Re: nfs shares not mounted at boot
Tom Horsley: >> My consistent experience is that systemd has no clue when >> the network is "up" if by up you mean actually capable of >> talking to other things on the network. Thus all of the >> dependencies it waits on never wait long enough. Tim: > There was a thread about that, last year, I think. Another target was > added to solve that stupid dependency. I can't remember what it was > called, but it meant "actually on-line," as opposed to "somewhere there > is some aspect of a network." Realising that I didn't really finish saying what I meant before sending, earlier on... As I recall, the extra target was wedged in so that it has to be true, before it lets the other target become true (the one that all your applications are looking at to see whether you're on-line, or not). But I still can't recall what /that/ thread actually was, to refer you to it, though. -- tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp Linux 3.18.7-100.fc20.i686 #1 SMP Wed Feb 11 21:16:53 UTC 2015 i686 All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the public lists. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
I have to say I find this disucssion interesting I have spent what amounts to a small fortune (for me!) making sure that when I upgrade from one version of LINUX to another (initially slackware but so far fedora 9 - 20) that I can minimise the risk of (anaconda or whatever the current installer might be) deciding in its wisdom whilst doing the partitioning that it thinks best, blowing away my /opt and/home partitions - which have nearly 20 years of accumulated digital clutter! To that end I have my home and multimedia filesystems on a separate raid pair of disks and my /boot & root on a separate "system" disk. All my disks are in removable caddies! When I "upgrade" I usually buy a new "system disk" install onto it and only when its stable do I go about connecting and mounting my home and multimedia filesystems. If the "upgrade" isn't to my liking - I can reload the old system disk. I used to have a hellish time due to things like the size of /boot being too small and problems like that associated with having to repartition. So I just point out that "been there - done that" and I came to the conclusion that anaconda just has a "holier than thou" attitude and the only way round it is to do what I have done. But as I say its an expensive option. Andy On Sunday 22 February 2015 16:05:57 Chris Murphy wrote: > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > > On 02/22/2015 02:01 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> If > >> you, who seems to care about such things so much, won't do that work, > >> then why should anyone else do it? > > > > I haven't done any programming worth mentioning since the late '80s and > > never learned python. My impression was that back then, anaconda used > > whatever standard partitioning programs were available, rather than > > rolling > > their own. > > ? They use parted, mdadm, lvm, grub-install/mkconfig, and mkfs. But > that's not where the bulk of the code is. I don't know python either, > but I can still make out some sense of the complexity involved by > looking at anaconda, python-blivet (that's the bulk of the storage > code), and even the new python-bytesize package will give you some > idea of the complexity involved in all of this. > > Any GUI installer is not just some dumb wrapper for existing tools, > more so with Anaconda that has a huge amount of logic wrapped into it. > It's worth skimming the code. 443 lines just for iSCSI (which depends > on a bunch of other code, this is just the iscsi portion), > devicefactory is nearly 2000 lines. The installer is > substituting/emulating a human being's logic. > > https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda > https://github.com/rhinstaller/blivet > > > Let me ask you this: could I, if needed, boot from a Live Gpartd CD/USB, > > set up and format things the way I wanted and then use those existing > > partitions when installing Fedora? > > Yes. Matthew already mentioned that. The exception is that the > installer insists on root fs being formatted by the installer. I > understand why this is considered safer, but at the same time I think > a fsck check (no repairing) passes without errors should permit that > volume to be used. This turns into a problem if you have say, hardware > raid and you need to use custom mkfs options to tune the file system > to the raid. With software raid, mkfs becomes aware of the underlying > geometry. This isn't guaranteed with many types of hardware raid, so > custom options are needed, and we have no way to do that in the > installer so instead you'll have to do this post-install with fstab > mount options. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: nfs shares not mounted at boot
This poroblem occurs on other unices as well, try using the bg option in your nfs fstab entry. Andy On Sunday 22 February 2015 21:39:13 Pete Travis wrote: > On Feb 22, 2015 1:01 AM, "Jens Neu" wrote: > > Dear list, > > > > maybe since 2 weeks (close to upgrade to Twenty_One), my nfs shares are > > no longer mounted at boot. Claims that the nfs server is not resolvable, > but it clearly is. Raised the timeo to 200, but no luck. Hints? Bugworthy? > > > regards Jens > > > > [root@andrea ~]# systemctl status media-jessa.mount > > ● media-jessa.mount - /media/jessa > > > >Loaded: loaded (/etc/fstab) > >Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Sun 2015-02-22 08:52:55 CET; > > 1min 15s ago > > > Where: /media/jessa > > > > What: mavie.zeeroos.int:/media/jessa > > Docs: man:fstab(5) > > > >man:systemd-fstab-generator(8) > > > > Process: 1849 ExecMount=/bin/mount -n mavie.zeeroos.int:/media/jessa > > /media/jessa -t nfs -o > _netdev,rw,hard,intr,nfsvers=3,tcp,noatime,nodev,async,rsize=8192,wsize=8192 > ,vers=3,nolock,timeo=200 (code=exited, status=32) > > > Feb 22 08:52:55 andrea.zeeroos.de systemd[1]: media-jessa.mount mount > > process exited, code=exited status=32 > > > Feb 22 08:52:55 andrea.zeeroos.de systemd[1]: Failed to mount > > /media/jessa. > > > Feb 22 08:52:55 andrea.zeeroos.de systemd[1]: Unit media-jessa.mount > > entered failed state. > > > Feb 22 08:52:55 andrea.zeeroos.de mount[1849]: mount.nfs: Failed to > > resolve server mavie.zeeroos.int: Name or service...known > > > Hint: Some lines were ellipsized, use -l to show in full. > > > > > > [root@andrea ~]# host mavie.zeeroos.int > > mavie.zeeroos.int has address 192.168.17.124 > > mavie.zeeroos.int has IPv6 address 2001:6f8:11d5:0:215:17ff:fe36:aa4e > > > > > > -- > > I use a the systemd automount functionality to mount NFS shares on demand. > Use "x-systemd.automount" as one of the mount options and the problem will > go away. Bonus, if the network is legitimately down, it doesn't hold up > booting. > > `man systemd.mount` explains, > http://www.freedesktop.org/software/systemd/man/systemd.mount.html . > > --Pete -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Converting server to workstation
Dear All, Is there some simple way to convert fedora-server to fedora-workstation ? Thanks in advance, Paul -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On Monday 23 February 2015 09:10:24 Andrew R Paterson wrote: > I have to say I find this disucssion interesting > I have spent what amounts to a small fortune (for me!) making sure that when > I upgrade from one version of LINUX to another (initially slackware but so > far fedora 9 - 20) that I can minimise the risk of (anaconda or whatever > the current installer might be) deciding in its wisdom whilst doing the > partitioning that it thinks best, blowing away my /opt and/home partitions > - which have nearly 20 years of accumulated digital clutter! > To that end I have my home and multimedia filesystems on a separate raid > pair of disks and my /boot & root on a separate "system" disk. > All my disks are in removable caddies! > When I "upgrade" I usually buy a new "system disk" install onto it and only > when its stable do I go about connecting and mounting my home and > multimedia filesystems. If the "upgrade" isn't to my liking - I can reload > the old system disk. > I used to have a hellish time due to things like the size of /boot being too > small and problems like that associated with having to repartition. So I > just point out that "been there - done that" and I came to the conclusion > that anaconda just has a "holier than thou" attitude and the only way round > it is to do what I have done. > But as I say its an expensive option. > Andy > > On Sunday 22 February 2015 16:05:57 Chris Murphy wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > > > On 02/22/2015 02:01 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > > >> If > > >> you, who seems to care about such things so much, won't do that work, > > >> then why should anyone else do it? > > > > > > I haven't done any programming worth mentioning since the late '80s and > > > never learned python. My impression was that back then, anaconda used > > > whatever standard partitioning programs were available, rather than > > > rolling > > > their own. > > > > ? They use parted, mdadm, lvm, grub-install/mkconfig, and mkfs. But > > that's not where the bulk of the code is. I don't know python either, > > but I can still make out some sense of the complexity involved by > > looking at anaconda, python-blivet (that's the bulk of the storage > > code), and even the new python-bytesize package will give you some > > idea of the complexity involved in all of this. > > > > Any GUI installer is not just some dumb wrapper for existing tools, > > more so with Anaconda that has a huge amount of logic wrapped into it. > > It's worth skimming the code. 443 lines just for iSCSI (which depends > > on a bunch of other code, this is just the iscsi portion), > > devicefactory is nearly 2000 lines. The installer is > > substituting/emulating a human being's logic. > > > > https://github.com/rhinstaller/anaconda > > https://github.com/rhinstaller/blivet > > > > > Let me ask you this: could I, if needed, boot from a Live Gpartd CD/USB, > > > set up and format things the way I wanted and then use those existing > > > partitions when installing Fedora? > > > > Yes. Matthew already mentioned that. The exception is that the > > installer insists on root fs being formatted by the installer. I > > understand why this is considered safer, but at the same time I think > > a fsck check (no repairing) passes without errors should permit that > > volume to be used. This turns into a problem if you have say, hardware > > raid and you need to use custom mkfs options to tune the file system > > to the raid. With software raid, mkfs becomes aware of the underlying > > geometry. This isn't guaranteed with many types of hardware raid, so > > custom options are needed, and we have no way to do that in the > > installer so instead you'll have to do this post-install with fstab > > mount options. my apologies for top-posting. Andy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
[snip] This was a good thread and is tied in with my experience this weekend. I had a very old laptop with F13 that had not been booted in years. I tried to load F21 on it using the same partitions (and keeping the old Windows partitions). Anaconda more or less let me try but gave me a warning about /boot being below the RECOMMENDED size (not that it would not work). F21 installed without any indicated errors. However I got an OOPS on first boot. I was able to boot into the recovery partition and inspect the /boot. The initrd for normal boot was incomplete and the /boot was full. I did NOT receive an error on install. IMHO, this was a silent failure (bug reported). Yes, there are those of us who have done "interesting things" with our partitioning over the years. We would like to continue to be able to manually partition, manually setup RAID, and do similar things.Its definitely not good for the average user, but some of us need it. However, we should see errors when things fail Cheers, -- Wade Hampton -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: nfs shares not mounted at boot
On Mon, 2015-02-23 at 09:17 +, Andrew R Paterson wrote: > This poroblem occurs on other unices as well, try using the bg option > in your nfs fstab entry. Putting fstab entries in is really only useful for what I consider to be permanently available shares (or drives, if we're not talking about nfs). i.e. Things that are *always* present. For anything that is transitory (flash drives, plug in hard drives), it's not the best way to handle it, it can cause seriously annoying problems. Such things may not always be connected, might be swapped for other drives plugged in the same place (a device name is not unique), may not always have the same volume name (several different drives), or may not have unique names (flashdrives or volume groups with common default volume names). Likewise with things on a network, which might not always be booted up, or the times that the remote things and your computer are booted up are not always the same. You end up with a mass of crap in your fstab file, that you have to manage by hand. You really want something doing auto-mounting, whether that's noticing that a drive has been plugged into a port, a device with storage (such as a phone) has been plugged in or has joined the network, et cetera, that finds its appearance, and makes it available for you. And that's how I've used CD and DVD data discs, flash drives, USB hard drives, digital cameras, for years. Plug it in, drive appears, use it. This is how people expect it to work. Or, something that finds it when you look for it, such as how autofs works. You browse your way over to /net/hostname/sharename and it appears. I've done that, for many years, with NFS, and has been a godsend over fstab entries (where you get hideously stalled boot-ups, or stalled shutdowns, because something wasn't available at the right time, and backgrounding it really didn't help). And this (autofs) is /almost/ how I expect it to work. The fly in that ointment has been that you have to hand type in the hostname, the first time around, because they don't appear in the list simply because they're available. You have to look for them. But once done, it remains for the session, and you can bookmark filepaths so you don't have to type it in again, next time (just use the bookmarked shortcut). A second fly in that ointment has been that I haven't been able to get a Fedora 20 box to share one of its filepaths out, at all. No amount of messing with the firewall or SELinux has born fruit. -- tim@localhost ~]$ uname -rsvp Linux 3.18.7-100.fc20.i686 #1 SMP Wed Feb 11 21:16:53 UTC 2015 i686 All mail to my mailbox is automatically deleted, there is no point trying to privately email me, I will only read messages posted to the public lists. George Orwell's '1984' was supposed to be a warning against tyranny, not a set of instructions for supposedly democratic governments. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On 23.02.2015 01:19, Alex Regan wrote: > Hi, > > On 02/22/2015 06:43 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 3:39 PM, Heinz Diehl wrote: >>> On 22.02.2015, Chris Murphy wrote: >>> Windows, OS X installers have maybe 2-3 total layouts between them. And their installers are completely, totally, bullet proof. They don't ever crash, or ask the user to create required partitions, they always succeed in their penultimate goal which is to install a bootable OS. >>> >>> Frankly, the vast majority of the users of those operating systems >>> aren't even capable of installing them by themselves. >> >> The users don't know these things because they don't have to know >> them, not the other way around. There's no benefit in them knowing >> such things it's not intrinsically valuable knowledge for the >> majority. It's sufficient that a scant minority know such things. >> >> Look at even Android and cyanogen. Look at the reinvention of all OS's >> for mobile devices and how much simpler things are when constraining >> choices. Chromebooks are in that same category. Simple. Just works. >> They picked a layout and stuck with it. >> >> And that's not to say the layout of my cyanogen phone is exactly >> simple, it uses GPT partition scheme, and has 28 partitions. (Of >> course that's not by my choice, I had no say.) > > On a somewhat-related note, is it now possible with F21 to create a > RAID1 /boot? > > I can see this as being one reason for an "escape to parted/fdisk" option. > > I'm curious why this option has been so elusive for anaconda over the > years? A situation where a failed /dev/sda in an otherwise RAID5 system > is really unfortunate and requires a whole lot of extra work when things > go bad. > > Thanks, > Alex > EXTLINUX RAID1 intro https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2013-June/msg00032.html At the time this worked for me. ;) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
BackupPc install
Hi, I've just installed BackupPC on my home server from the Fedora repos ( Fedora 21 ). It doesn't seem to have installed a systemd service file. So the question is how do I start BackupPC. I have it installed on CentOS 6 at work so configuration shouldn't be a proble. I know I've missed something obvious. Thanks, Tony -- Linux nogs.tonyshome.ie 2.6.32-504.8.1.el6.x86_64 #1 SMP Wed Jan 28 21:11:36 UTC 2015 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
Ohh, can someone help? I would like to install a coffee grinder, multi boot with Fedora if possible? Coffee Coffee Coffee http://goo.gl/7nPcsB -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On 22.02.2015 23:55, Matthew Miller wrote: ... > * I mean, literally: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Vision_statement > People write all kinds of stuff on the walls, Miller. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On 23.02.2015 08:44, Tim wrote: > On Sun, 2015-02-22 at 15:01 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: >> What you're talking about might be in-scope for blivet-gui. It >> definitely sounds out of scope for a GUI OS installer. >> >> Windows, OS X installers have maybe 2-3 total layouts between them. >> And their installers are completely, totally, bullet proof. They don't >> ever crash, or ask the user to create required partitions, they always >> succeed in their penultimate goal which is to install a bootable OS. >> And there are essentially zero user complaints about these installers. >> There's nothing at all to even complain about because they don't do >> anything except meet their primary requirement. Not even their >> developers or testers even complain about the installer, it does one >> thing successfully. > > While I don't find it hard to believe that Windows developers won't > complain. After all, just about all Windows users do is install Windows > as a new install, or over the top of a previous one, with no intention > of doing anything like dual-boot. Shoe-horn it in, that's all they care > about. These days, it's all single-partition, or act like it's > single-partition with a hidden boot/recovery partition that the user > doesn't know about. > > I find it harder to believe that users don't complain about the Windows > installer. I've certainly seen it fuck up, and I can't be the only one. > It was a gamble to see whether an install over the top could manage to > keep existing data, never mind settings. And trying to get it to > install to the right drive in a two-drive PC was nothing but trial and > error (one drive for Windows, a second drive for video on a non-linear > editing suite). > > I, also, am rather incredulous of how difficult it is to have the Linux > installer simply do what the user tells it to do, instead of > second-guessing them and denying them of what they want to do. If I > select custom partition, and edit partitions myself, type of options, I > expect it to have a GUI that does what I tell it to do. > > In the past, before the live DVD install era, I'd boot the install disc > and wait for to pause on some screen, then CTRL + ALT + FUNCTION-KEY to > another terminal, and fdisc my hard drive, and go back to the installer > and have it use my pre-defined partitions. Even further back, I'd > select the options to check partitions for faults, rather than get a > nasty surprise a few months in when the drive reaches a certain amount > of fullness and comes across a bad section. > > I don't know what's really so hard about giving us a simple GUI hard > drive partitioner somewhere in the install routine. Using the command > line tool is a pain (e.g. you cannot see any details about the rest of > the drive while you're working on making a partition), and there are > other standalone GUI partitioning tools that exist. > > Leave the so-called automatic smart partitioning to those people who > choose the full-automatic option. > Don't be depressed, who care about proprietary nonsense crap, in the first place. :) -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Network printer out of ink weirdness
On 22.02.2015 22:17, Jim Lewis wrote: ... > What did I miss? I did not do anything to the printer during this time. > WLAN & AP devices are? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On 02/22/2015 01:31 PM, jd1008 wrote: Seems like the Anaconda UI could provide much clearer explanations of available choices, and the consequenes of those choices (i.e. their impact on the drives/partitions that are VISIBLE to Anaconda). Does it even make sense to Anaconda to worry about creating anything but a very, very basic partitioning scheme in the age of live media? -- Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com "I grew up before Mark Zuckerberg invented friendship" -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On 02/23/2015 10:01 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote: On 02/22/2015 01:31 PM, jd1008 wrote: Seems like the Anaconda UI could provide much clearer explanations of available choices, and the consequenes of those choices (i.e. their impact on the drives/partitions that are VISIBLE to Anaconda). Does it even make sense to Anaconda to worry about creating anything but a very, very basic partitioning scheme in the age of live media? This has been a discussion for quite a while over on the devel list (the shortcomings/obfuscation in anaconda). I'd highly suggest that you put in your $0.02 over there. I have for quite a while but I guess I don't carry a lot of weight over there. I'm with you. Should anaconda see a manually-laid-out partition scheme, it should honor it. It should also permit one to create a partition scheme that meets one's own needs without having to spin twice in an anticlockwise direction on your right foot while quoting Omar Khayyam and then sacrificing a goat under a full moon on the Nazca plains. Now they're talking about anaconda enforcing its own concept of what a "secure" password is (and a number of people have demonstrated that some of the simplest passwords pass its security test--so I have no idea what they consider "secure"). I've been railing against this impudence and I think I've moved the peg a bit, but not enough. Get over onto the devel list and start raising some hell. Perhaps they'll listen to us real users a bit more. -- - Rick Stevens, Systems Engineer, AllDigitalri...@alldigital.com - - AIM/Skype: therps2ICQ: 22643734Yahoo: origrps2 - -- - "Do you suffer from long-term memory loss?" "I don't remember" - --- Chumbawumba, "Amnesia" (TubThumping) - -- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Converting server to workstation
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Paul Smith wrote: > Dear All, > > Is there some simple way to convert > > fedora-server > > to > > fedora-workstation ? Check the thread on Fedora test@ (see archives if you're not subscribed), "Convert nonproduct to productX" which is somewhat related. The gist is that this possibility should be de-emphasized, if not unsupported. The fact environments show up (non-hidden) in yum/dnf group list suggests (to me) that this is intentional, but it turns out this is an aberration that ought to be fixed, as in hide it. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On 02/23/2015 11:01 AM, Ian Pilcher wrote: On 02/22/2015 01:31 PM, jd1008 wrote: Seems like the Anaconda UI could provide much clearer explanations of available choices, and the consequenes of those choices (i.e. their impact on the drives/partitions that are VISIBLE to Anaconda). Does it even make sense to Anaconda to worry about creating anything but a very, very basic partitioning scheme in the age of live media? I think it does make sense, because users would like to custom partition the drive(s) and live with that partitioning scheme for many years. So, all such options should be made available. A responder to this thread mentioned that there should be an "expert" mode in Anaconda where the user accepts all the consequences of her/his choice(s). Cheers, JD -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Network printer out of ink weirdness
> On 22.02.2015 22:17, Jim Lewis wrote: > ... >> What did I miss? I did not do anything to the printer during this time. >> > > WLAN & AP devices are? > I'm using the 5G side of my new Netgear R6200v2 router. I'm on Time Warner in Oahu using an Arris Surfboard SB6183 modem. No special configuration except for DHCP reservations. As I mentioned before it can print fine now, wirelessly, but I had to change to the wired interface to clear out the printer out-of-ink error condition. This sure sounds like a bug to me. However, this is on Fedora 20 and has possibly already been corrected. The Fedora 21s didn't have a problem, nor did Fedora 14 (but it's wired only). Jim Lewis -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > In my experience, anaconda is the #1 point, many people (ordinary users and > power users) are complaining about when getting in contact with Fedora and > is the #1 reason why they are shying away from installing Fedora (When > talking to non-Fedora users, the first question very often is "Is the > installer still the crap it used to be?".) This is what happens when the installer offers a gigantic smörgåsbord before a total rewrite: everyone is used to their specialty dish in the buffet and will get totally pissed off when their stinky dish no one else will touch isn't offered in the revamp. Unsurprising. The ordinary user use case should be bullet proof. I argued strenuously for Manual Partitioning features to work or be stripped from the UI. I think it's bad for GUIs to offer broken things, because it makes them untrustworthy, and we can't have that. I think that's been proven to be correct, even though hindsight is 20/20 too, the reality is too much was bitten off, much more than could be chewed, and more than Anaconda had help with from these power users who wanted all of these (highly questionable) use cases supported as if it's easy. Guy: CHEF! Make me Peking Duck to go, you have 5 minutes! Chef: Umm, well I can't make Peking Duck in 5 minutes, it takes an hour. Guy: Idiot! It's really just noise. In many ways I think the power user was excessively coddled during the rewrite. The scope should have been significantly narrowed, the main uses cases made bullet proof and then refined, before any Manual Partitioning should even have been included. I filed over 100 bugs on newUI a lot of which had to do with Manual Partitioning and quite honestly I wish I could get that time back. > To "newbies" the GUI is "cryptical" and "non-selfexplatory", while to > "power-users" the GUI doesn't provide the features catering their demands > and clumsy to use. Ok well, unless the power users are filing coherent bugs and/or contributing code, their demands are edge cases that probably shouldn't be supported. The newbies always have legitimate complaints. They're completely innocent in all of this, and that's where I'd have put resources. And in terms of prioritizing, I think i18n needed more resources, accessibility needs more resources, and I'm sure we can find some other enhancements to the installer well before more Manual Partitioning enhancements happen. Me: >> That's a difficult problem to solve, >> the result is the user still thinks they're supposed to be able to >> manipulate partitions. > > IMO, this is a distorted view. People want to understand what the installer > does and to have control over it. The current GUI does not do so and instead > applies some magic which people have learnt does not do what they want. People who aren't filing bugs, who aren't contributing code, want what? If the use case is viable, and helps a large percent of users, then I think this could be done. But please feel free to be specific, rather than generally casting the installer with a broad brush that suggests the GUI doesn't at all do what anyone wants ever. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Tim wrote: > While I don't find it hard to believe that Windows developers won't > complain. After all, just about all Windows users do is install Windows > as a new install, or over the top of a previous one, with no intention > of doing anything like dual-boot. Windows 8 has made a huge leap forward in terms of statelessness. The refresh, reset, and restore options all work quite well and don't use any installer at all. The installer itself does new installations and upgrades, and I'd say upgrade comparison is now out of scope since Anaconda doesn't do upgrades anymore, that's left to fedup. Both Windows and OS X do support, explicitly, dual boot either two version n's, or version n already installed, and a new version n+1, reliably. However, both of them use separate utilities for doing fs resizing for these cases, it's not built into the general purpose installer. Further, OS X explicitly supports dual boot with Windows, going so far as to prepare itself to accept an ordinary default Windows installation. And again that's yet another utility, it's not rolled into a giant monolithic installation program. Meanwhile, Fedora can't manage version n, version n+1, default installations without breaking the earlier version (due to LVM not being enabled), and is a nearly three year old bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=825236 Because there are thousands of possible layouts among Linux OS's, it's instantly non-deterministic to support dual boot on all of them. To do better requires some standardization, and all you have to do is look at the state of bootloaderspec to realize almost no one gives a shit about this problem enough to compromise on it. They give a shit enough to complain about the woeful state of cooperation among Linux distros, but from start to finish Linux can't even standardize on one or two bootloaders, or baring that they can't standardize all bootloaders on a single configuration file format for those bootloaders, or they can't come up with a standard on disk layout or self describing one by which discovery could be dynamic rather than relying on antiquated static configuration files in the first place. So from start to finish, dual boot is basically shit. Trying to automate this has been one of the biggest nightmarish black holes I've encountered, and really has exemplified the worst that can happen in FOSS when there's insufficient cooperation and every distro tries to build their own highway from the garage to downtown. And multiboot is so beyond shit, I might have to first invent a new category of profanity to do that one justice in explaining. Yet again, it's a lack of discipline, and a bunch of people demanding 1000+1 more knob for their cockamamie use case. You know what? Fine, do that in the CLI. Please don't defecate on the GUI, it makes them untrustworthy. Our brains are wired to pattern recognition, and upon associating mistrust with a GUI is very damaging and expensive to unwind that mistrust. > > I, also, am rather incredulous of how difficult it is to have the Linux > installer simply do what the user tells it to do, instead of > second-guessing them and denying them of what they want to do. If I > select custom partition, and edit partitions myself, type of options, I > expect it to have a GUI that does what I tell it to do. Please cite a bug. There's no doubt in my mind there are still lots of bugs in the installer. But I keep hearing this level of cognitive dissonance from folks who seem to think things are simple when they're told they aren't. If you don't believe me, fine, go look at the code. But please don't keep spouting this notion that making the installer do what you want is an easy thing. Every feature will include dozens, or hundreds of bugs. It's inevitable. And again, Windows and OS X installers, they don't crash. I've tried. I'm a goddamn bug magnet. To this day I'm still finding crashing bugs in Anaconda, and the reason is because of code churn and lack of stabilization because new functionality keeps being added. If it were a brain dead installer, I guarantee you it would at least be stable. > I don't know what's really so hard about giving us a simple GUI hard > drive partitioner somewhere in the install routine. Please go code one yourself. You have 5 minutes to make Peking Duck, even though I know it takes at least an hour to make it. I really don't see what so hard about you doing this, seeing as by your own admission it isn't hard. I will even offer to troubleshoot it. But be prepared for vitriolic levels of criticism when you f up basic things. If you come back with something inside of 6 months, I will eat my hat. > Using the command > line tool is a pain (e.g. you cannot see any details about the rest of > the drive while you're working on making a partition), and there are > other standalone GUI partitioning tools that exist. If you really want partitions, why aren't you doing this w
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Andrew R Paterson wrote: > I have to say I find this disucssion interesting > I have spent what amounts to a small fortune (for me!) making sure that when I > upgrade from one version of LINUX to another (initially slackware but so far > fedora 9 - 20) that I can minimise the risk of (anaconda or whatever the > current installer might be) deciding in its wisdom whilst doing the > partitioning that it thinks best, blowing away my /opt and/home partitions - It's comments like this that make me want to grab a metal bucket, put it on my head, and start hitting myself with a mallet. To delete and existing /opt or /home requires explicit user intervention for this to happen. It doesn't happen by itself. You have to a.) click the mount point, b.) click the minus (-) button to indicate you want it removed, and c.) the installer produces a dialog indicating it's going to be deleted, along with a cancel button, and d.) the installer produces a summary of changes at the very end of the Manual Partitioning process THAT FUCKING HIGHLIGHTS THIS SHIT IN RED LETTERS indicating it will be deleted. So what is it *EXACTLY* that you're experiencing? And what is it *EXACTLY* you think you should experience instead? If you can't do that, please stop offering opinions about how you need to minimize risk due to the installer. This the compsci equivalent of hypochondria... > which have nearly 20 years of accumulated digital clutter! And you have backups right? Because by definition it's not important unless you have backups. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Wade Hampton wrote: > [snip] > > This was a good thread and is tied in with my experience > this weekend. I had a very old laptop with F13 that had not > been booted in years. I tried to load F21 on it using the > same partitions (and keeping the old Windows partitions). > Anaconda more or less let me try but gave me a warning > about /boot being below the RECOMMENDED size (not > that it would not work). There's a thread on test@ "Does anyone reuse /boot or /var partitions?" that explores some of this. But I think if you can reproduce this, you need to file a bug, I don't see how else such things get fixed because this is not a Fedora QA test case to reuse or share /boot because it's not best practices. If the installer is going to permit a non-empty /boot to be used for installation, then it should check free space not volume size; and fail with a clear warning. Such checks are a nice little pile of code and further require translations due to the warning. And that's why I'm more in favor of non-empty /boot being unsupported. That's not the same thing as requiring it to be reformatted, but if the installer team were to go that route I think that's better than the shared case which is simply dysfunctional and inconsistent with the FHS as well. The long standing history is that /boot is owned/paired with a particular root fs. End of discussion. There's just no good that comes from trying to support arbitrary content and avoid stepping on things, not least of which is that a pile of bootloader code and configuration (all of which is distro specific and are mutually incompatible since distros maintain their own substantially different GRUB forks, in effect) that's distro specific contained in /boot. So this is a Do Not Pass Go as far as I'm concerned. > F21 installed without any indicated errors. However I got > an OOPS on first boot. > > I was able to boot into the recovery partition and inspect > the /boot. The initrd for normal boot was incomplete and > the /boot was full. I did NOT receive an error on install. > IMHO, this was a silent failure (bug reported). Yes I'd say that's at least one bug. The installer should be aware if dracut or new-kernel-pkg exited with something other than 0 and would report that to the user. So there's some missing error checking (which may or may not actually be the installer's fault); and another bug if that error checking doesn't have a practical way of being implemented, the installer needs to simply disallow non-empty /boot as well as ones that have insufficient space. > > Yes, there are those of us who have done "interesting things" > with our partitioning over the years. We would like to continue > to be able to manually partition, manually setup RAID, > and do similar things.Its definitely not good for the average > user, but some of us need it. However, we should see > errors when things fail Or flat out indicate that the layout isn't supported, so that you don't end up going down a rabbit hole thinking it is supported, only to encounter an error later in process, or worse, once "Begin Installation" has been clicked and on-disk changes have already been made. Better to pre-fail than fail later. And it's not like I've seen anyone (except me) post bugs demonstrating their installer failure cases. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On Feb 23, 2015 1:26 PM, "Chris Murphy" wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 11:23 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > In my experience, anaconda is the #1 point, many people (ordinary users and > > power users) are complaining about when getting in contact with Fedora and > > is the #1 reason why they are shying away from installing Fedora (When > > talking to non-Fedora users, the first question very often is "Is the > > installer still the crap it used to be?".) > > This is what happens when the installer offers a gigantic smörgåsbord > before a total rewrite: everyone is used to their specialty dish in > the buffet and will get totally pissed off when their stinky dish no > one else will touch isn't offered in the revamp. Unsurprising. > > The ordinary user use case should be bullet proof. I argued > strenuously for Manual Partitioning features to work or be stripped > from the UI. I think it's bad for GUIs to offer broken things, because > it makes them untrustworthy, and we can't have that. > > I think that's been proven to be correct, even though hindsight is > 20/20 too, the reality is too much was bitten off, much more than > could be chewed, and more than Anaconda had help with from these power > users who wanted all of these (highly questionable) use cases > supported as if it's easy. > > Guy: CHEF! Make me Peking Duck to go, you have 5 minutes! > > Chef: Umm, well I can't make Peking Duck in 5 minutes, it takes an hour. > > Guy: Idiot! > > It's really just noise. In many ways I think the power user was > excessively coddled during the rewrite. The scope should have been > significantly narrowed, the main uses cases made bullet proof and then > refined, before any Manual Partitioning should even have been > included. I filed over 100 bugs on newUI a lot of which had to do with > Manual Partitioning and quite honestly I wish I could get that time > back. > > > > To "newbies" the GUI is "cryptical" and "non-selfexplatory", while to > > "power-users" the GUI doesn't provide the features catering their demands > > and clumsy to use. > > Ok well, unless the power users are filing coherent bugs and/or > contributing code, their demands are edge cases that probably > shouldn't be supported. > > The newbies always have legitimate complaints. They're completely > innocent in all of this, and that's where I'd have put resources. > > And in terms of prioritizing, I think i18n needed more resources, > accessibility needs more resources, and I'm sure we can find some > other enhancements to the installer well before more Manual > Partitioning enhancements happen. > > > Me: > >> That's a difficult problem to solve, > >> the result is the user still thinks they're supposed to be able to > >> manipulate partitions. > > > > IMO, this is a distorted view. People want to understand what the installer > > does and to have control over it. The current GUI does not do so and instead > > applies some magic which people have learnt does not do what they want. > > People who aren't filing bugs, who aren't contributing code, want > what? If the use case is viable, and helps a large percent of users, > then I think this could be done. But please feel free to be specific, > rather than generally casting the installer with a broad brush that > suggests the GUI doesn't at all do what anyone wants ever. > > -- > Chris Murphy > -- Well said. Any use case with a sole justification of "because that's the way I like it" has questionable merit. I don't think it came up in this thread, but I've seen partition ordering cited in this context as well: user wants /boot on sda1, / on sda2, /home on sda3, /opt on sda5, /usr/local on /sda6, and so on. In most of those cases, there wasn't a technical reason for this or some automated code with partition expectations - just arbitrary preference. Changing every possible option away from the default does not make you a power user. The lack of options for choices with zero or less technical merit does not diminish your skills. Roughly 149 out of every 100 people that would choose to take Hienz's "no extended partition" option would regret it, and often not understand the implications even after the negative impact was felt. If you're doing the math in your head, figure in about a third of people choosing the same unsuitable option again because that's what they want, then another third of that group do it again because that's what they want and nevermind the warnings, and another third of *that* group because the system should do what *I want*, not what *it* thinks is possible. With each iteration people give up on the installer and distribution because they were able to to configure the installation the way they wanted, but didn't end up with the configuration they *needed*. That's a lot of dissatisfaction to risk when deciding how to devote coding time. So really, if this stuff bothers you, sit down, come up with a rational justification for the feature you want, and send it in. Most
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On 02/23/2015 12:56 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: If you really want partitions, why aren't you doing this with gparted then? What's the problem with that workflow? Why do you need it integrated in Anaconda? One of the constraints on what anaconda can do comes from space limitations, especially on the Live media. (One of the reasons why I've always used the full install DVD.) Is there room to include GParted and have anaconda call it if needed? -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > To delete and existing /opt or /home requires explicit user > intervention for this to happen. It doesn't happen by itself. You have > to a.) click the mount point, b.) click the minus (-) button to > indicate you want it removed, and c.) the installer produces a dialog > indicating it's going to be deleted, along with a cancel button, and > d.) the installer produces a summary of changes at the very end of the > Manual Partitioning process THAT FUCKING HIGHLIGHTS THIS SHIT IN RED > LETTERS indicating it will be deleted. e.) THIS SHIT IN RED LETTERS, is *still* not deleted! You have to click on Begin Installation for your drive to actually get touched. I mean... fucking seriously. I'm going to go buy a bucket and a mallet. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On 02/23/2015 01:03 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: And you have backups right? Because by definition it's not important unless you have backups. First, I'd like to point out that just because the installer isn't supposed to modify your partitions without your explicitly selecting them doesn't mean that it never happens. It's always possible for a bug to rear its ugly head and mark /home for reformatting even though you've specified that it's to be used as is, or for a bit to flip, changing the value of a flag. However, I must agree with you about backups. I've given new users instructions on how to set things up so that /home can be preserved across new installations many times, but I've also told them to create a backup, Just In Case. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Network printer out of ink weirdness
On 23.02.2015 21:25, Jim Lewis wrote: > >> On 22.02.2015 22:17, Jim Lewis wrote: >> ... >>> What did I miss? I did not do anything to the printer during this time. >>> >> >> WLAN & AP devices are? >> > >I'm using the 5G side of my new Netgear R6200v2 router. I'm on Time > Warner in Oahu using an Arris Surfboard SB6183 modem. No special > configuration except for DHCP reservations. As I mentioned before it > can print fine now, wirelessly, but I had to change to the wired > interface to clear out the printer out-of-ink error condition. This > sure sounds like a bug to me. However, this is on Fedora 20 and has > possibly already been corrected. The Fedora 21s didn't have a problem, > nor did Fedora 14 (but it's wired only). > > > Jim Lewis > > That is AP/router, but what is Wi-Fi device on Fedora machine? lsusb/lspci -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On 02/23/2015 01:22 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: I mean... fucking seriously. I'm going to go buy a bucket and a mallet. Back when I did senior tech support for an ISP, we used headsets with long cords so that we could move around during a call. I always arranged things so that I was near a pillar so that I could bang my head against it when I was dealing with a less than cooperative caller. (Why they called if they weren't going to follow instructions is a question I never asked, because I was afraid that the answer might make sense.) It was an excellent way to express my frustration without letting the caller know what I thought of them and besides, it felt so *good* when I stopped. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Rick Stevens wrote: > This has been a discussion for quite a while over on the devel list (the > shortcomings/obfuscation in anaconda). I'd highly suggest that you put > in your $0.02 over there. I have for quite a while but I guess I don't > carry a lot of weight over there. I'll tell you what, let's play a game. I call it, "vet this probably really bad idea before posting it on devel@". Put your use case up on this list, and get just 5 users to vote in favor of it, while not one person puts forth an effective contra argument proving that it's actually dangerous to others. That might be a good basic litmus test before going on devel@ and flinging pies at people. Mind you, Anaconda developers don't really monitor devel@, they have their own list (which might be part of the problem with there are major disagreements surrounding the installer but that's a different matter). > I'm with you. Should anaconda see a manually-laid-out partition scheme, it > should honor it. Saying things does not make it true. However, one of the installer team's stated goals is to support preexisting layouts, just by assigning mountpoints to volumes. So if you can't do that, file a bug or cite bug here instead of just suggesting it can't be done. And please stop calling it a partition scheme. Only one of the support device types in Anaconda even deals with partitions directly and that's "Standard Partitions". On Btrfs it's using subvolumes as mount points. On LVM it's using LVs or vsize LV's. These things are not all partitions and that's the primary reason why the installer isn't partition centric anymore. It's volumes and mountpoints oriented, that's what's consistent across each device type. > It should also permit one to create a partition > scheme that meets one's own needs without having to spin twice in an > anticlockwise direction on your right foot while quoting Omar Khayyam > and then sacrificing a goat under a full moon on the Nazca plains. You're right, you've found a bug. That's definitely the wrong ritualistic incantation to compel the installer to be permissive of a bad idea it can't possibly understand. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Network printer out of ink weirdness
> On 23.02.2015 21:25, Jim Lewis wrote: >> >>> On 22.02.2015 22:17, Jim Lewis wrote: >>> ... What did I miss? I did not do anything to the printer during this time. >>> >>> WLAN & AP devices are? >>> >> >>I'm using the 5G side of my new Netgear R6200v2 router. I'm on Time >> Warner in Oahu using an Arris Surfboard SB6183 modem. No special >> configuration except for DHCP reservations. As I mentioned before it >> can print fine now, wirelessly, but I had to change to the wired >> interface to clear out the printer out-of-ink error condition. This >> sure sounds like a bug to me. However, this is on Fedora 20 and has >> possibly already been corrected. The Fedora 21s didn't have a problem, >> nor did Fedora 14 (but it's wired only). >> >> >> Jim Lewis >> >> > > That is AP/router, but what is Wi-Fi device on Fedora machine? > lsusb/lspci > Sorry Poma, this is on a Lenovo ThinkPad T500. From lspci: 03:00.0 Network controller: Intel Corporation PRO/Wireless 5100 AGN [Shiloh] Network Connection It is using the iwlwifi driver. Jim Lewis -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:16 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 02/23/2015 12:56 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> If you really want partitions, why aren't you doing this with gparted >> then? What's the problem with that workflow? Why do you need it >> integrated in Anaconda? > > > One of the constraints on what anaconda can do comes from space limitations, > especially on the Live media. (One of the reasons why I've always used the > full install DVD.) Anaconda's supported layouts (usage of device types, and creating volume associated with mountpoints) is not any different among the various medias available. Manual Partitioning behaves exactly the same. What will be new in Fedora 22 is, guided partitioning will offer different defaults for the different products. So you'll need to be more specific what limitations you're talking about. > Is there room to include GParted and have anaconda call > it if needed? From live media, just yum/dnf install gparted and now it's in the live environment. You can partition however you want. There's no easy way for Anaconda and Gparted to be used at the same time, in effect Anaconda has a lock on the storage stack and changing it from underneath it will cause it to become unstable; and engineering it to work differently so that it can deal with Gparted changing things underneath it is asking for a huge amount of logistical work to make it stable. As in, not worth the effort. But you can certainly use Gparted first, complete the task of creating the layout you want, and then quit Gparted and launch the installer. Realize that Gparted is partition oriented only, it's not adept at any of the LVM or LVM thinp stuff, or Btrfs. At the moment I'm not seeing blivet-gui in Fedora repos but you have a functioning FireFox on live media so you can still retrieve it that way. It supports all the things the installer does but with a Gparted like interface. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:26 PM, Joe Zeff wrote: > On 02/23/2015 01:03 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> And you have backups right? Because by definition it's not important >> unless you have backups. > > > First, I'd like to point out that just because the installer isn't supposed > to modify your partitions without your explicitly selecting them doesn't > mean that it never happens. OK I have probably well in excess of 500 man hours testing Anaconda over the past couple of years, and I've never seen it. And I'm a bug magnet. I make things break just by looking at them. So if there's no bug citation I'm considering this in the realm of conjecture. It's a unicorn. > It's always possible for a bug to rear its ugly > head and mark /home for reformatting even though you've specified that it's > to be used as is, or for a bit to flip, changing the value of a flag. Umm? OK well the moon could possibly fracture tomorrow and we all die. What you're talking about has no potential for mitigation. It's not a reproducible bug, it's just bad luck. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On Monday 23 February 2015 14:03:17 Chris Murphy wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:10 AM, Andrew R Paterson > > wrote: > > I have to say I find this disucssion interesting > > I have spent what amounts to a small fortune (for me!) making sure that > > when I upgrade from one version of LINUX to another (initially slackware > > but so far fedora 9 - 20) that I can minimise the risk of (anaconda or > > whatever the current installer might be) deciding in its wisdom whilst > > doing the partitioning that it thinks best, blowing away my /opt and/home > > partitions - > It's comments like this that make me want to grab a metal bucket, put > it on my head, and start hitting myself with a mallet. > > To delete and existing /opt or /home requires explicit user > intervention for this to happen. It doesn't happen by itself. You have > to a.) click the mount point, b.) click the minus (-) button to > indicate you want it removed, and c.) the installer produces a dialog > indicating it's going to be deleted, along with a cancel button, and > d.) the installer produces a summary of changes at the very end of the > Manual Partitioning process THAT FUCKING HIGHLIGHTS THIS SHIT IN RED > LETTERS indicating it will be deleted. > > So what is it *EXACTLY* that you're experiencing? And what is it > *EXACTLY* you think you should experience instead? If you can't do > that, please stop offering opinions about how you need to minimize > risk due to the installer. This the compsci equivalent of > hypochondria... > > > which have nearly 20 years of accumulated digital clutter! > > And you have backups right? Because by definition it's not important > unless you have backups. Points taken :) :o and apologies where needed. But maybe the problem is that not many people install/reinstall/fedup often enough to get familiar with it. So I simply make sure I avoid the problem. The thought of risking "mucking it up" after being bitten just once (maybe in the distant past) still makes me do an "Upgrade" the way I do by a reinstall but requiring my own /home and other "partitions". Because these are on separate disks these filesystems are kept securely offline till the install (upgrade) is complete - then I manually add them - anyone else wanting to be really sure they have control of an "upgrade" would be sensible in doing the same thing! I am sure the existing anaconda will allow me to do this - but it irritates me that some people think it shouldn't - and like I say I don't upgrade often enough to be confident and sure. The thought of trying to back up 300GB using hmmm! a dvd drive! persuades me I'd rather live with a RAID 1 setup and occasionally take one of the mirrors off and replace it with a new disk - preserving the old disk mirror as my "backup". So I'm afraid I want to preserve my filesystems (and their partitioning) and NO - I don't have backups! - and you wont persuade me to take any either - I would spend all day doing backups - and please don't give me another lecture on the subject - I have set up bacula on a large network blah! and done script systems using dump/restore and found that its a full time job which introduces new risks that pretty well counter the benefits - Unless you are talking about enterprise systems! Neurotic I might be, but that's the way I do an "upgrade" because I don't trust the installer - yum upgrade - fedup or whatever its next incarnation might be! Andy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On 02/23/2015 01:48 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: Anaconda's supported layouts (usage of device types, and creating volume associated with mountpoints) is not any different among the various medias available. There's a slight misunderstanding here. Having two versions of anaconda, one for Live media and one for a full install DVD would double the workload and complexity so it has to be written to fit into the Live image even though there are things that would be nice to have in the larger version. And yes, I know that you can install GParted into the Live environment if needed; I was thinking that if there was room to include it, it might be possible for anaconda to call it if and when needed so that it would fit into the installation seamlessly. I'm not sure if it's worth the trouble or not, but I did think that the possibility was worth mentioning. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On 02/23/2015 01:52 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: So if there's no bug citation I'm considering this in the realm of conjecture. It's a unicorn. I'd prefer to call it a Black Swan: something that shouldn't ever happen, but not quite as impossible as we think. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On 02/23/2015 01:54 PM, Andrew R Paterson wrote: Neurotic I might be, but that's the way I do an "upgrade" because I don't trust the installer - yum upgrade - fedup or whatever its next incarnation might be! Just as a side-note: I've never had fedup fail me on my laptop or work correctly on my desktop. As soon as my hardware guy can come out here (It's a long trip, I'm on a limited income and paying for his gas is a bit of a stretch right now.) and replace my power supply, I'll be migrating off of F 19 to F 20, using upgrade-fedora and see if that works any better. I'd have done it already, but I really don't like the idea of having the box shut itself down or reboot in the middle of an upgrade. Will report back when I can with the results. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On 23.02.2015, Pete Travis wrote: > "Because that's that I want" isn't a good way to ask for someone else's time. I didn't ask for someone else's time, but for an explanation why there is a custom mode which indeed isn't custom . I do not want somebody to implement something which fits my special needs. Now, I've learned that custom in fact doesn't mean custom.. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
fedora netinstall
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bonjour, I can read on this page: http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/21/html/Installation_Guide/chap-downloading-fedora.html netinstall Image The netinstall image boots directly into the installation environment, and uses the online Fedora package repositories as the installation source. With a netinstall image, you can select a wide variety of packages to create a customized installation of Fedora. The Fedora Server netinstall image is a universal one, and can be used to install any Fedora flavor or your own set of favorite packages. No link is provided So what poor people like me can do? Thanks for any light. - -- François Patte UFR de mathématiques et informatique Laboratoire CNRS MAP5, UMR 8145 Université Paris Descartes 45, rue des Saints Pères F-75270 Paris Cedex 06 Tél. +33 (0)1 8394 5849 http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlTrrWUACgkQdE6C2dhV2JVIMgCgov4RNDS1O17cdsXyW4lDNjpQ N1IAoKbtQ9JK/C3Ny7TuL+KWoQTLAAXq =GM2r -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Andrew R Paterson wrote: > But maybe the problem is that not many people install/reinstall/fedup often > enough to get familiar with it. Nor should they. Therein lies a huge reason for why I think the scope is just too extreme when they either have to become familiar with its idiosyncrasies, or read a bunch of documentation. fedup should get better, although I don't know the time frame. One of the ideas floated is to make major upgrades show up in Gnome-Software just like offline updates do which already leverages systemd. And eventually I'd like to see the default installations be a handful of use cases but under neath it all it's a stateless installation that permits easy resets, and atomic updates. > So I simply make sure I avoid the problem. > The thought of risking "mucking it up" after being bitten just once (maybe in > the distant past) still makes me do an "Upgrade" the way I do by a reinstall > but requiring my own /home and other "partitions". Because these are on > separate disks these filesystems are kept securely offline till the install > (upgrade) is complete - then I manually add them - anyone else wanting to be > really sure they have control of an "upgrade" would be sensible in doing the > same thing! No they should test this and try to break it and if they can break it file a bug so that we can all trust the installer, rather than suggesting ways to avoid making things better and more trustworthy. > I am sure the existing anaconda will allow me to do this - but it irritates me > that some people think it shouldn't - and like I say I don't upgrade often > enough to be confident and sure. I've done dozens of /home reuse. It even includes /home on a Btrfs subvolume, which is on a volume that / is also going to be created which normally mandates a reformat which might suggest /home gets obliterated, but the installer instead creates a new subvolume for / instead of reformatting, and reuses the existing /home. > So I'm afraid I want to preserve my filesystems (and their partitioning) and > NO > - I don't have backups! - and you wont persuade me to take any either - I > would spend all day doing backups - and please don't give me another lecture > on the subject - I have set up bacula on a large network blah! You hate your data. You want it gone. You're just unwilling to do it directly yourself, so instead you're being passive aggressive with it. > and done script > systems using dump/restore and found that its a full time job which introduces > new risks that pretty well counter the benefits - Unless you are talking about > enterprise systems! OK add the lack of a really good backup and restore to the list of consequences everyone suffers from, by everyone demanding their obscure layout be supported. These arbitrary layouts, rather than standardization, is impossible to restore correctly without human intervention or very expensive (development knowledge and time and testing) backup restore software. > Neurotic I might be, but that's the way I do an "upgrade" because I don't > trust the installer - yum upgrade - fedup or whatever its next incarnation > might be! Well as yet not neurotic enough if you aren't doing backups, yet so worried about your /home data you think it's going to be the installer that nukes it. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Fedora 20: After running yum update the Mate Terminal doesn't start anymore
I ran "yum update" on my Fedora 20 system a few days ago. I normally don't do this as something always breaks and in this case it was the Mate-Terminal. I already had a few terminals open so I can still use the system. Clicking on either the Terminal icon in the panel, or using Applications->Mate Terminal does the same thing: There's a message on the bottom panel that says "Starting MATE" that stays there for about 6 seconds and then it disappears. No new terminal is created. I can still use my existing terminals and I can create a new one if I run "mate-terminal &" in it. I have looked at the Properties dialog of the Terminal and nothing seems out of place (i.e. looks just like my other systems). I have not rebooted yet in case there is something I should do first. Any ideas? Of course a reboot might just fix this but I wanted to ask before I did that. Or maybe a reboot is needed after an update and I am too ignorant to know this. BTW, I tried to find this problem on the net but did not have any luck. Also, this is not a critical issue, the system seems fine otherwise. Jim Lewis -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: fedora netinstall
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/24/15 06:45, François Patte wrote: > Bonjour, > > > I can read on this page: > > http://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/Fedora/21/html/Installation_Guide/chap-downloading-fedora.html > > > > netinstall Image > The netinstall image boots directly into the installation > environment, and uses the online Fedora package repositories as the > installation source. With a netinstall image, you can select a wide > variety of packages to create a customized installation of Fedora. > The Fedora Server netinstall image is a universal one, and can be > used to install any Fedora flavor or your own set of favorite packages. > > > > No link is provided So what poor people like me can do? > > Thanks for any light. > https://getfedora.org/en/server/download/ Has the links to the Netinstall Images - -- If you can't laugh at yourself, others will gladly oblige. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlTrsOQACgkQ4JnKjVbCBvrNqACdEOKaMoc2+4RlXDb6cnYreHFr 4koAnRDccWl9kvPUe3yOazlG6yoDFNiT =Sx+x -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On Monday 23 February 2015 15:45:26 Chris Murphy wrote: > On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:54 PM, Andrew R Paterson > > wrote: > > But maybe the problem is that not many people install/reinstall/fedup > > often > > enough to get familiar with it. > > Nor should they. Therein lies a huge reason for why I think the scope > is just too extreme when they either have to become familiar with its > idiosyncrasies, or read a bunch of documentation. > > fedup should get better, although I don't know the time frame. One of > the ideas floated is to make major upgrades show up in Gnome-Software > just like offline updates do which already leverages systemd. > > And eventually I'd like to see the default installations be a handful > of use cases but under neath it all it's a stateless installation that > permits easy resets, and atomic updates. > > > So I simply make sure I avoid the problem. > > The thought of risking "mucking it up" after being bitten just once (maybe > > in the distant past) still makes me do an "Upgrade" the way I do by a > > reinstall but requiring my own /home and other "partitions". Because > > these are on separate disks these filesystems are kept securely offline > > till the install (upgrade) is complete - then I manually add them - > > anyone else wanting to be really sure they have control of an "upgrade" > > would be sensible in doing the same thing! > > No they should test this and try to break it and if they can break it > file a bug so that we can all trust the installer, rather than > suggesting ways to avoid making things better and more trustworthy. > > > I am sure the existing anaconda will allow me to do this - but it > > irritates me that some people think it shouldn't - and like I say I don't > > upgrade often enough to be confident and sure. > > I've done dozens of /home reuse. It even includes /home on a Btrfs > subvolume, which is on a volume that / is also going to be created > which normally mandates a reformat which might suggest /home gets > obliterated, but the installer instead creates a new subvolume for / > instead of reformatting, and reuses the existing /home. > > > So I'm afraid I want to preserve my filesystems (and their partitioning) > > and NO - I don't have backups! - and you wont persuade me to take any > > either - I would spend all day doing backups - and please don't give me > > another lecture on the subject - I have set up bacula on a large network > > blah! > > You hate your data. You want it gone. You're just unwilling to do it > directly yourself, so instead you're being passive aggressive with it. > > > and done script > > systems using dump/restore and found that its a full time job which > > introduces new risks that pretty well counter the benefits - Unless you > > are talking about enterprise systems! > > OK add the lack of a really good backup and restore to the list of > consequences everyone suffers from, by everyone demanding their > obscure layout be supported. These arbitrary layouts, rather than > standardization, is impossible to restore correctly without human > intervention or very expensive (development knowledge and time and > testing) backup restore software. > > > Neurotic I might be, but that's the way I do an "upgrade" because I don't > > trust the installer - yum upgrade - fedup or whatever its next incarnation > > might be! > > Well as yet not neurotic enough if you aren't doing backups, yet so > worried about your /home data you think it's going to be the installer > that nukes it. Hang on there Chris, (new thread really) why do you think using a mirror as a backup is a bad idea? After all its a bit like a database checkpoint. What is the benefit of a full backup against simply taking a mirror offline and replacing it with a new mirror and resyncing - without I might add taking my system down? As opposed to taking your box offline, and doing a level 0 backup to another disk - you end up with a serial backup which must be parsed - I end up with a filesystem that I can mount? To me this is one of the benefits of mirroring - I can mount one of my old detached mirrors somewhere else and get at my old data. That's aside from the lower risk of losing the data in the first place. I don't particularily need to archive data - just preserve it. I think you will find this idea is becoming more common these days. So please give some good reasons for archive (backup) better than checkpoint (detached mirror)?? Andy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On 02/23/2015 01:13 PM, jd1008 wrote: I think it does make sense, because users would like to custom partition the drive(s) and live with that partitioning scheme for many years. So, all such options should be made available. A responder to this thread mentioned that there should be an "expert" mode in Anaconda where the user accepts all the consequences of her/his choice(s). What is the benefit of having anaconda worry about *creating* these partitioning schemes (for lack of a better term)? Wouldn't it be better to ask people to use the regular tools in a live media environment for anything other than a very basic scheme and save anaconda dev time for ensuring that it is able to *use* as many pre- existing schemes as possible as reliably as possible? -- Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com "I grew up before Mark Zuckerberg invented friendship" -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: What constitutes a backup, was:F21 partitioning circus
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:06 PM, Andrew R Paterson wrote: > Hang on there Chris, (new thread really) > why do you think using a mirror as a backup is a bad idea? I'm not saying it's a bad idea. I'm just denying it's a backup. What you have is a degraded array on the shelf that's at best an incidental archive because it cannot be kept up to date. Once it's replaced, it can't be readded to the working array, and thus merely caught up. Plus, by default there isn't an internal bitmap. So what you're doing is either not keeping it updated, and thus not a backup; or it's being wiped out and rebuilt each time, in which case it's a slow monolithic backup that has no archive. This means any kind of corruption, filesystem or data, silent or otherwise, eventually replicates itself into all copies. So no, it's not a backup and it's not even a particularly good archive if it's subject to rotation. RAID1+ is not ever a backup, it is about improving availability (uptime) by mitigating a particular kind of device failure. Just because you can willfully instigate a faux-failure and shelve that actually OK member and call it a backup doesn't mean it's a backup. > As opposed to taking your box offline, and doing a level 0 backup to another > disk - you end up with a serial backup which must be parsed - I end up with a > filesystem that I can mount? Umm, why is an offline backup the only alternative? rsync can do online archive updates with -au. > To me this is one of the benefits of mirroring - I can mount one of my old > detached mirrors somewhere else and get at my old data. You can ro mount any rsync created backup and get at your old data also while having a low probability of compromising it. You can make this differential or incremental so they're fast. You can also optionally use checksum verification at the source and destination which would tend to expose silent data corruption at least in the data itself. > That's aside from the lower risk of losing the data in the first place. > I don't particularily need to archive data - just preserve it. What's the distinction? > I think you will find this idea is becoming more common these days. Yes so is skin cancer, what's your point? > So please give some good reasons for archive (backup) better than checkpoint > (detached mirror)?? For one, achive≠backup≠raid. For two, the backup needs to be on its own filesystem, and on a separate device. And this is an example of neither, because the fs is the same, and the logical block device is actually the same too. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 4:23 PM, Ian Pilcher wrote: > > What is the benefit of having anaconda worry about *creating* these > partitioning schemes (for lack of a better term)? > > Wouldn't it be better to ask people to use the regular tools in a live > media environment for anything other than a very basic scheme and save > anaconda dev time for ensuring that it is able to *use* as many pre- > existing schemes as possible as reliably as possible? Right. And I'm still waiting to hear, what ought to be much easier than answering your questions, examples of what layout the installer won't let them create; or won't use once precreated elsewhere. -- Chris Murphy -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: F21 partitioning circus
On 02/23/2015 05:36 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: Right. And I'm still waiting to hear, what ought to be much easier than answering your questions, examples of what layout the installer won't let them create; or won't use once precreated elsewhere. Fair enough. For the record, I don't think it does bcache devices yet. ;-) From a process and resource POV, though, it just seems like it would be nice for anaconda development to be able to step off the hampster wheel of chasing the lastest and greatest device types (and combinations thereof). If the bits are there in Fedora to support a particular storage setup, let dracut, udev, etc. do their thing and just use the block devices they set up. -- Ian Pilcher arequip...@gmail.com "I grew up before Mark Zuckerberg invented friendship" -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Replacing Fedora Postgresql with non-Fedora version?
On 02/22/2015 12:40 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Sun, Feb 22, 2015 at 09:35:54 -0700, Stuart McGraw wrote: I have Postgresql-9.3 installed from the Fedora 21 yum repo in order to satisfy any packages that need postgresql. But I need to run Postgresql-9.4 so I disabled the yum postgresql startup via systemd and installed the EDB version of 9.4 into /opt/postgresql [*]. What I would is rebuild 9.4 using the source rpm from f22 in f21, then update using the generated rpms. I hadn't thought of that, thanks! I did that and it worked well. I'd still like to get the EDB postgresql to work because it is more independent of Fedora but now that I have something working, I can work on the problem with the EDB version more leisurely. Thanks much for the suggestion. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Replacing Fedora Postgresql with non-Fedora version?
On 02/22/2015 11:18 AM, jd1008 wrote: [...] I have Postgresql-9.3 installed from the Fedora 21 yum repo in order to satisfy any packages that need postgresql. But I need to run Postgresql-9.4 so I disabled the yum postgresql startup via systemd and installed the EDB version of 9.4 into /opt/postgresql [*]. To make the 9.4 one the "system" version, I did two things 1) Replaced the postgresql-9.3 executables in /bin/ with symlinks to their counterparts in /opt/postgresql/bin/. 2) Added a file to /etc/ld.so.d that adds /opt/postgresql/lib to the load library cache and ran ldconfig. That seems to work well, I can run all the Postgresql tools and everything seems to work correctly, I get the expected 9.4 versions of the tools, etc. Except... 1) It breaks openldap. Apparently one of the libraries in /opt/postgresql/lib is also used by openldap and is not compatible. When trying to start the openldap server: slapd: symbol lookup error: slapcat: undefined symbol: ber_sockbuf_io_udp 2) Some programs still don't work. For example, a simple python cgi script using the psycopg2 module to talk to the database and run under Apache-2.4 that claims it can't find the postgresql socket "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432" even though the [...] > I recall I had run into a similar problem many years ago. It was solved by putting a shell wrapper around the apps the broke. In the shell wrapper you set up the not only the execution PATH, but also the LD_LIBRARY_PATH. Since the number of packages that can be broken might be greater than the packages you desire to be in /opt/ then you might want to not set up symlinks in /bin and /usr/bin. Instead set up the wrapper shells only for the binaries and libraries and even the man pages pathways in /bin for the specific package(s) you prefer; but be sure to name them differently so they do not clash with existing names in /bin and /usr/bin; just for starting them up from startup scripts which you are aware of. Those starter scripts will set up the env variables from the wrapper shell. This does not always work, because some programs fork and exec a fixed path in the binaries, a path that might not be what you want. Thanks. For one of the problem programs I've found I can reproduce the problem running it from a command line. However all my attempts to get it to run by adjusting the environment have been futile so far and its error messages are not very helpful. Don't think it is the forking problem you mentioned because, although it normally runs as a daemon process, it has a foreground option which I presume disables that. Anyway, for now I'm using the source rpm from fedora-22 suggested in another message which worked well so I can look into the problem more leisurely and wrap it (and the others) once I find the magic incantation. -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
