[Vserver] private ip & DNAT

2005-02-20 Thread Abdrashitov Dmitry
Hello!
I want give my virtual server private ip-address : 10.0.0.32
System - Debian Woody
And this is rules from NAT table:

## this is working
iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -p tcp -o eth0 -s 10.0.0.0/26 -j SNAT 
--to-source $real_ip

## but this is not working
iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -p tcp -s 0.0.0.0/0 -d domain1.ru --dport 
1 -j DNAT --to 10.0.0.32:1
***

$real_ip - external ip-address
domain1.ru have $real_ip address in provider's DNS
How does that must work?
Dmitry

___
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver


Re: [Vserver] Patching kernel-source-2.6.10 (Debian)

2005-02-20 Thread Kilian Krause
Hi Helmut,

> Solutions can be:
> - the Debian maintainer finds a way to keep in track

he is.

> - some advanced users provide patches or .debs outside of Debian

there are packages that WorkForMe(TM) and i have long standing offered
to hand them to everybody interested on this list. Moreover Ola is
having access to the SVN where they came from and should thus not have
any problem moving whatever he likes from there into experimental. You
see it's not about technical limitations, it's politics. And I daresay
that even though I don't agree from a personal point on keeping 1.9x out
of Debian, he's very helpful and positive about packaing the new alpha
tools.

The only problem, which may or may not be fixed in the meantime, was the
lack of a 32bit-kernel API for x86_64 CPUs with 32bit userland. That was
however an upstream problem. Apart from that they do work just nicely
for me (yet not as intuitively as i sometimes wish, but that's another
upstream issue which was also addressed as part of the alpha-packaging).

-- 
Best regards,
 Kilian


signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
___
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver


Re: [Vserver] Re: Linux-VServer Agenda ...

2005-02-20 Thread Gregory (Grisha) Trubetskoy
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005, Nicolas Costes wrote:
You need to deeply discuss those facts with the company, and why not try to
secure the vservers' future in the job contract... My english is too bad when
it comes to that domain, but I can try to say it like this: "I agree to work
for you if you agree to support vservers developpement, instead of trying to
make them disappear, ie. use and promote the vservers technology in your
products, and respect the GPL".
That'd be all water under the bridge, since ultimately a corporation is to 
serve its stockholders regardless of what any officer of the corporation 
may say, even if it is truly spoken from the heart.

The key thing is the holder of the copyright. And a typical employment 
agreement usually states that whatever work you do is actually owned by 
the company (regardless whether you do it in your spare time). And whoever 
owns the copyright can govern the project in whichever direction possible, 
even make part or all of it closed-source. I do not mean to say that this 
is what's going to happen, but it's a possibility nonetheless.

Therefore the ideal situation is when the copyright is owned by a separate 
corporate entity, usually a not-for-profit, formed with a charter to 
specifically to support the project. Some good examples are the ASF 
(apache), Mozilla Foundation, OSDL, PSF, etc, etc. These organizations 
have no other interests, are not there to make money and cannot be easily 
intimidated legally or otherwise. There is a good reason why all these 
foundations exist in today's world of SCO and the like.

Grisha
___
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver


Re: [Vserver] Mandrakelinux's patch for 0.30.204

2005-02-20 Thread Enrico Scholz
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Velu Erwan) writes:

>>I do not know if urpmi supports this, but it should be possible to
>>specify the version of Mandrake Linux. E.g.
>>
>>| vserver ... build -m urpmi -- -d mdk10
>>
>>
>>
> Of course it could be done, but the main idea was to install the
> vserver using the virtual basesystem rpm (available on all
> mandrakelinux release).

I have to admit that I do not know anything about 'urpmi', but with
'yum' and 'apt' I can configure the repository which is going to be
used. This makes it possible to install FC2 guests on FC3 hosts by using
'... -d fc2'.

So it would be nice when I could call 'urpmi' in the same way (install
mdk9 guests on a mdk10 hosts e.g.).


>>>-_rpmdb_mntpoint=/.rpmdb
>>>+_rpmdb_mntpoint=$BASEDIR/.rpmdb
>>
>>This does not look sane. The rpm-database mountpoint MUST be at the / of
>>the vserver.
>>
> I must assume that some hack were introduce but certainly because I
> didn't catch everything in vserver's architecture.

Oooh... I just detected an ugly bug in the rpmdb handling which was
hidden by the /var/lib/rpm symlink.

Please try [1] if it fixes your problems. Else:


Base idea behind the external packagemanagement is, that host commands shall
never rely on any guest data. E.g. I do not trust db4 (the databasesystem
used by rpm) enough to store the rpmdb within the guest. Perhaps there are
exploits in the database-reading-code which can be triggered by a manipulated
database.

So, using /var/lib/rpm as a place for the rpmdb is dangerous: an attacker
within the vserver could create a /var/lib -> /somewhere symlink pointing
to such a manipulated database. And there is nothing which can be done
against it...

That's why, the rpmdb has to be mounted into the toplevel directory
where such symlinks are impossible.

Using /.rpmdb is a hack; /dev would be a much nicer place because it
is available everywhere and ignored by rpm. But there is rh bugzilla
bug #106057 which requires that the rpm database must be both in the
chroot-environment and in the real-root one. So the /.rpmdb has to
stay.

The position of the rpm-database is specified by the %_dbpath macro
which is changed in the vserver specific rpm-configuration. I do not
know if 'urpmi' honors this macro (apt had a similar bug which caused me
to create an (insecure) /var/lib/rpm -> /.rpmdb symlink), whether it
must be configured at another place, or if 'urpmi' must be fixed.


>>>+_VURPMI="$SBINDIR/urpmi"
>>
>>path should be determined in %configure. And the variable should be
>>named '_URPMI', not '_VURPMI'.
>>
>>
> Once again a lake in the the global knoweldge :/

How will you operate after the vserver was build? Do you require an
'vserver ... pkgmgmnt internalize'? If not, you should create a 'vurpmi'
wrapper.

A plain 'urpmi --root /vserver/...' is dangerous and must never be used.




Enrico

Footnotes: 
[1]  
http://savannah.nongnu.org/cgi-bin/viewcvs/util-vserver/util-vserver/scripts/vserver-build.functions.rpm.diff?r1=1.5&r2=1.6



pgpG6nJ1dZb2x.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver


Re: [Vserver] Patching kernel-source-2.6.10 (Debian)

2005-02-20 Thread Helmut Wollmersdorfer
Stephen Frost wrote:
In general I feel it's:

a) bad form to hijack packages from active maintainers
b) Have multiple source packages in the archive for the same programs
c) effectively go around the existing maintainer
ACK - mostly.
First I have to disclaim, that I am new to this list, and have no 
experience with vserver. I only read the documentation up to now.

Let me tell a success story, which maybe has some similarities compared 
to the current situation.

In January 2004 I get involved with DRBD, first trying to use it, then 
mastering the the installation, which was hard. Then I corrected ~200 
errors in the outdated docs for Version 0.6.10. Developers were busy at 
this time getting 0.7.x working. After 8 prereleases 0.7.0 was ready in 
July, and the Debian maintainer announced an upload within one week. 
This did not happen very long. In the meantime some Debian users - 
including me - tried to get packaging and compiling against Debian 
kernels working, as 0.7.4 got known "production quality". In October 
DRBD got two Co-Maintainers doing great work and discussing actively 
with upstream developers. And yes, it got renamed from drbd to drbd0.7 
within Debian. There was also a heavy discussion where I defended to 
have a working /debian subdirectory at upstream SVN.

Let me list some facts and arguments related to the aims of involved 
persons:
- upstream developers don't have the time to support distributions
  (except you pay them;-)
- developers should be (and mostly they are) interested to get their
  software tested as early as possible
- some users want the current version, many or most want the latest
  stable version, but are not skilled enough, or do not have the time
  to manage the packaging problems.

Solutions can be:
- the Debian maintainer finds a way to keep in track
- some advanced users provide patches or .debs outside of Debian
- vserver gets Co-Maintainers - if time is the problem
Helmut Wollmersdorfer
___
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver


Re: [Vserver] Linux-VServer Agenda ...

2005-02-20 Thread Helmut Wollmersdorfer
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
yesterday evening I had the pleasure to meet with 
Serguei Beloussov. we had excellent Dinner at the
'Schnitzelwirt' 
Which one? There are so many "Schnitzelwirt" in and around Vienna.
he clearly pointed out that his company has some
interest, that virtualization techniques - like the
one linux-vserver uses - 'gain momentum' in the face
of system emulators like VMware(tm) and partitioning 
approaches like Xen. 
There is a demand for things like these. Running old software without 
migration to newer OSs is one purpose, test environments is the other.
E.g. I use VMware for testing stuff on different OS-versions, and on 
different OSs as well. The advantage is the easy installation, 
performance is the great disadvantage.

UML is nice for test automation, e.g. in the area of simulating clusters 
 at desaster recovery.

Partitioning is nice, if some few similar environments are needed. E.g. 
on my last projects we had 12 test environments partitioned on 5 real 
IBM/AIX machines.

Maybe I am wrong, but for vserver I see the great advantage there, what 
the name says: virtual servers - very nice for virtual server housing.

At least I see a demand on integrating virtualization methods with 
cluster techniques like heartbeat, DRBD and SSI.

he also told me that they are
watching this project very closely and that, while
it is small compared to their products, it's quite
interesting ...

after that we had some fun with Billards (Carambol)
and right afterwards I was basically offered a job
where I would be able to do some kernel development
and get payed for doing so ...

let me know what you think!
Hopefully the results of such a cooperation will remain Open Source 
under GPL.

Helmut Wollmersdorfer
___
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver


Re: [Vserver] Mandrakelinux's patch for 0.30.204

2005-02-20 Thread Velu Erwan
Enrico Scholz a écrit :
First thing, thanks to handle my patch so quickly.
I would prefer a shorter 'mandrake' here ;)
 

Everyone prefer mandrake but the real name is Mandrakelinux.
I do not know if urpmi supports this, but it should be possible to
specify the version of Mandrake Linux. E.g.
| vserver ... build -m urpmi -- -d mdk10
 

Of course it could be done, but the main idea was to install the vserver 
using the virtual basesystem rpm (available on all mandrakelinux release).

--- distrib/mandrakelinux/pubkeys/pubkey	1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ distrib/mandrakelinux/pubkeys/pubkey	2005-02-19 17:38:49.0 +0100
   

I am not sure if I should ship foreign gpg keys in my package. Copying
the keys from existing pacakges at %post time would be probably the
better solution.
 

They will never change so it could be cool to provide it.
diff -Nrub usr/lib/util-vserver/functions /usr/lib/util-vserver/functions
--- scripts/functions	2005-02-19 17:54:19.038580040 +0100
+++ scripts/functions	2005-02-19 17:51:22.203463064 +0100
@@ -236,7 +236,7 @@
if test -z "$WORKAROUND_106057"; then
	_rpmdb_mntpoint=/dev
else
-	_rpmdb_mntpoint=/.rpmdb
+	_rpmdb_mntpoint=$BASEDIR/.rpmdb
   

This does not look sane. The rpm-database mountpoint MUST be at the / of
the vserver.
 

I must assume that some hack were introduce but certainly because I 
didn't catch everything in vserver's architecture.

+_VURPMI="$SBINDIR/urpmi"
   

path should be determined in %configure. And the variable should be
named '_URPMI', not '_VURPMI'.
 

Once again a lake in the the global knoweldge :/

  ~~~
This does not seem to be used consistently; below you have 'urpmi.repos.d'
 

I've copy that from yum, I'm not even sure its usefull for urpmi.
+function urpmi.initDB
+{
+	rm -rf $1/var/lib/rpm
+	mkdir -p $1/var/lib/rpm
+	rpm --root "$1" --initdb
+rpm --root "$1" --rebuilddb
+}
   

see above; rpm-db MUST NOT be under /.../. Using the 'rpm.initDB'
function should suffice.
 

I had some troubles using rpm.initDB. It never generates the rpmdatabase 
because of a mount -bind.
Even more strange, the rpm database provided is not working with urpmi. 
I agree to change the paths but please keep use the real rpm call.

are you really sure, that you need this hack for urpmi also?
 

I don't think so, I've kept that from yum.
diff -Nrub usr/lib/util-vserver/vserver-build.urpmi /usr/lib/util-vserver/vserver-build.urpmi
--- scripts/vserver-build.urpmi	1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100
+++ scripts/vserver-build.urpmi	2005-02-19 18:02:40.343370128 +0100
...
+urpmi.initDB "$VDIR"
   

see above; 'rpm.initDB' should suffice.
 

Using today rpm fake it doesn't seems. Please keep that.
Btw... is this really needed? DNS should carry information about your
hostname so an extra /etc/hosts entry seems to be superfluously (except
for the DNS server).
 

It was not really necessary for urpmi. A rest of a personal hack. sorry.
 

--- scripts/vserver-build~	2005-02-19 18:31:29.202699861 +0100
+++ scripts/vserver-build	2005-02-19 18:37:36.595585034 +0100
@@ -56,6 +56,9 @@
yum ... -- -d 
...  installs the base-packages of the given distribution with
		 help of 'vyum'
+urpmi ... -- -d 
+...  installs the base-packages of the given distribution with
+		 help of 'vurpmi'
   

 ~~
This program is not part of your patch, right?
 

Agreed. Appologies. s/vurpmi/urpmi/
Thx for the patch
Enrico
 

I'm free to test the cvs integration.
Thx for your experienced proof reading,
Erwan
___
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver


Re: [Vserver] Linux-VServer Agenda ...

2005-02-20 Thread Sam Vilain
On the other hand... always remember to look out for #1.
Taking over a Free Software Project isn't a life sentence.  You've
already put in a monumental contribution to vserver, don't let a whole
load of whining users give you the impression that to follow what is good
for you is somehow not thoughtful, wrong, etc.
Of course if you can get them to effectively bankroll vserver development
whilst still being able to get access the the mindshare that they've
built up, no-one will complain about that either.  Free lunches are good
while they last.
Besides, so long as you remain available on IRC to field support
questions, who will notice?  ;)
Sam.
ps beware of the dark side, it is seductive and persuasive.  may the
source be with you at all times.
Micah Anderson wrote:
Herbert,
This is a great honor, congratulations!
Ultimately the decision is up to you, however as someone who has found
your presence in the vserver project to be incredibly valuable, I fear
that we will loose such an important piece of this project if you were
to take this position.
Many free software developers are hired by corporations because the
corporations have found that their software is valuable to them, 
their paying someone enables them to contribute to the community, as
well as ensure that the development of the software is able to be
sustained in such a way that does not leave them in a bind. It also
gives them the ability to say that they contribute to the Free
Software movement, if they find it advantageous to make such a claim.

If this company is wanting to hire you so that you can continue to
work on the vserver project (and get paid), then this is a great
opportunity for you and weighing the pros and cons of taking this
position are very easy.
If the company is wanting to hire a good kernel developer to work on
their product, then I would be suspicious. Why? Well, they obviously
--
Sam Vilain, sam /\T vilain |><>T net, PGP key ID: 0x05B52F13
(include my PGP key ID in personal replies to avoid spam filtering)
___
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver


Re: [Vserver] Patching kernel-source-2.6.10 (Debian)

2005-02-20 Thread Ola Lundqvist
Hello

On Sun, Feb 20, 2005 at 04:11:57AM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Micah Anderson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > Stephen Frost schrieb am Thursday, den 17. February 2005:
> > 
> > > This is certainly something I'm all for, and were the Debian maintainer
> > > of vserver going to upload a kernel-patch for 1.9.4 I'd be happy to help
> > > him create that package such that it patches cleanly against Debian
> > > kernel sources (again, not hard to do, really).
> > 
> > What is to stop us (both debian developers), as well as other debian
> > developers who are wanting this, from creating our own kernel-patch
> > package that implements the patches for 1.9.4 and the updated tools?
You would start a really nice little flamewar :)

> > An example would be the difference between kernel-patch-2.4-grsecurity
> > (for 2.4 kernels and old grsec) and kernel-patch-grsecurity2 (for 2.6
> > kernels and new grsec). Obviously the maintainer of the -ctx patch and
> > the util-vserver does not find the newer patch and utilities important
> > or stable enough, but everyone else does. 

I have argued about this lot of times. I think the current development
branch is really good. The problem is that I do not see a timeline for the
Debian release and I would like a couple of months of testing (with the
package in testing) before I would like to release vserver to Debian
stable.

> > If the maintainer of the -ctx patch and of util-vserver wishes to
> > continue to maintain those old packages and does not wish to maintain
> > the package for the newer kernel patch and newer utilities, we should
> > have no problem with that. We simply solve what is obviously our
> > problem, rather than try to make it Ola Lundqvist and Ron Lee's problem.
> 
> In general I feel it's:
> 
> a) bad form to hijack packages from active maintainers
> b) Have multiple source packages in the archive for the same programs
> c) effectively go around the existing maintainer
> 
> It's not entirely the case that the existing maintainer is totally
> uninterested in the 1.9.x vserver series or I'd be more concerned.  He's
> shown interest and seemed to be working with some others on a better
> solution to the current situation (which might involve what you're
> suggesting, but I'd really hope not..).  I don't know that we've given
> them quite enough time yet to claim that nothing's happening and that we
> need to move forward independently - it's only been maybe a month or so
> as I recall since serious discussion of 1.9.x was brought up to the
> maintainer.
> 
> And, again, the current maintainer seems active, a little suprised he
> hasn't commented on this thread...

I do not read this mailinglist every day. :)

I want to explain this as it get up to discussion from time to time.

1) I'm interested in the development branch.
2) I really would like "upstream" to release this development branch
   in some kind of stable version. We have discussed this quite a lot
   and it do not seem too far away.
3) I want the development branch to have at least a couple of months of
   testing in the Debian distribution to catch the most critical issues before
   sarge is released as stable. And right now I have no clue when this
   is going to happen.
4) I will release a util-vservers and kernel-patch-ctx (or similar name)
   to exprimental soon. I hope I can get some time, maybe tomorrow.
5) My main focus before the release of sarge as stable, is to not get any
   release critical bugs to my packages. It would be _very_ sad if util-vserver
   will not be released at all becuase of build problems, RC bugs or similar.
   Such decisions is FTP-masters and I can not do anything about it more than
   having a really stable package.

There are a couple of issues that have to be fixed before uploading to unstable.
Exprimental is ok though.

1) Have heard of build problems on some arches.
2) debian-vservertools and integration with the development version of 
util-vserver?
3) Handling of /var/lib/vserver with backward compatibility mode.
4) I think there are some more.

So please do not hijack my package. I have quite long experience with Debian
Development and I know that changing things just before a release is a _very_ 
bad
thing. I did so just before the last release (and during a security update) and 
I
have learnt a big lesson there.

You just can not imaging how many bug reports and email you can get on the same
issue if the package is popular.

So if I knew that Debian sarge will be released as stable on ... say august I
would not have a big problem with this. But right now I only know that it is
not next week (probably).

Regards,

// Ola

>   Stephen



> ___
> Vserver mailing list
> Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
> http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver


-- 
 - Ola Lundqvist ---
/  [EMAIL PROTECTED] Annebergsslingan 37  \
|  [EMAIL PRO

Re: [Vserver] Mandrakelinux's patch for 0.30.204

2005-02-20 Thread Enrico Scholz
Velu Erwan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Velu Erwan a écrit :
>
>> Here come the patch I've made to be able to use the urpmi (an apt
>> like tool) and the mandrakelinux distribution.
>> This is the first version, I still have some work todo to add
>> options to urpmi but this version has been tested with success.
>>
> Works better with the attachement :b

Thx, I will apply the main idea to CVS; but there are some issues:


> diff -Nrub usr/lib/util-vserver/distributions/mandrakelinux//initpost 
> /usr/lib/util-vserver/distributions/mandrakelinux//initpost
> --- distrib/mandrakelinux/initpost1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100
> +++ distrib/mandrakelinux/initpost2005-02-19 10:01:35.0 +0100
  ~

I would prefer a shorter 'mandrake' here ;)

I do not know if urpmi supports this, but it should be possible to
specify the version of Mandrake Linux. E.g.

| vserver ... build -m urpmi -- -d mdk10


> --- distrib/mandrakelinux/pubkeys/pubkey  1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 
> +0100
> +++ distrib/mandrakelinux/pubkeys/pubkey  2005-02-19 17:38:49.0 
> +0100

I am not sure if I should ship foreign gpg keys in my package. Copying
the keys from existing pacakges at %post time would be probably the
better solution.


> diff -Nrub usr/lib/util-vserver/functions /usr/lib/util-vserver/functions
> --- scripts/functions 2005-02-19 17:54:19.038580040 +0100
> +++ scripts/functions 2005-02-19 17:51:22.203463064 +0100
> @@ -236,7 +236,7 @@
>  if test -z "$WORKAROUND_106057"; then
>   _rpmdb_mntpoint=/dev
>  else
> - _rpmdb_mntpoint=/.rpmdb
> + _rpmdb_mntpoint=$BASEDIR/.rpmdb

This does not look sane. The rpm-database mountpoint MUST be at the / of
the vserver.


> diff -Nrub usr/lib/util-vserver/pkgmgmt /usr/lib/util-vserver/pkgmgmt
> --- scripts/pkgmgmt   2005-02-19 17:54:19.166560584 +0100
> +++ scripts/pkgmgmt   2005-02-19 15:11:20.0 +0100
> @@ -52,7 +52,7 @@
>  if test -z "$WORKAROUND_106057"; then
>   rpmdb_mntpoint=/dev
>  else
> - rpmdb_mntpoint=/.rpmdb
> + rpmdb_mntpoint=$RPMDB_PATH

ditto... (note for me: remove redundancy)


> +_VURPMI="$SBINDIR/urpmi"

path should be determined in %configure. And the variable should be
named '_URPMI', not '_VURPMI'.


> --- scripts/vserver-build.functions.urpmi 1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 
> +0100
> +++ scripts/vserver-build.functions.urpmi 2005-02-19
> 18:01:25.569737448 +0100
> 
> +function urpmi.initVariables
> +{
> + RPMDB_PATH=$SETUP_CONFDIR/.rpmdb
> + findDir URPMIREPOSDEFAULT \
> + "$CONFDIR/.distributions/$DISTRIBUTION/rpm.repos.d" \
> + "$DISTRIBDIR/$DISTRIBUTION/rpm.repos.d" \
   ~~~
This does not seem to be used consistently; below you have 'urpmi.repos.d'


> +function urpmi.initDB
> +{
> + rm -rf $1/var/lib/rpm
> + mkdir -p $1/var/lib/rpm
> + rpm --root "$1" --initdb
> +rpm --root "$1" --rebuilddb
> +}

see above; rpm-db MUST NOT be under /.../. Using the 'rpm.initDB'
function should suffice.


> +function urpmi.initFilesystem
> +...
> +## workaround for yum's automatism to search the configuration in the 
> chroot
> +local prefix='/../../../../../../../../../../../../'

are you really sure, that you need this hack for urpmi also?


> +test -z "$URPMIREPOSDEFAULT" -o -e "$PKGCFGDIR/urpmi/etc/urpmi.repos.d" 
> || \
> + $_LN_S "$UPMIREPOSDEFAULT"   "$PKGCFGDIR/urpmi/etc/urpmi.repos.d"
   ~
see note above regarding 'rpm.repos.d'


> diff -Nrub usr/lib/util-vserver/vserver-build.urpmi 
> /usr/lib/util-vserver/vserver-build.urpmi
> --- scripts/vserver-build.urpmi   1970-01-01 01:00:00.0 +0100
> +++ scripts/vserver-build.urpmi   2005-02-19 18:02:40.343370128 +0100
> ...
> +urpmi.initDB "$VDIR"

see above; 'rpm.initDB' should suffice.


> diff -Nrub usr/lib/util-vserver/vserver-setup.functions 
> /usr/lib/util-vserver/vserver-setup.functions
> --- scripts/vserver-setup.functions   2005-02-19 17:54:19.173559520 +0100
> +++ scripts/vserver-setup.functions   2005-02-19 11:56:44.0 +0100
> @@ -169,6 +169,25 @@
>  cat "$SETUP_FSTAB" >"$SETUP_CONFDIR"/fstab
>  }
>  
> +function setup_writeHostFile
> +{
> + tmp=${SETUP_INTERFACES[0]};

ok; let's do this at another time... This introduces redundant code and
should be solved in another way.

Btw... is this really needed? DNS should carry information about your
hostname so an extra /etc/hosts entry seems to be superfluously (except
for the DNS server).


> --- scripts/vserver-build~2005-02-19 18:31:29.202699861 +0100
> +++ scripts/vserver-build 2005-02-19 18:37:36.595585034 +0100
> @@ -56,6 +56,9 @@
>  yum ... -- -d 
>  ...  installs the base-packages of the given distribution 
> with
>help of 'vyum'
> +urpmi ... -- -d 
> +...  installs the base-packages of t

[Vserver] Re: Linux-VServer Agenda ...

2005-02-20 Thread Nicolas Costes
Le dimanche 20 Février 2005 19:31, Micah Anderson a écrit :
> Herbert,
> This is a great honor, congratulations!
[...]
> I do not say all of this to dissuade you from taking this job, if you
> need to take it, you should, the decision is up to you. I for one
> would miss greatly Bertl if he was not around because he got vacuumed
> up by a company.
> micah

+1. I totally agree with the whole mail. (Not the only parts I quote here ;))

This job is really an opportunity for you. But for the vservers, it can be as 
good (Company wanting to promote the project) as it can be bad (They want to 
sink competition), with a large range between those two extremes.

You need to deeply discuss those facts with the company, and why not try to 
secure the vservers' future in the job contract... My english is too bad when 
it comes to that domain, but I can try to say it like this: "I agree to work 
for you if you agree to support vservers developpement, instead of trying to 
make them disappear, ie. use and promote the vservers technology in your 
products, and respect the GPL".

Crap ! My english is really too bad to say what I think ;)

-- 
Les sociétés de l'an 2000 seront composées
d'un ordinateur, d'un homme et d'un chien.
L'ordinateur fera marcher la société,
l'homme donnera à manger au chien,
et le chien sera là pour empêcher l'homme de toucher à l'ordinateur.


pgp5AGGRypybI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver


Re: [Vserver] Patching kernel-source-2.6.10 (Debian)

2005-02-20 Thread Micah Anderson
Stephen Frost schrieb am Sunday, den 20. February 2005:


> In general I feel it's:
> 
> a) bad form to hijack packages from active maintainers

I'm not suggesting to hijack these packages.

> b) Have multiple source packages in the archive for the same programs

The difference between these programs is so vast that I don't really
believe that you can say that these are the "same program". Thats like
saying vim is the same as nvi is the same as elvis, or that bittorrent
is the same as bittornado. They are all based on the same original
thing, and often share similar code, but they all have very different
enhancements that make them unique and appropriate as different
packages. 

I am not even sure it makes sense to call the vserver kernel patch CTX
anymore (the debian package is kernel-patch-ctx), even the 1.2.10
version is referred to as the vserver patch. I had no idea that this
patch existed in debian, because I never thought to look for
kernel-patch-ctx (and apt-cache search vserver does not return
kernel-patch-ctx).

> c) effectively go around the existing maintainer

This I agree with. Since the maintainer is not responding to these
messages, I suspect that they are busy and cannot notice them. It
would be only appropriate to ask them directly, even better to CC the
bug report on this so the communication can be in the open.

> It's not entirely the case that the existing maintainer is totally
> uninterested in the 1.9.x vserver series or I'd be more concerned.  He's
> shown interest and seemed to be working with some others on a better
> solution to the current situation (which might involve what you're
> suggesting, but I'd really hope not..).  I don't know that we've given
> them quite enough time yet to claim that nothing's happening and that we
> need to move forward independently - it's only been maybe a month or so
> as I recall since serious discussion of 1.9.x was brought up to the
> maintainer.

Then we should ask them what their plans are, and what is going on
with this, and if they need help.

> And, again, the current maintainer seems active, a little suprised he
> hasn't commented on this thread...

The current maintainer has 71 packages to their name, many of them
very high-profile busy packages that need a lot of work, its my guess
that they have their hands full.

micah
___
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver


[Vserver] Re: Mandrakelinux's patch for 0.30.204

2005-02-20 Thread Nicolas Costes
Le dimanche 20 Février 2005 01:29, Herbert Poetzl a écrit :
> basically Erwan's contribution/patch is a preliminary
> support for the 'urpmi' tool which can be compared to
> apt or yum (no distro war here please ;) from the util-vserver
> side ... so once this has been evaluated I hope it will be
> integrated into util-vserver aside with the existing support
> for the other build methods ...

The end of "urpmi --root /vservers/test..." ;-) ???
Thanks, Erwan !

Note that as a Mandrake user, i'm still available to try the soon-coming 
Mdk-vserver-kernel rpm... And the tools.

-- 



pgpi9G2DYUQ4W.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver


Re: [Vserver] Linux-VServer Agenda ...

2005-02-20 Thread Micah Anderson
Herbert,

This is a great honor, congratulations!

Ultimately the decision is up to you, however as someone who has found
your presence in the vserver project to be incredibly valuable, I fear
that we will loose such an important piece of this project if you were
to take this position.

Many free software developers are hired by corporations because the
corporations have found that their software is valuable to them, 
their paying someone enables them to contribute to the community, as
well as ensure that the development of the software is able to be
sustained in such a way that does not leave them in a bind. It also
gives them the ability to say that they contribute to the Free
Software movement, if they find it advantageous to make such a claim.

If this company is wanting to hire you so that you can continue to
work on the vserver project (and get paid), then this is a great
opportunity for you and weighing the pros and cons of taking this
position are very easy.

If the company is wanting to hire a good kernel developer to work on
their product, then I would be suspicious. Why? Well, they obviously
have identified you as a good kernel developer and would find you a
valuable addition to their team. However, they would be asking you to
focus your work, time and energy on their product, rather than the
vserver product. This may be fine, because you could still work on
vserver in your spare time, but working for a demanding company takes
its toll and your spare time is often spent recovering from work,
rather than doing more coding. You have done incredible work in the
vserver project, this work has been done with care and passion, time
and energy. If this company wants to take you away from the project
that you have devoted so much of yourself to, then there must be a
very good reason for you to do that, otherwise they are tearing you
away from something you enjoy to work on their commercial product.
This would show to me that they do not care about the vserver project,
but only their product, and this is not a very nice way to treat
someone.

It is my opinion that if they want to take you away from the project
that you have devoted yourself to in a very passionate way, then they
either should be supporting the vserver project in doing so, or it
does not matter because you need the money.

I suppose some of this suspicion comes from the fact that this company
develops a product that is very similar to vservers, but it is
commercial and proprietary. I question their motivation behind wanting
to hire you, the driving force behind the free software "competitor"
to their product. It would be a shrewd business move for them to hire
you away from the vserver project because they think that it would
languish and fall apart without you behind it. However, I do not know
the details of what your arrangement with them would be, or what they
have said to you about the vserver project, or their plans for their
own product. Perhaps they want to pay you to work on vservers and they
will move their product to use vservers as a base, I do not know.
These are important questions I think to ask.

I do not say all of this to dissuade you from taking this job, if you
need to take it, you should, the decision is up to you. I for one
would miss greatly Bertl if he was not around because he got vacuumed
up by a company.

micah



Herbert Poetzl schrieb am Sunday, den 20. February 2005:

> 
> Hi Community!
> 
> yesterday evening I had the pleasure to meet with 
> Serguei Beloussov. we had excellent Dinner at the
> 'Schnitzelwirt' where we talked about - who would 
> have guessed - different virtualization techniques 
> and various commercial and non commercial products
> in this area ...
> 
> he clearly pointed out that his company has some
> interest, that virtualization techniques - like the
> one linux-vserver uses - 'gain momentum' in the face
> of system emulators like VMware(tm) and partitioning 
> approaches like Xen. he also told me that they are
> watching this project very closely and that, while
> it is small compared to their products, it's quite
> interesting ...
> 
> after that we had some fun with Billards (Carambol)
> and right afterwards I was basically offered a job
> where I would be able to do some kernel development
> and get payed for doing so ...
> 
> let me know what you think!
> 
> TIA,
> Herbert
> 
> 
> ___
> Vserver mailing list
> Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
> http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
___
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver


Re: [Vserver] Linux-VServer Agenda ...

2005-02-20 Thread Georges Toth
Hi bertl,

sounds great to me, go for it! :-)

On Sunday 20 February 2005 02:03, Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> Hi Community!
>
> yesterday evening I had the pleasure to meet with
> Serguei Beloussov. we had excellent Dinner at the
> 'Schnitzelwirt' where we talked about - who would
> have guessed - different virtualization techniques
> and various commercial and non commercial products
> in this area ...
>
> he clearly pointed out that his company has some
> interest, that virtualization techniques - like the
> one linux-vserver uses - 'gain momentum' in the face
> of system emulators like VMware(tm) and partitioning
> approaches like Xen. he also told me that they are
> watching this project very closely and that, while
> it is small compared to their products, it's quite
> interesting ...
>
> after that we had some fun with Billards (Carambol)
> and right afterwards I was basically offered a job
> where I would be able to do some kernel development
> and get payed for doing so ...
>
> let me know what you think!
>
> TIA,
> Herbert
>
>
> ___
> Vserver mailing list
> Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
> http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver

-- 

regards,
Georges Toth
___
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver


[Vserver] vserver and routing

2005-02-20 Thread Christian Heim
Well, I did a fresh install 3 days ago and I'm currently fighting with the 
vservers to grant them access to the internet.

Hollow told me 2 weeks ago I had to do this via SNAT. Said, I tried my luck.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] # iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING \ 
-s 192.168.16.0/255.255.255.0 -o eth0 -j SNAT --to-source 192.168.15.1

Did a tracepath inside the vserver on an adress in the external network. Hmm 
doesn't work.

[EMAIL PROTECTED] # tracepath 141.53.7.30
 1:  192.168.16.2 (192.168.16.2)0.238ms pmtu 1500
 1:  no reply

The same from the master works like a charm.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] # tracepath 141.53.7.30
 1:  extern28.uni-greifswald.de (141.53.18.28)  0.280ms pmtu 1500
 1:  access1-d1.uni-greifswald.de (141.53.250.5)  218.141ms
 2:  uni-greif-9.uni-greifswald.de (141.53.9.1)   211.376ms
 3:  ntrz100.uni-greifswald.de (141.53.7.30)  226.134ms reached
 Resume: pmtu 1500 hops 3 back 3

So I have no clue why the vserver doesn't get out of my local network. I think 
it's some sort of routing problems related to my connection. Maybe it could 
also be related due to my iptables rules.

Thanks for the help in advance.

Christian

-
Vserver Master:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] # ip addr ls
1: lo:  mtu 16436 qdisc noqueue
link/loopback 00:00:00:00:00:00 brd 00:00:00:00:00:00
inet 127.0.0.1/8 scope host lo
2: eth0:  mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000
link/ether 00:30:84:2a:9a:af brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.15.1/24 brd 192.168.15.255 scope global eth0
inet 192.168.16.2/32 scope global eth0
inet 192.168.16.2/24 brd 192.168.16.255 scope global eth0
inet 192.168.17.1/24 brd 192.168.17.255 scope global eth0:2
inet 192.168.16.1/24 brd 192.168.16.255 scope global secondary eth0:1
3: ippp0:  mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 30
link/ppp
inet 141.53.18.28 peer 141.53.250.5/16 scope global ippp0
4: ippp1:  mtu 1500 qdisc noop qlen 30
link/ppp

[EMAIL PROTECTED] # route -n
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface
192.168.17.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0   U 0  00 eth0
192.168.16.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0   U 0  00 eth0
192.168.15.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0   U 0  00 eth0
141.53.0.0  0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0  00 ippp0
127.0.0.0   127.0.0.1   255.0.0.0   UG0  00 lo
0.0.0.0 141.53.250.50.0.0.0 UG0  00 ippp0

Vserver:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] # ip addr ls
2: eth0:  mtu 1500 qdisc pfifo_fast qlen 1000
link/ether 00:30:84:2a:9a:af brd ff:ff:ff:ff:ff:ff
inet 192.168.16.2/32 scope global eth0
inet 192.168.16.2/24 brd 192.168.16.255 scope global eth0

[EMAIL PROTECTED] # route -n
Kernel IP routing table
Destination Gateway Genmask Flags Metric RefUse Iface
192.168.17.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0   U 0  00 eth0
192.168.16.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0   U 0  00 eth0
192.168.15.00.0.0.0 255.255.255.0   U 0  00 eth0
141.53.0.0  0.0.0.0 255.255.0.0 U 0  00 *
127.0.0.0   0.0.0.0 255.0.0.0   UG0  00 *
0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 0.0.0.0 UG0  00 *

[EMAIL PROTECTED] # iptables-save
# Generated by iptables-save v1.2.11 on Sun Feb 20 10:17:38 2005
*mangle
:PREROUTING ACCEPT [13361180:15422431402]
:INPUT ACCEPT [13305339:15399898175]
:FORWARD ACCEPT [55836:22533019]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [8230996:2484298043]
:POSTROUTING ACCEPT [8287150:2506612874]
COMMIT
# Completed on Sun Feb 20 10:17:38 2005
# Generated by iptables-save v1.2.11 on Sun Feb 20 10:17:38 2005
*nat
:PREROUTING ACCEPT [4669:270648]
:POSTROUTING ACCEPT [126:16164]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [308:395925]
-A POSTROUTING -s 192.168.16.0/255.255.255.0 -o eth0 -j SNAT --to-source 
192.168.15.1
-A POSTROUTING -o ippp+ -j MASQUERADE
-A POSTROUTING -o ippp+ -j MASQUERADE
COMMIT
# Completed on Sun Feb 20 10:17:38 2005
# Generated by iptables-save v1.2.11 on Sun Feb 20 10:17:38 2005
*filter
:INPUT ACCEPT [13305166:15399875998]
:FORWARD ACCEPT [27797:19086961]
:OUTPUT ACCEPT [8230996:2484298043]
-A INPUT -i ippp+ -m state --state INVALID,NEW -j DROP
-A FORWARD -i eth0 -o ippp+ -m state --state NEW,ESTABLISHED -j ACCEPT
-A FORWARD -i ippp+ -m state --state INVALID,NEW -j DROP
COMMIT
# Completed on Sun Feb 20 10:17:38 2005
___
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver


Re: [Vserver] Patching kernel-source-2.6.10 (Debian)

2005-02-20 Thread Stephen Frost
* Micah Anderson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Stephen Frost schrieb am Thursday, den 17. February 2005:
> 
> > This is certainly something I'm all for, and were the Debian maintainer
> > of vserver going to upload a kernel-patch for 1.9.4 I'd be happy to help
> > him create that package such that it patches cleanly against Debian
> > kernel sources (again, not hard to do, really).
> 
> What is to stop us (both debian developers), as well as other debian
> developers who are wanting this, from creating our own kernel-patch
> package that implements the patches for 1.9.4 and the updated tools?
> An example would be the difference between kernel-patch-2.4-grsecurity
> (for 2.4 kernels and old grsec) and kernel-patch-grsecurity2 (for 2.6
> kernels and new grsec). Obviously the maintainer of the -ctx patch and
> the util-vserver does not find the newer patch and utilities important
> or stable enough, but everyone else does. 
> 
> If the maintainer of the -ctx patch and of util-vserver wishes to
> continue to maintain those old packages and does not wish to maintain
> the package for the newer kernel patch and newer utilities, we should
> have no problem with that. We simply solve what is obviously our
> problem, rather than try to make it Ola Lundqvist and Ron Lee's problem.

In general I feel it's:

a) bad form to hijack packages from active maintainers
b) Have multiple source packages in the archive for the same programs
c) effectively go around the existing maintainer

It's not entirely the case that the existing maintainer is totally
uninterested in the 1.9.x vserver series or I'd be more concerned.  He's
shown interest and seemed to be working with some others on a better
solution to the current situation (which might involve what you're
suggesting, but I'd really hope not..).  I don't know that we've given
them quite enough time yet to claim that nothing's happening and that we
need to move forward independently - it's only been maybe a month or so
as I recall since serious discussion of 1.9.x was brought up to the
maintainer.

And, again, the current maintainer seems active, a little suprised he
hasn't commented on this thread...

Stephen


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
Vserver mailing list
Vserver@list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver