Re: [vpp-dev] openSUSE build fails

[Marco Varlese]

Dear David,
On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 10:01 -1000, David Cornejo wrote:
> I'm a newcomer to this list, so treat my opinion with suspicion...
> I think that there's a governance policy involved. I don't think that the
> committers should feel obligated to support something that is not in their
> interest. OpenSUSE verification needs a champion, and if that champion does
> not emerge than I'd think that the only rational thing to do is to drop it.

That champion would be myself and if it isn't clear to you then I can tell you
that over the past months I worked closely with people from LF to get openSUSE
up and running on FD.io Jenkins jobs. Beside that I am always keen and ready to
offert support to investigate issues with builds on openSUSE. As per my reply to
Damjan, I haven't heard anything this time and his email came out of the blue
for me this morning.
> FreeBSD, for example, has a policy of tiers (see https://www.freebsd.org/doc/e
> n_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/archs.html) for platform support.
> Such a system allows for new platforms to get incorporated, but makes it clear
> how they relate to project and responsibilities. Things that exhibit developer
> support move up the tiers to where they are formally fully supported by the
> project. Platforms that fail to maintain developer support move down the tiers
> to their eventual demise. Perhaps a similar policy would work here.
> 
> dave c
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Damjan Marion (damarion) 
> wrote:
> > Folks,
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > I'm hearing from multiple people that OpenSUSE verify job is failing
> > (again).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > So generally speaking i would like to question having verify jobs for
> > multiple distros.
> > 
> > Is there really a value in compiling same code on different distros. Yes I
> > know gcc version can be different,
> > 
> > but that can be addressed in simpler way, if it needs to be addressed at
> > all.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > More distros means more moving parts and bigger chance that something will
> > fail.
> > 
> > Also it cost resources
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Thoughts?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Damjan
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ___
> > 
> > vpp-dev mailing list
> > 
> > vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
> > 
> > https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
> > 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> vpp-dev mailing list
> vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
-- 
Marco V


SUSE LINUX GmbH | GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409, Nürnberg___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev

Re: [vpp-dev] openSUSE build fails

[Marco Varlese]

Damjan,

On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 16:04 +, Damjan Marion (damarion) wrote:
> Folks,
> 
> I'm hearing from multiple people that OpenSUSE verify job is failing (again).
I haven't heard (or read) anything over the mailing list otherwise I would have
looked into it.
Also, if you hear anything like that you can always ping me directly and I will
look into it...
> 
> So generally speaking i would like to question having verify jobs for multiple
> distros.
> Is there really a value in compiling same code on different distros. Yes I
> know gcc version can be different,
> but that can be addressed in simpler way, if it needs to be addressed at all.
> 
> More distros means more moving parts and bigger chance that something will
> fail.
Well, I am not sure how to interpret this but (in theory) a build should be
reproducible in the first place and I should not worry about problems with build
outcomes. It doesn't only affect openSUSE and I raised it many times over the
mailing-list; when you need to run "recheck" multiple times to have a build
succeed. IMHO the issue should be addressed and not solved by putting it under
the carpet...
> Also it cost resources
That is a different matter and if that's the case then it should be discussed
seriously; raising this argument now, after having had people investing their
times in getting stuff up and running isn't really a cool thing...
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Damjan
/Marco
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> vpp-dev mailing list
> vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
-- 
Marco V

SUSE LINUX GmbH | GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409, Nürnberg
___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev

Re: [vpp-dev] openSUSE build fails

[Florin Coras]

Agreed, doing functional testing against one distro should suffice (famous last 
words :-)). 

What do people think about running the verify jobs for the debians and then 
periodically (once per day/week?) run for the other distros, to make sure 
they’re not broken? 

Florin

> On Dec 14, 2017, at 8:04 AM, Damjan Marion (damarion)  
> wrote:
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> I'm hearing from multiple people that OpenSUSE verify job is failing (again).
> 
> So generally speaking i would like to question having verify jobs for 
> multiple distros.
> Is there really a value in compiling same code on different distros. Yes I 
> know gcc version can be different,
> but that can be addressed in simpler way, if it needs to be addressed at all.
> 
> More distros means more moving parts and bigger chance that something will 
> fail.
> Also it cost resources
> 
> Thoughts?
> 
> Damjan
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> vpp-dev mailing list
> vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev

___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev

[vpp-dev] Please install missing RPMs: \npackage python34 is not installed

[????????]

Hi, everyone
   I build vpp on centos 7.3, and had executed make install-dep. It is ok. but 
when i make build vpp . it print "Please install missing RPMs: \npackage 
python34 is not installed". Then i install python3.4 and  after installed the 
python is ok. make build vpp is still : "Please install missing RPMs: \npackage 
python34 is not installed", Why ?___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev

[vpp-dev] IPsec with AES-NI MB cryptodev

[Matthew Smith]

Hi,

I’m experimenting with IPsec using the AES-NI MB cryptodev and seeing some 
weird behavior. 

I have a tunnel up. Both ends of the tunnel are VPP instances, both configured 
to use the AES-NI MB cryptodev. The SAs are established with AES-CBC-128 and 
SHA1. 

I can ping from a host on one side of the tunnel to a host on the other side. 
The packets successfully make it across the tunnel, as do the replies. When I 
try to send TCP or UDP packets in either direction, the VPP instance on the 
receiving side fails to decrypt the packet. The trace shows that the auth 
failed. Of note in the packet traces, when TCP or UDP packets arrive at the 
receiving side, the sequence numbers printed in the trace are wrong - i.e. they 
are not what the sending side lists as the current sequence number.

If I ping, then try to send a DNS request, then ping again, I see the following:

successful ping:

02:21:37:455916: dpdk-esp-decrypt
  cipher aes-cbc-128 auth sha1-96
  ESP: spi 1333702992, seq 42
02:21:37:455921: dpdk-crypto-input
  status: success

not successful DNS packet:

02:21:40:710125: dpdk-esp-decrypt
  cipher aes-cbc-128 auth sha1-96
  ESP: spi 1333702992, seq 4641
02:21:40:710129: dpdk-crypto-input
  status: auth failed

successful ping:

02:21:43:857313: dpdk-esp-decrypt
  cipher aes-cbc-128 auth sha1-96
  ESP: spi 1333702992, seq 44
02:21:43:857318: dpdk-crypto-input
  status: success

Before I spend several hours figuring out what’s going on, I thought I’d check 
whether anyone else has seen this issue before or has any theories on what 
might be causing it.

Thanks!
-Matt

___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev

Re: [vpp-dev] openSUSE build fails

[David Cornejo]

I'm a newcomer to this list, so treat my opinion with suspicion...

I think that there's a governance policy involved. I don't think that the
committers should feel obligated to support something that is not in their
interest. OpenSUSE verification needs a champion, and if that champion does
not emerge than I'd think that the only rational thing to do is to drop it.

FreeBSD, for example, has a policy of tiers (see
https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/archs.html)
for platform support. Such a system allows for new platforms to get
incorporated, but makes it clear how they relate to project and
responsibilities. Things that exhibit developer support move up the tiers
to where they are formally fully supported by the project. Platforms that
fail to maintain developer support move down the tiers to their eventual
demise. Perhaps a similar policy would work here.

dave c


On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 6:04 AM, Damjan Marion (damarion) <
damar...@cisco.com> wrote:

>
> Folks,
>
> I'm hearing from multiple people that OpenSUSE verify job is failing
> (again).
>
> So generally speaking i would like to question having verify jobs for
> multiple distros.
> Is there really a value in compiling same code on different distros. Yes I
> know gcc version can be different,
> but that can be addressed in simpler way, if it needs to be addressed at
> all.
>
> More distros means more moving parts and bigger chance that something will
> fail.
> Also it cost resources
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Damjan
>
>
>
> ___
> vpp-dev mailing list
> vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
>



-- 
Kailua, Hawaiʻi
US +1 (808) 728-3050
UK +44 (020) 3286 2808
___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev

Re: [vpp-dev] [csit-dev] New Option for fd.io mailing lists: groups.io

[Thomas F Herbert]

I have found the UI for moderation on Mailman a little difficult.

Both systems require authentication via email to join. I would think 
that would reduce most bots/SPAM.


So the advantage if any of Groups.io is that it has a better gui. Do we 
se have use for  its wiki or calendar?


I have found the moderation view of the mailman gui a little confusing 
and maybe this I think may be the best advantage of groups.io. At least 
from the standpoint of a somewhat light user of moderation.


I think it would be transparent to participants.

--Tom


On 12/14/2017 10:45 AM, Ed Warnicke wrote:
A new option has become available for handling mailing lists: 
groups.io 


As a community, we need to look at this option, provide feedback, and 
come to a decision as to whether or not to migrate.  A critical part 
of that is having folks take a look, ask questions, and express 
opinions :)


We have a sandbox example at https://groups.io/g/lfn you can look at

And an example with active list and imported archive: 
https://lists.odpi.org/g/odpi-sig-bi


Major benefits include searchability, better web interface, etc.

The LF was kind enough to write a FAQ for us as we consider as a 
community whether to migrate or not:


*FAQs*
*Q: What are the key differences between Mailman and Groups.io?*
●Groups.io has a modern interface, robust user security model, and 
interactive, searchable archives
●Groups.io provides advanced features including muting threads and 
integrations with modern tools like GitHub, Slack, and Trello
●Groups.io also has optional extras like a shared calendar, polling, 
chat, a wiki, and more
●Groups.io uses a concept of subgroups, where members first join the 
project “group” (a master list), then they choose the specific 
“subgroup” lists they want to subscribe to


*Q: How is the experience different for me as a list moderator or 
participant?*
In many ways, it is very much the same. You will still find the main 
group at your existing URL and sub-groups equate to the more focused 
mailing lists based on the community’s needs. Here is an example of 
main group and sub-group URL patterns, and their respective emails:


https://lists.fd.io/g/tsc
https://lists.fd.io/g/discuss
https:/lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev 
t...@lists.fd.io 
disc...@lists.fd.io 
vpp-...@llists.fd.io 

What is different is Groups.io’s simple but highly functional UI that 
will make the experience of moderating or participating in the 
community discussions more enjoyable.





___
csit-dev mailing list
csit-...@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/csit-dev


--
*Thomas F Herbert*
NFV and Fast Data Planes
Networking Group Office of the CTO
*Red Hat*
___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev

Re: [vpp-dev] Measure plugin performances

[Justin Iurman]

Hi Ray,

> Suggest adding vpphost and iperfvpp to different network namespaces.
> All that is happening at the moment is the kernel is recognizing it owns 
> both IPs and bypassing everything.

> You also need to add vppiperf and vppout to a bridge domain in VPP.

Indeed, I thought that could be an issue. Therefore, I already had an 
alternative using namespaces. Here is what I use to build the topology, with 
bridge domain addition:
  _  _
 | | host-vpp2  | |
 |   VPP   | 10.10.2.1 vpp2 namespace---|  veth_vpp2  |
 |_||  10.10.2.2  |
  | |_|
  host-vpp1
  10.10.1.1
  |
  |
vpp1 namespace
  |
 _|___
| |
|  veth_vpp1  |
|  10.10.1.2  |
|_|

## BEGIN ##
# create namespaces
sudo ip netns add vpp1
sudo ip netns add vpp2

# create and configure first veth pair
sudo ip link add name veth_vpp1 type veth peer name vpp1
sudo ip link set dev vpp1 up
sudo ip link set dev veth_vpp1 up netns vpp1

sudo ip netns exec vpp1 \
  bash -c "
ip link set dev lo up
ip addr add 10.10.1.2/24 dev veth_vpp1
ip route add 10.10.2.0/24 via 10.10.1.1
  "

# create and configure second veth pair
sudo ip link add name veth_vpp2 type veth peer name vpp2
sudo ip link set dev vpp2 up
sudo ip link set dev veth_vpp2 up netns vpp2

sudo ip netns exec vpp2 \
  bash -c "
ip link set dev lo up
ip addr add 10.10.2.2/24 dev veth_vpp2
ip route add 10.10.1.0/24 via 10.10.2.1
  "

# create and configure vpp instance
sudo vpp unix { log /tmp/vpp.log cli-listen /run/vpp/cli-vpp.sock } api-segment 
{ prefix vpp } plugins { plugin dpdk_plugin.so { disable } }
sleep 1

sudo vppctl -s /run/vpp/cli-vpp.sock create host-interface name vpp1
sudo vppctl -s /run/vpp/cli-vpp.sock create host-interface name vpp2
sudo vppctl -s /run/vpp/cli-vpp.sock set int state host-vpp1 up
sudo vppctl -s /run/vpp/cli-vpp.sock set int state host-vpp2 up
sudo vppctl -s /run/vpp/cli-vpp.sock set int ip address host-vpp1 10.10.1.1/24
sudo vppctl -s /run/vpp/cli-vpp.sock set int ip address host-vpp2 10.10.2.1/24

# vpp bridge domain
sudo vppctl -s /run/vpp/cli-vpp.sock set interface l2 bridge host-vpp1 1
sudo vppctl -s /run/vpp/cli-vpp.sock set interface l2 bridge host-vpp2 1
## END ##

Without the bridge domain, I'm able to ping from vpp1 to vpp2 namespaces and 
vice versa and see packets in VPP instance:
sudo ip netns exec vpp1 ping 10.10.2.2 -c 5
sudo ip netns exec vpp2 ping 10.10.1.2 -c 5

However, iperf3 client seems to hang and never returns a result, even if 
"vppctl show run" tells me packets went through VPP. Still don't know why:
sudo ip netns exec vpp2 iperf3 -s -D
sudo ip netns exec vpp1 iperf3 -c 10.10.2.2

With bridge domain, pings don't work anymore. Are you absolutely sure I need it 
? It is not used in the VPP example when connecting two instances.

> Take a look at VPP bootstrap in vppsb, it does 98% of what you are 
> trying to do here.

> https://git.fd.io/vppsb/tree/vpp-bootstrap

Thanks for that but I'm not sure I need this since I already build my own vpp 
"box" environment. What's wrong with my topology/configuration ? All I want is 
to pass packets from vpp1 namespace to vpp2 namespace, and the opposite too (by 
using iperf3). Packets have to go through my VPP instance. Thanks for your help 
!

Justin
___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev

[vpp-dev] openSUSE build fails

[Damjan Marion (damarion)]

Folks,

I'm hearing from multiple people that OpenSUSE verify job is failing (again).

So generally speaking i would like to question having verify jobs for multiple 
distros.
Is there really a value in compiling same code on different distros. Yes I know 
gcc version can be different,
but that can be addressed in simpler way, if it needs to be addressed at all.

More distros means more moving parts and bigger chance that something will fail.
Also it cost resources

Thoughts?

Damjan



___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev

Re: [vpp-dev] [discuss] New Option for fd.io mailing lists: groups.io

[Dave Barach (dbarach)]

Minor quibble with the assertion that we don’t “moderate” our discussions. I 
spend a bit of time every day dealing with messages sent e.g. to vpp-dev from 
(a) folks who aren’t members of the list, and (b) spam / phish emails.

You’d be surprised how much category (b) email needs to be disposed of...

Thanks… Dave

From: discuss-boun...@lists.fd.io [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.fd.io] On 
Behalf Of Joel Halpern
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:51 AM
To: Ed Warnicke ; t...@lists.fd.io; disc...@lists.fd.io; 
vpp-dev ; csit-...@lists.fd.io; cicn-...@lists.fd.io; 
honeycomb-dev ; deb_dpdk-...@lists.fd.io; 
rpm_d...@lists.fd.io; nsh_sfc-...@lists.fd.io; odp4vpp-...@lists.fd.io; 
pma_tools-...@lists.fd.io; puppet-f...@lists.fd.io; tldk-...@lists.fd.io; 
trex-...@lists.fd.io
Subject: Re: [discuss] New Option for fd.io mailing lists: groups.io

I like having good searchable archives.

I have to say that I am completely turned off by the end of the FAQ.  We don’t 
“moderate” any of our discussions.  And unless something is very strange, the 
use of groups.io vs mailman better not have any visible effect on participation 
in the email discussions.

Listing features like wikis seems also counter-productive.  I do not want us to 
have two separate wiki spaces.

Polls would be nice once in a while (although doodle seems to work just fine 
for most folks.)

If we want calendaring, I would want it integrated in the wiki, not part of the 
mailing list.

Yours,
Joel

From: discuss-boun...@lists.fd.io 
[mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.fd.io] On Behalf Of Ed Warnicke
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:45 AM
To: t...@lists.fd.io; 
disc...@lists.fd.io; vpp-dev 
mailto:vpp-dev@lists.fd.io>>; 
csit-...@lists.fd.io; 
cicn-...@lists.fd.io; honeycomb-dev 
mailto:honeycomb-...@lists.fd.io>>; 
deb_dpdk-...@lists.fd.io; 
rpm_d...@lists.fd.io; 
nsh_sfc-...@lists.fd.io; 
odp4vpp-...@lists.fd.io; 
pma_tools-...@lists.fd.io; 
puppet-f...@lists.fd.io; 
tldk-...@lists.fd.io; 
trex-...@lists.fd.io
Subject: [discuss] New Option for fd.io mailing lists: groups.io

A new option has become available for handling mailing lists: 
groups.io

As a community, we need to look at this option, provide feedback, and come to a 
decision as to whether or not to migrate.  A critical part of that is having 
folks take a look, ask questions, and express opinions :)

We have a sandbox example at  https://groups.io/g/lfn  you can look at

And an example with active list and imported archive: 
https://lists.odpi.org/g/odpi-sig-bi

Major benefits include searchability, better web interface, etc.

The LF was kind enough to write a FAQ for us as we consider as a community 
whether to migrate or not:

FAQs
Q: What are the key differences between Mailman and Groups.io?
●Groups.io has a modern interface, robust user security model, and interactive, 
searchable archives
●Groups.io provides advanced features including muting threads and integrations 
with modern tools like GitHub, Slack, and Trello
● Groups.io also has optional extras like a shared calendar, 
polling, chat, a wiki, and more
● Groups.io uses a concept of subgroups, where members first join 
the project “group” (a master list), then they choose the specific “subgroup” 
lists they want to subscribe to

Q: How is the experience different for me as a list moderator or participant?
In many ways, it is very much the same. You will still find the main group at 
your existing URL and sub-groups equate to the more focused mailing lists based 
on the community’s needs. Here is an example of main group and sub-group URL 
patterns, and their respective emails:

https://lists.fd.io/g/tsc
https://lists.fd.io/g/discuss
https:/lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev
t...@lists.fd.io
disc...@lists.fd.io
vpp-...@llists.fd.io

What is different is Groups.io’s simple but highly functional UI that will make 
the experience of moderating or participating in the community discussions more 
enjoyable.


___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev

Re: [vpp-dev] [discuss] New Option for fd.io mailing lists: groups.io

[Ed Warnicke]

Joel,

We *sort* of moderate our discussions.  As an anti-spam measure currently,
if you are not subscribed to a mailer, and have not been previously
'whitelisted', your email is 'held for moderation' by the LF staff, which
take a quick look to see if you are a spammer, and if not, they add you to
the whitelist.   Essentially we 'moderate' out spammers, but all other
conversation is completely inbounds.

As to other features, part of the discussion is which features we want to
take advantage of.  Delighted to have your input on that :)

Ed

On Thu, Dec 14, 2017 at 9:51 AM Joel Halpern 
wrote:

> I like having good searchable archives.
>
>
>
> I have to say that I am completely turned off by the end of the FAQ.  We
> don’t “moderate” any of our discussions.  And unless something is very
> strange, the use of groups.io vs mailman better not have any visible
> effect on participation in the email discussions.
>
>
>
> Listing features like wikis seems also counter-productive.  I do not want
> us to have two separate wiki spaces.
>
>
>
> Polls would be nice once in a while (although doodle seems to work just
> fine for most folks.)
>
>
>
> If we want calendaring, I would want it integrated in the wiki, not part
> of the mailing list.
>
>
>
> Yours,
>
> Joel
>
>
>
> *From:* discuss-boun...@lists.fd.io [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.fd.io] *On
> Behalf Of *Ed Warnicke
> *Sent:* Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:45 AM
> *To:* t...@lists.fd.io; disc...@lists.fd.io; vpp-dev ;
> csit-...@lists.fd.io; cicn-...@lists.fd.io; honeycomb-dev <
> honeycomb-...@lists.fd.io>; deb_dpdk-...@lists.fd.io; rpm_d...@lists.fd.io;
> nsh_sfc-...@lists.fd.io; odp4vpp-...@lists.fd.io;
> pma_tools-...@lists.fd.io; puppet-f...@lists.fd.io; tldk-...@lists.fd.io;
> trex-...@lists.fd.io
> *Subject:* [discuss] New Option for fd.io mailing lists: groups.io
>
>
>
> A new option has become available for handling mailing lists: groups.io
>
>
>
> As a community, we need to look at this option, provide feedback, and come
> to a decision as to whether or not to migrate.  A critical part of that is
> having folks take a look, ask questions, and express opinions :)
>
>
>
> We have a sandbox example at  https://groups.io/g/lfn  you can look at
>
>
>
> And an example with active list and imported archive:
> https://lists.odpi.org/g/odpi-sig-bi
>
>
>
> Major benefits include searchability, better web interface, etc.
>
>
>
> The LF was kind enough to write a FAQ for us as we consider as a community
> whether to migrate or not:
>
>
>
> *FAQs*
>
> *Q: What are the key differences between Mailman and Groups.io?*
>
> ●Groups.io has a modern interface, robust user security model, and
> interactive, searchable archives
>
> ●Groups.io provides advanced features including muting threads and
> integrations with modern tools like GitHub, Slack, and Trello
>
> ● Groups.io also has optional extras like a shared calendar,
> polling, chat, a wiki, and more
>
> ● Groups.io uses a concept of subgroups, where members first
> join the project “group” (a master list), then they choose the specific
> “subgroup” lists they want to subscribe to
>
>
>
> *Q: How is the experience different for me as a list moderator or
> participant?*
>
> In many ways, it is very much the same. You will still find the main group
> at your existing URL and sub-groups equate to the more focused mailing
> lists based on the community’s needs. Here is an example of main group and
> sub-group URL patterns, and their respective emails:
>
>
>
> https://lists.fd.io/g/tsc
>
> https://lists.fd.io/g/discuss
>
> https:/lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev
>
> t...@lists.fd.io
>
> disc...@lists.fd.io
>
> vpp-...@llists.fd.io
>
>
>
> What is different is Groups.io’s simple but highly functional UI that will
> make the experience of moderating or participating in the community
> discussions more enjoyable.
>
>
>
>
>
___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev

Re: [vpp-dev] [discuss] New Option for fd.io mailing lists: groups.io

[Joel Halpern]

I like having good searchable archives.

I have to say that I am completely turned off by the end of the FAQ.  We don’t 
“moderate” any of our discussions.  And unless something is very strange, the 
use of groups.io vs mailman better not have any visible effect on participation 
in the email discussions.

Listing features like wikis seems also counter-productive.  I do not want us to 
have two separate wiki spaces.

Polls would be nice once in a while (although doodle seems to work just fine 
for most folks.)

If we want calendaring, I would want it integrated in the wiki, not part of the 
mailing list.

Yours,
Joel

From: discuss-boun...@lists.fd.io [mailto:discuss-boun...@lists.fd.io] On 
Behalf Of Ed Warnicke
Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 10:45 AM
To: t...@lists.fd.io; disc...@lists.fd.io; vpp-dev ; 
csit-...@lists.fd.io; cicn-...@lists.fd.io; honeycomb-dev 
; deb_dpdk-...@lists.fd.io; rpm_d...@lists.fd.io; 
nsh_sfc-...@lists.fd.io; odp4vpp-...@lists.fd.io; pma_tools-...@lists.fd.io; 
puppet-f...@lists.fd.io; tldk-...@lists.fd.io; trex-...@lists.fd.io
Subject: [discuss] New Option for fd.io mailing lists: groups.io

A new option has become available for handling mailing lists: 
groups.io

As a community, we need to look at this option, provide feedback, and come to a 
decision as to whether or not to migrate.  A critical part of that is having 
folks take a look, ask questions, and express opinions :)

We have a sandbox example at  https://groups.io/g/lfn  you can look at

And an example with active list and imported archive: 
https://lists.odpi.org/g/odpi-sig-bi

Major benefits include searchability, better web interface, etc.

The LF was kind enough to write a FAQ for us as we consider as a community 
whether to migrate or not:

FAQs
Q: What are the key differences between Mailman and Groups.io?
●Groups.io has a modern interface, robust user security model, and interactive, 
searchable archives
●Groups.io provides advanced features including muting threads and integrations 
with modern tools like GitHub, Slack, and Trello
● Groups.io also has optional extras like a shared calendar, 
polling, chat, a wiki, and more
● Groups.io uses a concept of subgroups, where members first join 
the project “group” (a master list), then they choose the specific “subgroup” 
lists they want to subscribe to

Q: How is the experience different for me as a list moderator or participant?
In many ways, it is very much the same. You will still find the main group at 
your existing URL and sub-groups equate to the more focused mailing lists based 
on the community’s needs. Here is an example of main group and sub-group URL 
patterns, and their respective emails:

https://lists.fd.io/g/tsc
https://lists.fd.io/g/discuss
https:/lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev
t...@lists.fd.io
disc...@lists.fd.io
vpp-...@llists.fd.io

What is different is Groups.io’s simple but highly functional UI that will make 
the experience of moderating or participating in the community discussions more 
enjoyable.


___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev

[vpp-dev] New Option for fd.io mailing lists: groups.io

[Ed Warnicke]

A new option has become available for handling mailing lists: groups.io

As a community, we need to look at this option, provide feedback, and come
to a decision as to whether or not to migrate.  A critical part of that is
having folks take a look, ask questions, and express opinions :)

We have a sandbox example at  https://groups.io/g/lfn  you can look at

And an example with active list and imported archive:
https://lists.odpi.org/g/odpi-sig-bi

Major benefits include searchability, better web interface, etc.

The LF was kind enough to write a FAQ for us as we consider as a community
whether to migrate or not:

*FAQs*
*Q: What are the key differences between Mailman and Groups.io?*
●Groups.io has a modern interface, robust user security model, and
interactive, searchable archives
●Groups.io provides advanced features including muting threads and
integrations with modern tools like GitHub, Slack, and Trello
● Groups.io also has optional extras like a shared calendar, polling, chat,
a wiki, and more
● Groups.io uses a concept of subgroups, where members first join the
project “group” (a master list), then they choose the specific “subgroup”
lists they want to subscribe to

*Q: How is the experience different for me as a list moderator or
participant?*
In many ways, it is very much the same. You will still find the main group
at your existing URL and sub-groups equate to the more focused mailing
lists based on the community’s needs. Here is an example of main group and
sub-group URL patterns, and their respective emails:

https://lists.fd.io/g/tsc
https://lists.fd.io/g/discuss
https:/lists.fd.io/g/vpp-dev
t...@lists.fd.io
disc...@lists.fd.io
vpp-...@llists.fd.io

What is different is Groups.io’s simple but highly functional UI that will
make the experience of moderating or participating in the community
discussions more enjoyable.
___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev

[vpp-dev] Please install missing RPMs: \npackage python34 is not installed

[????????]

Hi, everyone
   I build vpp on centos 7.3, and had executed make install-dep. It is ok. but 
when i make build vpp . it print "Please install missing RPMs: \npackage 
python34 is not installed". Then i install python3.4 and  after installed the 
python is ok. make build vpp is still : "Please install missing RPMs: \npackage 
python34 is not installed", Why ?___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev

Re: [vpp-dev] How to Wipe vpp!

[Marco Varlese]

Mostafa,
On Thu, 2017-12-14 at 11:39 +0330, Mostafa Salari wrote:
> Hi 
> I installed vpp on real hw!
Which command did you run when you built and installed VPP? On which distro?The
build process likely installed an RPM/DEB (depending on your distro) on your
system so you could simply use the distribution related tools (e.g. rpm/apt) to
uninstall the package.
> But now i want to completely uninstall it! What should i do?
> I did the following
> make wipe wipe-release bootstrap build
The "make wipe" and "make wipe-release" are taking care of cleaning up the
build...
> But it encountered error!
It'd be nice to report the error...
> Also i cannot force vpp_main process to stop!
Well... you can always stop a process on Linux: "ps aux|grep vpp"... take a look
at the pid and do a "kill -9 PID"... it won't be a "clean shutdown" but if you
need to stop it that will certainly work.
> And unfortunately source code is now removed!
You don't need the source code to stop/kill a running process.
> ___
> vpp-dev mailing list
> vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
> https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev
-- 
Marco V


SUSE LINUX GmbH | GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Graham Norton
HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg) Maxfeldstr. 5, D-90409, Nürnberg___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev

[vpp-dev] Vpp prevents ubuntu (on physical box) to shut down!

[Mostafa Salari]

Hi
As i installed vpp on an Ubuntu 1604 over bare metal, the system can not be
rebooted with command!
It remains turned on and says Unattended Shutdown detected , ...
___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev

[vpp-dev] How to Wipe vpp!

[Mostafa Salari]

Hi
I installed vpp on real hw!
But now i want to completely uninstall it! What should i do?
I did the following

make wipe wipe-release bootstrap build

But it encountered error!
Also i cannot force vpp_main process to stop!
And unfortunately source code is now removed!
___
vpp-dev mailing list
vpp-dev@lists.fd.io
https://lists.fd.io/mailman/listinfo/vpp-dev