Re: plymouth-quit-wait taking too long
On 24/06/2021 14:05, Jonathan Billings wrote: On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 01:34:27PM +0100, Christopher Ross wrote: I should have mentioned that I'm running KDE not Gnome, but at this stage it hasn't run. The 3½ minutes is the time it takes from power on to bring up the GDM login screen. I can't remember the exact message from abrtd. I good follow up question is probably how can I get more information about the oopses? Looking in /var/spool/abrt/oops-2021-06-24-09:48:20-3565-0/dmesg It does seem the first oops was nvidia ... [ 14.920735] intel_rapl_common: RAPL package-0 domain package locked by BIOS [ 14.956559] pktcdvd: pktcdvd0: writer mapped to sr0 [ 15.073374] zram0: detected capacity change from 0 to 16777216 [ 15.095100] Adding 8388604k swap on /dev/zram0. Priority:100 extents:1 across:8388604k SSFS [ 15.374420] [drm] Initialized nvidia-drm 0.0.0 20160202 for :01:00.0 on minor 1 [ 15.684579] nvidia-gpu :01:00.3: i2c timeout error e000 [ 15.684583] ucsi_ccg 8-0008: i2c_transfer failed -110 [ 15.684585] ucsi_ccg 8-0008: ucsi_ccg_init failed - -110 [ 15.684590] ucsi_ccg: probe of 8-0008 failed with error -110 [ 40.291071] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#3 stuck for 26s! [plymouthd:445] [ 40.291074] Modules linked in: intel_rapl_msr intel_rapl_common at24 mei_hdcp iTCO_wdt intel_pmc_bxt iTCO_vendor_support ucsi_ccg typec_ucsi typec pktcdvd x86_pkg_temp_thermal intel_powerclamp coretemp kvm_intel kvm irqbypass rapl intel_cstate intel_uncore raid0 eeepc_wmi asus_wmi sparse_keymap rfkill wmi_bmof pcspkr snd_hda_codec_realtek snd_hda_codec_generic ledtrig_audio nvidia_drm(POE) joydev snd_hda_codec_hdmi nvidia_modeset(POE) snd_hda_intel i2c_i801 snd_intel_dspcfg i2c_smbus snd_intel_sdw_acpi snd_usb_audio apple_mfi_fastcharge snd_hda_codec nvidia_uvm(POE) snd_usbmidi_lib snd_hda_core snd_rawmidi mc snd_hwdep snd_seq snd_seq_device lpc_ich snd_pcm nvidia(POE) mei_me snd_timer snd mei i2c_nvidia_gpu soundcore nfsd auth_rpcgss nfs_acl lockd grace binfmt_misc sunrpc nfs_ssc zram ip_tables i915 crct10dif_pclmul crc32_pclmul crc32c_intel cdc_mbim cdc_wdm e1000e mxm_wmi i2c_algo_bit ghash_clmulni_intel drm_kms_helper cec cdc_ncm cdc_ether drm usbnet mii wmi video fuse [ 40.291104] CPU: 3 PID: 445 Comm: plymouthd Tainted: P OE 5.12.11-300.fc34.x86_64 #1 [ 40.291106] Hardware name: System manufacturer System Product Name/MAXIMUS V FORMULA, BIOS 1903 08/19/2013 [ 40.291107] RIP: 0010:os_io_read_dword+0x8/0x10 [nvidia] [ 40.291311] Code: 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 89 fa ec c3 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 89 fa 66 ed c3 66 0f 1f 44 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 89 fa ed 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 ff 75 0c 48 8b 05 c7 [ 40.291312] RSP: 0018:aeb9c05cf7d8 EFLAGS: 0202 [ 40.291313] RAX: 03763580 RBX: 17d3 RCX: 000c [ 40.291314] RDX: e00c RSI: 000c40e4 RDI: e00c [ 40.291314] RBP: 8c7220e12b10 R08: c2aa5380 R09: 0282 [ 40.291315] R10: 0202 R11: 0040 R12: 8c7220e12b3c [ 40.291316] R13: 8c7220e12b38 R14: c000 R15: c000 [ 40.291316] FS: 7f27013a4800() GS:8c790fec() knlGS: [ 40.291317] CS: 0010 DS: ES: CR0: 80050033 [ 40.291318] CR2: 7ffca2940078 CR3: 00010a834001 CR4: 001706e0 [ 40.291319] Call Trace: [ 40.291321] _nv041000rm+0x4c/0x70 [nvidia] [ 40.291545] ? _nv040998rm+0x30/0x30 [nvidia] [ 40.291768] ? _nv000834rm+0x4f/0x130 [nvidia] I agree, it looks like a nvidia-related issue. What kernel arguments do you have (look at /proc/cmdline or edit the GRUB entry when you're booting). Also, it looks like the nvidia modeset driver was running, which might be having problems with plymouth? You could try booting without the 'rhgb quiet' arguments in the kernel line in GRUB, so you can see if disabling plymouth helps, and it will show you what is actually happening during boot. I was under the impression that GDM + KDE didn't work well, maybe try using a KDE-friendly login manager like sddm? I only recently changed from sddm to gdm because the "switch user" functionality has been removed from sddm in Fedora 34. We do share this computer. That change didn't fix the boot issue either. Regards, Chris R. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List A
Re: plymouth-quit-wait taking too long
On 24/06/2021 13:11, Jonathan Billings wrote: On Thu, Jun 24, 2021 at 12:15:48PM +0100, Christopher Ross wrote: Fedora 34 on my i7 with 32G RAM and nvidia RTX2060 card takes minutes to boot, and when it finally does there are a number of "something went wrong" notifications. How best can I diagnose and fix this so that it boots quickly and without errors? Do you have the RPMFusion nvidia packages installed? Are you using any 3rd-party nvidia drivers? Or are you using the nouveau driver? Yes, RPMFusion is enabled and nvidia drivers installed. The nvidia driver might be compiling on boot (dkms) which takes a long time, and if it fails, will cause GL issues that can break 'nautilus', and if 'nautilus' crashes, the GNOME session will do the 'Something went wrong' alert. It happens every boot, not just when there is a kernel or driver update. In that instance it should not need to recompile. I should have mentioned that I'm running KDE not Gnome, but at this stage it hasn't run. The 3½ minutes is the time it takes from power on to bring up the GDM login screen. I can't remember the exact message from abrtd. I good follow up question is probably how can I get more information about the oopses? Looking in /var/spool/abrt/oops-2021-06-24-09:48:20-3565-0/dmesg It does seem the first oops was nvidia ... [ 14.920735] intel_rapl_common: RAPL package-0 domain package locked by BIOS [ 14.956559] pktcdvd: pktcdvd0: writer mapped to sr0 [ 15.073374] zram0: detected capacity change from 0 to 16777216 [ 15.095100] Adding 8388604k swap on /dev/zram0. Priority:100 extents:1 across:8388604k SSFS [ 15.374420] [drm] Initialized nvidia-drm 0.0.0 20160202 for :01:00.0 on minor 1 [ 15.684579] nvidia-gpu :01:00.3: i2c timeout error e000 [ 15.684583] ucsi_ccg 8-0008: i2c_transfer failed -110 [ 15.684585] ucsi_ccg 8-0008: ucsi_ccg_init failed - -110 [ 15.684590] ucsi_ccg: probe of 8-0008 failed with error -110 [ 40.291071] watchdog: BUG: soft lockup - CPU#3 stuck for 26s! [plymouthd:445] [ 40.291074] Modules linked in: intel_rapl_msr intel_rapl_common at24 mei_hdcp iTCO_wdt intel_pmc_bxt iTCO_vendor_support ucsi_ccg typec_ucsi typec pktcdvd x86_pkg_temp_thermal intel_powerclamp coretemp kvm_intel kvm irqbypass rapl intel_cstate intel_uncore raid0 eeepc_wmi asus_wmi sparse_keymap rfkill wmi_bmof pcspkr snd_hda_codec_realtek snd_hda_codec_generic ledtrig_audio nvidia_drm(POE) joydev snd_hda_codec_hdmi nvidia_modeset(POE) snd_hda_intel i2c_i801 snd_intel_dspcfg i2c_smbus snd_intel_sdw_acpi snd_usb_audio apple_mfi_fastcharge snd_hda_codec nvidia_uvm(POE) snd_usbmidi_lib snd_hda_core snd_rawmidi mc snd_hwdep snd_seq snd_seq_device lpc_ich snd_pcm nvidia(POE) mei_me snd_timer snd mei i2c_nvidia_gpu soundcore nfsd auth_rpcgss nfs_acl lockd grace binfmt_misc sunrpc nfs_ssc zram ip_tables i915 crct10dif_pclmul crc32_pclmul crc32c_intel cdc_mbim cdc_wdm e1000e mxm_wmi i2c_algo_bit ghash_clmulni_intel drm_kms_helper cec cdc_ncm cdc_ether drm usbnet mii wmi video fuse [ 40.291104] CPU: 3 PID: 445 Comm: plymouthd Tainted: P OE 5.12.11-300.fc34.x86_64 #1 [ 40.291106] Hardware name: System manufacturer System Product Name/MAXIMUS V FORMULA, BIOS 1903 08/19/2013 [ 40.291107] RIP: 0010:os_io_read_dword+0x8/0x10 [nvidia] [ 40.291311] Code: 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 89 fa ec c3 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 89 fa 66 ed c3 66 0f 1f 44 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 89 fa ed 0f 1f 80 00 00 00 00 0f 1f 44 00 00 48 85 ff 75 0c 48 8b 05 c7 [ 40.291312] RSP: 0018:aeb9c05cf7d8 EFLAGS: 0202 [ 40.291313] RAX: 03763580 RBX: 17d3 RCX: 000c [ 40.291314] RDX: e00c RSI: 000c40e4 RDI: e00c [ 40.291314] RBP: 8c7220e12b10 R08: c2aa5380 R09: 0282 [ 40.291315] R10: 0202 R11: 0040 R12: 8c7220e12b3c [ 40.291316] R13: 8c7220e12b38 R14: c000 R15: c000 [ 40.291316] FS: 7f27013a4800() GS:8c790fec() knlGS: [ 40.291317] CS: 0010 DS: ES: CR0: 80050033 [ 40.291318] CR2: 7ffca2940078 CR3: 00010a834001 CR4: 001706e0 [ 40.291319] Call Trace: [ 40.291321] _nv041000rm+0x4c/0x70 [nvidia] [ 40.291545] ? _nv040998rm+0x30/0x30 [nvidia] [ 40.291768] ? _nv000834rm+0x4f/0x130 [nvidia] ... The top part of systemd-analyze-blame is 1min 23.232s plymouth-quit-wait.service 53.077s cs-firewall-bouncer.service 52.219s dovecot.service 26.525s crowdsec.service It appears you're using some sort of 3rd-party firewall driver called 'crowdsec'. Is that the problem? It does seem to
Re: Long wait for start job
On 24/06/2021 12:20, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Thu, 2021-06-24 at 11:42 +0100, Christopher Ross wrote: How can I go about diagnosing and fixing that? In 2021 i7 machines should not be taking literally minutes to boot. On my system (also an i7) that takes only 5s. Presumably something is holding it up. Try running 'systemd-analyze plot > trace.svg' followed by 'eog trace.svg' and look at the resulting chart. I have started a new thread, per Ed and George's suggestions. Regards, Chris R. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
plymouth-quit-wait taking too long
Dear fellow Fedorans, Fedora 34 on my i7 with 32G RAM and nvidia RTX2060 card takes minutes to boot, and when it finally does there are a number of "something went wrong" notifications. How best can I diagnose and fix this so that it boots quickly and without errors? CPU: Quad Core Intel Core i7-3770K (-MT MCP-) speed/min/max: 4324/1600/4400 MHz Kernel: 5.12.11-300.fc34.x86_64 x86_64 Up: 2h 30m Mem: 8717.9/31785.3 MiB (27.4%) Storage: 25.69 TiB (59.7% used) Procs: 391 Shell: Bash inxi: 3.3.03 The top part of systemd-analyze-blame is 1min 23.232s plymouth-quit-wait.service 53.077s cs-firewall-bouncer.service 52.219s dovecot.service 26.525s crowdsec.service 26.075s libvirtd.service 25.910s postfix.service 25.888s vmware.service 25.870s nfs-server.service 8.275s network.service 4.279s abrtd.service 4.111s smartd.service 1.921s systemd-udev-settle.service 1.355s lvm2-monitor.service 1.309s user@1006.service 1.188s systemd-fsck@dev-disk-by\x2duuid-d91d02e3\x2dce79\x2d4aa8\x2d9446\x2df531c05ca7a7.service 1.145s udisks2.service 711ms akmods.service 602ms initrd-switch-root.service Many thanks, Chris R. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Long wait for start job
On 12/06/2021 20:45, Joe Zeff wrote: On 6/12/21 11:54 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: Not my case. I don't have systemd-udev-settle.service. This is a fresh install of F34. Ok, you can still use systemd-analyze blame to find out what's causing the delay. On my F34 boot systemd-udev-settle.service takes only 1.921s but the real biggie is 1min 23.232s plymouth-quit-wait.service How can I go about diagnosing and fixing that? In 2021 i7 machines should not be taking literally minutes to boot. Thanks, Chris R. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
Re: Lutris Currently Uninstallable in F32
On 03/12/2020 11:23, Grumpey wrote: On Thu, Dec 3, 2020 at 5:38 AM Christopher Ross wrote: For days I have been getting the error "nothing provides python3.8dist(python-magic)" when attempting a DNF update, and from googling it seems I'm not alone in that. I have now uninstalled lutris (the culprit) so that the update can proceed. Where should I look for news on when this might be fixed? Looks like it's already in testing, https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-b43dc41a97 It's still not made it to stable in F32... root@snoopy 08:41:06 ~ # dnf install lutris Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:17 ago on Mon 21 Dec 2020 08:41:03 GMT. Error: Problem: cannot install the best candidate for the job - nothing provides python3.8dist(python-magic) needed by lutris-0.5.8-1.fc32.x86_64 (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) What could I do to help? I am happy to volunteer some time but I don't know who or how. Thanks, Chris R. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Lutris Currently Uninstallable
For days I have been getting the error "nothing provides python3.8dist(python-magic)" when attempting a DNF update, and from googling it seems I'm not alone in that. I have now uninstalled lutris (the culprit) so that the update can proceed. Where should I look for news on when this might be fixed? root@snoopy 10:30:04 ~ # dnf install lutris Last metadata expiration check: 3:53:50 ago on Thu 03 Dec 2020 06:37:59 GMT. Error: Problem: cannot install the best candidate for the job - nothing provides python3.8dist(python-magic) needed by lutris-0.5.8-1.fc32.x86_64 (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to use not only best candidate packages) Many thanks, Chris R. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F32->F33: Upgrade or reinstall?
On 03/11/2020 07:13, Chris Murphy wrote: On Mon, Nov 2, 2020 at 5:45 AM Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: I'd normally upgrade, but my /dev/sda uses LVM to handle root, /home etc. and from what I read this cannot be converted directly to BTRFS, which I'm interested in using. ext4 can be converted to Btrfs but I can't strongly recommend it because you're not going to get the same layout as a default installation. The conversion won't remove LVM, and it won't add the subvolume layout we're using where "home" and "root" subvolumes are assigned to /home and / mountpoints respectively. What would be the best way to approach this?: [snip] 2) Do a complete system install and then restore from backups. I'm guessing that (2) is the simplest answer, but I'd appreciate any comments, especially from people who have actually done either of these. Top choice: Backup /home. Optionally /etc. And hand it over to the installer for complete wipe and clean install. From scratch setup. And after going through initial setup, restore /home (specifically restore the contents of ~/ for each user). Probably the most straightforward. Is this the best advice for complicated setups too? My main computer has been upgraded again and again since about Fedora 18, with parts being changed out as and when. When new disks are added the old ones remain until they die; where I have multiple disks of the same size I RAID them for performance. My current disk setup looks like this: root@snoopy 09:22:35 ~ # lsblk --merge NAME MAJ:MIN RM SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT sda 8:0 0 111.8G 0 disk ├─sda1 8:1 0 500M 0 part /boot ┌┈▶ └─sda2 8:2 0 111.3G 0 part ┆ sdb 8:16 0 111.8G 0 disk ┆ ├─sdb1 8:17 0 64G 0 part [SWAP] └┬▶ └─sdb2 8:18 0 47.8G 0 part └┈┈fedora_snoopy-root 253:0 0 159.1G 0 lvm / sdc 8:32 1 14.6T 0 disk └─sdc1 8:33 1 14.6T 0 part /backup sdd 8:48 0 931.5G 0 disk ┌┈▶ └─sdd1 8:49 0 931.5G 0 part ┆ sde 8:64 0 931.5G 0 disk ├┈▶ └─sde1 8:65 0 931.5G 0 part ┆ sdf 8:80 1 3.7T 0 disk ┌┈▶┆ └─sdf1 8:81 1 3.7T 0 part ┆ ┆ sdg 8:96 1 3.7T 0 disk └┬▶┆ └─sdg1 8:97 1 3.7T 0 part ┌┈▶ └┈┆┈┈┈md1 9:1 0 7.3T 0 raid0 ┆ ┆ sdh 8:112 0 931.5G 0 disk ┆ ├┈▶ └─sdh1 8:113 0 931.5G 0 part ┆ ┆ sdi 8:128 0 931.5G 0 disk ┆ └┬▶ └─sdi1 8:129 0 931.5G 0 part └┬▶ └┈┈md0 9:0 0 3.7T 0 raid0 └vg_home-lv_home 253:1 0 10.9T 0 lvm /home sr0 11:0 1 496.7M 0 rom If I do a clean install of Fedora 33 onto this will it cope? I am hoping that BTRFS / Anaconda will spot all those disks and make optimal use of them, better even than my manual arrangement. Is that a fair assumption, or would I be better just upgrading F32 -> F33 as previously? Many thanks, Chris R. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
SOLVED Re: F30 last two updates won't boot, kernel 5.3 can't mount RAID0
OK, after more searching the 'net I have found the answer. It seems RAID0 was unintentionally broken since kernel 5.3.1, but there is a workaround On 19/10/2019 08:42, Christopher Ross wrote: There have been two kernel updates this past week: kernel-core-5.3.5-200.fc30.x86_64 kernel-core-5.3.6-200.fc30.x86_64 Neither of these will boot for me. I get so far as the Fedora splash screen in graphics mode but never the login screen. Oct 19 07:24:38 snoopy.tebibyte.org systemd[1]: local-fs.target: Triggering OnFailure= dependencies. Oct 19 07:24:38 snoopy.tebibyte.org systemd[1]: local-fs.target: Job local-fs.target/start failed with result 'dependency'. Oct 19 07:24:38 snoopy.tebibyte.org systemd[1]: Dependency failed for Local File Systems. ... Under the last kernel that does boot (kernel-core-5.2.18-200.fc30.x86_64), the device it is references looks like this : lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 9 Oct 19 07:30 "/dev/disk/by-uuid/a1aaca46-f02d-4407-90ab-1067eecea53d" -> "../../md0" Where md0 is a RAID0 of 4 x 1TiB discs. Thanks to a not dissimilar query on the ArchLinux lists: (https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?pid=1868823#p1868823) It's a bug, recently discovered, that caused the raid0 layout to change unintentionally a while back, so now they're in a pickle... they have two layouts and the metadata doesn't say which is correct. If they fix the unintentional change, they corrupt all raid0 using the unintended new layout; if they don't fix it, they corrupt all raid0 using the old layout. Both choices are wrong so they decided instead to make it "stop working entirely" until the sysadmin decides how they want to corrupt their raid0. so you have to add a kernel paramter: raid0.default_layout=1 for new or =2 for old 3.x kernel raid0s Regards, Chris R. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
F30 last two updates won't boot, kernel 5.3 can't mount RAID0
There have been two kernel updates this past week: kernel-core-5.3.5-200.fc30.x86_64 kernel-core-5.3.6-200.fc30.x86_64 Neither of these will boot for me. I get so far as the Fedora splash screen in graphics mode but never the login screen. I've been trying to debug this, and so far the biggest clue I have from the system log is the following: Oct 19 07:24:38 snoopy.tebibyte.org systemd[1]: local-fs.target: Triggering OnFailure= dependencies. Oct 19 07:24:38 snoopy.tebibyte.org systemd[1]: local-fs.target: Job local-fs.target/start failed with result 'dependency'. Oct 19 07:24:38 snoopy.tebibyte.org systemd[1]: Dependency failed for Local File Systems. Oct 19 07:24:38 snoopy.tebibyte.org systemd[1]: Dependency failed for /home. Oct 19 07:24:38 snoopy.tebibyte.org systemd[1]: Dependency failed for File System Check on /dev/disk/by-uuid/a1aaca46-f02d-4407-90ab-1067eecea53d. Oct 19 07:24:38 snoopy.tebibyte.org systemd[1]: Timed out waiting for device /dev/disk/by-uuid/a1aaca46-f02d-4407-90ab-1067eecea53d. Oct 19 07:24:38 snoopy.tebibyte.org systemd[1]: dev-disk-by\x2duuid-a1aaca46\x2df02d\x2d4407\x2d90ab\x2d1067eecea53d.device: Job dev-disk-by\x2duuid-a1aaca46\x2df02d\x2d4407\x2d90ab\x2d1067e ecea53d.device/start timed out. Oct 19 07:23:35 snoopy.tebibyte.org systemd[1]: Mounted /boot. Oct 19 07:23:35 snoopy.tebibyte.org kernel: EXT4-fs (sda1): mounted filesystem with ordered data mode. Opts: (null) Oct 19 07:23:35 snoopy.tebibyte.org systemd[1]: Mounting /boot... Followed by a bunch of errors not unexpected given that one. Under the last kernel that does boot (kernel-core-5.2.18-200.fc30.x86_64), the device it is references looks like this : lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 9 Oct 19 07:30 "/dev/disk/by-uuid/a1aaca46-f02d-4407-90ab-1067eecea53d" -> "../../md0" Where md0 is a RAID0 of 4 x 1TiB discs. Q1 then, is how do I tell DNF not to delete the 5.2.18-200 kernel as it is the only one that currently works? Q2 is what's up with 5.3 kernels and software raid, and what do I need to change to get it working again? Many thanks for any and all help! Regards, Chris R. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: fedora 30 kdm busted?
On 03/05/2019 14:36, Tom Horsley wrote: I tried switching from gdm to kdm and the kdm "login" came up as nothing but an apparent password entry field in the top left corner of the screen (at least all it did was echo dots when I typed in it). Switched to xdm, and that works much better. I had exactly he same symptoms with kdm so switched to sddm. That works fine for me. Regards, Chris R. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: fedora-upgrade fails with error: unrecognized arguments: --distro-sync
On 16/11/17 14:24, Ed Greshko wrote: On 11/16/17 22:04, Christopher Ross wrote: On 16/11/17 12:59, Christopher Ross wrote: Today I tried upgrading my x86 laptop from Fedora 26 to 27 but it failed with the following... For info, trying again consistently yields the same results. Well, the description of the fedora-upgrade package says... Description : Upgrade Fedora to next version using dnf upgrade. : This is attempt to automatize steps as listed here: : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_package_manager : : This is an unofficial tool, for official Fedora-supported : upgrades please see: : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading So, it seems like a work in progress. How about just doing the "approved" method found at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DNF_system_upgrade I get a different error with that! root@nellie 14:43:37 ~ # dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=27 Before you continue ensure that your system is fully upgraded by running "dnf --refresh upgrade". Do you want to continue [y/N]: Y Adobe Systems Incorporated 19 kB/s | 1.9 kB 00:00 negativo17 - Spotify 91 kB/s | 15 kB 00:00 Fedora 27 - i386 - Updates 4.8 MB/s | 7.9 MB 00:01 Fedora 27 - i386 3.3 MB/s | 53 MB 00:16 RPM Fusion for Fedora 27 - Free - Updates 284 kB/s | 38 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 27 - Free 2.2 MB/s | 614 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 27 - Nonfree - Updates 208 B/s | 1.1 kB 00:05 RPM Fusion for Fedora 27 - Nonfree 947 kB/s | 151 kB 00:00 Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Thu 16 Nov 2017 14:47:16 GMT. Error: Problem: package grub2-efi-1:2.02-0.40.fc26.i686 requires grub2-tools = 1:2.02-0.40.fc26, but none of the providers can be installed - grub2-tools-1:2.02-0.40.fc26.i686 does not belong to a distupgrade repository - problem with installed package grub2-efi-1:2.02-0.40.fc26.i686 root@nellie 14:47:37 ~ # Regards, Chris R. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: fedora-upgrade fails with error: unrecognized arguments: --distro-sync
On 16/11/17 12:59, Christopher Ross wrote:
Today I tried upgrading my x86 laptop from Fedora 26 to 27 but it failed
with the following...
For info, trying again consistently yields the same results.
root@nellie 13:43:45 ~ # fedora-upgrade
Going to upgrade your Fedora to version 27.
You may want to read Release Notes:
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/
Hit Enter to continue or Ctrl + C to cancel.
Going to run 'dnf upgrade' before upgrading.
This step is highly recommended, but can be safely skipped.
Hit Enter to continue, Ctrl + C to cancel or S + Enter to skip.
Last metadata expiration check: 0:56:43 ago on Thu 16 Nov 2017 12:47:22 GMT.
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!
Going to resolve old .rpmsave and .rpmnew files before upgrading.
This step is highly recommended, but can be safely skipped.
Hit Enter to continue, Ctrl + C to cancel or S + Enter to skip. S
Choose upgrade method
* offline - this use dnf-plugin-system-upgrade plugin and requires
two reboots
- this is official upgrade method
* online - this use distro-sync and require only one reboot
- this is not offically tested by FedoraQA
For more information see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading
What is your choice? (offline/online) offline
usage: dnf system-upgrade [-c [config file]] [-q] [-v] [--version]
[--installroot [path]] [--nodocs] [--noplugins]
[--enableplugin [plugin]] [--disableplugin
[plugin]]
[--releasever RELEASEVER] [--setopt SETOPTS]
[--skip-broken] [-h] [--allowerasing] [-b] [-C]
[-R [minutes]] [-d [debug level]] [--debugsolver]
[--showduplicates] [-e ERRORLEVEL] [--obsoletes]
[--rpmverbosity [debug level name]] [-y]
[--assumeno] [--enablerepo [repo]]
[--disablerepo [repo] | --repo [repo]]
[-x [package]] [--disableexcludes [repo]]
[--repofrompath [repo,path]] [--noautoremove]
[--nogpgcheck] [--color COLOR] [--refresh]
[-4] [-6]
[--destdir DESTDIR] [--downloadonly]
[--comment COMMENT] [--bugfix] [--enhancement]
[--newpackage] [--security] [--advisory ADVISORY]
[--bzs BUGZILLA] [--cves CVES]
[--sec-severity
{Critical,Important,Moderate,Low}]
[--forcearch ARCH] [--no-downgrade]
[--number NUMBER]
[download|clean|reboot|upgrade|log]
dnf system-upgrade: error: unrecognized arguments: --distro-sync
root@nellie 13:59:51 ~ #
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
fedora-upgrade fails with
Today I tried upgrading my x86 laptop from Fedora 26 to 27 but it failed
with the following...
root@nellie 12:33:40 ~ # fedora-upgrade
Going to upgrade your Fedora to version 27.
You may want to read Release Notes:
http://docs.fedoraproject.org/release-notes/
Hit Enter to continue or Ctrl + C to cancel.
Going to run 'dnf upgrade' before upgrading.
This step is highly recommended, but can be safely skipped.
Hit Enter to continue, Ctrl + C to cancel or S + Enter to skip.
Last metadata expiration check: 4:47:19 ago on Thu 16 Nov 2017 07:48:49 GMT.
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!
Going to resolve old .rpmsave and .rpmnew files before upgrading.
[... snip ...]
Choose upgrade method
* offline - this use dnf-plugin-system-upgrade plugin and requires
two reboots
- this is official upgrade method
* online - this use distro-sync and require only one reboot
- this is not offically tested by FedoraQA
For more information see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading
What is your choice? (offline/online) offline
usage: dnf system-upgrade [-c [config file]] [-q] [-v] [--version]
[--installroot [path]] [--nodocs] [--noplugins]
[--enableplugin [plugin]] [--disableplugin
[plugin]]
[--releasever RELEASEVER] [--setopt SETOPTS]
[--skip-broken] [-h] [--allowerasing] [-b] [-C]
[-R [minutes]] [-d [debug level]] [--debugsolver]
[--showduplicates] [-e ERRORLEVEL] [--obsoletes]
[--rpmverbosity [debug level name]] [-y]
[--assumeno] [--enablerepo [repo]]
[--disablerepo [repo] | --repo [repo]]
[-x [package]] [--disableexcludes [repo]]
[--repofrompath [repo,path]] [--noautoremove]
[--nogpgcheck] [--color COLOR] [--refresh]
[-4] [-6]
[--destdir DESTDIR] [--downloadonly]
[--comment COMMENT] [--bugfix] [--enhancement]
[--newpackage] [--security] [--advisory ADVISORY]
[--bzs BUGZILLA] [--cves CVES]
[--sec-severity
{Critical,Important,Moderate,Low}]
[--forcearch ARCH] [--no-downgrade]
[--number NUMBER]
[download|clean|reboot|upgrade|log]
dnf system-upgrade: error: unrecognized arguments: --distro-sync
root@nellie 12:47:42 ~ # alias dnf
-bash: alias: dnf: not found
So what gives? Is "fedora-upgrade" no longer a supported method?
Many thanks,
Chris R.
___
users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: End of i686 Support
On 06/09/17 12:41, Tim wrote: Robin Laing And, is it still feasible to run the OS on old hardware? On my older 32-bit PCs, the notion of running Gnome or KDE is impossible. They're too slow for being fancy with the graphics card. And, some can't even run a modern distro, because they can only take 1 gig of RAM. The minimum specs for running Fedora have crept up and up over the years. How old? F26/KDE runs without issues on my "Designed for Windows XP" Dell Inspiron 1300, with a 1.5GHz Celeron-M and 2GB of RAM. Albeit as slowly as you would expect, though that seems to be mostly due to being single core and spinny rust. I have thought about upgrading to an SSD but haven't done so yet. It would cost at least as much as the laptop is worth! So, for XP qualified machines, from experience yes you can repurpose them to run Fedora w. KDE. There are likely to be many of those about now that XP is discontinued and they won't run modern Windows. Regards, Chris R. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: End of i686 Support
On 04/09/17 04:07, Robin Laing wrote: On 03/09/17 09:53, Jeff Backus wrote: As you may or may not be aware, there is an active discussion on the development side as to whether or not we continue to support the x86 architecture. ... Is x86 support still important to you? If so, then come join us! We need all of the help we can get. Not a developer? No problem! We still need people with hardware to help us evaluate software. Thanks for the heads up; I have just joined the x86 list on your prompting. For my part I have a lovely, powerful, 64-bit desktop/gaming machine but my laptop is an old 32-bit Celeron M with 2G RAM. The latter is mainly used for email (this was sent from it) and it is plenty powerful enough for everything I use it for. There's no gain in spending money to upgrade it so any such spare funds would go to improving the desktop machine. A new graphics card perhaps. Nevertheless I greatly value being able to run the same distribution (currently F26) on both. If I need to change the distribution on the laptop to say, Ubuntu, I'd probably end up changing the desktop over too. I do realise this is of little consequence to the Fedora project, but as you asked I thought I'd throw in my 2¢ worth. Regards, Chris R. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Delta RPMs -
On 24/08/17 13:48, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: The man page for dnf says: "Allow erasing of installed packages to resolve dependencies" (which is actually not as clear as it might be - would removing every package on the system resolve dependencies?). However that is consistent with what it did in your case. It removed FF because it couldn't update nspr, not "Because dnf wasn't able to update Firefox to the best version it removed it instead", which is the phrase I was reacting to. I disagree. It could not install the updated Firefox because it depends on a version of nspr that has not been released yet. Removing the currently installed Firefox did not resolve any dependencies at all. At best, that would imply that it needed to uninstall Firefox because it was blocking the update of something else, which so far as I can tell is not the case. Or, if that is the case, which packages in the current update DO depend on the newest version of Firefox, which in turn depends on a package that hasn't been released yet? Surely under your interpretation they would have been removed too? Regards, Chris R. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Delta RPMs -
On 24/08/17 10:59, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Thu, 2017-08-24 at 09:03 +0100, Christopher Ross wrote: On 23/08/17 14:27, Ed Greshko wrote: On 08/23/2017 08:40 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote: # dnf upgrade Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Wed Aug 23 04:43:05 2017. Dependencies resolved. Problem: cannot install the best update candidate for package firefox-55.0.1-1.fc26.x86_64 - nothing provides nspr >= 4.16.0 needed by firefox-55.0.2-1.fc26.x86_64 nspr is still in updates-testing. If you want you can run "dnf --enablerepo updates-testing update firefox" Thank you! I have just done that. Because dnf wasn't able to update Firefox to the best version it removed it instead! I assume this is a result of the combination --best --allowerasing which I generally use. I've never had it just remove things completely leaving no version installed though :( That doesn't look right. AFAIK "--allowerasing" will delete a package that is blocking something else from updating, but not otherwise. It shouldn't remove a package just because it can't get the latest version. Well that is exactly what happened. The command dnf --refresh --best --allowerasing upgrade Could not update Firefox because of the missing dependency (nspr) so it removed Firefox completely instead. This is not what I expected to happen. This is the command I generally use to update the system, pretty much daily. Subsequently entering the command dnf install firefox installed firefox.x86_64 54.0-2.fc26, not the 55.0-1 that it removed. I then followed Ed Greshko's advice (above) to enable the updates-testing repository to get the required dependency and that worked, so that I now have firefox.x86_64 55.0.2-1.fc26 installed. Regards, Chris R. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Delta RPMs -
On 23/08/17 14:27, Ed Greshko wrote: On 08/23/2017 08:40 PM, Bob Goodwin wrote: # dnf upgrade Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:00 ago on Wed Aug 23 04:43:05 2017. Dependencies resolved. Problem: cannot install the best update candidate for package firefox-55.0.1-1.fc26.x86_64 - nothing provides nspr >= 4.16.0 needed by firefox-55.0.2-1.fc26.x86_64 nspr is still in updates-testing. If you want you can run "dnf --enablerepo updates-testing update firefox" Thank you! I have just done that. Because dnf wasn't able to update Firefox to the best version it removed it instead! I assume this is a result of the combination --best --allowerasing which I generally use. I've never had it just remove things completely leaving no version installed though :( Regards, Chris R. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
F23 rsnapshot log timestamps funny
Since yesterday's update of rsnapshot to rsnapshot-1.4.2-1.fc23.noarch The format of the date/time field in the rsnapshot.log has gone funny, as per the following examples... [19/Oct/2016:11:53:42] /usr/bin/rsnapshot daily: completed successfully [19/Oct/2016:12:04:15] /usr/bin/rsnapshot hourly: completed successfully [2016-10-19T18:08:11] /usr/bin/rsnapshot hourly: completed successfully [2016-10-20T00:07:09] /usr/bin/rsnapshot hourly: completed successfully [2016-10-20T06:06:31] /usr/bin/rsnapshot hourly: completed successfully Is anyone else seeing this? Is there an easy fix? Many thanks, Chris R. ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Finding the date on which a Fedora 23 was installed on a given machine
On 14/01/16 17:43, Kevin Wilson wrote: Is there a way to find out the date on which a Fedora distro was installed on a given machine (assuming that the date was set correctly on the machine when it was installed)? # rpm -qi fedora-release Name: fedora-release Version : 22 Release : 1 Architecture: noarch Install Date: Tue 26 May 2015 20:34:10 BST Group : System Environment/Base Size: 4235 License : MIT Signature : RSA/SHA256, Tue 19 May 2015 19:08:23 BST, Key ID 11adc0948e1431d5 Source RPM : fedora-release-22-1.src.rpm Build Date : Tue 19 May 2015 15:27:10 BST Build Host : arm04-builder06.arm.fedoraproject.org Relocations : (not relocatable) Packager: Fedora Project Vendor : Fedora Project URL : http://fedoraproject.org Summary : Fedora release files Description : Fedora release files such as various /etc/ files that define the release. Hope this helps, Chris R. -- 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: How can I copy photos from Samsung Galaxy S6 Edge?
On 05/11/15 19:07, Rick Stevens wrote: And getting a listing of what's mounted there: [rick@prophead ~]$ ls -l tstmnt total 0 drwxrwxr-x. 2 rick rick 0 Dec 31 1969 Card drwxrwxr-x. 2 rick rick 0 Dec 31 1969 Phone So, there's a "Card" directory (the SD card in my phone) and a "Phone" directory (the internal phone storage). I LOVE the fact that the dates shown are pre-Unix epoch! Cute, eh? (For reference, the Unix epoch started at 00:00:00.00, January 1, 1970 UTC). I thought Android was Linux based. :-) The timestamp will be (i.e. the Unix epoch) but it's assuming UTC whereas your timezone is -0800 hours or something, hence your display date is shows the day before. Regards, Chris R. -- 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: updated f22->f23 using dnf system-upgrade, no significant issues
On 03/11/15 14:42, Neal Becker wrote: A boring update Not for me it wasn't! root@nellie 10:27:06 ~ # dnf --best --allowerasing --refresh system-upgrade download --releasever=23 Fedora 23 - i386 655 kB/s | 39 MB 01:01 PostInstallerF-updates 2.7 kB/s | 3.4 kB 00:01 RPM Fusion for Fedora 23 - Free - Updates 399 kB/s | 103 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 23 - Nonfree - Updates 9.8 kB/s | 1.3 kB 00:00 RPM Fusion for Fedora 23 - Free 1.0 MB/s | 408 kB 00:00 Adobe Systems Incorporated 6.3 kB/s | 1.8 kB 00:00 PostInstallerF 137 kB/s | 533 kB 00:03 Fedora 23 - i386 - Updates 564 kB/s | 3.8 MB 00:06 RPM Fusion for Fedora 23 - Nonfree 514 kB/s | 129 kB 00:00 Last metadata expiration check performed 0:00:00 ago on Wed Nov 4 10:30:15 2015. Error: package kf5-kdesu-5.15.0-2.fc23.i686 requires kf5-filesystem >= 5.15.0, but none of the providers can be installed -- Chris R. -- 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: Q about Environment files of systemd
On 13/08/15 11:17, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: On Thu, 2015-08-13 at 17:02 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: On 08/13/15 16:38, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote: throws up a whole bunch of of hits which don't include the word EnvironmentFile. Oh, I think I parsed your statement wrong. I should have read it as "more than EnvironmentFile contains that syntax such as ExecStartPre". But that then results in a different question which can be answer in the same manner which results in finding the same man page and the following output ExecStartPre=, ExecStartPost= Additional commands that are executed before or after the command in ExecStart=, respectively. Syntax is the same as for ExecStart=, except that multiple command lines are allowed and the commands are executed one after the other, serially. If any of those commands (not prefixed with "-") fail, the rest are not executed and the unit is considered failed. You can argue that if you like, but my point is that on seeing the examples the natural conclusion is that here is some new syntax I don't know about, so let me look in the systemd docs for some explanation. The fact that it's only documented in specific examples makes it much harder to find. I don't expect the syntax of environment variable assignments to be explained every time one of them shows up in a man page. poc Well I found it, I just didn't quote that bit. So Ed was right. Regards, Chris R. -- 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: Q about Environment files of systemd
On 13/08/15 08:52, Christopher Ross wrote:
On 13/08/15 01:42, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 08/13/15 08:01, Ed Greshko wrote:
Being that it was a very specific question the 2 words were easy to
divine.
And, if I had my coffee, I probably would have used "-K" and a single
word before resorting to google. Recalling, again, this to have been
a very specific question with a very unique word.
I salute your google-fu! It is not at all obvious to me. The Question is
what is the EnviromentFile and what does "=-" mean within it...
root@snoopy 08:46:58 ~ # apropos "=-"
=-: nothing appropriate.
root@snoopy 08:47:06 ~ # apropos "EnvironmentFile"
EnvironmentFile: nothing appropriate.
root@snoopy 08:50:12 ~ # apropos systemd | wc -l
155
Continuing that search then...
root@snoopy 08:50:25 ~ # apropos systemd | grep environment
systemd-detect-virt (1) - Detect execution in a virtualized environment
systemd.exec (5) - Execution environment configuration
root@snoopy 08:53:31 ~ # man systemd.exec
...
EnvironmentFile=
Similar to Environment= but reads the environment variables
from a text file. The text file should contain
new-line-separated variable assignments. Empty lines and
lines starting with ; or # will be ignored, which may be
used for commenting. A line ending with a backslash will be
concatenated with the following one, allowing multiline
variable definitions. The parser strips leading and trailing
whitespace from the values of assignments, unless you
use double quotes (").
So that's part of the question answered. The above manpage also says
"See environ(7) for details about environment variables."
root@snoopy 09:07:33 ~ # man 7 environ
Unfortunately that man page makes no reference to "=-" or similar
root@snoopy 09:13:06 ~ # man bash
Neither does the bash manpage. So if your glib statement "The answer you
seek is in the man pages." is true I cannot find it.
My guess is that the OP example
/usr/lib/systemd/system/irda.service:EnvironmentFile=-/etc/sysconfig/irda
/usr/lib/systemd/system/sshd.service:EnvironmentFile=/etc/sysconfig/sshd
In effect means "don't use that, use this" but I haven't confirmed that
from the man page.
Regards,
Chris R.
--
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: Q about Environment files of systemd
On 13/08/15 01:42, Ed Greshko wrote: On 08/13/15 08:01, Ed Greshko wrote: Being that it was a very specific question the 2 words were easy to divine. And, if I had my coffee, I probably would have used "-K" and a single word before resorting to google. Recalling, again, this to have been a very specific question with a very unique word. I salute your google-fu! It is not at all obvious to me. The Question is what is the EnviromentFile and what does "=-" mean within it... root@snoopy 08:46:58 ~ # apropos "=-" =-: nothing appropriate. root@snoopy 08:47:06 ~ # apropos "EnvironmentFile" EnvironmentFile: nothing appropriate. root@snoopy 08:50:12 ~ # apropos systemd | wc -l 155 Regards, Chris R. -- 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: several warnings from "chkrootkit".
On 03/06/15 22:06, William wrote: warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. warning, got bogus l2cap line. [... snip ...] I've not seen warnings from "chkrootkit" in a while now. I realize that these are just warnings. Still, what's going on? Is there something that I should do? thanks, Bill. FWIW, I've also been getting the "Warning, got bogus l2cap line" messages since presumably the same recent upgrade. I tried googling it but didn't learn anything useful. Regards, Chris R. -- 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: F22 KDE How To Remove "Software Updates" Widget? (Solved)
On 30/05/15 06:07, Rex Dieter wrote: Christopher Ross wrote: In the Fedora 22 / KDE 5 task bar there is a "Software Updates" widget. Where is the setting to remove that? It's inappropriate for arbitrary end users to be be updating the system software on shared machines. Right click systray ^ => system tray settings => General section, under "Extra Items", uncheck "Software Updates" Thanks, Rex. Yes, that's exactly what I wanted. Regards, Chris R. -- 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
F22 KDE How To Remove "Software Updates" Widget?
In the Fedora 22 / KDE 5 task bar there is a "Software Updates" widget. Where is the setting to remove that? It's inappropriate for arbitrary end users to be be updating the system software on shared machines. Many thanks, Chris R. -- 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: F22 'who' reports 0 users
On 28/05/15 09:52, Christopher Ross wrote: On 28/05/15 09:15, Ed Greshko wrote: On 05/28/15 15:44, Christopher Ross wrote: On 27/05/15 22:29, Ed Greshko wrote: On 05/27/15 23:18, Christopher Ross wrote: On the one machine I've updated to Fedora 22 (using fedora-upgrade) so far I've noticed that uptime/who/w and friends report, wrongly, that no-one is logged in. Is anyone else seeing this? [... snip ...] Are you using the KDE version of F22? Yes. Although this is upgraded from F21 (using the target "nonproduct"). Yes, that is what you'll see. Not a bug, a feature. :-) :-) How could that possibly be considered a feature? That's some brokenness, this has worked properly since the '60s! If this is to be the new normal, what is the proper way now to find out whether anyone is currently logged in and using the system? I have a number of scripts that rely on this. A purely practical, real world example has just arisen. On my Fedora 21 box a yum update has just pulled in a new kernel and nVidia drivers, which mean a reboot when convenient. Now is convenient for me, but typing "who" reveals that I am not alone, so I should schedule it for later. Chris R. -- 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: F22 'who' reports 0 users
On 28/05/15 09:15, Ed Greshko wrote: On 05/28/15 15:44, Christopher Ross wrote: On 27/05/15 22:29, Ed Greshko wrote: On 05/27/15 23:18, Christopher Ross wrote: On the one machine I've updated to Fedora 22 (using fedora-upgrade) so far I've noticed that uptime/who/w and friends report, wrongly, that no-one is logged in. Is anyone else seeing this? root@nellie 16:10:27 ~ # w 16:10:28 up 8:04, 0 users, load average: 0.21, 0.38, 0.45 USER TTYLOGIN@ IDLE JCPU PCPU WHAT root@nellie 16:10:28 ~ # logout chris@nellie 16:10:55 ~ $ chris@nellie 16:10:57 ~ $ who chris@nellie 16:10:58 ~ $ w 16:11:00 up 8:04, 0 users, load average: 0.40, 0.40, 0.46 USER TTYLOGIN@ IDLE JCPU PCPU WHAT chris@nellie 16:11:00 ~ $ Are you using the KDE version of F22? Yes. Although this is upgraded from F21 (using the target "nonproduct"). Yes, that is what you'll see. Not a bug, a feature. :-) :-) How could that possibly be considered a feature? -- 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: F22 'who' reports 0 users
On 27/05/15 22:29, Ed Greshko wrote: On 05/27/15 23:18, Christopher Ross wrote: On the one machine I've updated to Fedora 22 (using fedora-upgrade) so far I've noticed that uptime/who/w and friends report, wrongly, that no-one is logged in. Is anyone else seeing this? root@nellie 16:10:27 ~ # w 16:10:28 up 8:04, 0 users, load average: 0.21, 0.38, 0.45 USER TTYLOGIN@ IDLE JCPU PCPU WHAT root@nellie 16:10:28 ~ # logout chris@nellie 16:10:55 ~ $ chris@nellie 16:10:57 ~ $ who chris@nellie 16:10:58 ~ $ w 16:11:00 up 8:04, 0 users, load average: 0.40, 0.40, 0.46 USER TTYLOGIN@ IDLE JCPU PCPU WHAT chris@nellie 16:11:00 ~ $ Are you using the KDE version of F22? Yes. Although this is upgraded from F21 (using the target "nonproduct"). Chris R. -- 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
F22 'who' reports 0 users
On the one machine I've updated to Fedora 22 (using fedora-upgrade) so far I've noticed that uptime/who/w and friends report, wrongly, that no-one is logged in. Is anyone else seeing this? root@nellie 16:10:27 ~ # w 16:10:28 up 8:04, 0 users, load average: 0.21, 0.38, 0.45 USER TTYLOGIN@ IDLE JCPU PCPU WHAT root@nellie 16:10:28 ~ # logout chris@nellie 16:10:55 ~ $ chris@nellie 16:10:57 ~ $ who chris@nellie 16:10:58 ~ $ w 16:11:00 up 8:04, 0 users, load average: 0.40, 0.40, 0.46 USER TTYLOGIN@ IDLE JCPU PCPU WHAT chris@nellie 16:11:00 ~ $ Thanks, Chris R. -- 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: Audio problems
This could be related to a regression I am seeing on Fedora 20. Pretty much every time a user logs in (or switch user) on Fedora 20 with KDE the audio output defaults to "headphones" and I have to manually change it to "line out", even though there is nothing connected to the headphones socket and there is an amplifier connected to the line out socket. If I do plug in headphones thereafter, the sound switches to headphones as it should. This used to work exactly as you would expect (i.e. defaulting to "line out" unless there are headphones plugged in) under Fedora 19 and 18 before that on exactly the same hardware. If anyone can point me to a solution I would be grateful. Regards, Chris R. On Wed, 8 Jan 2014, Robert Moskowitz wrote: Lenovo x120e Builtin speakers work for a couple minutes after a boot, then typically stop working. Sometimes may work for a bit longer, but always stop. Headphones (you have to use a combo headphone/mic, like the one from your smartphone) works no problem. The schematic from the manual shows the wires going into the jack component and from there to the speaker component. The bios speaker mute button can tell the difference if a headset is plugged in or not (mute headset/speaker); perhaps this is an impedence test. Can this in anyway be a software issue? I suppose I could tear into the unit. I have a busted older unit; I cooked the processor board with a coke (tm) spill. I doubt it got the sound subsystem. -- 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 -- 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
Why can't I find kmod-nvidia for 3.6.10
Hi All, (Is there a separate rpmfusion list I should ask this on?) On Sunday, 16th December, yum update brought in a new kernel package kernel-3.6.10-2.fc17.x86_64 root@snoopy ~ # rpm -qa kernel kernel-3.6.9-2.fc17.x86_64 kernel-3.6.8-2.fc17.x86_64 kernel-3.6.10-2.fc17.x86_64 To date (20th December) I can't reboot into it because there is no corresponding update for the nVidia driver: root@snoopy ~ # yum update xorg-x11-drv-nvidia xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-libs.i686 xorg-x11-drv-nvidia-libs kmod-nvidia Loaded plugins: langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit No Packages marked for Update A yum search confirms this (see below). I appreciate that it's a volunteer project and there are no guarantees, and that the proprietary nvidia module is frowned upon, but generally speaking I see kmod updates within a day of the corresponding kernel update so I wonder whether I have broken something or am otherwise doing something wrong? If it's just a matter of having more patience that's fine too! Advice would be appreciated. root@snoopy ~ # yum search kmod-nvidia Loaded plugins: langpacks, presto, refresh-packagekit adobe-linux-i386 | 951 B 00:00 adobe-linux-x86_64 | 951 B 00:00 fedora/17/x86_64/metalink | 32 kB 00:00 fedora | 4.2 kB 00:00 rpmfusion-free | 3.3 kB 00:00 rpmfusion-free-updates | 3.3 kB 00:00 rpmfusion-nonfree | 3.3 kB 00:00 rpmfusion-nonfree-updates | 3.3 kB 00:00 steam | 2.9 kB 00:00 updates/17/x86_64/metalink | 19 kB 00:00 updates | 4.7 kB 00:00 (1/3): steam/primary_db | 28 kB 00:01 (2/3): fedora/primary_db | 14 MB 01:23 (3/3): updates/primary_db | 7.2 MB 00:49 (1/6): adobe-linux-x86_64/primary | 1.2 kB 00:00 (2/6): adobe-linux-i386/primary | 11 kB 00:00 (3/6): rpmfusion-nonfree/primary_db | 138 kB 00:04 (4/6): rpmfusion-nonfree-updates/primary_db | 127 kB 00:04 (5/6): rpmfusion-free-updates/primary_db | 292 kB 00:04 (6/6): rpmfusion-free/primary_db | 403 kB 00:05 fedora/group_gz | 434 kB 00:02 rpmfusion-free/group_gz | 1.6 kB 00:00 rpmfusion-free-updates/group_gz | 1.6 kB 00:00 rpmfusion-nonfree/group_gz | 1.0 kB 00:00 rpmfusion-nonfree-updates/group_gz | 1.0 kB 00:00 updates/group_gz | 435 kB 00:02 adobe-linux-i386 17/17 adobe-linux-x86_64 2/2 updates/pkgtags | 333 B 00:00 == N/S Matched: kmod-nvidia == akmod-nvidia.x86_64 : Akmod package for nvidia kernel module(s) akmod-nvidia-173xx.x86_64 : Akmod package for nvidia-173xx kernel module(s) akmod-nvidia-96xx.x
