Re: gcc 4.9

2016-08-01 Thread Amadeus W.M. 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 17:23:43 -0700, stan wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 22:21:58 + (UTC)
> "Amadeus W.M."  wrote:
> 
>> On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 09:34:51 -0700, stan wrote:
>> 
>> > On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 04:30:03 + (UTC)
>> > "Amadeus W.M."  wrote:
>> > [snip]
>> >> Unfortunately nothing worked.
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> In the cuda distribution there is a host_config.h file which
>> >> contains the following lines:
>> >> 
>> >> #if __GNUC__ > 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ > 9)
>> >> 
>> >> #error -- unsupported GNU version! gcc versions later than 4.9 are
>> >> not supported!
>> >> 
>> >> #endif /* __GNUC__ > 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ > 9) */
>> >> 
>> >> 
>> >> This checks the version of the compiler and triggers an error with
>> >> gcc-6.1 even if I pass --std=gnu89 which was the default C standard
>> >> in gcc-4.9.
>> > 
>> > You don't have write access to that file?  If you do, you could just
>> > comment out that check.
>> >   
>> >   
>> I do have write access to that file, but I imagine that compiler check
>> is there for a reason, so I would rather use the right compiler than
>> not check for it. Chances are the cuda code won't compile (correctly)
>> if I skip the check. Still, maybe worth a shot.
> 
> But that's why you put in the --std=gnu89 flag.  You're telling gcc to
> pretend that it is gcc 4.9, even though it's 6.1, so you are manually
> doing the check.  That is, even though the compiler is 6.1, it's going
> to emulate 4.9.


That's what I thought too, but try this: 

// Compile as 
// g++ -o gnuc gnuc.cpp  
// then as 
// g++ --std=gnu++11 -o gnuc gnuc.cpp

#include 
#include 

using namespace std;

int main(int argc, char * argv[])
{
cout << __GNUC__ << "." << __GNUC_MINOR__ << endl;
return 0;
}


It always outputs 6.1, whether or not you compile it with the --std flag. 
And if you think about it, __GNUC__ is probably a macro defined in the 
compiler at compile time, so it can't possibly change at run time. Haven't 
checked, but it's a good guess.

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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: Simultaneous DHCP and static IP address with NetworkManager

2016-08-01 Thread stan 
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 21:29:56 +0200
Clayton Louden  wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I've got a NIC that gets one address via dhcp and another one
> statically assigned. This is done with Fedora's legacy network
> service (systemctl start network) and these config files

[snip]

> How can I achieve the same with NetworkManager? If I just disable the
> legacy network service and start NetworkManager with the same set of
> config files, I'll just get an IP address from the dhcp server (it
> seems the ifcfg-enp0s25:0 file is simply ignored)
> 
> Any pointers are greatly appreciated!

I haven't done this, but here's a link to a possible solution, second
response.

http://askubuntu.com/questions/452317/dhcp-and-static-ip-address-simultaneously-in-ubuntu
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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: gsl-2

2016-08-01 Thread stan 
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 21:34:18 +0200
"Patrick Dupre"  wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> Since I update fc22 to fc24 I am in trouble with several of my
> applications which require gsl.
> Actually, gsl has been updated from 1 to 2 with major changes.
> It results that perl-Math::GSL is not anymore compatible with gsl-2.
> The maintainer of this package is not ready to make the changes
> required by the new version of gsl and I have several crucial 
> applications based on gsl and perl-Math::GSL.
> Is there any way to install gsl-1 with fc24 ?

I doubt they can co-exist together as rpms.  But you could find the tar
packages for version 1 at gnu.org, compile them, and install them
in /usr/local.  Then in your Path, put /usr/local in front of /usr/bin.

Or, you could uninstall gsl 2, go here
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=719948
download the gsl 1 packages, and install them using
dnf -C install [package name]
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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: gcc 4.9

2016-08-01 Thread stan 
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 22:21:58 + (UTC)
"Amadeus W.M."  wrote:

> On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 09:34:51 -0700, stan wrote:
> 
> > On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 04:30:03 + (UTC)
> > "Amadeus W.M."  wrote:
> > [snip]  
> >> Unfortunately nothing worked.
> >> 
> >> 
> >> In the cuda distribution there is a host_config.h file which
> >> contains the following lines:
> >> 
> >> #if __GNUC__ > 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ > 9)
> >> 
> >> #error -- unsupported GNU version! gcc versions later than 4.9 are
> >> not supported!
> >> 
> >> #endif /* __GNUC__ > 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ > 9) */
> >> 
> >> 
> >> This checks the version of the compiler and triggers an error with
> >> gcc-6.1 even if I pass --std=gnu89 which was the default C
> >> standard in gcc-4.9.  
> > 
> > You don't have write access to that file?  If you do, you could just
> > comment out that check.
> >   
> 
> I do have write access to that file, but I imagine that compiler
> check is there for a reason, so I would rather use the right compiler
> than not check for it. Chances are the cuda code won't compile
> (correctly) if I skip the check. Still, maybe worth a shot.

But that's why you put in the --std=gnu89 flag.  You're telling gcc to
pretend that it is gcc 4.9, even though it's 6.1, so you are manually
doing the check.  That is, even though the compiler is 6.1, it's going
to emulate 4.9.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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: gcc 4.9

2016-08-01 Thread Amadeus W.M. 
On Mon, 01 Aug 2016 09:34:51 -0700, stan wrote:

> On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 04:30:03 + (UTC)
> "Amadeus W.M."  wrote:
> [snip]
>> Unfortunately nothing worked.
>> 
>> 
>> In the cuda distribution there is a host_config.h file which contains
>> the following lines:
>> 
>> #if __GNUC__ > 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ > 9)
>> 
>> #error -- unsupported GNU version! gcc versions later than 4.9 are not
>> supported!
>> 
>> #endif /* __GNUC__ > 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ > 9) */
>> 
>> 
>> This checks the version of the compiler and triggers an error with
>> gcc-6.1 even if I pass --std=gnu89 which was the default C standard in
>> gcc-4.9.
> 
> You don't have write access to that file?  If you do, you could just
> comment out that check.
> 

I do have write access to that file, but I imagine that compiler check is 
there for a reason, so I would rather use the right compiler than not 
check for it. Chances are the cuda code won't compile (correctly) if I 
skip the check. Still, maybe worth a shot.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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: Drive ordering mechanism /dev/sda /dev/sdb etc

2016-08-01 Thread jd1008 



On 08/01/2016 02:01 PM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:

On 08/01/2016 07:23 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:

On 07/31/2016 11:51 PM, Philip Rhoades wrote:



but it is annoying that the "SCSI" drive (SATA and USB) order in which
their corresponding device nodes are added is arbitrary - is there some
way of forcing the order to what I want?  ie I have the boot disk as
/dev/sda of course but I want to specify the drive letter of the other
physical SATA and USB drives . .


The SATA drives should be consistent, the order is according to the controller 
which normally matches the numbering on the motherboard.  USB drives are 
dependent on the order that they get enumerated.  It should be consistent 
according to the hub ports, but not necessarily.  If it matters, you really 
should be using either LABEL or UUID for mounting purposes.

Or maybe udev rules? They used to work many Fedora versions ago.


Isn't progress wonderful?
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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: gcc 4.9

2016-08-01 Thread Sjoerd Mullender 
On 08/01/2016 06:30 AM, Amadeus W.M. wrote:
> Third, I was only able to find a Fedora-21-Live image and I created a 
> virtual box from it, booted that up and installed to disk. But, as one 
> might expect, gnome-boxes only knew about the Live VM, and each time I 
> would boot it up, it would boot up the live image, not the one I installed 
> to disk. Not sure how install to disk works in a VM. 

Might be as simple as telling the VM to eject the CD before booting the
guest.

-- 
Sjoerd Mullender



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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: Drive ordering mechanism /dev/sda /dev/sdb etc

2016-08-01 Thread Roberto Ragusa 
On 08/01/2016 07:23 PM, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 07/31/2016 11:51 PM, Philip Rhoades wrote:


>> but it is annoying that the "SCSI" drive (SATA and USB) order in which
>> their corresponding device nodes are added is arbitrary - is there some
>> way of forcing the order to what I want?  ie I have the boot disk as
>> /dev/sda of course but I want to specify the drive letter of the other
>> physical SATA and USB drives . .
>>
> The SATA drives should be consistent, the order is according to the 
> controller which normally matches the numbering on the motherboard.  USB 
> drives are dependent on the order that they get enumerated.  It should be 
> consistent according to the hub ports, but not necessarily.  If it matters, 
> you really should be using either LABEL or UUID for mounting purposes.

Or maybe udev rules? They used to work many Fedora versions ago.

-- 
   Roberto Ragusamail at robertoragusa.it
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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

fedup F20 to F24

2016-08-01 Thread jd1008 

Is it advisable? What sort of problems could the user encounter?
Reason for asking: Many locally compiled programs (non-fedora sources)
that compile and build (via rpmbuild) just find under F20, but will not
compile on another machine running F24 (too many dependencies).

P.S: For fun, Just wondering about this: since OS can run both 64 and 32 
bit apps (Installation is 64 bit),
 and the apps link with the libs in /usr/lib64 or /usr/lib; then, 
why not be able to build and

 run apps which require libs of older fedora releases?
 for example: have   /f20/usr/lib  and /f20/usr/lib64  on a system 
of higher or lower OS release version.
 Yes, it would requires a lot of disk space for all those libs of 
that specific release, but
 disk space is cheap and plenty. I hope some savvy and inspired 
developer(s) can pick up on
 this idea :) :) It would help keep any fedora machine up to snuff 
for multiple releases.


Cheers!

JD
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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: gsl-2

2016-08-01 Thread Patrick Dupre 
Actually, I found a gsl-1.16-18.fc24.i686.rpm
but not the gsl-devel-1.16-18.fc24.i686.rpm !

===
 Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com
 Laboratoire de Physico-Chimie de l'Atmosphère | |
 Université du Littoral-Côte d'Opale   | |
 Tel.  (33)-(0)3 28 23 76 12   | | Fax: 03 28 65 82 44
 189A, avenue Maurice Schumann | | 59140 Dunkerque, France
===


> Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 at 9:34 PM
> From: "Patrick Dupre" 
> To: "Community support for Fedora users" 
> Subject: gsl-2
>
> Hello,
> 
> Since I update fc22 to fc24 I am in trouble with several of my
> applications which require gsl.
> Actually, gsl has been updated from 1 to 2 with major changes.
> It results that perl-Math::GSL is not anymore compatible with gsl-2.
> The maintainer of this package is not ready to make the changes
> required by the new version of gsl and I have several crucial 
> applications based on gsl and perl-Math::GSL.
> Is there any way to install gsl-1 with fc24 ?
> 
> Thank for your help.
> 
> ===
>  Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com
>  Laboratoire de Physico-Chimie de l'Atmosphère | |
>  Université du Littoral-Côte d'Opale   | |
>  Tel.  (33)-(0)3 28 23 76 12   | | Fax: 03 28 65 82 44
>  189A, avenue Maurice Schumann | | 59140 Dunkerque, France
> ===
> --
> users mailing list
> users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> 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
>
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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

gsl-2

2016-08-01 Thread Patrick Dupre 
Hello,

Since I update fc22 to fc24 I am in trouble with several of my
applications which require gsl.
Actually, gsl has been updated from 1 to 2 with major changes.
It results that perl-Math::GSL is not anymore compatible with gsl-2.
The maintainer of this package is not ready to make the changes
required by the new version of gsl and I have several crucial 
applications based on gsl and perl-Math::GSL.
Is there any way to install gsl-1 with fc24 ?

Thank for your help.

===
 Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com
 Laboratoire de Physico-Chimie de l'Atmosphère | |
 Université du Littoral-Côte d'Opale   | |
 Tel.  (33)-(0)3 28 23 76 12   | | Fax: 03 28 65 82 44
 189A, avenue Maurice Schumann | | 59140 Dunkerque, France
===
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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

Simultaneous DHCP and static IP address with NetworkManager

2016-08-01 Thread Clayton Louden 
Hi,

I've got a NIC that gets one address via dhcp and another one statically 
assigned. This is done with Fedora's legacy network service (systemctl start 
network) and these config files

/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-enp0s25:

HWADDR=XX:XX:XX:XX:XX:XX
TYPE=Ethernet
BOOTPROTO=dhcp
DEFROUTE=yes
PEERDNS=yes
PEERROUTES=yes
IPV4_FAILURE_FATAL=no
IPV6INIT=yes
IPV6_AUTOCONF=yes
IPV6_DEFROUTE=yes
IPV6_PEERDNS=yes
IPV6_PEERROUTES=yes
IPV6_FAILURE_FATAL=no
NAME=enp0s25
ONBOOT=yes
and

/etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-enp0s25:0:

TYPE=Ethernet
BOOTPROTO=none
IPADDR=192.168.99.4
PREFIX=24
DEFROUTE=yes
IPV4_FAILURE_FATAL=no
IPV6INIT=no
NAME=static-ip
ONBOOT=yes
which works just fine:

# ip addr show
...
2: enp0s25:  mtu 1500 qdisc fq_codel state UP 
group default qlen 1000
link/ether xx:xx:xx:xx:xx:xx brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.1.68/24 brd 192.168.1.255 scope global dynamic enp0s25
   valid_lft 6887sec preferred_lft 6887sec
inet 192.168.99.4/24 brd 192.168.99.255 scope global enp0s25:0
   valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever
inet6 fe80::2ad2:44ff:fe7d:c66d/64 scope link 
   valid_lft forever preferred_lft forever

How can I achieve the same with NetworkManager? If I just disable the legacy 
network service and start NetworkManager with the same set of config files, 
I'll just get an IP address from the dhcp server (it seems the ifcfg-enp0s25:0 
file is simply ignored)

Any pointers are greatly appreciated!
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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: Drive ordering mechanism /dev/sda /dev/sdb etc

2016-08-01 Thread Samuel Sieb 

On 07/31/2016 11:51 PM, Philip Rhoades wrote:

People,

I know that it is possible to refer to drives by various naming
conventions:

  https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Persistent_block_device_naming

but it is annoying that the "SCSI" drive (SATA and USB) order in which
their corresponding device nodes are added is arbitrary - is there some
way of forcing the order to what I want?  ie I have the boot disk as
/dev/sda of course but I want to specify the drive letter of the other
physical SATA and USB drives . .

The SATA drives should be consistent, the order is according to the 
controller which normally matches the numbering on the motherboard.  USB 
drives are dependent on the order that they get enumerated.  It should 
be consistent according to the hub ports, but not necessarily.  If it 
matters, you really should be using either LABEL or UUID for mounting 
purposes.

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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: gcc 4.9

2016-08-01 Thread stan 
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 04:30:03 + (UTC)
"Amadeus W.M."  wrote:


> Third, I was only able to find a Fedora-21-Live image and I created a 
> virtual box from it, booted that up and installed to disk. But, as
> one might expect, gnome-boxes only knew about the Live VM, and each
> time I would boot it up, it would boot up the live image, not the one
> I installed to disk. Not sure how install to disk works in a VM. 


I would just use BFO to install a minimal version of F21.  It has the
archive repository locations built in, and invokes anaconda, so it is
just like installing any version of Fedora directly.  Except it is
entirely over the web.

https://boot.fedoraproject.org/
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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: gcc 4.9

2016-08-01 Thread stan 
On Mon, 1 Aug 2016 04:30:03 + (UTC)
"Amadeus W.M."  wrote:
[snip]
> Unfortunately nothing worked. 
> 
> 
> In the cuda distribution there is a host_config.h file which contains
> the following lines:
> 
> #if __GNUC__ > 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ > 9)
> 
> #error -- unsupported GNU version! gcc versions later than 4.9 are
> not supported!
> 
> #endif /* __GNUC__ > 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ > 9) */
> 
> 
> This checks the version of the compiler and triggers an error with
> gcc-6.1 even if I pass --std=gnu89 which was the default C standard
> in gcc-4.9.

You don't have write access to that file?  If you do, you could just
comment out that check.

> 
> 
> 
> Second, the gcc-4.9.src.rpm did not build with gcc-6.1. Initially it
> did not build because it required /lib/libc.so.6
> and /usr/lib/libc.so.6 (in addition to the lib64 versions), so I just
> removed /lib/libc.so.6 and /usr/lib/libc.so.6 from the gcc.spec file.
> The rebuild process did start after that, and I thought it would go
> through, but it bombed out with some compilation error which I don't
> feel inclined to fix, as it must be due to some incompatibility
> between my gcc-6.1 and what I'm trying to compile. I might get it to
> compile if I can specify gcc --std=gnu89 when compiling the old
> compiler, but I don't know how to pass compiler options to rpmbuild. 

It's been awhile, but IIRC most spec files have a COPTIONS variable
that appends to (and overrides earlier options, since that is how gcc
works) the default options in the rpmbuild setup file.  There are a set
of default options for rpmbuild common to fedora, but I took a quick
look and couldn't find it, though I've seen it before.  If you can find
that file, you could change the options there instead.

> 
> 
> Third, I was only able to find a Fedora-21-Live image and I created a 
> virtual box from it, booted that up and installed to disk. But, as
> one might expect, gnome-boxes only knew about the Live VM, and each
> time I would boot it up, it would boot up the live image, not the one
> I installed to disk. Not sure how install to disk works in a VM. 

Outside my area of expertise, maybe someone else can help you.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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

[389-users] Re: Promoting two replicas to master/replica

2016-08-01 Thread Mark Reynolds 


On 07/31/2016 11:47 AM, Gary Algier wrote:
> Here I am answering my own question...
>
> On a new day, with fresher eyes, I used Wireshark to capture the
> traffic leaving the client for each possible server.  I found an error
> when the Solaris client queried the 389ds server that was not there
> for the Solaris ds server:
> searchResDone(2) insuffientAccessRights (VLV Control)
> after some Googling, I found the following:
>
> https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Directory_Server/8.2/html/Administration_Guide/Creating_Indexes-Creating_VLV_Indexes.html
>
> It turns out one needs to create browse indices and more importantly,
> allow anonymous access to them (or bind with any valid user -- a much
> more involved fix).
Right, vlv indexes, and other configurations are not replicated.  So,
make sure there are not other configurations are need to be migrated. 
This is easier said than done, but I would look through your server
config file from the Solaris server(dse.ldif) and do some comparison
with the 389-ds-base config file (/etc/dirsrv/slapd-INSTANCE/dse.ldif). 
While SunDS(ODSEE) and 389-ds-base were based off the same source code
from 10+ years ago it has significantly diverged.  So what you see in
DSEE will not match 100% with 389-ds-base and visa-versa, but you should
look through them and look for things like cache sizes, indexed
attributes, password policy, etc.

Good luck,
Mark
>
> Now, we move on...
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jul 30, 2016 at 4:50 PM, Gary Algier  > wrote:
>
> Mark:
>
> Thanks for the information.  I got as far as step [2] and ran into
> a road block.
>
> Linux clients work fine, Solaris clients not so fine.
>
> I started pointing my clients to server B, but now that I am
> trying to get Solaris 10 clients to work, a "getent passwd" will
> not list everyone. If I type "getent passwd someuser", they show. 
> People can login just fine.  But there is no way to enumerate the
> passwd database.  I have several scripts that perform a "getent
> passwd" to get a full list of users and they are all failing.
>
> I am using a DUAConfigProfile from before with the following contents:
> 
> --
> dn: cn=default,ou=profile,dc=example,dc=com
> defaultserverlist: 172.25.0.1
> defaultsearchscope: sub
> serviceSearchDescriptor:
> passwd:ou=People,dc=example,dc=com?sub?objectclass=po
>  sixAccount
> serviceSearchDescriptor:
> shadow:ou=People,dc=example,dc=com?sub?objectclass=sh
>  adowAccount
> serviceSearchDescriptor:
> group:ou=Group,dc=example,dc=com?sub?objectclass=posi
>  xGroup
> objectClass: top
> objectClass: DUAConfigProfile
> defaultsearchbase: dc=example,dc=com
> searchtimelimit: 30
> profilettl: 43200
> cn: default
> credentiallevel: anonymous
> bindTimeLimit: 10
> authenticationmethod: none
> followreferrals: TRUE
> serviceauthenticationmethod: pam_ldap: simple
> 
> --
>
> The IP address 172.25.0.1 is the old server (A).  With this
> setting, "getent passwd" will list everyone.  If I change that to
> the IP address of server B, it will only list people in the
> /etc/passwd file.
>
> I ran tcpdump on server B while trying a "getent passwd" and there
> is no traffic.
>
> Oh, and the /etc/nsswitch.conf on Solaris says:
> 
> --
> passwd: files ldap
> group:  files ldap
> 
> --
>
> Any ideas why identical content, but on a different server, would
> result in not being able to enumerate?  And only for Solaris 10
> clients?
>
> Gary
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2016 at 4:54 PM, Mark Reynolds
> > wrote:
>
> Hi Gary
>
>
> On 07/28/2016 03:55 PM, Gary Algier wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have an old directory server (Sun's) as a master and it is
>> replicating to two slave 389 servers.  I want to pull the
>> plug on the old server and promote one of the replicas to a
>> master.
>>
>> Here's what it looks like:
>>
>>   * Server A, running old DS.   Master.
>>   * Server B, running 389 DS.  Consumer of A.
>>   * Server C, running 389 DS.  Consumer of A.
>>
>> I want:
>>
>>   * Server B, running 389 DS. Master.
>>   * Server C, running 389 DS. Consumer of B.
>>
>> What's the easiest way to make this happen with minimal (0?)
>> downtime?
>> My guess would

Re: gcc 4.9

2016-08-01 Thread poma 
On 01.08.2016 06:30, Amadeus W.M. wrote:
[...]
> In the cuda distribution there is a host_config.h file which contains the 
> following lines:
> 
> #if __GNUC__ > 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ > 9)
> 
> #error -- unsupported GNU version! gcc versions later than 4.9 are not 
> supported!
> 
> #endif /* __GNUC__ > 4 || (__GNUC__ == 4 && __GNUC_MINOR__ > 9) */
> 
[...]

http://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/cuda-getting-started-guide-for-linux

Table 1. Native Linux Distribution Support in CUDA 7.0
DistributionKernel  GCC GLIBC
CentOS 7.x  3.104.8.2   2.17

https://centos.org/download

kernel-3.10.0-327.22.2.el7.x86_64
gcc-4.8.5-4.el7.x86_64
glibc-2.17-106.el7_2.6.x86_64

--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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: old packages

2016-08-01 Thread Ralf Corsepius 

On 08/01/2016 09:54 AM, Patrick Dupre wrote:

What are the alternatives ?
One would have to look into each of these packages individually to 
answer this.



For example to system-config-lvm ?


system-config-lvm still works (Simply rebuild it locally). Actually, I 
never understood, why RH abandoned it.


Ralf
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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: old packages

2016-08-01 Thread Patrick Dupre 
Thank,

 

What are the alternatives ?

For example to system-config-lvm ?

 

Thank

 

 

===
Patrick DUPRÉ | | email: pdu...@gmx.com
Laboratoire de Physico-Chimie de l'Atmosphère | |
Université du Littoral-Côte d'Opale | |
Tel. (33)-(0)3 28 23 76 12 | | Fax: 03 28 65 82 44
189A, avenue Maurice Schumann | | 59140 Dunkerque, France
===

 
 

Sent: Monday, August 01, 2016 at 2:17 AM
From: "Kelly Miller" 
To: "Community support for Fedora users" 
Subject: Re: old packages


I don't know about all of them, but I can tell you that the system-config-* packages are pretty much all obsolete (lvm, boot and firewall definitely are), and smart has been obsolete on Fedora for a number of versions now (I used to use it as my package manager, to be honest).  I believe systemd-ui is as well.

 
On Sun, Jul 31, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Patrick Dupre  wrote:

Hello,

I do have a bunch of old pacakges installed.
Is there any update of ?
smart
system-config-lvm
perl-define
system-config-boot
perl-Forest
perl-Sort-Fields
SOAPpy
celt
systemd-ui
anaconda-yum-plugins
createrepo
aic94xx-firmware
system-config-firewall

Should I just remove them ?

Thank

===
 Patrick DUPRÉ                                 | | email: pdu...@gmx.com
 Laboratoire de Physico-Chimie de l'Atmosphère | |
 Université du Littoral-Côte d'Opale           | |
 Tel.  (33)-(0)3 28 23 76 12                   | | Fax: 03 28 65 82 44
 189A, avenue Maurice Schumann                 | | 59140 Dunkerque, France
===
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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


-- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org 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


--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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

Drive ordering mechanism /dev/sda /dev/sdb etc

2016-08-01 Thread Philip Rhoades 

People,

I know that it is possible to refer to drives by various naming 
conventions:


  https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Persistent_block_device_naming

but it is annoying that the "SCSI" drive (SATA and USB) order in which 
their corresponding device nodes are added is arbitrary - is there some 
way of forcing the order to what I want?  ie I have the boot disk as 
/dev/sda of course but I want to specify the drive letter of the other 
physical SATA and USB drives . .


Thanks,

Phil.
--
Philip Rhoades

PO Box 896
Cowra  NSW  2794
Australia
E-mail:  p...@pricom.com.au
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
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