From dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com Mon Jun 26 15:05:39 2006 From: dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com (Dirk Ullrich) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:05:39 +0200 Subject: Partial PLD ftp server mirror Message-ID: Hi, PLD users I want to install PLD on several machines not connected to internet yet. To do so I would like t create a partial mirror of the PLD ftp server on a external hard disk at another, networked machine. Zhe I could install PLD using the PLD rescue CD and this partial PLD mirror. Which directories I have to mirror to, say, install PLD 3.0 on a i686 machine, and have the RPM sources available, too? I guess I need: dists |--- 3.0 |--- PLD |---SRPMS | |---RPMS | |---i686 | |---RPMS | |---noarch |---RPMS Is this correct? Another related question: Although APT is mentioned as PLD package manager, too it seems that then PLD server only supports APT for PLD versions < 2.0. Or can I use APT to install PLD 2.0 / 3.0 using the standard PLD ftp server too? Dirk From hawk at limanowa.net Mon Jun 26 15:19:42 2006 From: hawk at limanowa.net (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Marcin_Kr=F3l?=) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:19:42 +0200 Subject: Partial PLD ftp server mirror In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <449FDEEE.4040709@limanowa.net> > I want to install PLD on several machines not connected to internet yet. > To do so I would like t create a partial mirror of the PLD ftp server on a > external hard disk at another, networked machine. Zhe I could install > PLD using the PLD rescue CD and this partial PLD mirror. Which directories > I have to mirror to, say, install PLD 3.0 on a i686 machine, and have the > RPM sources available, too? I guess I need: Hello. I'm not sure about PLD 3.0 (I'm not using it yet, its in very early stage of developement) but for PLD 2.0 you will only need following tree: dists |--- 2.0 |--- PLD | |---i686 (or other arch you are going to use) |---RPMS If you wish to use PLD on production machines I strongly recommend version 2.0. It is in RC stage but it is really stable. If you'll go for 3.0 keep in mind that not all software is available for it and you may expect major changes in this line. > Another related question: Although APT is mentioned as PLD package > manager, too it seems that then PLD server only supports APT for PLD > versions < 2.0. Or can I use APT to install PLD 2.0 / 3.0 using the > standard PLD ftp server too? APT is only available for PLD 1.0. But if you'll use poldek for lets say one month you will love it :) M. From liliana.ziolek at gmail.com Mon Jun 26 15:33:24 2006 From: liliana.ziolek at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-2?B?TGlsaWFuYSBaaW+zZWs=?=) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 15:33:24 +0200 Subject: Partial PLD ftp server mirror In-Reply-To: <449FDEEE.4040709@limanowa.net> References: <449FDEEE.4040709@limanowa.net> Message-ID: <333700447.20060626153324@gmail.com> Hello Marcin, Monday, June 26, 2006, 3:19:42 PM, you wrote: > If you wish to use PLD on production machines I strongly recommend > version 2.0. It is in RC stage but it is really stable. If you'll go for > 3.0 keep in mind that not all software is available for it and you may > expect major changes in this line. I completely agree. Especially for a new PLD user that has to get used to PLD specific issues I think 2.0 (AC) would be much better. > APT is only available for PLD 1.0. But if you'll use poldek for lets say > one month you will love it :) One week will be enough in my opinion ;) -- Best regards, Liliana mailto:liliana.ziolek at gmail.com From dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com Mon Jun 26 16:22:24 2006 From: dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com (Dirk Ullrich) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:22:24 +0200 Subject: Partial PLD ftp server mirror In-Reply-To: <333700447.20060626153324@gmail.com> References: <449FDEEE.4040709@limanowa.net> <333700447.20060626153324@gmail.com> Message-ID: 2006/6/26, Liliana Zio?ek : > Hello Marcin, > > Monday, June 26, 2006, 3:19:42 PM, you wrote: > > > If you wish to use PLD on production machines I strongly recommend > > version 2.0. It is in RC stage but it is really stable. If you'll go for > > 3.0 keep in mind that not all software is available for it and you may > > expect major changes in this line. > > I completely agree. Especially for a new PLD user that has to get used > to PLD specific issues I think 2.0 (AC) would be much better. > I do not plan to deploy PLD to production machines yet. (Those maschines run Debian or CRUX which I appily used for years now.) I simply want to learn another Linux distro--and an RPM-based one this time. I have looked at (and used) some other RPM-based distros for some time now--namely SuSE and Redhat. But I did not'fall in love' with those distros. A big issue I always disliked are the huge RPM pakages: I am used (mainly caused by using Debian) to much more fine grained approach. And Im very pleased to see the 'small is beautiful' approach to packaging in PLD, too. So I want learn PLD to satisfy my needs of curiosity and adventure. (Until recently those needs were fully satisfied by running Debian unstable. But at the moment it becomes more and more stable :-( ...) And on the maschines I would try PLD there is always (at least) another Linux distro running. I am prepared to spend some days of hardest work and inquiry to get even a minimal PLD system running. If I will fail I will give PLD 2.0 a try before throwing anything out of the window :-) Or would you say that there is at the moment absolutely now way to get even a tiny PLD 3.0 system up and running? > > APT is only available for PLD 1.0. But if you'll use poldek for lets say > > one month you will love it :) > > One week will be enough in my opinion ;) > Okay, why not trying poldek right from the beginning even when being used to APT (both for deb and rpm)? Dirk From martii at obgyn.edu.pl Mon Jun 26 16:37:26 2006 From: martii at obgyn.edu.pl (Marcin Chojnowski) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:37:26 +0200 Subject: Partial PLD ftp server mirror In-Reply-To: References: <449FDEEE.4040709@limanowa.net> <333700447.20060626153324@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060626143726.GA9892@obgyn> > 2006/6/26, Liliana Zio?ek : > Okay, why not trying poldek right from the beginning even when being used > to APT (both for deb and rpm)? There is almost no difference. About year ago I moved from PLD to Debian and there is almost no difference in using apt or poldek. Poldek is little bit nicer, has more options and interactive mode. Huge future are incremental updates but who cares when DSL is so popular now. But using apt or poldek is almost the same. Martin From liliana.ziolek at gmail.com Mon Jun 26 16:47:21 2006 From: liliana.ziolek at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-2?B?TGlsaWFuYSBaaW+zZWs=?=) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 16:47:21 +0200 Subject: Partial PLD ftp server mirror In-Reply-To: References: <449FDEEE.4040709@limanowa.net> <333700447.20060626153324@gmail.com> Message-ID: <975747360.20060626164721@gmail.com> Hello Dirk, Monday, June 26, 2006, 4:22:24 PM, you wrote: > I am > prepared to spend some days of hardest work and inquiry to get even a > minimal PLD system running. If I will fail I will give PLD 2.0 a try > before throwing anything out of the window :-) Or would you say that > there is at the moment absolutely now way to get even a tiny PLD 3.0 > system up and running? Well, there are people who are running TH (PLD 3.0) but - most of them are developers (well, actually that's true generally for most of PLD users ;) ) - still you have to have some packages from AC Of course with time we get more and more people running TH, but personally I didn't have enough courage to switch yet ;) Actually, you'd have to know what TH can give you that AC won't and decide if you really want/need it. AC is definitely better tested, probably still has more users and probably all TH users used AC before - so you'll get help easier. But of course TH is also usable, you'd have to wait for opinions from people currently using it to have the whole picture and then decide. PS. I'm not sure how many people are reading users-en. If you don't get enough answers you might want to try also devel-en. In polish groups devel is a little bit more popular. -- Best regards, Liliana mailto:liliana.ziolek at gmail.com From dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com Mon Jun 26 17:22:28 2006 From: dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com (Dirk Ullrich) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:22:28 +0200 Subject: Partial PLD ftp server mirror In-Reply-To: <975747360.20060626164721@gmail.com> References: <449FDEEE.4040709@limanowa.net> <333700447.20060626153324@gmail.com> <975747360.20060626164721@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi, thank you for all your helpful suggestions concerning poldek and choosing between PLD 2.0 and 3.0. Now I am not afraid to start with poldek, and I am prepared to use 2.0 instead of 3.0 if will run in big trouble with 3.0. But since one of my original questions is still open I would like to ask it again: I wan to install PLD (2.0 or 3.0) on i668 machines using the PLD rescue CD (verison 2.0) and a partial mirror of the PLD ftp server on hard disk. Furthermore I want have the SRPMs available too. It is sufficient to mirror the following subdirectories for 2.0: dists |--- 2.0 |--- PLD |---SRPMS | |---SRPMS | |---i686 |---PLD |---RPMS and the following folders for 3.0: dists |--- 3.0 |--- PLD |---SRPMS | |---RPMS | |---i686 | |---RPMS | |---noarch |---RPMS 2006/6/26, Liliana Zio?ek : > PS. I'm not sure how many people are reading users-en. If you don't > get enough answers you might want to try also devel-en. In polish > groups devel is a little bit more popular. > > -- > Best regards, > Liliana mailto:liliana.ziolek at gmail.com Until now I was a little bit afraid to ask such installation-related questions at a devel mailing list. But it is good to know that it would be a reasonable second try. Dirk From radek42 at gmail.com Mon Jun 26 17:53:33 2006 From: radek42 at gmail.com (Radoslaw Zielinski) Date: Mon, 26 Jun 2006 17:53:33 +0200 Subject: Partial PLD ftp server mirror In-Reply-To: References: <449FDEEE.4040709@limanowa.net> <333700447.20060626153324@gmail.com> <975747360.20060626164721@gmail.com> Message-ID: <20060626155333.GA5770@bongo> Dirk Ullrich [26-06-2006 17:22]: [...] > Furthermore I want have the SRPMs available too. It is sufficient to mirror > the following subdirectories for 2.0: [...] Yes. > and the following folders for 3.0: [...] Yes. But, in both cases, you might want to mirror the corresponding ready and test directories. If you're serious about Th, I'd suggest getting familiar with building from CVS using the builder script -- a lot of packages is missing. > 2006/6/26, Liliana Zio?ek : >> PS. I'm not sure how many people are reading users-en. If you don't >> get enough answers you might want to try also devel-en. In polish >> groups devel is a little bit more popular. > Until now I was a little bit afraid to ask such installation-related questions > at a devel mailing list. But it is good to know that it would be a reasonable > second try. I don't think it's a good idea to bring whatever belongs to -users to -devel, no matter if it's -pl or -en. -- Rados?aw Zieli?ski -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com Tue Jun 27 13:42:26 2006 From: dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com (Dirk Ullrich) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:42:26 +0200 Subject: Steps to install a PLD core system Message-ID: Hi, PLD users, I am about to install PLD AC using the PLD rescue CD (version 2.0). I have tried to use the English install documentation starting at http://docs.pld-linux.org/instalacjarc_intro.html but I noted after doing some steps that this HOWTO seems to be a little bit outdated. Thus I took heart and looked into the Polish one starting at http://pl.docs.pld-linux.org/instalacja_chroot_wstep.html The Polish version seems to be more up-to-date--and luckily command sequences are the same all over the world :-) Until now I have install some PLD core RPMs using the following steps: 1. Boot the PLD rescue CD. 2. Prepare a rootfs partition using ext3 (and swap), mounting it at "/inst" 3. Customize "/etc/poldek/poldek.conf" to use "/inst/var/cache/poldek" as package cache dir. 4. Customize "/etc/poldek/pld-source.conf" to use AC's RPMs for i686--the architecture of the machine I try to install PLD onto. 5. Prepare poldeks cache dir and the rpm database: mkdir -p /inst/var/cache/poldek rpm --root /inst --initdb 6. Install core packages according to the Polish documentation but using "grub" instead of "lilo": poldek --root /inst -i \ FHS setup dev chkconfig dhcpcd poldek vim geninitrd modutils grub When being ask to choose one of "pwutils" or "shadow" I have chosen "shadow". All these steps are running smoothly--but now I have some questions: a. When I my 'guessing Polish' is correct later only a kernel RPM and "udev" will be added, and then you should be able to boot into the system. I wonder whether some more packages needed. For instance what about the tools to check the root filesystem (check will be issued by "/etc/rcd./rc.sysinit")? Are there other packages needed for a minimal bootable system? b. I see that "pdksh" was installed as dependency. Well, first I did not worry about that since I did not explicitly choose a shell. So I've tried step 6 again but added the "bash" package. But "pdksh" would be installed again. This looks strange to me, and I've analized the situation a bit: Many packages require "/bin/sh", and this feature seems only be provided by "pdksh". Even "bash" seems to require "/bin/bash", thus "bash" depends on "pdksh"--sounds a little bit like a joke to me! (Why, for instance, does "bash" not provide "/bin/sh" itself?) If this is a feature and not a bug I would be very interested in any reason for this situation. Beside these questions I am pleased by PLD even now: The core system seems to be very small and highly customizable. Features which I've missed in many Linux distros I've tried. Dirk From wrobell at pld-linux.org Tue Jun 27 13:58:42 2006 From: wrobell at pld-linux.org (wrobell) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 12:58:42 +0100 Subject: Steps to install a PLD core system In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1151409522.15983.52.camel@recent-convert.mapflow.int> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 13:42 +0200, Dirk Ullrich wrote: [...] > b. I see that "pdksh" was installed as dependency. Well, first I did not > worry about that since I did not explicitly choose a shell. So I've tried > step 6 again but added the "bash" package. But "pdksh" would be > installed again. This looks strange to me, and I've analized the > situation a bit: > Many packages require "/bin/sh", and this feature seems only be > provided by "pdksh". Even "bash" seems to require "/bin/bash", thus > "bash" depends on "pdksh"--sounds a little bit like a joke to me! > (Why, for instance, does "bash" not provide "/bin/sh" itself?) If this is > a feature and not a bug I would be very interested in any reason for > this situation. pdksh is basic PLD shell. we use it for rc-scripts, postin/postun rpm packages scripts, etc. this is the reason for pdksh providing /bin/sh. it was decided at very begining because: it is small, fast and POSIX compiliant. regards, wrobell From dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com Tue Jun 27 14:09:04 2006 From: dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com (Dirk Ullrich) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 14:09:04 +0200 Subject: Steps to install a PLD core system In-Reply-To: <1151409522.15983.52.camel@recent-convert.mapflow.int> References: <1151409522.15983.52.camel@recent-convert.mapflow.int> Message-ID: 2006/6/27, wrobell : > pdksh is basic PLD shell. we use it for rc-scripts, postin/postun rpm > packages scripts, etc. this is the reason for pdksh providing /bin/sh. > it was decided at very begining because: it is small, fast > and POSIX compiliant. Okay, but bash can be made POSIX compliant too by using the "--posix" option. (At least a 3.x bash can AFAIK.) Why not to offer, for instance, for bash users like me an alternative to use bash instead of pdksh, and define--for instance-- a sh alias (or mini script) to call "bash --posix"? Dirk From wrobell at pld-linux.org Tue Jun 27 14:41:31 2006 From: wrobell at pld-linux.org (wrobell) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 13:41:31 +0100 Subject: Steps to install a PLD core system In-Reply-To: References: <1151409522.15983.52.camel@recent-convert.mapflow.int> Message-ID: <1151412091.15983.60.camel@recent-convert.mapflow.int> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 14:09 +0200, Dirk Ullrich wrote: > 2006/6/27, wrobell : > > pdksh is basic PLD shell. we use it for rc-scripts, postin/postun rpm > > packages scripts, etc. this is the reason for pdksh providing /bin/sh. > > it was decided at very begining because: it is small, fast > > and POSIX compiliant. > > Okay, but bash can be made POSIX compliant too by using the > "--posix" option. (At least a 3.x bash can AFAIK.) Why not to offer, for > instance, for bash users like me an alternative to use bash instead of > pdksh, and define--for instance-- a sh alias (or mini script) to call > "bash --posix"? you can use bash if you want as an user. maybe bash can be used for system stuff... but we test only with pdksh. and having it on a system is not big deal as its binary takes only 200KB. wrobell From dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com Tue Jun 27 15:23:10 2006 From: dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com (Dirk Ullrich) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 15:23:10 +0200 Subject: Steps to install a PLD core system In-Reply-To: <1151412091.15983.60.camel@recent-convert.mapflow.int> References: <1151409522.15983.52.camel@recent-convert.mapflow.int> <1151412091.15983.60.camel@recent-convert.mapflow.int> Message-ID: 2006/6/27, wrobell : > you can use bash if you want as an user. maybe bash can be used > for system stuff... but we test only with pdksh. and having it > on a system is not big deal as its binary takes only 200KB. > No big deal--agreed. I've merely asked for curiosity and a kind of 'package minimalism'. And I have wondered whether there are a priori reasons I'm unaware of to use pdksh for POSIX stuff instead of bash. Of course, being tested well or not _is_ a reason. So I have a first little 'personal ToDo' for later: I will create a tiny "bash-posix" (or so) RPM depending on bash and providing "/bin/sh" via a "bash --posix" thing. In this way I could try out to use bash for system stuff. I hope that my remarks concerning pdksh did not sound to harsh. I was only surprised. And since English is not my mother tongue I'm always in danger to unintentionally insult people. Dirk From wrobell at pld-linux.org Tue Jun 27 15:46:58 2006 From: wrobell at pld-linux.org (wrobell) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 14:46:58 +0100 Subject: Steps to install a PLD core system In-Reply-To: References: <1151409522.15983.52.camel@recent-convert.mapflow.int> <1151412091.15983.60.camel@recent-convert.mapflow.int> Message-ID: <1151416018.15983.63.camel@recent-convert.mapflow.int> On Tue, 2006-06-27 at 15:23 +0200, Dirk Ullrich wrote: > 2006/6/27, wrobell : > > you can use bash if you want as an user. maybe bash can be used > > for system stuff... but we test only with pdksh. and having it > > on a system is not big deal as its binary takes only 200KB. > > > No big deal--agreed. I've merely asked for curiosity and a kind of > 'package minimalism'. And I have wondered whether there are > a priori reasons I'm unaware of to use pdksh for POSIX stuff instead > of bash. Of course, being tested well or not _is_ a reason. > > So I have a first little 'personal ToDo' for later: > I will create a tiny "bash-posix" (or so) RPM depending on bash and > providing "/bin/sh" via a "bash --posix" thing. In this way I could try out > to use bash for system stuff. > > I hope that my remarks concerning pdksh did not sound to harsh. > I was only surprised. And since English is not my mother tongue I'm > always in danger to unintentionally insult people. don't worry :) it is always good to ask[1] :] wrobell [1] of course one risks rtfm always... but that's life, isn't it? :] From deejay1 at srem.org Tue Jun 27 16:32:30 2006 From: deejay1 at srem.org (=?iso-8859-2?q?=A3ukasz_Jerna=B6?=) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 16:32:30 +0200 Subject: Steps to install a PLD core system In-Reply-To: References: <1151412091.15983.60.camel@recent-convert.mapflow.int> Message-ID: <200606271632.34409.deejay1@srem.org> Dnia wtorek, 27 czerwca 2006 15:23, Dirk Ullrich napisa?: > 2006/6/27, wrobell : > > you can use bash if you want as an user. maybe bash can be used > > for system stuff... but we test only with pdksh. and having it > > on a system is not big deal as its binary takes only 200KB. > > No big deal--agreed. I've merely asked for curiosity and a kind of > 'package minimalism'. And I have wondered whether there are > a priori reasons I'm unaware of to use pdksh for POSIX stuff instead > of bash. Of course, being tested well or not _is_ a reason. AFAIK it was set up because many people like to write (even unintentionally) only bash compatible, with pdksh they were forced to learn "proper" POSIX scripting so that every script could also work on systems with different shells set up whichever vendor they were from... -- ?ukasz [DeeJay1] Jerna? From dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com Tue Jun 27 17:12:35 2006 From: dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com (Dirk Ullrich) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:12:35 +0200 Subject: Steps to install a PLD core system In-Reply-To: <200606271632.34409.deejay1@srem.org> References: <1151412091.15983.60.camel@recent-convert.mapflow.int> <200606271632.34409.deejay1@srem.org> Message-ID: 2006/6/27, ?ukasz Jerna? : > > AFAIK it was set up because many people like to write (even unintentionally) > only bash compatible, with pdksh they were forced to learn "proper" POSIX > scripting so that every script could also work on systems with different > shells set up whichever vendor they were from... > Okay, I know this problem from doing work for Debian: When I want to check whether my script is free of bashisms I always try it with the "dash" which is a Debian clone of "ash" which in turn resembles much more the good old Bourne Shell than the bash. Dirk From dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com Tue Jun 27 17:49:57 2006 From: dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com (Dirk Ullrich) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 17:49:57 +0200 Subject: Search RPMs for files using poldek Message-ID: Hi, when I want to find out which RPM provides a given file , I can issue a search interactivley using poldek by: poldek> search -f Is there a possibility to do such a search non-interactively? Dirk From marek.guevara at atm.com.pl Tue Jun 27 18:56:52 2006 From: marek.guevara at atm.com.pl (Marek Guevara Braun) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 18:56:52 +0200 Subject: Search RPMs for files using poldek In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44A16354.4000809@atm.com.pl> Dirk Ullrich wrote: > > when I want to find out which RPM provides a given file , > I can issue a search interactivley using poldek by: > poldek> search -f > Is there a possibility to do such a search non-interactively? poldek --cmd 'search -f *foo*' Regards, Marek From wiget at pld-linux.org Tue Jun 27 19:23:26 2006 From: wiget at pld-linux.org (Artur Frysiak) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 19:23:26 +0200 Subject: Search RPMs for files using poldek In-Reply-To: <44A16354.4000809@atm.com.pl> References: <44A16354.4000809@atm.com.pl> Message-ID: <20060627172326.GC6098@tau> On Tue, Jun 27, 2006 at 06:56:52PM +0200, Marek Guevara Braun wrote: > Dirk Ullrich wrote: > > > > when I want to find out which RPM provides a given file , > > I can issue a search interactivley using poldek by: > > poldek> search -f > > Is there a possibility to do such a search non-interactively? > > poldek --cmd 'search -f *foo*' ipoldek rsearch -f /foo/ Regards -- Artur Frysiak http://pld-linux.org/ From marek.guevara at atm.com.pl Tue Jun 27 20:12:24 2006 From: marek.guevara at atm.com.pl (Marek Guevara Braun) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:12:24 +0200 Subject: Steps to install a PLD core system In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <44A17508.1000106@atm.com.pl> Dirk Ullrich wrote: > All these steps are running smoothly--but now I have some questions: > a. When I my 'guessing Polish' is correct later only a kernel RPM and > "udev" will be added, and then you should be able to boot into the > system. I wonder whether some more packages needed. Check /etc/sysconfig/geninitrd /etc/fstab and /etc/mtab (inside of chroot) - sometimes you have to cheat to make geninitrd (initrd preparation tool) produce a working initrd image. Inside /etc/sysconfig/geninitrd you may/have to put some module names for your disk controller, root filesystem (for ext3 you will need some more modules in PRE...sth section -- see comments in the file), ... You may also need to have proper /etc/fstab and forged /etc/mtab (which should have / filesystem mounted is on the right device) - sometimes geninitrd cannot guess all options. If you want / fs on raid/md device better use dev instead of udev for initrd generation. And of course check your /boot/grub/menu.lst. > For instance what about the tools to check the root filesystem (check > will be issued by "/etc/rcd./rc.sysinit")? Are there other packages > needed for a minimal bootable system? filesystem check is imho optional - it all depends on your /etc/fstab options (and mkfs options for ext* fs) - for ext3 I think than it should be installed (you should install it). Regards, Marek From kamil.listy at klecza.pl Tue Jun 27 20:26:09 2006 From: kamil.listy at klecza.pl (Kamil) Date: Tue, 27 Jun 2006 20:26:09 +0200 Subject: Search RPMs for files using poldek In-Reply-To: <20060627172326.GC6098@tau> References: <44A16354.4000809@atm.com.pl> <20060627172326.GC6098@tau> Message-ID: <200606272026.09333.kamil.listy@klecza.pl> Dnia wtorek, 27 czerwca 2006 19:23, Artur Frysiak napisa?: > ipoldek rsearch -f /foo/ > Thanks!:D For me the best is: ipoldek -q search -f *foo* -- Pozdrawiam, Kamil From marek.guevara at atm.com.pl Wed Jun 28 10:17:10 2006 From: marek.guevara at atm.com.pl (Marek Guevara Braun) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 10:17:10 +0200 Subject: Partial PLD ftp server mirror In-Reply-To: <20060626155333.GA5770@bongo> References: <449FDEEE.4040709@limanowa.net> <333700447.20060626153324@gmail.com> <975747360.20060626164721@gmail.com> <20060626155333.GA5770@bongo> Message-ID: <44A23B06.6020609@atm.com.pl> Radoslaw Zielinski wrote: > If you're serious about Th, I'd suggest getting familiar with building > from CVS using the builder script -- a lot of packages is missing. For Ac (aka 2.0) I would suggest builder stuff too. There is plenty of stuff in our CVS repository which are not on the ftp servers (for various reasons). Generally preparing/building of a package looks like running ./builder -ba package.spec (inside ~/rpm/SPECS) It produces binary packages in ~/rpm/RPMS and source package in ~/rpm/SRPMS - you can prepare poldek index with poldek --mkidx and export the RPMS dir with ftp or http for use by other computers. I think that we should have some docs about preparing builder enviromnemt, but i'm not sure do we have an eng. version. Regards, Marek From kabasny at gmail.com Wed Jun 28 13:04:02 2006 From: kabasny at gmail.com (Piotr Maciej Kabata) Date: Wed, 28 Jun 2006 13:04:02 +0200 Subject: Partial PLD ftp server mirror In-Reply-To: <975747360.20060626164721@gmail.com> References: <449FDEEE.4040709@limanowa.net> <333700447.20060626153324@gmail.com> <975747360.20060626164721@gmail.com> Message-ID: <1151492643.3931.4.camel@localhost> Dnia 26-06-2006, pon o godzinie 16:47 +0200, Liliana Zio?ek napisa?(a): > Hello Dirk, > > Monday, June 26, 2006, 4:22:24 PM, you wrote: > Well, there are people who are running TH (PLD 3.0) but > - most of them are developers (well, actually that's true generally > for most of PLD users ;) ) > - still you have to have some packages from AC Hello, I'm running TH, and I am certainly not a developer (yet at least) due to my lacks of skills (partially) and time (mostly) But the fact is that you have to either use packages from AC (I do so as I'm migrating to TH since the beginning of the TH line) or build them from CVS (I prefer this way since I have learnt how to do so) - and this way may be much easier if You are starting from TH in the beginning. best greetings kabasny From dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com Thu Jun 29 17:06:48 2006 From: dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com (Dirk Ullrich) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:06:48 +0200 Subject: group(s) for ordinary users Message-ID: Hi, PLD users, I am setting up a PLD system (AC) using the PLD rescue CD. Now I'm about to create a normal user account, and I see 2 variants to choose a group for normal users: 1. Use private groups, i.e. every normal user "foo" gets its own private group "foo"; 2. A common group for all normal users, i.e. use one group--typically "users"--for every normal user. Most distros prefer one of these variants by default. (For instance Debian prefers 1, but Slackware 2 AFAIK.) What's about PLD? Is one of 1 or 2 the 'PLDish' one? Dirk From dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com Thu Jun 29 17:54:44 2006 From: dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com (Dirk Ullrich) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 17:54:44 +0200 Subject: Search RPMs for files using poldek In-Reply-To: <200606272026.09333.kamil.listy@klecza.pl> References: <44A16354.4000809@atm.com.pl> <20060627172326.GC6098@tau> <200606272026.09333.kamil.listy@klecza.pl> Message-ID: Hi, all, thank you very much for all the tipps. They suggest that poldek seems to have at least one thing in common with Perl: There's always more than one way to do it. For sheer curiosity I've explored the relationship of "poldek" and "ipoldek" a bit. It seems to me that "ipoldek" (or, since "/usr/bin/ipoldek" is a symlink to "/usr/bin/poldek", the calling of the "poldek" binary as "ipoldek") is somethoing like an interactive variant of "poldek" with: 1. ipoldek has a set of commands which can used both a. interactively--in the (i)poldek shell mode after calling "polek"; or b. in batch mode by calling "ipoldek " where is any "ipoldek" command. 2. poldek's native command set is more 'rpm-like', but every ipoldek's command can by used either: a. interactively--in the poldek shell mode after calling "poldek"; or b. in batch mode by "poldek --cmd ". Is this correct? Dirk P.S. poldek is really a nice tool. From qboosh at pld-linux.org Thu Jun 29 18:01:06 2006 From: qboosh at pld-linux.org (Jakub Bogusz) Date: Thu, 29 Jun 2006 18:01:06 +0200 Subject: group(s) for ordinary users In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20060629160106.GA24138@fngna.oyu> On Thu, Jun 29, 2006 at 05:06:48PM +0200, Dirk Ullrich wrote: > Hi, PLD users, > > I am setting up a PLD system (AC) using the PLD rescue CD. > Now I'm about to create a normal user account, and I see 2 variants to > choose a group for normal users: > 1. Use private groups, > i.e. every normal user "foo" gets its own private group "foo"; > 2. A common group for all normal users, > i.e. use one group--typically "users"--for every normal user. > Most distros prefer one of these variants by default. (For instance > Debian prefers 1, but Slackware 2 AFAIK.) What's about PLD? > Is one of 1 or 2 the 'PLDish' one? Second scheme with "users" group is used normally. -- Jakub Bogusz http://qboosh.cs.net.pl/ From hawk at limanowa.net Fri Jun 30 12:08:44 2006 From: hawk at limanowa.net (=?ISO-8859-2?Q?Marcin_Kr=F3l?=) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 12:08:44 +0200 Subject: [info] New 2.6 kernel on the way Message-ID: <44A4F82C.4040807@limanowa.net> PLD kernel team has finally made 2.6.16 version working. Since it removes serious bug of previous release (machines were randomly hanging on smp version) I've decided to include it in distribution without waiting for 2.6.17 (which doesn't have full patch set yet). For now release 2.6.16.22-2 is in ready tree and in next few hours/days all kernel related packages will be sent for rebuild. Feel free to give it a try. IMPORTANT: new version was renamed to "kernel" again as it contains only minimal grsecurity (/proc, link and fifo restrictions). After moving it to main tree kernel-grsecurity will be completly removed. For other changes please check CVS changelog. Kernel in this form will be default one for PLD Ac. M. P.S. To persons fighting for ease of rebuilding kernel releated packages for multiple kernels: package dependencies disallows to have multiple version of kernel-headers installed in system. If someone wants to have kernel-grsecurity available in Ac he has to manage a way to eliminate this collision (between kernel-headers and kernel-grsecurity-headers). From dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com Fri Jun 30 15:43:07 2006 From: dirk.ullrich at googlemail.com (Dirk Ullrich) Date: Fri, 30 Jun 2006 15:43:07 +0200 Subject: group(s) for ordinary users In-Reply-To: <20060629160106.GA24138@fngna.oyu> References: <20060629160106.GA24138@fngna.oyu> Message-ID: Hi, Jakub, thank you for your answer. After exploring the PLD rescue CD a little bit more I've found the "pldconf" program to do many central sysadmin tasks. Choosing "Accounts" --> "Add user" teaches me the same what have written: "users" is the default group for creating a user. Despite "pldconf" I prefer to do admin stuff by hand since I'm first of all interested in what is happing under the hood. But looking at "pldconf" and its code teaches a lot of the PLD way to do things. Dirk