Discuss May 2010

discuss@lists.centos.org

270 participants
215 discussions

5.4-->5.5 Upgrade broke OO 3.2.0
by David McGuffey 28 May '10

28 May '10

In order to get an OpenOffice configuration that is closer in compatibility with MS Office 2007, I removed the standard OO in 5.4 via yum and installed the latest (3.2.0) from OpenOffice.org. Ran that config for many months without a problem. However, when I allowed the upgrade to 5.5, OO broke. I finally had to remove all traces of OO 3.2.0, and start over. That worked...until yum tells me that there are updates to apply, which includes an OO update. Not thinking, I allowed the updates and the OO update broke OO 3.2.0 again. The update is: openoffice.org-ure-3.1.1-19.5.el5.x86_64 updates openoffice.org-ure-1.6.0-9483.x86_64 I had to repeat the removal and reinstallation of OO to recover. Now I watch the updates more closely and don't allow the OO update to come in. Not complaining...just a warning to the community of the challenge one often encounters by running software that is not part of the standard distribution. Dave M

3 2

Calendar server software suggestions
by sync 28 May '10

28 May '10

Hello,guys: I've seen several suggestions for alternatives to exchange for mail, which I will be trying. My question is, does anyone know of any good open source shared calendar systems?

12 15

newer (2.7) Postfix RPM packages for RH
by Florin Andrei 28 May '10

28 May '10

Postfix 2.3.3 that comes with RH/CentOS is very old, there are lots of new features in newer versions that appear to be very useful (revised queue manager with better scheduler as far back as v2.5, etc.). Latest stable version is 2.7. I was looking for RPM packages and I've found this site: http://ftp.wl0.org/official/ Anybody using it? Good things, bad things?... Anybody using Postfix 2.7 on CentOS by the way? Do you have any observations? -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/

3 2

Xen guest does not autostart
by Jussi Hirvi 28 May '10

28 May '10

I have a virtual machine stack which was purely Centos 5.4 the last time I rebooted and experienced this problem: one of the guests does not start automatically after reboot. [root@farm1 xen]# pwd /etc/xen [root@farm1 xen]# ls -l auto total 0 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 Dec 11 17:25 name1 -> ../name1 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 May 5 21:10 name2 -> ../name2 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 8 Nov 26 11:43 name3 -> ../name3 lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 6 Oct 29 2009 name4 -> ../name4 (I retyped the names there.) [root@farm1 xen]# ls -l total 88 drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Apr 3 15:15 auto -rw------- 1 root root 430 Dec 11 13:14 name1 -rw------- 1 root root 610 May 7 12:07 name2 -rw------- 1 root root 303 Nov 4 2009 name3 -rw------- 1 root root 295 Oct 29 2009 name4 (...) Here is one guest that works: name = "name3" uuid = "958f8695-95e0-b43c-512e-2ca8950d35de" maxmem = 900 memory = 900 vcpus = 1 bootloader = "/usr/bin/pygrub" on_poweroff = "destroy" on_reboot = "restart" on_crash = "restart" disk = [ "tap:aio:/vm/mail3.img,xvda,w" ] vif = [ "mac=00:16:36:4f:d6:11,bridge=xenbr1,script=vif-bridge" ] ~ The next one does not autostart (but starts ok with "xm create name2"). This is the only guest that has two bridges. There is only 500M RAM, but a third guest starts fine with 500M): name = "name2" uuid = "68e33ec6-ef36-9eac-27d7-65a709684551" maxmem = 500 memory = 500 vcpus = 1 bootloader = "/usr/bin/pygrub" # kernel = "/var/lib/xen/boot_kernel.5g5MLq" # ramdisk = "/var/lib/xen/boot_ramdisk.1pSOoP" # extra = "ro root=LABEL=/ console=xvc0" on_poweroff = "destroy" on_reboot = "restart" on_crash = "restart" disk = [ "tap:aio:/vm/mail2.img,xvda,w" ] vif = [ "mac=00:16:36:24:67:3c,bridge=xenbr0","mac=00:16:36:24:67:3d,bridge=xenbr1" ] ~ What might be the problem?? - Jussi -- Jussi Hirvi * Green Spot Topeliuksenkatu 15 C * 00250 Helsinki * Finland Tel. +358 9 493 981 * Mobile +358 40 771 2098 (only sms) jussi.hirvi(a)greenspot.fi * http://www.greenspot.fi

2 2

Multipathing with Sun 7310
by Jens Neu 28 May '10

28 May '10

Dear list, we have a relatively new Sun Storage 7310, where we connect CentOS 5.5 Servers (IBM LS21/LS41 Blades) via Brocade Switches, 4GBit FC. The Blades boot from SAN via qla2xxx, and have no harddisks at all. We want them to use multipathing from the very beginning, so /boot and / are already seen by multipathd. Problem is, that the Sun 7310 has two storage heads which run in active/passive mode. BUT the multipathd thinks, they are active/active and therefor shows half the available paths as faulty (multipath -ll below) While this probably gives me the redundancy that is desired, it is a relatively messy situation, since it will be unnecessary hard to detect real path failures and the OS is complaining about "readsector0 checker reports path is down" which gives me >40M/24h /var/log/messages garbage. Any hints for a reasonable configuration? Unfortunately the Sun 7310 is rather new, so almost nothing shows up on google... even less for RHEL/CentOS :-( regards from Berlin Jens [root@dev-db1 tmp]# multipath -ll sdaa: checker msg is "readsector0 checker reports path is down" sdab: checker msg is "readsector0 checker reports path is down" sdac: checker msg is "readsector0 checker reports path is down" sdad: checker msg is "readsector0 checker reports path is down" sdd: checker msg is "readsector0 checker reports path is down" sdh: checker msg is "readsector0 checker reports path is down" sdl: checker msg is "readsector0 checker reports path is down" sdp: checker msg is "readsector0 checker reports path is down" sdq: checker msg is "readsector0 checker reports path is down" sdr: checker msg is "readsector0 checker reports path is down" sds: checker msg is "readsector0 checker reports path is down" sdt: checker msg is "readsector0 checker reports path is down" sdu: checker msg is "readsector0 checker reports path is down" sdv: checker msg is "readsector0 checker reports path is down" sdx: checker msg is "readsector0 checker reports path is down" sdz: checker msg is "readsector0 checker reports path is down" mpath0 (3600144f0fdf58b5c00004bc738070001) dm-0 SUN,Sun Storage 7310 [size=50G][features=0][hwhandler=0][rw] \_ round-robin 0 [prio=1][active] \_ 0:0:1:0 sda 8:0 [active][ready] \_ round-robin 0 [prio=1][enabled] \_ 1:0:0:0 sde 8:64 [active][ready] \_ round-robin 0 [prio=1][enabled] \_ 0:0:2:0 sdi 8:128 [active][ready] \_ round-robin 0 [prio=1][enabled] \_ 1:0:1:0 sdm 8:192 [active][ready] \_ round-robin 0 [prio=0][enabled] \_ 0:0:3:0 sdq 65:0 [failed][faulty] \_ round-robin 0 [prio=0][enabled] \_ 1:0:2:0 sdr 65:16 [failed][faulty] \_ round-robin 0 [prio=0][enabled] \_ 0:0:4:0 sdx 65:112 [failed][faulty] \_ round-robin 0 [prio=0][enabled] \_ 1:0:3:0 sdz 65:144 [failed][faulty]

2 1

Replacement tape drive configuration
by Hugh E Cruickshank 28 May '10

28 May '10

CentOS 4.8 Hi All: We recently had a Sony SDX-500V tape drive fail on one of our servers running CentOS 4.8. I have now replaced it with a spare SDX-500C. The problem that I am having now is that the failed drive had ceased responding to SCSI commands and we have since rebooted the system which resulted in the tape drive being removed from our current hardware configuration and the system does not recognize the new tape drive. I know that I can just reboot the system and kudzu will add the tape drive back in during the boot process however I was wondering if it would be possible to manually run kudzu to add the drive or am I just "borrowing trouble" by trying to do this? TIA Regards, Hugh -- Hugh E Cruickshank, Forward Software, www.forward-software.com

3 4

sendmail and relaying
by Jerry Geis 27 May '10

27 May '10

I think my sendmail is not correctly set. It says the default is to disallow relaying. I am running centos 4.8 and I think sendmail is relaying for anything. Based on this: http://www.sendmail.org/~ca/email/chk-89f.html#RELAYING I added|: FEATURE(relay_hosts_only) to my sendmail.mc file and restarted sendmail. I am still seeing connects that get relayed and are not in my /etc/mail/access file. Is there something else I am missing? Thanks, |Jerry

3 2

Re: [CentOS] sandbox complaint
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 27 May '10

27 May '10

Daniel wrote: > On 05/27/2010 04:12 PM, m.roth(a)5-cent.us wrote: >> Daniel wrote: >>> On 05/27/2010 02:38 PM, m.roth(a)5-cent.us wrote: >>>> Daniel wrote: >>>>> On 05/27/2010 12:19 PM, m.roth(a)5-cent.us wrote: >>>>>> Daniel wrote: >>>>>>> On 05/27/2010 12:00 PM, m.roth(a)5-cent.us wrote: >>>>>>>> Daniel wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 05/27/2010 11:49 AM, m.roth(a)5-cent.us wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Updating a system from CentOS 5.4 (current) to 5.5, and I see: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> libsepol.scope_copy_callback: zosremote: Duplicate declaration >>>>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>>>> module: >>>>>>>>>> type/attribute zos_remote_t >>>>>>>>>> libsemanage.semanage_link_sandbox: Link packages failed >>>>>>>>>> semodule: Failed! >>>>>> <snip> >>>>> Remove all audispd-zos-remote.pp and zos_remote.pp >>>>> >>>>> We ship zosremote.pp >>>> >>>> Ok... I can do that, but are you saying to just rm it, and not >>>> whatever package it came in? <snip> >>> I think you will find that it does not happen for everyone else and >>> that these files do not belong to other packages. I have a feeling that >>> something went wrong on an update that left these files around. >>> >> Hmmm...but I don't know if rm'ing them will work, if they're in the d/b. >> So I suppose I'll have to find the package that put them there... >> <time passes> >> Ok, anyone on the CentOS list: does *anyone* know where this came from? >> It' sin the directory provided by >> selinux-policy-targeted-2.4.6-279.el5.noarch, but there's no zos_remote >> in the package. >> > Trust me on this, I know what I am talking about. > > Just remove them. They were put there by previous versions of audit and > maybe selinux-policy. If you are concerned you can squirrel them away. > > selinux-policy takes all pp files in the active directory and compiles > them into a policy module. Ok, I believe you. I also found the same .pp in .../previous/, and diff said no difference, so no problem rm'ing them. mark

1 0

Re: [CentOS] sandbox complaint
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 27 May '10

27 May '10

Daniel wrote: > On 05/27/2010 02:38 PM, m.roth(a)5-cent.us wrote: >> Daniel wrote: >>> On 05/27/2010 12:19 PM, m.roth(a)5-cent.us wrote: >>>> Daniel wrote: >>>>> On 05/27/2010 12:00 PM, m.roth(a)5-cent.us wrote: >>>>>> Daniel wrote: >>>>>>> On 05/27/2010 11:49 AM, m.roth(a)5-cent.us wrote: >>>>>>>> Updating a system from CentOS 5.4 (current) to 5.5, and I see: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> libsepol.scope_copy_callback: zosremote: Duplicate declaration in >>>>>>>> module: >>>>>>>> type/attribute zos_remote_t >>>>>>>> libsemanage.semanage_link_sandbox: Link packages failed >>>>>>>> semodule: Failed! >>>> <snip> >>>>>>> Do you have multiple pp files definitin zosremote? >>>> <snip> >>>>> locate -r zos.*remote >>>>> >>>>> Might find the bad pp file. >> <snip> >>>> I don't believe they want me to remove it. Doing the locate, I find: >>>>> locate -r zos.*remote | grep .pp >>>> /etc/selinux/mls/modules/active/modules/zosremote.pp >>>> /etc/selinux/mls/modules/previous/modules/zosremote.pp >>>> /etc/selinux/targeted/modules/active/modules/zos_remote.pp >>>> /etc/selinux/targeted/modules/previous/modules/zos_remote.pp >>>> /old/etc/selinux/targeted/modules/active/modules/zos_remote.pp >>>> /old/etc/selinux/targeted/modules/previous/modules/zos_remote.pp >>>> /old/usr/share/selinux/mls/audispd-zos-remote.pp >>>> /old/usr/share/selinux/strict/audispd-zos-remote.pp >>>> /old/usr/share/selinux/targeted/audispd-zos-remote.pp >>>> /usr/share/selinux/mls/zosremote.pp >>>> /usr/share/selinux/targeted/zosremote.pp >>>> >>>> So, which should I get rid of, that was not cleaned up during the >>>> update? >>> >>> Remove all audispd-zos-remote.pp and zos_remote.pp >>> >>> We ship zosremote.pp >> >> Ok... I can do that, but are you saying to just rm it, and not whatever >> package it came in? >> >> And if it's not correct, why is it here, anyway? Anyone on the CentOS >> list? I don't want to screw around with this as "oh, it's only his weird >> problem", I figure that it's happening to a lot of other folks, and I'd >> like to make the problem go away for everyone. That, of course, means it >> the incorrect stuff needs to be removed from whatever package it's >> in.... >> > I think you will find that it does not happen for everyone else and that > these files do not belong to other packages. I have a feeling that > something went wrong on an update that left these files around. > Hmmm...but I don't know if rm'ing them will work, if they're in the d/b. So I suppose I'll have to find the package that put them there... <time passes> Ok, anyone on the CentOS list: does *anyone* know where this came from? It' sin the directory provided by selinux-policy-targeted-2.4.6-279.el5.noarch, but there's no zos_remote in the package. mark

1 0

Re: [CentOS] sandbox complaint
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 27 May '10

27 May '10

Daniel wrote: > On 05/27/2010 12:19 PM, m.roth(a)5-cent.us wrote: >> Daniel wrote: >>> On 05/27/2010 12:00 PM, m.roth(a)5-cent.us wrote: >>>> Daniel wrote: >>>>> On 05/27/2010 11:49 AM, m.roth(a)5-cent.us wrote: >>>>>> Updating a system from CentOS 5.4 (current) to 5.5, and I see: >>>>>> >>>>>> libsepol.scope_copy_callback: zosremote: Duplicate declaration in >>>>>> module: >>>>>> type/attribute zos_remote_t >>>>>> libsemanage.semanage_link_sandbox: Link packages failed >>>>>> semodule: Failed! >> <snip> >>>>> Do you have multiple pp files definitin zosremote? >> <snip> >>> locate -r zos.*remote >>> >>> Might find the bad pp file. <snip> >> I don't believe they want me to remove it. Doing the locate, I find: >>> locate -r zos.*remote | grep .pp >> /etc/selinux/mls/modules/active/modules/zosremote.pp >> /etc/selinux/mls/modules/previous/modules/zosremote.pp >> /etc/selinux/targeted/modules/active/modules/zos_remote.pp >> /etc/selinux/targeted/modules/previous/modules/zos_remote.pp >> /old/etc/selinux/targeted/modules/active/modules/zos_remote.pp >> /old/etc/selinux/targeted/modules/previous/modules/zos_remote.pp >> /old/usr/share/selinux/mls/audispd-zos-remote.pp >> /old/usr/share/selinux/strict/audispd-zos-remote.pp >> /old/usr/share/selinux/targeted/audispd-zos-remote.pp >> /usr/share/selinux/mls/zosremote.pp >> /usr/share/selinux/targeted/zosremote.pp >> >> So, which should I get rid of, that was not cleaned up during the >> update? > > Remove all audispd-zos-remote.pp and zos_remote.pp > > We ship zosremote.pp Ok... I can do that, but are you saying to just rm it, and not whatever package it came in? And if it's not correct, why is it here, anyway? Anyone on the CentOS list? I don't want to screw around with this as "oh, it's only his weird problem", I figure that it's happening to a lot of other folks, and I'd like to make the problem go away for everyone. That, of course, means it the incorrect stuff needs to be removed from whatever package it's in.... mark

1 0

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
22
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss May 2010