Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian forked, because of systemd brouhaha

[Pandu Poluan]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 9:54 AM, »Q«  wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 07:43:21 +0300
> Andrew Savchenko  wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2014 17:32:08 +0100 Marc Stürmer wrote:
>> > Am 29.11.2014 um 11:11 schrieb Pandu Poluan:
>> >
>> > > What do you think, people? Shouldn't we offer them our eudev
>> > > project to assist?
>> >
>> > Since Eudev has always been opensource under the GPLv2, like udev
>> > too, there's no need to /offer/ it.
>> >
>> > If they choose to use it, they can use it, no offer/questions
>> > necessary. Simple.
>>
>> As far as I understand, Pandu meant "we can recommend them to use",
>> but not some offer in commercial or proprietary terms.

Yup, that's what I meant.

Sorry for the confusion; I'm not a native English speaker, so I may
have used an improper verb there :-)

> They've added something called "devuan-eudev" to their github workspace
> today, .  It would be nice if
> there could be one eudev project with the aim of supporting Gentoo,
> Devuan, and whatever other distros want to use it.  Or if there must be
> multiple eudevs, it would be nice if the different teams could
> communicate and maybe take some patches from each other.  (I'm no dev,
> so take my opinions on "what would be nice" for development with a
> chunk of salt.)
>

Actually, that's my point by saying "offer": Rather than letting them
build eudev from scratch, let's work together on the eudev we have,
promote it to something distro-neutral, then let Gentoo and Devuan
(and whatever other distros) derive from that 'upstream'

Uh, I do make myself clear(er) here, don't I?


Rgds,
--
FdS Pandu E Poluan
~ IT Optimizer ~

 • LOPSA Member #15248
 • Blog : http://pandu.poluan.info/blog/
 • Linked-In : http://id.linkedin.com/in/pepoluan

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Debian forked, because of systemd brouhaha

[Marc Stürmer]

Am 01.12.2014 um 09:22 schrieb Pandu Poluan:


Actually, that's my point by saying "offer": Rather than letting them
build eudev from scratch, let's work together on the eudev we have,
promote it to something distro-neutral, then let Gentoo and Devuan
(and whatever other distros) derive from that 'upstream'


Eudev is an already established opensource project with a working 
infrastructure and development team.


It's got a leader, it's got an IRC channel, an open git repository for 
development and even a home page.


So if they want to work with the already established team, I am sure 
they are welcome to add their man power to it.


The building blocks are all there in place, they just need to come over 
and start working together.


Also I do think that veteran unix admins do know how OSS development 
does work and how not; so if they fork Eudev instead of working together 
I presume they have their reasons for it.

Re: [gentoo-user] Debian forked, because of systemd brouhaha

[Joerg Schilling]

Neil Bothwick  wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Nov 2014 13:01:33 +, Mick wrote:
>
> > Nevertheless, I support moving away from a RHL sponsored 
> > monolithic binary and hopefully if not today it will happen eventually.
>
> systemd isn't monolithic so I can only assume you are referring to the
> Linux kernel here :)

>From the discussions I had on the IRC #debianfork channel, it seems that it is 
structured but it forms a quasi monolitic phalanx.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'

[gentoo-user] automated code validation

[James]

Howdy!

Software validation has a long, often divisive history, we should all
be aware of. I've seen several Computer Scientists (PH.Dumasses) go to
fists over "validation". It seems surreal now, but, it was hilarious
at the time as none of the (3) involved in the fists_to_cuff had a clue
about fighting. I'm sure other's have their stories.


But, seriously, Gentoo has taken a big hit recently, with the loss of
Tinderbox and Diego [1]. I surely do not want to dredge up that dispute. I
liked both individuals quite a lot and the outcome is pitiful, to say the
least. One was/is known to be a "buss_crack", but I never had issues with
him. What I could never figure out is why Tinderbox, did not exist in
several different locations; this would allow everyone to test x_64 bit
and then focus on different architectures. The code used should be
open source and mainlined, as everyone in Opensource and elsewhere has
need of robust, automated code validation testing, imho. [2]


Now, an old idea of mine (several racks of "gentoo" systems of various
types and diverse hardware) has an updated sense of urgency. Automated
code testing and development, was the goal, with a twist. I also wanted
a method to rapidly change the entire codebase on  a piece of hardware;
and that was the show stopper until recently. Granted this project "was"
to be focused on embedded gentoo, but, I see no reason it could not be
expanded to include testing gentoo distro codes for x86 (32 and 64 bit
codes) and some other arches too.  

(OK so far?) So you say, great go build it! OK, I've been working on it.
I do need to flesh out some ideas and refine some codes and models I have 
found; for that I would greatly appreciate constructive criticism, ideas
and code contributions. I have the resources to scale up this effort.
I would expect "Gentoo" to also encourage others to build up an automated
test suite environment, at other locations.

Existing resource-codes I expext to leverage:

(1) running many of the test systems from USB devices aka likewhoa_usb.
This solves changing out platforms for discrete tests, by manually moving
platforms around with discrete usb sticks. Sure part of the automated
code testing will be all scripts and ethernet, particular for the mainstream
arches, but, I also wanto to support testing on standalone
boards/system for things such as embedded systems, firewalls, micro-dns
servers, etc etc.

(2) support for linux containers/vm/emulation for some test platforms
(here folks are especially encourage to chim in, as this is not my forte.

(3) The state of the art in massive automated testing is Linaro, imho. [3,4]


Granted Linaro is focused on the latest arm cores, not limited to 64 bit[5],
but what they use works, albeit for rolling out regular binary builds
and not built for a rolling release model. [6] Hopefully, with some
input, we can address this aspect and come up with something (a model).


Maybe some forward looking folks could use "gaming theory" to enhance this
automated  test environment that quickly links to code repositories
where codes are developed and modified. That part of the effort would
be experimental, as I see the opportunity maybe working with one or 2
Overlays that are specifically about a single category of code.


And, just in case you are wondering, yet the cluster I'm working on is
to be use for a myriad of admin tasks and cross compiling  to support
an automated testing platform.


All input is welcome, positive or negative(obviously, security
is a critical component, after the specification/model is established
realizing that the spec. will be modified based on continuous security
testing and enhancements).

James



[1] https://blog.flameeyes.eu/tag/tinderbox

[2] http://wiki.gentoo.org/wiki/Tinderbox_log_collection_and_analysis

[3] https://launchpad.net/lava

[4] https://validation.linaro.org/

[5] http://www.linaro.org/projects/test-validation/

[6] http://www.linaro.org/blog/lava-blog/lava-fundamentals/

[gentoo-user] Shutdown, Gentoo and the Arietta.G25

[meino . cramer]

Hi,

another >sigh< from an Arietta adventure...

I sintalled Gentoo on an Arietta G25
(http://www.acmesystems.it/arietta).

For this I used Robert Nelsons Kernel for armv5tel platforms,
which boots fine (using at91bootstrap, no U-Boot). 

But: Shutdown (as recommmended by acmesystems "shutdown -h -H now")
REBOOTS the system instead of powering it down.

The hardware is not to blame: Using the original Debian rootfs
and the kernel 3.16.1 (Robert Nelsons kernel is 3.17.3.) the
powerdown works fine.

Firstly I blamed the kernel...but when using the 3.16.1 kernel
and the Gentoo rootfs the problem remains.

Then I copied the Gentoo shutdown to the Debian rootfs, boot that
and tries to shutdown the Debian Linux with it.
shutdown cries "no /dev/initctl" adn shutdowns the system only for
rebooting it.

Ok...seems to be the shutdown executable.

I copied the Debian shutdown to Gentoo and tries that:
The systems reboots.

Slowly but surely I begin to think, that I dont understand anything at all of
It would be relly good news, 
that...

"man shutdown" on the Debian image informs me, that the manpages
were not installed (embedded system...). Shutdown --version gives
a short help of the usual options...but nothing more.

What is the difference here? 
Isn't it, that all shutdown applications only send some instructions
to the kernel and the kernel is the main actor in bringing the system
down?

Is there any shutdown guru ;) out there, who is able to shed some
light into this problem ? :)

Thank you very much in advance for any torch send into my direction!
Best regards,
Meino

[gentoo-user] Re: Shutdown, Gentoo and the Arietta.G25

[James]

  gmx.de> writes:


> But: Shutdown (as recommmended by acmesystems "shutdown -h -H now")
> REBOOTS the system instead of powering it down.

What about "halt"?   man halt

> What is the difference here? 
> Isn't it, that all shutdown applications only send some instructions
> to the kernel and the kernel is the main actor in bringing the system
> down?

> Meino


Meino, "it's an embedded system". That can mean unique hardware, via
the SoC, hidden codes via the in-situ firmware, or a myriad of things
hidden in the "recommended" kernel(s).  Many embedded developers
forked off their own "embedded kernel" form linux via the 2.2 or 2.4
kernel series.

So, you have to "fully characterize" the system. Which is difficult to
impossible, as the vendor wants to retain control in most circumstances.
The good news is most "hardware vendors" are dumb, when it comes to codes;
so there is most always a work-around; hence "man halt" as for your
next leg of the journey?

hth,
James

Re: [gentoo-user] Shutdown, Gentoo and the Arietta.G25

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM,   wrote:
> What is the difference here?
> Isn't it, that all shutdown applications only send some instructions
> to the kernel and the kernel is the main actor in bringing the system
> down?
>

About the only thing the kernel might have a role in is turning off
the power.  Almost all of the shutdown logic is in userspace and it
isn't surprising that copying scripts between distros is going to
cause issues since the whole service management component varies
GREATLY across distros.  Maybe if you're using systemd you could copy
between distros since that is more standardized, but even then there
can be differences.

In a traditional sysvinit system usually shutting down is accomplished
by changing runlevels, which immediately starts/stops anything in
inittab (generally only gettys) and calls a script which does all the
actual work.

If the issue is that userspace shuts down fine but the system reboots
instead of powering off that could be a couple of things which
shouldn't be too hard to track down.  An obvious question is whether
the hardware even supports being powered off in the first place - this
isn't an ATX motherboard.  Powering off a system can sometimes be
remarkably tricky depending on how standardized the platform is.  I
was reading an article on it a few years ago and I think linux
actually implements several different mechanisms that get tried in
series, with the final fallback being a halt without powering off.

--
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Shutdown, Gentoo and the Arietta.G25

[Dale]

meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote:
> Hi,
>
> another >sigh< from an Arietta adventure...
>
> I sintalled Gentoo on an Arietta G25
> (http://www.acmesystems.it/arietta).
>
> For this I used Robert Nelsons Kernel for armv5tel platforms,
> which boots fine (using at91bootstrap, no U-Boot). 
>
> But: Shutdown (as recommmended by acmesystems "shutdown -h -H now")
> REBOOTS the system instead of powering it down.
>
> The hardware is not to blame: Using the original Debian rootfs
> and the kernel 3.16.1 (Robert Nelsons kernel is 3.17.3.) the
> powerdown works fine.
>
> Firstly I blamed the kernel...but when using the 3.16.1 kernel
> and the Gentoo rootfs the problem remains.
>
> Then I copied the Gentoo shutdown to the Debian rootfs, boot that
> and tries to shutdown the Debian Linux with it.
> shutdown cries "no /dev/initctl" adn shutdowns the system only for
> rebooting it.
>
> Ok...seems to be the shutdown executable.
>
> I copied the Debian shutdown to Gentoo and tries that:
> The systems reboots.
>
> Slowly but surely I begin to think, that I dont understand anything at all of
> It would be relly good news, 
> that...
>
> "man shutdown" on the Debian image informs me, that the manpages
> were not installed (embedded system...). Shutdown --version gives
> a short help of the usual options...but nothing more.
>
> What is the difference here? 
> Isn't it, that all shutdown applications only send some instructions
> to the kernel and the kernel is the main actor in bringing the system
> down?
>
> Is there any shutdown guru ;) out there, who is able to shed some
> light into this problem ? :)
>
> Thank you very much in advance for any torch send into my direction!
> Best regards,
> Meino
>

Just shooting in the dark here, try -h and -H but not at the same time? 
Maybe having both is clashing in some weird way???

Dale

:-)  :-) 

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Shutdown, Gentoo and the Arietta.G25

[meino . cramer]

James  [14-12-01 19:12]:
>   gmx.de> writes:
> 
> 
> > But: Shutdown (as recommmended by acmesystems "shutdown -h -H now")
> > REBOOTS the system instead of powering it down.
> 
> What about "halt"?   man halt
> 
> > What is the difference here? 
> > Isn't it, that all shutdown applications only send some instructions
> > to the kernel and the kernel is the main actor in bringing the system
> > down?
> 
> > Meino
> 
> 
> Meino, "it's an embedded system". That can mean unique hardware, via
> the SoC, hidden codes via the in-situ firmware, or a myriad of things
> hidden in the "recommended" kernel(s).  Many embedded developers
> forked off their own "embedded kernel" form linux via the 2.2 or 2.4
> kernel series.
> 
> So, you have to "fully characterize" the system. Which is difficult to
> impossible, as the vendor wants to retain control in most circumstances.
> The good news is most "hardware vendors" are dumb, when it comes to codes;
> so there is most always a work-around; hence "man halt" as for your
> next leg of the journey?
> 
> hth,
> James
> 

Hi James,

:)

The complete software is open source. The patches from acmesystems to (or is
"against" the better english word for that process???) the
kernel are only adding dts/dtb files (device
tree...kinda "config file to tell the kernel at what adress what
hardware is, what size the memory/flash is etcetera"...human readable)
and prepare an already done kernel configuration. There is no "hiding"
by acmesystems. No propietary firmware blob (ok...there is one...but it is for
the additional Ralink Wifi chip and is offered inside a Linux.firmware.tar.gz
indepandantly from acmesystems.)

The hardware itself consists of an AT91SAM9G25 CPU by Atmel and 256 MB
of RAM (and some analog power thingies and regulators) and a Mico-USB
socket. And lots of GPIO connectors. The hardware is such a "Middle of
the road" that Robert Nelsons said, that even a complete mainline
kernel just directly taken from Linus desktop would work.

The problem with shutdown was mentioned in their "Trouble shooting
FAQ" and it was said, that instead of "halt" one should use "shutdown
-h -H now"...which works with a Debian system...but not with Gentoo.

They describe how to compile the kernel thet use...:
Fetch the 3.16.1 kernel from ftp.kernel.org
Apply the patch
Compile the kernel and the modules
Install it on the SDcard.
Add a rootfs
Done.
No hiding or propietary stuff.
Just open source.

The problem I think is burried under the differences of both rootfs:
Debian and Gentoo

Best regards,
Meino

Re: [gentoo-user] Shutdown, Gentoo and the Arietta.G25

[meino . cramer]

Dale  [14-12-01 19:16]:
> meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > another >sigh< from an Arietta adventure...
> >
> > I sintalled Gentoo on an Arietta G25
> > (http://www.acmesystems.it/arietta).
> >
> > For this I used Robert Nelsons Kernel for armv5tel platforms,
> > which boots fine (using at91bootstrap, no U-Boot). 
> >
> > But: Shutdown (as recommmended by acmesystems "shutdown -h -H now")
> > REBOOTS the system instead of powering it down.
> >
> > The hardware is not to blame: Using the original Debian rootfs
> > and the kernel 3.16.1 (Robert Nelsons kernel is 3.17.3.) the
> > powerdown works fine.
> >
> > Firstly I blamed the kernel...but when using the 3.16.1 kernel
> > and the Gentoo rootfs the problem remains.
> >
> > Then I copied the Gentoo shutdown to the Debian rootfs, boot that
> > and tries to shutdown the Debian Linux with it.
> > shutdown cries "no /dev/initctl" adn shutdowns the system only for
> > rebooting it.
> >
> > Ok...seems to be the shutdown executable.
> >
> > I copied the Debian shutdown to Gentoo and tries that:
> > The systems reboots.
> >
> > Slowly but surely I begin to think, that I dont understand anything at all 
> > of
> > It would be relly good news, 
> > that...
> >
> > "man shutdown" on the Debian image informs me, that the manpages
> > were not installed (embedded system...). Shutdown --version gives
> > a short help of the usual options...but nothing more.
> >
> > What is the difference here? 
> > Isn't it, that all shutdown applications only send some instructions
> > to the kernel and the kernel is the main actor in bringing the system
> > down?
> >
> > Is there any shutdown guru ;) out there, who is able to shed some
> > light into this problem ? :)
> >
> > Thank you very much in advance for any torch send into my direction!
> > Best regards,
> > Meino
> >
> 
> Just shooting in the dark here, try -h and -H but not at the same time? 
> Maybe having both is clashing in some weird way???
> 
> Dale
> 
> :-)  :-) 
> 

Hi Dale,

The "Trouble shooting FAQ"*)  by acmesystems explicitely say "shutdown -h
-H now" (and it works with the Debian rootfs)...but I will try "the
other shutdowns" and will see, what happens,

Best regards,
Meino



*) http://www.acmesystems.it/qa

Re: [gentoo-user] Shutdown, Gentoo and the Arietta.G25

[meino . cramer]

Rich Freeman  [14-12-01 19:16]:
> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM,   wrote:
> > What is the difference here?
> > Isn't it, that all shutdown applications only send some instructions
> > to the kernel and the kernel is the main actor in bringing the system
> > down?
> >
> 
> About the only thing the kernel might have a role in is turning off
> the power.  Almost all of the shutdown logic is in userspace and it
> isn't surprising that copying scripts between distros is going to
> cause issues since the whole service management component varies
> GREATLY across distros.  Maybe if you're using systemd you could copy
> between distros since that is more standardized, but even then there
> can be differences.
> 
> In a traditional sysvinit system usually shutting down is accomplished
> by changing runlevels, which immediately starts/stops anything in
> inittab (generally only gettys) and calls a script which does all the
> actual work.
> 
> If the issue is that userspace shuts down fine but the system reboots
> instead of powering off that could be a couple of things which
> shouldn't be too hard to track down.  An obvious question is whether
> the hardware even supports being powered off in the first place - this
> isn't an ATX motherboard.  Powering off a system can sometimes be
> remarkably tricky depending on how standardized the platform is.  I
> was reading an article on it a few years ago and I think linux
> actually implements several different mechanisms that get tried in
> series, with the final fallback being a halt without powering off.
> 
> --
> Rich
> 

Hi Rich,

AH! :) Thanks for the informations! 

>From what you say, it is a kernel problem, since the kernel
is the one who switches off the lights...

But even if I use the same kernel as used for the Debian system
it does not work...

May be shutdown says "power off the system" and the kernel understands
"reboot the system"?
I mean: In principle the kernel would be able to poweroff the system
but there are some communications difficulties with the guys from
userland? ;)

Best regards,
Meino

Re: [gentoo-user] Shutdown, Gentoo and the Arietta.G25

[Jc García]

2014-12-01 12:40 GMT-06:00  :
> Rich Freeman  [14-12-01 19:16]:
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM,   wrote:
>> > What is the difference here?
>> > Isn't it, that all shutdown applications only send some instructions
>> > to the kernel and the kernel is the main actor in bringing the system
>> > down?
>> >
>>
>> About the only thing the kernel might have a role in is turning off
>> the power.  Almost all of the shutdown logic is in userspace and it
>> isn't surprising that copying scripts between distros is going to
>> cause issues since the whole service management component varies
>> GREATLY across distros.  Maybe if you're using systemd you could copy
>> between distros since that is more standardized, but even then there
>> can be differences.
>>
>> In a traditional sysvinit system usually shutting down is accomplished
>> by changing runlevels, which immediately starts/stops anything in
>> inittab (generally only gettys) and calls a script which does all the
>> actual work.
>>
>> If the issue is that userspace shuts down fine but the system reboots
>> instead of powering off that could be a couple of things which
>> shouldn't be too hard to track down.  An obvious question is whether
>> the hardware even supports being powered off in the first place - this
>> isn't an ATX motherboard.  Powering off a system can sometimes be
>> remarkably tricky depending on how standardized the platform is.  I
>> was reading an article on it a few years ago and I think linux
>> actually implements several different mechanisms that get tried in
>> series, with the final fallback being a halt without powering off.
>>
>> --
>> Rich
>>
>
> Hi Rich,
>
> AH! :) Thanks for the informations!
>
> From what you say, it is a kernel problem, since the kernel
> is the one who switches off the lights...
>
> But even if I use the same kernel as used for the Debian system
> it does not work...
>
> May be shutdown says "power off the system" and the kernel understands
> "reboot the system"?
> I mean: In principle the kernel would be able to poweroff the system
> but there are some communications difficulties with the guys from
> userland? ;)
>
> Best regards,
> Meino
>
>
>
I've always turned off across linux distros (BSD is other story) with:

# shutdown -hP now

the help says :
 -h:  halt after shutdown.
 -P:  halt action is to turn off power.
 -H:  halt action is to just halt.

I've not seen you using the -P flag.

Re: [gentoo-user] Shutdown, Gentoo and the Arietta.G25

[meino . cramer]

Jc García  [14-12-01 20:36]:
> 2014-12-01 12:40 GMT-06:00  :
> > Rich Freeman  [14-12-01 19:16]:
> >> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 12:46 PM,   wrote:
> >> > What is the difference here?
> >> > Isn't it, that all shutdown applications only send some instructions
> >> > to the kernel and the kernel is the main actor in bringing the system
> >> > down?
> >> >
> >>
> >> About the only thing the kernel might have a role in is turning off
> >> the power.  Almost all of the shutdown logic is in userspace and it
> >> isn't surprising that copying scripts between distros is going to
> >> cause issues since the whole service management component varies
> >> GREATLY across distros.  Maybe if you're using systemd you could copy
> >> between distros since that is more standardized, but even then there
> >> can be differences.
> >>
> >> In a traditional sysvinit system usually shutting down is accomplished
> >> by changing runlevels, which immediately starts/stops anything in
> >> inittab (generally only gettys) and calls a script which does all the
> >> actual work.
> >>
> >> If the issue is that userspace shuts down fine but the system reboots
> >> instead of powering off that could be a couple of things which
> >> shouldn't be too hard to track down.  An obvious question is whether
> >> the hardware even supports being powered off in the first place - this
> >> isn't an ATX motherboard.  Powering off a system can sometimes be
> >> remarkably tricky depending on how standardized the platform is.  I
> >> was reading an article on it a few years ago and I think linux
> >> actually implements several different mechanisms that get tried in
> >> series, with the final fallback being a halt without powering off.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Rich
> >>
> >
> > Hi Rich,
> >
> > AH! :) Thanks for the informations!
> >
> > From what you say, it is a kernel problem, since the kernel
> > is the one who switches off the lights...
> >
> > But even if I use the same kernel as used for the Debian system
> > it does not work...
> >
> > May be shutdown says "power off the system" and the kernel understands
> > "reboot the system"?
> > I mean: In principle the kernel would be able to poweroff the system
> > but there are some communications difficulties with the guys from
> > userland? ;)
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Meino
> >
> >
> >
> I've always turned off across linux distros (BSD is other story) with:
> 
> # shutdown -hP now
> 
> the help says :
>  -h:  halt after shutdown.
>  -P:  halt action is to turn off power.
>  -H:  halt action is to just halt.
> 
> I've not seen you using the -P flag.
> 

That's why the manufacturer of the Arietta G25 - Acmesystems said
to use shutdown -h -H now for that purpose:
http://www.acmesystems.it/qa
Second question below the title "Arietta G25 just on top of the
page...

[gentoo-user] Custom ebuilds for CoreOS

[James]

Anyone know anything about coreos?

Lookie lookie, they have "ebuilds"? 

python-oem-2.7.6-r1.ebuild [1] 


It clams to be 100% open source. It runs on "bare metal", linux systems,
clusters and clouds. It claims to have a much small footprint ~114 MB and
boots very very fast via pxi(boot).

Very interesting

It does look  commercial too?:
https://coreos.com/


I guess my take is that eventually, linux will be very small, embedded
and a cluster/cloud environment is where most systems will plug in,
kinda like most modern cell phones. Hopefully, there'll be a systemd centric
version so that enables individuals and small companies can remain "in the
game".

Surely there will be a openrc version(s) that survives, adapts and remains
relevant.

To me, it appears that some forward looking folks have forked (stolen the
best parts?) gentoo, made some fundamental (long overdue changes) and are
all about creating a source_to_cluster platform.  (h, vaguely sounds
familiar...scratching head). It is a natural evilution for linux to take; or
are we going to embrace some much needed change (new ideas) into gentoo?


James


[1] https://github.com/coreos/coreos-overlay/tree/master/dev-lang/python-oem

[2] https://github.com/coreos/coreos-overlay/blob/master/eclass/git.eclass

https://github.com/coreos

https://coreos.com/products/

https://coreos.com/blog/rocket/

https://coreos.com/docs/

[gentoo-user] Re: Shutdown, Gentoo and the Arietta.G25

[James]

  gmx.de> writes:


> > > But: Shutdown (as recommmended by acmesystems "shutdown -h -H now")
> > > REBOOTS the system instead of powering it down.

> > What about "halt"?   man halt

> The problem I think is burried 

Okay, ferret it out.

Does this accomplish what you want:


"sync;sync;sync;halt"   ?


"man sync"

You may need to pass arguements to halt. A standard
man page may not be exactly correct in what you have,
so you may have to peruse the codes.

Think for a second. It's embedded, so why can the
board (OS) be shutdown or halted as you like?



James

Re: [gentoo-user] Shutdown, Gentoo and the Arietta.G25

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Monday, December 01, 2014 7:34:35 PM meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote:
> Dale  [14-12-01 19:16]:
> > meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > another >sigh< from an Arietta adventure...
> > >
> > > I sintalled Gentoo on an Arietta G25
> > > (http://www.acmesystems.it/arietta).
> > >
> > > For this I used Robert Nelsons Kernel for armv5tel platforms,
> > > which boots fine (using at91bootstrap, no U-Boot). 
> > >
> > > But: Shutdown (as recommmended by acmesystems "shutdown -h -H now")
> > > REBOOTS the system instead of powering it down.
> > >
> > > The hardware is not to blame: Using the original Debian rootfs
> > > and the kernel 3.16.1 (Robert Nelsons kernel is 3.17.3.) the
> > > powerdown works fine.
> > >
> > > Firstly I blamed the kernel...but when using the 3.16.1 kernel
> > > and the Gentoo rootfs the problem remains.
> > >
> > > Then I copied the Gentoo shutdown to the Debian rootfs, boot that
> > > and tries to shutdown the Debian Linux with it.
> > > shutdown cries "no /dev/initctl" adn shutdowns the system only for
> > > rebooting it.
> > >
> > > Ok...seems to be the shutdown executable.
> > >
> > > I copied the Debian shutdown to Gentoo and tries that:
> > > The systems reboots.
> > >
> > > Slowly but surely I begin to think, that I dont understand anything at 
all of
> > > It would be relly good news, 
> > > that...
> > >
> > > "man shutdown" on the Debian image informs me, that the manpages
> > > were not installed (embedded system...). Shutdown --version gives
> > > a short help of the usual options...but nothing more.
> > >
> > > What is the difference here? 
> > > Isn't it, that all shutdown applications only send some instructions
> > > to the kernel and the kernel is the main actor in bringing the system
> > > down?
> > >
> > > Is there any shutdown guru ;) out there, who is able to shed some
> > > light into this problem ? :)
> > >
> > > Thank you very much in advance for any torch send into my direction!
> > > Best regards,
> > > Meino
> > >
> > 
> > Just shooting in the dark here, try -h and -H but not at the same time? 
> > Maybe having both is clashing in some weird way???
> > 
> > Dale
> > 
> > :-)  :-) 
> > 
> 
> Hi Dale,
> 
> The "Trouble shooting FAQ"*)  by acmesystems explicitely say "shutdown -h
> -H now" (and it works with the Debian rootfs)...but I will try "the
> other shutdowns" and will see, what happens,
> 
> Best regards,
> Meino
> 
> 
> 
> *) http://www.acmesystems.it/qa
> 

Looking at the code for sysvinit, all shutdown  does is set some environment 
variables and switch runlevel. The actual shutdown is done by halt and it's 
done through the reboot system call with RB_POWER_OFF.

So, since you said the Gentoo system doesn't work even with Debian's kernel 
and the shutdown, then it must be that either Debian has a different halt, or 
more likely your Gentoo system calls halt with different options. So check your 
inittab on Gentoo and make sure it calls halt in the same way.

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez
frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com
PGP Key: http://keys.gnupg.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF6CE157FF9525C1C

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-user] Shutdown, Gentoo and the Arietta.G25

[Fernando Rodriguez]

On Monday, December 01, 2014 7:34:35 PM meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote:
> Dale  [14-12-01 19:16]:
> > meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > another >sigh< from an Arietta adventure...
> > >
> > > I sintalled Gentoo on an Arietta G25
> > > (http://www.acmesystems.it/arietta).
> > >
> > > For this I used Robert Nelsons Kernel for armv5tel platforms,
> > > which boots fine (using at91bootstrap, no U-Boot). 
> > >
> > > But: Shutdown (as recommmended by acmesystems "shutdown -h -H now")
> > > REBOOTS the system instead of powering it down.
> > >
> > > The hardware is not to blame: Using the original Debian rootfs
> > > and the kernel 3.16.1 (Robert Nelsons kernel is 3.17.3.) the
> > > powerdown works fine.
> > >
> > > Firstly I blamed the kernel...but when using the 3.16.1 kernel
> > > and the Gentoo rootfs the problem remains.
> > >
> > > Then I copied the Gentoo shutdown to the Debian rootfs, boot that
> > > and tries to shutdown the Debian Linux with it.
> > > shutdown cries "no /dev/initctl" adn shutdowns the system only for
> > > rebooting it.
> > >
> > > Ok...seems to be the shutdown executable.
> > >
> > > I copied the Debian shutdown to Gentoo and tries that:
> > > The systems reboots.
> > >
> > > Slowly but surely I begin to think, that I dont understand anything at 
all of
> > > It would be relly good news, 
> > > that...
> > >
> > > "man shutdown" on the Debian image informs me, that the manpages
> > > were not installed (embedded system...). Shutdown --version gives
> > > a short help of the usual options...but nothing more.
> > >
> > > What is the difference here? 
> > > Isn't it, that all shutdown applications only send some instructions
> > > to the kernel and the kernel is the main actor in bringing the system
> > > down?
> > >
> > > Is there any shutdown guru ;) out there, who is able to shed some
> > > light into this problem ? :)
> > >
> > > Thank you very much in advance for any torch send into my direction!
> > > Best regards,
> > > Meino
> > >
> > 
> > Just shooting in the dark here, try -h and -H but not at the same time? 
> > Maybe having both is clashing in some weird way???
> > 
> > Dale
> > 
> > :-)  :-) 
> > 
> 
> Hi Dale,
> 
> The "Trouble shooting FAQ"*)  by acmesystems explicitely say "shutdown -h
> -H now" (and it works with the Debian rootfs)...but I will try "the
> other shutdowns" and will see, what happens,
> 
> Best regards,
> Meino
> 
> 
> 
> *) http://www.acmesystems.it/qa
> 

Also AFAICT the -H option just set an env variable INIT_HALT and it looks like 
OpenRC ignores it so look at your init scripts on Debian and see what it does 
when it is set.

-- 
Fernando Rodriguez
frodriguez.develo...@outlook.com
PGP Key: http://keys.gnupg.net/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xF6CE157FF9525C1C

signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: [gentoo-user] Custom ebuilds for CoreOS

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:46 PM, James  wrote:
>
> It clams to be 100% open source. It runs on "bare metal", linux systems,
> clusters and clouds. It claims to have a much small footprint ~114 MB and
> boots very very fast via pxi(boot).

The whole idea of CoreOS is to be the host for a bunch of containers.
The host is completely generic - other than maybe configuring things
like the network or hardware or things actually related to hosting
(what containers to run/how/etc) you aren't suppose to really touch
it.  You don't install packages on the host.  All the stuff you care
about goes into the containers.

Think of it like VMWare on bare metal, except it is linux and you're
running containers and not VMs (so much more efficient, and less
secure).

>
> Surely there will be a openrc version(s) that survives, adapts and remains
> relevant.

Again, the point of CoreOS is that you don't care how the host works.
You won't add/remove services from the host.  As such you won't care
what init implementation it runs.

The containers are a completely different beast.  You might just run
your application in the container as PID 1.  Or, maybe you run
something like sysvinit+openrc or systemd inside a container.  You
could have one of each running on the same host.

>
> To me, it appears that some forward looking folks have forked (stolen the
> best parts?) gentoo, made some fundamental (long overdue changes) and are
> all about creating a source_to_cluster platform.  (h, vaguely sounds
> familiar...scratching head). It is a natural evilution for linux to take; or
> are we going to embrace some much needed change (new ideas) into gentoo?

I have no idea if CoreOS is Gentoo-derived, but it is very much a
special-purpose distro.  The whole concept is that you put all the
value-add in the containers, and then you just want a really standard
and lightweight distro to host your containers in.  Maybe you run
CentOS in one container, and Gentoo in another container, and Debian
in another container.

--
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Shutdown, Gentoo and the Arietta.G25

[Rich Freeman]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:51 PM,   wrote:
> Jc García  [14-12-01 20:36]:
>>
>> I've not seen you using the -P flag.
>>
>
> That's why the manufacturer of the Arietta G25 - Acmesystems said
> to use shutdown -h -H now for that purpose:
> http://www.acmesystems.it/qa
> Second question below the title "Arietta G25 just on top of the
> page...
>
>

Have you just tried using -P to make sure that it doesn't work?  The
instructions also say to use Debian, not Gentoo.  Since most of the
shutdown behavior is in userspace and using components that vary
significantly between distros, I wouldn't blindly follow the
instructions written for one distro and expect it to just work with a
different distro.

Maybe Debian has some bug that makes -P not work, but -H does work.
Maybe OpenRC doesn't have that bug.

--
Rich

Re: [gentoo-user] Custom ebuilds for CoreOS

[Neil Bothwick]

On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 20:46:54 + (UTC), James wrote:

> I guess my take is that eventually, linux will be very small, embedded
> and a cluster/cloud environment is where most systems will plug in,
> kinda like most modern cell phones. Hopefully, there'll be a systemd
> centric version so that enables individuals and small companies can
> remain "in the game".

Given that CoreOS have sponsored some systemd development
(systemd-networkd), I think it is reasonable to assume they plan to stick
with systemd for the foreseeable future.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Top Oxymorons Number 11: Terribly pleased


pgpOg34vmPTR_.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: [gentoo-user] Shutdown, Gentoo and the Arietta.G25

[Matti Nykyri]

> On Dec 1, 2014, at 23:03, Fernando Rodriguez 
>  wrote:
> 
>> On Monday, December 01, 2014 7:34:35 PM meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote:
>> Dale  [14-12-01 19:16]:
>>> meino.cra...@gmx.de wrote:
 Hi,
 
 another >sigh< from an Arietta adventure...
 
 I sintalled Gentoo on an Arietta G25
 (http://www.acmesystems.it/arietta).
 
 For this I used Robert Nelsons Kernel for armv5tel platforms,
 which boots fine (using at91bootstrap, no U-Boot). 
 
 But: Shutdown (as recommmended by acmesystems "shutdown -h -H now")
 REBOOTS the system instead of powering it down.
 
 The hardware is not to blame: Using the original Debian rootfs
 and the kernel 3.16.1 (Robert Nelsons kernel is 3.17.3.) the
 powerdown works fine.
 
 Firstly I blamed the kernel...but when using the 3.16.1 kernel
 and the Gentoo rootfs the problem remains.
 
 Then I copied the Gentoo shutdown to the Debian rootfs, boot that
 and tries to shutdown the Debian Linux with it.
 shutdown cries "no /dev/initctl" adn shutdowns the system only for
 rebooting it.
 
 Ok...seems to be the shutdown executable.
 
 I copied the Debian shutdown to Gentoo and tries that:
 The systems reboots.
 
 Slowly but surely I begin to think, that I dont understand anything at
> all of
 It would be relly good news, 
 that...
 
 "man shutdown" on the Debian image informs me, that the manpages
 were not installed (embedded system...). Shutdown --version gives
 a short help of the usual options...but nothing more.
 
 What is the difference here? 
 Isn't it, that all shutdown applications only send some instructions
 to the kernel and the kernel is the main actor in bringing the system
 down?
 
 Is there any shutdown guru ;) out there, who is able to shed some
 light into this problem ? :)
 
 Thank you very much in advance for any torch send into my direction!
 Best regards,
 Meino
>>> 
>>> Just shooting in the dark here, try -h and -H but not at the same time? 
>>> Maybe having both is clashing in some weird way???
>>> 
>>> Dale
>>> 
>>> :-)  :-)
>> 
>> Hi Dale,
>> 
>> The "Trouble shooting FAQ"*)  by acmesystems explicitely say "shutdown -h
>> -H now" (and it works with the Debian rootfs)...but I will try "the
>> other shutdowns" and will see, what happens,
>> 
>> Best regards,
>> Meino
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> *) http://www.acmesystems.it/qa
> 
> Looking at the code for sysvinit, all shutdown  does is set some environment 
> variables and switch runlevel. The actual shutdown is done by halt and it's 
> done through the reboot system call with RB_POWER_OFF.
> 
> So, since you said the Gentoo system doesn't work even with Debian's kernel 
> and the shutdown, then it must be that either Debian has a different halt, or 
> more likely your Gentoo system calls halt with different options. So check 
> your 
> inittab on Gentoo and make sure it calls halt in the same way.

Hi meino

The thing is as Fernando pointed out:

Kernel powers off the hardware and a system call is used to instruct kernel to 
do so.


Test your system. Perform a system call to shutdown the board. As you perform 
this system call the arietta will instantly eighter boot or shutdown. See 
system call man page to see the list of available system calls. This way you 
can make sure the system works as expected...

When you have found the right system call, then you need to make init call that 
system call as the last command in run level 0.

-- 
-Matti

[gentoo-user] Re: Custom ebuilds for CoreOS

[James]

Rich Freeman  gentoo.org> writes:


> > To me, it appears that some forward looking folks have forked 
> > (stolen the best parts?) gentoo, made some fundamental 
> > (long overdue changes) and are > > all about creating a 
> > source_to_cluster platform.  (h, vaguely sounds 
> > familiar...scratching head). It is a natural evilution for linux to 
> > take; or are we going to embrace some much needed change 
> > (new ideas) into gentoo?



> I have no idea if CoreOS is Gentoo-derived, but it is very much a
> special-purpose distro.  The whole concept is that you put all the
> value-add in the containers, and then you just want a really standard
> and lightweight distro to host your containers in.  Maybe you run
> CentOS in one container, and Gentoo in another container, and Debian
> in another container.

Your  first points are understood; and centos appear to be focused on the
commercial "cloud" mentality of don't buy hareware, rent containers
from us crowd.  That, to me, is a fool's path.

What I'm hoping for is that with the (gentoo) past of revolving devs,
Hasufell ideas for distributed development by reducing the gentoo core;
Flameyes takedown of tinderbox, my pursuit of clustering and many other
issues (pid1) all seem to inidcate that many distros are fundamentally
examining their path(s) forward. So, I think gentoo can have a minimize
version that achieves what CoreOS is doing, but it is gentoo-bare-metal
centric.  I think Gentoo can robustly support systemd and openrc, containers
and other key areas and new technologies, in a fundamentally 
unique way.


I do think a fundamental "update" to the entire gentoo environment is a
healthy ares for discussion. I do appreciate your insights on coreOS. I see
it as a minimized embedded effort to bring resources into a cluster that is
exclusively controlled by the owner. I have "zero" interest in the "cloud"
as beside being a very dumb idea for too many reasons to innumerate, it
removes folks from gaining knowledge of direct hardware experiences.

I do love the way the "cloud" vendors find and collect up the very best
ideas. I hate how the "cloud" vendors want to offer those best ideas,
as a transient benefit via time-rented binaries.

I strongly believe we are at a nexus (a vergence in the force) as many
new technologies are converging very rapidly. Call it what you like,
but, we are at the crossroads of some very unique opportunites, imho.
If we had a gentoo cluster right now, something like tinderbox would
have been running there all along. YMMV.


James

Re: [gentoo-user] Custom ebuilds for CoreOS

[Canek Peláez Valdés]

On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 3:56 PM, Neil Bothwick  wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2014 20:46:54 + (UTC), James wrote:
>
>> I guess my take is that eventually, linux will be very small, embedded
>> and a cluster/cloud environment is where most systems will plug in,
>> kinda like most modern cell phones. Hopefully, there'll be a systemd
>> centric version so that enables individuals and small companies can
>> remain "in the game".
>
> Given that CoreOS have sponsored some systemd development
> (systemd-networkd), I think it is reasonable to assume they plan to stick
> with systemd for the foreseeable future.

More importantly, CoreOS uses systemd to monitor/control the instances
inside containers like systemd-nspawn does, only in a more general and
powerful way.

I don't think you can currently run the CoreOS host with anything
other than systemd, and to make it so it would be a lot of work. From
[2]:

"""
Within the CoreOS world, you will almost exclusively use systemd to
manage the lifecycle of your Docker containers.
"""

Regards.

[2] 
https://coreos.com/docs/launching-containers/launching/getting-started-with-systemd/
-- 
Canek Peláez Valdés
Profesor de asignatura, Facultad de Ciencias
Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México

[gentoo-user] virus/malware scanner for linux

[Joseph]

I know there are some command line virus/malware scanners for Linux?
It has been long time ago since I run any of them, that I forgot their names :-/
What are they?

--
Joseph

Re: [gentoo-user] virus/malware scanner for linux

[wraeth]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA256

On 02/12/14 16:24, Joseph wrote:
> I know there are some command line virus/malware scanners for
> Linux? It has been long time ago since I run any of them, that I
> forgot their names :-/ What are they?

This sounds like something Google can answer for you rather quicker
than any mailing list could; but off the top of my head: ClamAV (which
is in the portage tree under app-antivirus/) is a pretty common one;
plus I think there are linux versions of both AVG and Avast.

There are probably others that Google can help you find.
- -- 
wraeth 
GnuPG Key: B2D9F759
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v2

iF4EAREIAAYFAlR9T3kACgkQXcRKerLZ91mKnQD+KqJiloijvq0K39lS4Yqkw2rD
ekyd4y2gg/iSAlv9JesA/2iqLH5q0jmRsToB7+6TFbQyxIoQ2qL6YTSTtYTORbkL
=SeKI
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

Re: [gentoo-user] virus/malware scanner for linux

[Dale]

Joseph wrote:
> I know there are some command line virus/malware scanners for Linux?
> It has been long time ago since I run any of them, that I forgot their
> names :-/
> What are they?
>


Here is one that I have used in the past.

http://www.f-prot.com/

It's no longer in the tree so not sure how difficult it would be to
install. 

Dale

:-)  :-)