Discuss April 2016

discuss@lists.centos.org

150 participants
130 discussions

Apache logs missing
by Adrian Jenzer 28 Apr '16

28 Apr '16

Hi all I just saw that I miss some log files in /var/log/httpd. There is a gap in January/February2016, no logs are available for this period. It seemed to work fine with the earlier logs as you can see. Has someone an explanation for this? It's a Centos 7.2 VM with Apache 2.4 running ownCloud only. Default logrotate config. -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3367604 Apr 20 16:12 ssl_access_log -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 67982 Jul 12 2015 ssl_access_log-20150712.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 43515 Jul 18 2015 ssl_access_log-20150719.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 36096 Jul 26 2015 ssl_access_log-20150727.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 25088 Aug 1 2015 ssl_access_log-20150802.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 12733 Aug 9 2015 ssl_access_log-20150810.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 89873 Aug 15 2015 ssl_access_log-20150816.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 70627 Aug 23 2015 ssl_access_log-20150823.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 91576 Aug 31 2015 ssl_access_log-20150831.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 218188 Sep 6 2015 ssl_access_log-20150906.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 181084 Sep 14 2015 ssl_access_log-20150914.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 247666 Sep 20 2015 ssl_access_log-20150920.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 221203 Sep 28 2015 ssl_access_log-20150928.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 173962 Oct 4 2015 ssl_access_log-20151004.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 131480 Oct 11 2015 ssl_access_log-20151011.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 141485 Oct 19 2015 ssl_access_log-20151019.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 89379 Oct 25 03:37 ssl_access_log-20151025.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 149943 Nov 1 13:30 ssl_access_log-20151102.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 150219 Nov 8 03:11 ssl_access_log-20151108.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 131524 Nov 14 20:13 ssl_access_log-20151115.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 153841 Nov 22 03:42 ssl_access_log-20151122.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 134209 Nov 29 23:41 ssl_access_log-20151130.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 336448 Dec 6 03:11 ssl_access_log-20151206.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 357256 Dec 14 03:15 ssl_access_log-20151214.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 354106 Dec 20 03:38 ssl_access_log-20151220.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 204874 Dec 28 03:41 ssl_access_log-20151228.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 13621 Jan 3 03:05 ssl_access_log-20160103.gz -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4385823 Mar 27 04:19 ssl_access_log-20160327 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4345075 Apr 4 03:40 ssl_access_log-20160404 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 4743540 Apr 10 03:04 ssl_access_log-20160410 -rw-r--r-- 1 root root 6065044 Apr 17 03:20 ssl_access_log-20160417 Regards Adrian Jenzer

3 3

Re: [CentOS] Any CentOS 6 Issues on Lenovo Y700?
by Mike Mohr 28 Apr '16

28 Apr '16

Don't flame me, but I really recommend using Ubuntu on laptops. If you really want CentOS, you should go with version 7. Many new laptops won't work well with that either though. CentOS 6 only works well these days on older hardware or on virtual machines. On Apr 27, 2016 7:27 PM, "Brian Bernard" <brian.brianbernard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Hi all, I'm looking at buying a Lenovo Y700 Notebook, and wondering if it would work with CentOS 6. Or if anyone has experience with using it under CentOS 6. I assume that the WiFi could be an issue as it uses an Intel 8260 card. I want to make the correct decision. Thank you, Brian Bernard _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

3 2

CentOS CI Testing Prior to Releasing Packages
by Johnny Hughes 27 Apr '16

27 Apr '16

In another thread I talked about running CI testing on a packge before release. I thought I would explain that a bit more AND ask for tests, if they are needed. Prior to pushing newly released packages into the main CentOS os, updates, extras, cr, or fasttrack repositories, we run our t_functional CI test suite on the entire repo set. So if we are releasing an update, it would be against the os and updates repositories. Or if we release fasttrack package, it would be os, updates, fasttrack repositories. We also run this test suite on the final OS repository during point release upgrades. Here is information on the t_functional suite. https://wiki.centos.org/QaWiki/AutomatedTests/WritingTests/t_functional And here is where I actually run the suite prior to releasing updates: https://ci.centos.org/view/CentOS-Core/ The reason I bring this up is we will accept updates to the tests to check for things that should be tested prior to release of a repository. If you know of something that we sometimes get wrong and create a test that returns exit code other than 0 for a fail, and if you can convince us (on the CentOS-Devel mailing list) that it should be included, then you can help us release better updates to CentOS Linux. Thanks, Johnny Hughes

1 0

where, if at all, is my virtual printer output?
by Michael Hennebry 27 Apr '16

27 Apr '16

I recently installed the package that allows having virtual printers under CUPS. I used the localhost:631 GUI to add a virtual pdf printer. I do not remember what I did. Now there are two virtual printers, one named Cups-PDF and the one I named pdfprinter. I cannot find the output from either. I do not know how to ask them. >From firefox, print to file still works, but does not do what I want. Even if it did, I'd still want to know what's going on with my virtual printers. >From an error log: Unable to create avahi client: Resource temporarily unavailable" -- Michael hennebry(a)web.cs.ndsu.NoDak.edu "Sorry but your password must contain an uppercase letter, a number, a haiku, a gang sign, a heiroglyph, and the blood of a virgin." -- someeecards

2 2

Mod_radius_auth for apache?
by Eero Volotinen 27 Apr '16

27 Apr '16

Any package with srpm available for radius auth on apache? Eero

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?
by Gordon Messmer 27 Apr '16

27 Apr '16

On 04/27/2016 05:20 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > While older versions of the Bourne Shell are not POSIX compliant, recent > versions only miss the feature "arithmetic expansion" and are otherwise > probably closer to POSIX than bash or dash. Note that "dash" does not support > multi-byte characters and thus cannot be certified for a full UNIX system but > only for embedded UNIX systems. That's good to know. But, since there seem to be several forks of Bourne shell, currently, is there a reference for the differences between them? > As far as I can see, this was related to "mailx" and not to the shell. I looked for substantiation of the original claim that the bourne shell had security problems. Apparently I should have looked closer. Thanks for catching that.

1 0

Semi-OT: very weird vi behaviour
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 27 Apr '16

27 Apr '16

This is weird. As in, *deeply* weird. I ssh as root from one box to another (there are keys involved), and I go to vi a file, such as # line 1 # # line 2 # # line 3 # line 4 And what I see in vi is # line 3 # line 4 BUT, if I scroll the cursor over each line with the arrow key... I see all four lines. I've also looked at another file, and same thing. Just checked it out on the server I ssh'd in from, and no problem. And now, I just ssh'd in from another windows, same way... and the weirdness isn't there. Anyone have any clues as to what's going on with that one session? mark file

6 7

Re: [CentOS] Apache/PHP Installation - opinions
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 27 Apr '16

27 Apr '16

Alice Wonder wrote: > On 04/27/2016 01:21 AM, Brandon Vincent wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 1:10 AM, Rob Kampen <rkampen(a)kampensonline.com> wrote: >>> Sounds good, but how many domain MX servers have set up these >>> fingerprint keys - 1%, maybe 2%, so how do you code for that? I guess I'm thinking >>> it uses it if available. So even if you do post it on your DNS, how many clients out there are using DANE on their set up? By the time it becomes more than a tiny % and generally useful, it will be in CentOS 8. It >>> also requires certificates to be implemented more ubiquitously than at present - although we do now have affordable solutions, so this one may resolve >>> more quickly. >> > Security and Privacy on the Internet are both severely broken. > > If you read the white papers from when the Internet was first being designed, security was rarely even mentioned. <snip> Just as a point of information, when those RFCs were written, the Internet was *only* for US gov't, and selected research and educational organizations, and NO ONE else. The open 'Net only came in in the nineties - so security wasn't broken and insecure, back then there was physical security and careful selection as to who was allowed on, at all. mark

3 3

Re: [CentOS] Bourne shell deprecated?
by m.roth＠5-cent.us 27 Apr '16

27 Apr '16

Scott Robbins wrote: > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 07:27:26PM -0700, Alice Wonder wrote: >> >> Some of the BSDs use to have a bourne shell and maybe some do, I don't know. >> > Yup. > >> bash is mostly compatible with bourne (can run most bourne scripts) which is why /bin/sh is a symlink to /bin/bash on GNU and most other *nix systems. > > Bash can run Bourne, but not necessarily vice versa, which can be problematic if, say, moving a Linux script to a BSD or AIX box. I remember something I'd done which used, IIRC, $UID, without realizing it was a bashism, instead of using id -u. I'll also note that all *production* scripts were once required to be bourne, but by the mid-ninties, management was starting to mandate that they be Korn shell, instead, for many reasons - capabilities, etc. Bash - I don't think I saw that till I started running RH 5.1, I think it was, about 18 years ago.... mark

2 1

Apache/PHP Installation - opinions
by Tim Dunphy 27 Apr '16

27 Apr '16

Hey guys, I tend to work on small production environments for a large enterprise. Never more than 15 web servers for most sites. But most are only 3 to 5 web servers. Depends on the needs of the client.I actually like to install Apache and PHP from source and by hand. Although I know that's considered sacrilege in some shops. I do this because on RH flavored systems like CentOS the versions of Apache, php and most other software are a little behind the curve in terms of versions. And that's intentionally so! Because the versions that usually go into the various repos are tested and vetted thoroughly before going into the repos. I like to use the latest, stable versions of apache and php for my clients without having to create a custom RPM every time a new version comes out. So what I'd like to know is it better in your opinion to install from repos than to install by source as a best practice? Is it always better to use puppet, chef, ansible etc even if the environment is small? I'm sure this is a matter preference, but I would like to know what your preferences are. Thanks, Tim Sent from my iPhone

10 17

← Newer
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
...
13
Older →

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss April 2016