 2.1~rc7-4build1 PackageArchitecture: i386 SourcePackage: openvpn Title: package openvpn 2.1~rc7-4build1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 Uname: Linux 2.6.24-19-generic i686 ** Affects: openvpn (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Tags: apport-package -- package openvpn 2.1~rc7-4build1 failed to install/upgrade: subprocess post-installation script returned error exit status 1 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/241550 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to openvpn in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 46299] Re: Can't connect to iLO on HP servers without doing unset LANG
Hello, in ILO firmware version 1.92 it seems to be fixed. At least I upgraded some ILOs I have at hand and tried to ssh into them and it worked fine :) Can anyone else confirm this? -- Can't connect to iLO on HP servers without doing unset LANG https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/46299 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to openssh in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 240519] Re: sybase_* functions missing in php5-sybase for hardy
Hardy introduced a regression that prevents sybase users from using php5-sybase on hardy. This is due to a change in the packaging between hardy and gutsy. Attached to this bug report is the patch that fixes the issue. TEST CASE: 1. Install php5-sybase with a sybase database. 2. Try to use php5-sybase with an actual sybase database. Please note it would be easier for people who have sybase already installed to test this SRU. I have attached the patch that fixes this issue. If you have any questions please let me know. -- sybase_* functions missing in php5-sybase for hardy https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/240519 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to php5 in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 240519] Re: sybase_* functions missing in php5-sybase for hardy
** Attachment added: Patch that fixes the problem. http://launchpadlibrarian.net/15479460/119-sybase-alias.patch -- sybase_* functions missing in php5-sybase for hardy https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/240519 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to php5 in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 241440] Re: bacula catalog fails due to missing script
So, no query.sql and no delete_catalog_backup. Very strange. Have you tried reinstall? If you didn't don't do it. -- bacula catalog fails due to missing script https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/241440 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to bacula in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 180493] Re: [SRU] nmbd shuts down when network disconnected
** Changed in: samba Status: Confirmed = Fix Released -- [SRU] nmbd shuts down when network disconnected https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/180493 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to samba in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 227178] Re: [SRU] Slave slapd crashes when doing syncrepl
Sorry, I didn't saw your packages before, because of version numbering. I had installed packages from Chuck's PPA, with version 2.4.9-1ubuntu1~ppa1 and packages from hardy-proposed has version 2.4.9-0ubuntu0.8.04. In order to allow automatic installation of hardy-proposed packages with a standard dist-upgrade, can version numbering be changed? -- [SRU] Slave slapd crashes when doing syncrepl https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/227178 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to openldap2.3 in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 218734] Re: (ITS#5527) slapd segfaults when using dynlist
I just installed them now... No crashes while starting services... -- (ITS#5527) slapd segfaults when using dynlist https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/218734 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to openldap2.3 in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 227178] Re: [SRU] Slave slapd crashes when doing syncrepl
** Tags added: verification-done ** Tags removed: verification-needed -- [SRU] Slave slapd crashes when doing syncrepl https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/227178 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to openldap2.3 in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 215904] Re: [SRU] (ITS#5518) Assertion error in io.c:234: ber_flush2
I don't see this package in hardy-updates, am I missing something ? I'm able to reproduce the crash with Evolution exchange always. Can I get the deb package ? I can verify and update this bug. -- [SRU] (ITS#5518) Assertion error in io.c:234: ber_flush2 https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/215904 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to openldap2.3 in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 231060] Re: packages dnsmasq and libvirt-bin conflict with each other
How about a more helpful error message? Perhaps libvirtd could notice that dnsmasq is already running and say please disable dnsmasq on interface xyz. Or maybe dnsmasq itself could be noticing that? -- packages dnsmasq and libvirt-bin conflict with each other https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/231060 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to dnsmasq in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 241448] Re: Playing from Samba SMB shared folder now is not possible (it could be done until last upgrade).
I have fully upgraded it except for samba (samba, samba-client, libsmbclient...), and it works. So you can imagine what causes the trouble... Some minor change in Samba has made this happen. I only have to upgrade samba and test, but obviously, it should fail (I'm doing it when I finish my film). Good luck! And please, post a fix. -- Playing from Samba SMB shared folder now is not possible (it could be done until last upgrade). https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/241448 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to samba in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 241802] [NEW] mysql clients ignore port specification when connecting to localhost
Public bug reported: Binary package hint: mysql-admin I can duplicate this with all of mysql, mysqldump, and the mysql-admin GUI on 8.04LTS. This is not the behavior I am used to from the same applications on 6.06LTS or the Windows ports of the same applications. I normally create an SSH tunnel to a remote (6.06LTS) server where I run a MySQL server (via `ssh -L localhost:33060:localhost:3306'). I also run a local (8.04LTS) MySQL server. When I specify a host of localhost and a port of 33060 to any of mysql, mysqldump, or mysql-admin, the client will attach to the local instance of MySQL server instead of the tunnel to the remote instance, yet when I connect directly to 127.0.0.1, the connection works (I can also work around this by defining some other alias for 127.0.0.1 in /etc/hosts and using it). In the following transcript, note the local MySQL instance is hardy's version 5.051a-3ubuntu5.1 and the remote instance is dapper's version 5.0.22-Debian_0ubuntu6.06.9-log. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ mysql -h localhost --port=33060 -uroot -p Enter password: Welcome to the MySQL monitor. Commands end with ; or \g. Your MySQL connection id is 32 Server version: 5.0.51a-3ubuntu5.1 (Ubuntu) Type 'help;' or '\h' for help. Type '\c' to clear the buffer. mysql quit Bye [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ mysql -h 127.0.0.1 --port=33060 -uroot -p Enter password: Welcome to the MySQL monitor. Commands end with ; or \g. Your MySQL connection id is 493390 Server version: 5.0.22-Debian_0ubuntu6.06.9-log Type 'help;' or '\h' for help. Type '\c' to clear the buffer. mysql quit Bye [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ telnet localhost 33060 Trying 127.0.0.1... Connected to localhost. Escape character is '^]'. M 5.0.22-Debian_0ubuntu6.06.9-logO�e\ypDAXy,�!xpHUQy,mc(9)Connection closed by foreign host. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~$ ** Affects: mysql-admin (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Affects: mysql-dfsg-5.0 (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New ** Also affects: mysql-dfsg-5.0 (Ubuntu) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- mysql clients ignore port specification when connecting to localhost https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/241802 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to mysql-dfsg-5.0 in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 241802] Re: mysql clients ignore port specification when connecting to localhost
http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=31577 -- mysql clients ignore port specification when connecting to localhost https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/241802 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to mysql-dfsg-5.0 in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
[Bug 241802] Re: mysql clients ignore port specification when connecting to localhost
Thanks for the link. I added a comment to the MySQL not-a-bug. I had to agree with one of the previous posters that the current behavior is quite insane. It does sound like a work-around for at least some clients is to put protocol=tcp in the [client] section of my.cnf (I confirmed that this works for mysql mysql-admin, but the mysql bug mentions that some PHP clients won't notice that). I think it would be much better to push this upstream if the MySQL team regains its senses, but for now, maybe adding that line to the Ubuntu my.cnf would be a good idea? My feeling is that it is better not to cause connection errors and let the performance tuners figure out that they should specify the socket protocol for connections to localhost. -- mysql clients ignore port specification when connecting to localhost https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/241802 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Server Team, which is subscribed to mysql-dfsg-5.0 in ubuntu. -- Ubuntu-server-bugs mailing list Ubuntu-server-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server-bugs
Re: Moving w3m out of standard
On Mon, Jun 16, 2008 at 01:03:48PM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote: I think an interactive web browser is completely unnecessary on a server. You should do your browsing from a workstation, and then use wget or sftp to transfer any files you need to the server. And w3m or similar tools are only one command away with apt-get if you do need them. Let's keep the clutter to a minimum. This seems to be a common theme when it comes to discussing what goes on servers by default and what doesn't. We shouldn't put foo on servers by default, because not everyone needs it, and it's easily apt-get installable if you need it. Well, that might be true, but consider the converse: Some people need it, and it's easily apt-get removable if you don't. which is also true. With the advent of the server seed, I think the time is ripe for us to be slightly (not much, but just a tiny bit) more promiscuous in our choice of what gets installed by default. w3m is a good example of this. You might not use it every day (or even week, month, or year), but the convenience of finding it there when you need it weighed against the space wasted for it while you don't makes it a reasonable candidate for being installed by default, and I'm glad this decision was made at the server team meeting a few days ago, too. Something like screen would fall into sort of the same sorting pile, but I think these are just the starting points. I for one would certainly be open to a discussion about additional tools being installed by default, like chkrootkit, smartmontools, munin-node[1], checksecurity, bzr, etckeeper (I haven't actually looked into this one, but it seems like something we might want to push), ntp[1], etc. This is all stuff that would (begin to) turn the server install from a very basic system on top of which you can install stuff to actually make it useful into something that does that too, but also promotes a set of best practices and such. So far, our only tools for doing that have been inclusion into main and sometimes documentation. We should probably add an install option to the server CD to only install the base system, so that the die hard group of old school admins can keep their Ubuntu systems as small as possible, though. [1]: At least ntp and munin-node do have open sockets, but they're both only bound to the loopback interface, so I don't expect this to be overly controversial. -- Soren Hansen | Virtualisation specialist | Ubuntu Server Team Canonical Ltd. | http://www.ubuntu.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Moving w3m out of standard
On Fri, 20 Jun 2008 10:33:43 +0200 Soren Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [1]: At least ntp and munin-node do have open sockets, but they're both only bound to the loopback interface, so I don't expect this to be overly controversial. There's a huge difference between munin-node and ntp on one side, and w3m on the other. w3m is client side tool, for local users of server (administrators). ntp and munin-node are daemons and, when installed, most of the administrators share those services on network. As you can see, I totally agree with you regarding w3m, but not over munin-node and ntp. But, I could get convinced if we start offering products, not packages((c) by Rick Clark) :D -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Moving w3m out of standard
Soren Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This seems to be a common theme when it comes to discussing what goes on servers by default and what doesn't. We shouldn't put foo on servers by default, because not everyone needs it, and it's easily apt-get installable if you need it. Well, that might be true, but consider the converse: Some people need it, and it's easily apt-get removable if you don't. which is also true. With the advent of the server seed, I think the time is ripe for us to be slightly (not much, but just a tiny bit) more promiscuous in our choice of what gets installed by default. What about keeping having the option, to be choosen with some virtual package, just like one has with the desktop options? - ubuntu-server-base - ubuntu-server-full We should probably add an install option to the server CD to only install the base system, so that the die hard group of old school admins can keep their Ubuntu systems as small as possible, though. Removing the bloat would ba as simple as removing the virtual package. And having the option at installtime to not deploy ubuntu-server-full Of course, one should be carefull to not extermely bloat ubuntu-server-full :) But I agree that stuff like smartmontools might be a good candidate for ubuntu-server-full. Maybe a partial parameter to what should be provided could also be those packages which are manageable through UCSA Serge Serge van Ginderachter http://www.vanginderachter.be/ Kreeg u een odt bestand en kan u deze niet openen? Zie http://ginsys.be/odf -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Moving w3m out of standard
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:05:37PM +0200, Ante Karamatic wrote: [1]: At least ntp and munin-node do have open sockets, but they're both only bound to the loopback interface, so I don't expect this to be overly controversial. There's a huge difference between munin-node and ntp on one side, and w3m on the other. Certainly. If that wasn't the case, there wouldn't be much to discuss. :) w3m is client side tool, for local users of server (administrators). Quite right. ntp and munin-node are daemons and, when installed, most of the administrators share those services on network. That's also true. I'm not sure what your point is? As you can see, I totally agree with you regarding w3m, but not over munin-node and ntp. But, I could get convinced if we start offering products, not packages((c) by Rick Clark) :D I suppose that is sort of what I'm suggesting. The current Ubuntu server install is not much more than a minimal set of packages to have a functional system. This is very convenient for some use cases, but at some point, I'd like for Ubuntu server to be much more than that. There's lots of simple stuff we could do, such as install some extra packages by default (chkrootkit, checksecurity, and ntp just to name a few). Slightly more involved things to do is to install various monitoring agents (I'm thinking of munin-node and nagios-plugins, but others might make sense, too) along with a configuration package to hook them into a corresponding server (for munin-node this would be as simple as adding the server's IP to the list of allowed hosts, and for nagios-plugins it would involve setting up an ssh-server and add a pubkey authenticated user to call the plugins). A properly designed directory service could provide transport for these configuration settings. I haven't put a whole lot of thought into this, to be honest, but it seems like an interesting discussion to have. -- Soren Hansen | Virtualisation specialist | Ubuntu Server Team Canonical Ltd. | http://www.ubuntu.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Moving w3m out of standard
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 12:50:32PM +0200, Serge van Ginderachter wrote: Maybe a partial parameter to what should be provided could also be those packages which are manageable through UCSA I'm not sure I'm familiar with UCSA? -- Soren Hansen | Virtualisation specialist | Ubuntu Server Team Canonical Ltd. | http://www.ubuntu.com/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Moving w3m out of standard
I'm not sure I'm familiar with UCSA? Sorry, Ubuntu Central Server Administration serge -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Moving w3m out of standard
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 7:01 AM, Soren Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm not sure I'm familiar with UCSA? -- Soren Hansen | It's vaporware right now... something that's been tossed around on the mailing list. James -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Moving w3m out of standard
I'll just start by saying that while I disagree with Soren, I in no way took anything that he said to be flaming or trying to insight a flame war... On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 10:04 AM, Soren Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [Michael told me in a different e-mail that he replied off-list by accident, so I'm taking the thread back on the list] On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 08:07:14AM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote: We should probably add an install option to the server CD to only install the base system, so that the die hard group of old school admins can keep their Ubuntu systems as small as possible, though. I'm not sure if you're trying to spark a flame war or not. I think this is a great idea (I actually even suggested that in the last Server Team meeting). I'm all for keeping the install process as simple as possible, which means keeping the questions and options to a minimum, but I think an additional option to install a bare system or to include a set of recommended tools would be worthwhile. Here's my list: openssh samba apache postfix dovecot openvpn um, he's not really suggesting making all these part of the standard install, is he? Pretty sure I don't need dovecot or openvpn on my webserver or any of those but Samba on my file server. Not even Windows Server is that sloppy. Though the original email was off-list, I'm guessing he was being sarcastic here. screen Agreed. vim (full) vim-full depends on a stack of GUI stuff, but a more full featured vim than vim-tiny (like e.g. the vim package) would be lovely to have by default. Just to name a few. And how could anyone possibly object to any of those? Why, they're just basic stuff that I really, really need. Not like it'll hurt anything. So what that ubuntu-server requires a stack of DVDs to install. DVDs are cheap! There are certain software packages that go on EVERY linux server I set up, such as screen and openssh-server. However, I refrain from suggesting these go in to the server seed, because some people may not use them and they are easily, for me, to apt-get them. I'm not preaching to turn Ubuntu into the perfectly customized server distro just for me, I'm preaching to keep it efficient and secure, while providing the canvas for admins to create the perfectly customized server for themselves. And, excuse me, saying we can just apt-get remove it is surely the *dumbest* suggestion I've heard on an Internet list anytime recently. While not the dumbest, I do not like this suggestion, though I do practice it. Particularly on my Redhat servers. I go though the running daemons and uninstall any that are stupid to have on a server (like pcmcia and bluez services). I have a sudo yum remove line all written down in a text file that I just copy, paste, and run on every server, right after install. Oh, so maybe we shouldn't even install a coreutils? Or a kernel? Maybe we should make an apt-get remove --ALL option? (I'm taking a stab at the take-whatever-people-say-and-blow-it-completely-out-of-proportions things. How am I doing?) I think there is a pretty big difference between compiling your own kernel and running sudo apt-get install foobar. Do you think there are things in the standard seed that doesn't belong there? If you truly want to do everything yourself I guess you'd even want the server install to not include the standard seed, but only minimal? That would remove such completely useless things as psmisc, man-db, iptables, ftp, at, cron, file, openssh-client, and wget. I don't believe I've ever used ftp or openssh-client from a server, so those could easily go. I very very rarely have used at and am actually kinda surprised to hear it is installed by default. So don't start me out in a mansion when a rustic cabin is adequate for my needs. To keep to the house analogies, I think that your suggestion is closer to just providing the foundation of the house and leave it up to anyone who actually wants a place to live to build the house itself, install doors, windows, heating facilities, bathrooms, kitchens, etc., because, you know, a very significant percentage of the world's population manages survives without most of these things, so who are we to go and decide that everyone should have heating facilites installed even though they can just choose to not turn them on? I would prefer the foundation so I can customize the size, layout, and features how I want them. This is assuming your analogy means I can just point my finger and say sudo apt-get install toilet. I'm sure you'll enjoy installing extra packages over that sort of connection. I think he was refering to using gui tools from a remote workstation over that connection. The server itself could have been connected to the internet with a 100mbit fiber line. Also, everyone keeps bringing this up that you'll wish you had it when things go sour but even with my stripped down installs I've never felt that I was
Re: Moving w3m out of standard
Soren Hansen wrote: [Michael told me in a different e-mail that he replied off-list by accident, so I'm taking the thread back on the list] On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 08:07:14AM -0500, Michael Hipp wrote: We should probably add an install option to the server CD to only install the base system, so that the die hard group of old school admins can keep their Ubuntu systems as small as possible, though. I'm not sure if you're trying to spark a flame war or not. Err.. No, I'm not. I'm not sure a) what would make you say that, and b) why you seem to be taking this so very personal. Because you made the statement that anyone who disagrees is die hard old school. That's offensive. It directly implies that we're some kind of extremists standing in the way of good and holy progress. INSWYTISP, but that's really not the case. I'm attempting to start a discussion about what sort of stuff we should put on servers by default. The operative word here is should. Not could. Agreed, but many of the comments and your own thoughts seem to be leading toward a greatly expanded list of items to be installed. And should surely is subjective and situational. The rational-defensible approach, IMHO, is to keep the base install as lean as possible but also make it as easy as possible to layer on top of that base. The current approach is something like: 1. Will more than 95% of our users need it? If yes, install it by default. If no, go to next question. 2. Will more than 80% of our users need it? If yes, include on CD. If no, go to next question. 3. Will more than 10% need it and be completely and utterly screwed without it? If yes, include it on the CD. If no, go to next question. 4. Forget it. This is good stuff. What I'm suggesting is to add an extra step in between 1 and 2. Something like Is it something most of our users *should* be using? or Does using it constitute what we consider best practice?. If so, install it by default. This word should keeps cropping up and it bothers me. Who is to say what I should be using. The tools that a LAMP stack admin should be using are probably quite different than what one of my very simple Samba boxes would require. I don't think either's list should dictate the other. Here's my list: Evidently my thick sarcasm obscured the fact that this list was intended to show how quickly it becomes ridiculous to include what everyone thinks is a necessity. (Not to advocate those particular packages.) And I don't agree, for example, that 'screen' should be installed by default. It's primarily useful, I think, to those of us who never sit at the console. Someone who admins from the console would probably never use it. Hence, no matter how bad I want it, it shouldn't be installed by default. A guy called Michael Hipp (you may have heard of him) once asked me: I'm not sure if you're trying to spark a flame war or not. It just so happens that I'm not, but you sure seem to be. And I'm not sure why you think that calling us die hard old school should not be taken personally or with offense. It was. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it was. (And it is often said, erroneously perhaps, that perception is reality.) Let me offer a take on this. Say there's a package called foo, which 60% of our users would want. If we install it by default, only 40% of our users will have to change the default, while 60% will be happy with it. Disregarding all other circumstances, surely that sounds sensible? No. It doesn't sound sensible. Let me attempt to explain why... Take the 60% group that needs the package. The only pain they feel is the necessity, after install, to type a 30-character apt-get command. (I'm assuming it's on the CD or the net is available.) Their system is no worse for it. But the 40% group must a) allocate partition space for a package they don't need, b) possibly answer configuration questions during install for a package they don't need, c) remember to uninstall something that is likely out-of-sight-out-of-mind, d) type a similar 30-character apt-get command to remove the package, e) live with the knowledge and risk of knowing that uninstalling packages is far more likely to break something than an install would be (from my experience, anyways). (To use an extreme analogy, it's somewhat like all the crapware that comes on a PC from a big-name manufacturer. You have to endure the pain of the degunking in order to have a machine that runs and responds like it should. Yes, it would be way over the top to insinuate this would be anywhere near that bad.) So a crude economic analysis would put the cost of making the 60% group happy much higher than going with the wishes of the minority 40%. And please note that I place great weight on item 'e' above, uninstalling is far worse than installing. Maybe I'm just unlucky. None of them (along with w3m) are in any way essential to get a basic server up and running. So
Re: Moving w3m out of standard
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 3:34 PM, Michael Hipp [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Because you made the statement that anyone who disagrees is die hard old school. That's offensive. It directly implies that we're some kind of extremists standing in the way of good and holy progress. As a die hard old school sysadmin, I take offense to you considering it to be offensive to be called die hard old school. James -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Moving w3m out of standard
die hard old school sysadmin As another proud and hardy sysadmin from a venerable institution :) I think it is helpful to look at the trends, and accept once again that linux server is a very diverse beast, and getting more so all the time. So the suggestion by Soren et al. that there be more flexibility in the installation of Ubuntu server makes sense to me. E.g. I'm told there are Gentoo-based JEOS LAMP server images that are just 10 GB compressed, via use of busybox etc. And there are development servers that have lots of nice development tools. Print servers can be very different from DNS servers or compute servers. And there are those that love GUI interfaces too I like the idea of an easy-to-install minimal server platform: JEOS + basic hardware drivers. I also resonate with the idea of encouraging best practices, thought I think of that as stuff folks are likely to *want* to be using as well as what they *should* be using (e.g. for security). More doucmentation will slowly help there, as well as more tasksel options and nicely packaged bundles. It would be good to have more facts at our disposal. Are there handy tools around for asking not just how big a package is, but also how much space it would take to install it and its dependencies on top of some of the standard seeds? And I agree that information on history of vulnerabilities, open ports, etc are very relevant. I'd love to see specific information on uninstall bugs that folks have encountered also - I can see why they might be more common than we'd like, and the best way to deal with it is to report them -- Neal McBurnett http://mcburnett.org/neal/ -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Moving w3m out of standard
On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 11:57:29AM -0500, James Dinkel wrote: We should probably add an install option to the server CD to only install the base system, so that the die hard group of old school admins can keep their Ubuntu systems as small as possible, though. I'm not sure if you're trying to spark a flame war or not. I think this is a great idea (I actually even suggested that in the last Server Team meeting). I'm all for keeping the install process as simple as possible, which means keeping the questions and options to a minimum, but I think an additional option to install a bare system or to include a set of recommended tools would be worthwhile. Here's my list: openssh samba apache postfix dovecot openvpn um, he's not really suggesting making all these part of the standard install, is he? Well, that was the topic of the discussion. Though the original email was off-list, I'm guessing he was being sarcastic here. I wasn't sure, so I went the safe way and assumed that he wasn't and tried to provide feedback to his suggestions. There are certain software packages that go on EVERY linux server I set up, such as screen and openssh-server. However, I refrain from suggesting these go in to the server seed, because some people may not use them and they are easily, for me, to apt-get them. What exactly is the goal we're trying to achieve by refusing to install something as useful as e.g. screen? Are you ashamed of the set of packages you install on every server? Are there ones you really wish you didn't have to install, but still do? If not, these packages might very well be what we should consider best practice to install, and I'd very, *very* much like to see your list. I'm not preaching to turn Ubuntu into the perfectly customized server distro just for me, Nor am I. I'm a) trying to have a discussion about the criteria we use for choosing the software that goes on our server installs by default, and then b) trying to apply the logic of my suggested changes and see what the outcome is. I'm preaching to keep it efficient and secure, while providing the canvas for admins to create the perfectly customized server for themselves. Michael made comments to this affect as well. I'll address this in my e-mail response to him. And, excuse me, saying we can just apt-get remove it is surely the *dumbest* suggestion I've heard on an Internet list anytime recently. While not the dumbest, I do not like this suggestion, though I do practice it. Particularly on my Redhat servers. I go though the running daemons and uninstall any that are stupid to have on a server (like pcmcia and bluez services). I have a sudo yum remove line all written down in a text file that I just copy, paste, and run on every server, right after install. I'm not suggesting that we install all sorts of stuff that will not be useful to most people. I'm in fact suggesting that we install stuff that *will* be useful to most people. I'd like to install the stuff that only a minority will want to remove. For instance, it's already perfectly possible to use a system that doesn't provide an editor other than nano or ed or whatever, but still we provide vim-tiny in our minimal installs. We do this because a *lot* of people find this useful. Oh, so maybe we shouldn't even install a coreutils? Or a kernel? Maybe we should make an apt-get remove --ALL option? (I'm taking a stab at the take-whatever-people-say-and-blow-it-completely-out-of-proportions things. How am I doing?) I think there is a pretty big difference between compiling your own kernel and running sudo apt-get install foobar. I'm not suggesting that people compile their own kernels. I'm just saying that they're only an apt-get install away anyway, so why bother installing it by default? As I said, I was deliberately trying to blow things as much out of proportion as Michael does, in an attempt to get a point across. The point in question is that we already install lots of stuff that otherwise would only be an apt-get install away, but the convenience of their being installed by default by far outweighs the crappiness of each user having to do it him-/herself. I don't believe I've ever used ftp or openssh-client from a server, so those could easily go. I very very rarely have used at and am actually kinda surprised to hear it is installed by default. Well.. it is. :) So don't start me out in a mansion when a rustic cabin is adequate for my needs. To keep to the house analogies, I think that your suggestion is closer to just providing the foundation of the house and leave it up to anyone who actually wants a place to live to build the house itself, install doors, windows, heating facilities, bathrooms, kitchens, etc., because, you know, a very significant percentage of the world's population manages survives without most of these things, so who are we to go and decide that everyone should have heating facilites
Re: Moving w3m out of standard
On 20/06/08 16:33, Soren Hansen wrote: With the advent of the server seed, I think the time is ripe for us to be slightly (not much, but just a tiny bit) more promiscuous in our choice of what gets installed by default. In the server meeting on the 4th of June we were discussing ebox and webmin. During that discussion an interesting comment was made which indicated that an approach wasn't ubuntu-like. The notion that this encompasses speaks to me in ways that other arguments don't. That is, if we're going to make a server platform seed, perhaps we could come up with tools that promote best practice, make life simpler for the administrator and allow for a higher level view of the administration landscape. While I'm an ssh and vi kinda admin, I'd appreciate version control for my configuration files for example. I'd love ssh to come standard and screen is a useful tool to have available. Disk space is absurdly cheap and the tools we decide are required are going to be counted in megs rather than gigs. It seems that some discussion is already under way and that some suggestions are already being made. Perhaps stepping back and looking at each of our own server installs to see what kind of things are used regularly would be useful. For me things that come to mind are an annotated server log, that is, on xyz day Abc installed foo to fix an incompatibility with bar. There was also a suggestion a while back on the list about logging. A spec was written and for a while I had a web page open with some actual logging code, but I've since misplaced it :-( We should probably add an install option to the server CD to only install the base system, so that the die hard group of old school admins can keep their Ubuntu systems as small as possible, though. Absolutely, for me it's more to do with virtual deployments, that is, I'd like to get to the point where I can have the one CD and deploy the server and its virtual machines without needing different versions of different things. As for the old-school, once you've been around long enough, everything old becomes new again :) Finally, if it all goes down the toilet and a server under my control is down and I'm sitting at the console needing to make it work *now*, the last thing I want to do is have to get another internet connection to fire up my laptop, or to find a spot to balance it while sitting at a 19 rack with a console keyboard on my knees. What I'm saying is that when we come up with our list, it would be nice to find that on that day when I'm sitting there, this discussion made my life easier. -- Onno Benschop Connected via Optus B3 at S31°54'06 - E115°50'39 (Yokine, WA) -- ()/)/)()..ASCII for Onno.. |?..EBCDIC for Onno.. --- -. -. --- ..Morse for Onno.. ITmaze - ABN: 56 178 057 063 - ph: 04 1219 - [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
Re: Moving w3m out of standard
Soren Hansen wrote: I'm sorry you took offence to what I said. It meant it in the most affectionate way imaginable. In fact, I usually consider myself to be in that very group. If someone refers to the style with which I attack a problem as old school, I blush like a school girl (on the inside, at least). I also proudly refer to myself myself as a nerd or geek. :-) If we look solely at the packages I suggested, I don't think 5-6 packages constitutes a greatly expanded list of items to be installed. Agreed. But I work under the assumption that the list over time will grow greatly and not over a very long time at that. If I may expound further (and I think this will speak to several of your questions below) I fear this list would become truly ridiculous if we pursue this path with anything less than a very hard line approach. By way of example: I find it truly amazing, yeah, incomprehensible that someone would suggest a text mode browser should be installed by default on every server. My mind is unable to grasp the concept. Meaning no offense to any who hold this opinion, I just do not know how to even think about it. That some folks have cases where such a thing is useful. Certainly. That it should be easy to add to a base system. Absolutely. Install it on every box by default. Can't imagine it. I don't mean to pick on that example (or it's proponents), but if such an innocuous and (to me) useless thing has a strong chance of being added to the list, then I assume we'll shortly have a flood. If someone wants to say that's an irrational fear, I won't argue the point. But having too much history with kitchen sink distros like RH/Fedora I just can't find it to be embarrassed about fearing to go back to anything similar. The rational-defensible approach, IMHO, is to keep the base install as lean as possible but also make it as easy as possible to layer on top of that base. What is the goal you are trying to achieve by doing this? Thank you for asking. I think I answer this in pieces below. I is somewhat scary tho as I thought this was actually a design goal of sorts of Ubuntu (somewhat) and ubuntu-server in particular. The necessity to keep all images on one CD being an example. So you asking is surprising. Apologies if I'm reading to much into this. I just thought this had been decided long ago. The current approach is something like: 1. Will more than 95% of our users need it? If yes, install it by default. If no, go to next question. 2. Will more than 80% of our users need it? If yes, include on CD. If no, go to next question. 3. Will more than 10% need it and be completely and utterly screwed without it? If yes, include it on the CD. If no, go to next question. 4. Forget it. This is good stuff. ..yet you seem to think that point 1 should read 100%. Perhaps. But I suspect the difficulty in gathering reliable data about it would obscure the difference between 100% and 95%. So your process sounds fine given that a certain amount of subjectivity and imprecision is a given. The tools that a LAMP stack admin should be using are probably quite different than what one of my very simple Samba boxes would require. I don't think either's list should dictate the other. You seem to wilfully miss my point. I'm not trying to determine the /union/ of useful tools for /every possible/ user of Ubuntu Server. I'm trying to determine the /intersection/ of useful tools for /most/ users of Ubuntu Server. I don't believe I'm doing that, certainly not willfully. I suppose it's just that I'm comfortable that the intersection has already been reached. Not to say there aren't things that should be added. But there may also be things that could be removed. I truly cannot imagine that such an intersection would contain more than a handful of items beyond what is already on the base server install. And, if I may... The seeming conclusion that w3m is a good candidate for being added looks to me like the beginnings of a union process, not an intersection process. But I'm probably guilty of making too much of one example. Here's my list: Evidently my thick sarcasm obscured the fact that this list was intended to show how quickly it becomes ridiculous to include what everyone thinks is a necessity. As we're dealing with tricky bits of set logic, please be careful with words like everyone. Surely, what everyone thinks is a necessity (i.e. something that *every* user finds necessary) should be installed? What I meant by that everyone thinks is necessity was the idea of taking everyone's list, adding them together (union) and making that the list of things we add to the default install. Obviously we won't be doing that. But the w3m example looks awfully close to it. (See irrational fears paragraph above.) Hence, no matter how bad I want it, it shouldn't be installed by default. Why? Answer predicated on my belief that it's primarily only
Re: Moving w3m out of standard
On Sat, 21 Jun 2008 00:21:10 -0500 James Dinkel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: While there is a lot here that I could debate till my fingers fall off, I think one point by Soren actually sums up my concern pretty well: On Fri, Jun 20, 2008 at 7:02 PM, Soren Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Given enough time, any software will prove to be insecure in some way And that is a very good reason for keeping frivolous packages off the server. I would also reiterate a subject Michael Hipp brought up in his last email. That is that the concern here is not so much about w3m being in the server seed, but that if such a useless package can make it into the server seed, than what more feature creep will the future bring. Keep in mind that I too am one that jumped ship from RHEL, which apparently decided to take after MS and make a nice big leap in bloated-by-default with RHEL 5. SuSe is the same way. So the thought of another distro which I've favored, losing what it is that I favor it for, is a little disheartening. You are aware that w3m is part of the existing install and has been since approximately forever? Not removing somethin you feel should be removed is not the same thing as adding stuff. We need a better/more scalable system than we have right now to properly accomodate everyone's concerns. I suspect that is a better thing to expend energy on at the moment than exactly what packages should be in or out. Scott K -- ubuntu-server mailing list ubuntu-server@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
