[gentoo-user] Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[gentoo-user] Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[FredL]

Hello,

I've just build a new gentoo system from my running one (no cd install 
at all) and everything seems to be fine except that I can't start any 
net.* script from default runlevel.

I use the new udev naming scheme, it detect my 2 interface as enp2s0 and 
enp5s1 so I have created the symlinks like this:

ln -s /etc/init.d/net.lo /etc/init.d/net.enp2s0

then I have added the script to default runlevel:

rc-update add net.enp2s0 default

These iface are configured with static ip in /etc/conf.d/net like this:

config_enp2s0="192.168.0.5 netmask 255.255.255.0 brd 192.168.0.255"
routes_enp2s0="default via 192.168.0.1"

config_enp5s1="10.10.10.100/24"

when I boot the system, none of my two interface are started, instead 
dhcpcd start and assign ip from dhcp server

After booting if I manually start the scripts it assign my static config 
to an alias of my interfaces...

I really can't figure out what I am doing wrong, If someone have any 
idea it would be nice.

Thanks for reading and sorry for my poor english speaking

Fred Leon

Re: [gentoo-user] Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[Paul Hartman]

On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:42 PM, FredL <raptor@drakonix.fr> wrote:
> when I boot the system, none of my two interface are started, instead dhcpcd
> start and assign ip from dhcp server
>
> After booting if I manually start the scripts it assign my static config to
> an alias of my interfaces...
>
> I really can't figure out what I am doing wrong, If someone have any idea it
> would be nice.


Do you perhaps have NetworkManager or wicd installed?

Re: [gentoo-user] Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[FredL]

Le 2013/07/22 21:54, Paul Hartman a écrit :
> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:42 PM, FredL <raptor@drakonix.fr> wrote:
> when I boot the system, none of my two interface are started, instead 
> dhcpcd
> start and assign ip from dhcp server
> 
> After booting if I manually start the scripts it assign my static 
> config to
> an alias of my interfaces...
> 
> I really can't figure out what I am doing wrong, If someone have any 
> idea it
> would be nice.
> 
> 
> Do you perhaps have NetworkManager or wicd installed?


no, none of them, it is a very basic install, with only the minimum 
packages installed . I have checked at the init script and find a line 
in the depend section saying :

after lo lo0 dbus

but dbus is not yet installed, can this be the cause of my problem?

Re: [gentoo-user] Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[FredL]

> 
> Do you perhaps have NetworkManager or wicd installed?
> 
> 
> no, none of them, it is a very basic install, with only the minimum
> packages installed . I have checked at the init script and find a line
> in the depend section saying :
> 
> after lo lo0 dbus
> 
> but dbus is not yet installed, can this be the cause of my problem?

so I have just installed dbus and add it to default runlevel and my 
net.* script are loaded correctly setting my static config, so every 
thing is fine now.

But why do we need dbus in a very minimalistic system? I was thinking 
that it would be helpful in a full desktop environnement for 
automagically mounting device and things like that...

Saying that I've just remenbered that I have selected the desktop 
profile instead of the default one, can this be why my init script need 
dbus for starting net iface?

Re: [gentoo-user] Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[Alan McKinnon]

On 22/07/2013 23:35, FredL wrote:
>>
>> Do you perhaps have NetworkManager or wicd installed?
>>
>>
>> no, none of them, it is a very basic install, with only the minimum
>> packages installed . I have checked at the init script and find a line
>> in the depend section saying :
>>
>> after lo lo0 dbus
>>
>> but dbus is not yet installed, can this be the cause of my problem?
> 
> so I have just installed dbus and add it to default runlevel and my
> net.* script are loaded correctly setting my static config, so every
> thing is fine now.
> 
> But why do we need dbus in a very minimalistic system? I was thinking
> that it would be helpful in a full desktop environnement for
> automagically mounting device and things like that...



dbus is NOT a desktop daemon. This is very important, and that single
misunderstanding is probably behind all the fud you read about it.

dbus implements a message bus - an amazingly useful thing to have.

Why do you need or want a message bus?

You might as well ask why do you need or want any other form of IPC you
already have, as that is what dbus is. It's a very small, light daemon,
can run system-wide or per-session and has the potential to many of the
IPC implementations you already have. Those are the ones that don't
happen to show up in ps so you hear very little whinging about them.

That desktop systems are the main user of dbus at this point in time
doesn't change one bit what dbus is designed to do and it's usefulness.




-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[FredL]

Le 2013/07/22 22:44, Alan McKinnon a écrit :
> On 22/07/2013 23:35, FredL wrote:
> 
> Do you perhaps have NetworkManager or wicd installed?
> 
> 
> no, none of them, it is a very basic install, with only the minimum
> packages installed . I have checked at the init script and find a line
> in the depend section saying :
> 
> after lo lo0 dbus
> 
> but dbus is not yet installed, can this be the cause of my problem?
> 
> so I have just installed dbus and add it to default runlevel and my
> net.* script are loaded correctly setting my static config, so every
> thing is fine now.
> 
> But why do we need dbus in a very minimalistic system? I was thinking
> that it would be helpful in a full desktop environnement for
> automagically mounting device and things like that...
> 
> 
> 
> dbus is NOT a desktop daemon. This is very important, and that single
> misunderstanding is probably behind all the fud you read about it.
> 
> dbus implements a message bus - an amazingly useful thing to have.
> 
> Why do you need or want a message bus?
> 
> You might as well ask why do you need or want any other form of IPC you
> already have, as that is what dbus is. It's a very small, light daemon,
> can run system-wide or per-session and has the potential to many of the
> IPC implementations you already have. Those are the ones that don't
> happen to show up in ps so you hear very little whinging about them.
> 
> That desktop systems are the main user of dbus at this point in time
> doesn't change one bit what dbus is designed to do and it's usefulness.

ok, thanks for your explanation and your help, my last fresh install was 
a very long time ago and I can't remember having to install dbus before 
having my net script working, but a lot of things have changed since 
this last install and that is probably what I miss in this fresh install 
process

Re: [gentoo-user] Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[Alan McKinnon]

On 23/07/2013 00:02, FredL wrote:
> Le 2013/07/22 22:44, Alan McKinnon a écrit :
>> On 22/07/2013 23:35, FredL wrote:
>>
>> Do you perhaps have NetworkManager or wicd installed?
>>
>>
>> no, none of them, it is a very basic install, with only the minimum
>> packages installed . I have checked at the init script and find a line
>> in the depend section saying :
>>
>> after lo lo0 dbus
>>
>> but dbus is not yet installed, can this be the cause of my problem?
>>
>> so I have just installed dbus and add it to default runlevel and my
>> net.* script are loaded correctly setting my static config, so every
>> thing is fine now.
>>
>> But why do we need dbus in a very minimalistic system? I was thinking
>> that it would be helpful in a full desktop environnement for
>> automagically mounting device and things like that...
>>
>>
>>
>> dbus is NOT a desktop daemon. This is very important, and that single
>> misunderstanding is probably behind all the fud you read about it.
>>
>> dbus implements a message bus - an amazingly useful thing to have.
>>
>> Why do you need or want a message bus?
>>
>> You might as well ask why do you need or want any other form of IPC you
>> already have, as that is what dbus is. It's a very small, light daemon,
>> can run system-wide or per-session and has the potential to many of the
>> IPC implementations you already have. Those are the ones that don't
>> happen to show up in ps so you hear very little whinging about them.
>>
>> That desktop systems are the main user of dbus at this point in time
>> doesn't change one bit what dbus is designed to do and it's usefulness.
> 
> ok, thanks for your explanation and your help, my last fresh install was
> a very long time ago and I can't remember having to install dbus before
> having my net script working, but a lot of things have changed since
> this last install and that is probably what I miss in this fresh install
> process

I wonder why you didn;t have dbus installed. You said you copied the new
install over from an old one, right?

So emerge world should have pulled in everything you need.

What's different between that new install and the old one?



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

Re: [gentoo-user] Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[FredL]

Le 2013/07/22 23:08, Alan McKinnon a écrit :
> On 23/07/2013 00:02, FredL wrote:
> Le 2013/07/22 22:44, Alan McKinnon a écrit :
> On 22/07/2013 23:35, FredL wrote:
> 
> Do you perhaps have NetworkManager or wicd installed?
> 
> 
> no, none of them, it is a very basic install, with only the minimum
> packages installed . I have checked at the init script and find a line
> in the depend section saying :
> 
> after lo lo0 dbus
> 
> but dbus is not yet installed, can this be the cause of my problem?
> 
> so I have just installed dbus and add it to default runlevel and my
> net.* script are loaded correctly setting my static config, so every
> thing is fine now.
> 
> But why do we need dbus in a very minimalistic system? I was thinking
> that it would be helpful in a full desktop environnement for
> automagically mounting device and things like that...
> 
> 
> 
> dbus is NOT a desktop daemon. This is very important, and that single
> misunderstanding is probably behind all the fud you read about it.
> 
> dbus implements a message bus - an amazingly useful thing to have.
> 
> Why do you need or want a message bus?
> 
> You might as well ask why do you need or want any other form of IPC you
> already have, as that is what dbus is. It's a very small, light daemon,
> can run system-wide or per-session and has the potential to many of the
> IPC implementations you already have. Those are the ones that don't
> happen to show up in ps so you hear very little whinging about them.
> 
> That desktop systems are the main user of dbus at this point in time
> doesn't change one bit what dbus is designed to do and it's usefulness.
> 
> ok, thanks for your explanation and your help, my last fresh install 
> was
> a very long time ago and I can't remember having to install dbus before
> having my net script working, but a lot of things have changed since
> this last install and that is probably what I miss in this fresh 
> install
> process
> 
> I wonder why you didn;t have dbus installed. You said you copied the 
> new
> install over from an old one, right?
> 
> So emerge world should have pulled in everything you need.
> 
> What's different between that new install and the old one?


I just use my current gentoo system for building a new one from scratch, 
so I only use my current system as it was only a livecd. I won't use my 
current world file or anything else coming from my current system 
(except things like hostname, hosts, or kernel config).  In fact I'm 
building a little script for deploying a very basic gentoo system 
without typing the full list of commands listed in the installation 
documentation. Just a hobby for lazy guy ;)
Another reason for this fresh install is that I plan to write a full doc 
for describing the installation process for building a cluster hosting 
my own services (ftp, web, mail, etc...) in a para virtualised 
environnement (xen) . So I don't want to have any rubish coming from the 
desktop I currently used, and want to keep things as clean as possible.

Re: [gentoo-user] Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1490 bytes --]

On Mon, 22 Jul 2013 23:45:04 +0100, FredL wrote:

> I just use my current gentoo system for building a new one from
> scratch, so I only use my current system as it was only a livecd. I
> won't use my current world file or anything else coming from my current
> system (except things like hostname, hosts, or kernel config).  In fact
> I'm building a little script for deploying a very basic gentoo system 
> without typing the full list of commands listed in the installation 
> documentation. Just a hobby for lazy guy ;)
> Another reason for this fresh install is that I plan to write a full
> doc for describing the installation process for building a cluster
> hosting my own services (ftp, web, mail, etc...) in a para virtualised 
> environnement (xen) . So I don't want to have any rubish coming from
> the desktop I currently used, and want to keep things as clean as
> possible.

Sets are your friend here. I have a base set containing all the useful
things I put on all installs, including the things details in the
handbook like a cron daemon and system logger as well as the likes of
eix, conf-update, portage-utils and emacs. Then I have sets for desktop,
laptop etc, each of which inherits the base set.

so it's pretty much a case of partition the disk, unpack the stage3,
emerge @laptop (or whatever, compile the kernel, configure the bootloader
and reboot.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Like an atheist in a grave: all dressed up and no place to go.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[FredL]

On 2013/07/23 01:13, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> Sets are your friend here. I have a base set containing all the useful
> things I put on all installs, including the things details in the
> handbook like a cron daemon and system logger as well as the likes of
> eix, conf-update, portage-utils and emacs. Then I have sets for 
> desktop,
> laptop etc, each of which inherits the base set.
> 
> so it's pretty much a case of partition the disk, unpack the stage3,
> emerge @laptop (or whatever, compile the kernel, configure the 
> bootloader
> and reboot.

Thanks for the tip Neil, I will take a look at this portage feature and 
will probably use it for building set for web server related software, 
mail server, desktop and so one...

Re: [gentoo-user] Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[Tanstaafl]

On 2013-07-22 6:08 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder why you didn't have dbus installed.

I don't have dbus installed either, but I'm still on the old udev.

I've been planning on updating it this weekend (so I'll have time to 
deal with any issues), but when I do an emerge -pvuDN world, dbus is NOT 
in the list of things to install.

So, since you didn't actually answer his question, I'll ask it again...

Is dbus actually *required* for even a server system? Is this 
requirement only for the new udev? If so, why is it not getting pulled 
in on my system? And if so, why is my system working now without it?

Re: [gentoo-user] Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[Bruce Hill]

On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 07:06:18AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-07-22 6:08 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I wonder why you didn't have dbus installed.
> 
> I don't have dbus installed either, but I'm still on the old udev.
> 
> I've been planning on updating it this weekend (so I'll have time to 
> deal with any issues), but when I do an emerge -pvuDN world, dbus is NOT 
> in the list of things to install.
> 
> So, since you didn't actually answer his question, I'll ask it again...
> 
> Is dbus actually *required* for even a server system? Is this 
> requirement only for the new udev? If so, why is it not getting pulled 
> in on my system? And if so, why is my system working now without it?

This is a server on my LAN. You draw your own conclusion. No dbus installed.

mingdao@server ~ $ eix sys-apps/dbus
* sys-apps/dbus
     Available versions:  1.6.8 ~1.6.8-r1 1.6.10 1.6.12 {{X debug doc selinux static-libs systemd test}}
     Homepage:            http://dbus.freedesktop.org/
     Description:         A message bus system, a simple way for applications to talk to each other

mingdao@server ~ $ eix sys-fs/udev
[I] sys-fs/udev
     Available versions:  197-r8^t 200^t 204^t ~205^t **9999^t {{acl doc +firmware-loader gudev hwdb introspection keymap +kmod +openrc selinux static-libs}}
     Installed versions:  204^t(02:40:22 PM 06/26/2013)(acl firmware-loader kmod openrc -doc -gudev -hwdb -introspection -keymap -selinux -static-libs)
     Homepage:            http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd
     Description:         Linux dynamic and persistent device naming support (aka userspace devfs)

[I] sys-fs/udev-init-scripts
     Available versions:  23^t 25^t 26^t **9999^t
     Installed versions:  26^t(02:40:36 PM 06/26/2013)
     Homepage:            http://www.gentoo.org
     Description:         udev startup scripts for openrc

Found 2 matches.
mingdao@server ~ $
-- 
Happy Penguin Computers               >')
126 Fenco Drive                       ( \
Tupelo, MS 38801                       ^^
support@happypenguincomputers.com
662-269-2706 662-205-6424
http://happypenguincomputers.com/

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.                                                                                                                                                          
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?                                                                                                                                                                                        
A: Top-posting.                                                                                                                                                                                                                
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Don't top-post: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_post#Top-posting

Re: [gentoo-user] Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[Yohan Pereira]

On 23/07/13 at 07:06am, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-07-22 6:08 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I wonder why you didn't have dbus installed.
> 
> I don't have dbus installed either, but I'm still on the old udev.
> 
> I've been planning on updating it this weekend (so I'll have time to 
> deal with any issues), but when I do an emerge -pvuDN world, dbus is NOT 
> in the list of things to install.
> 
> So, since you didn't actually answer his question, I'll ask it again...
> 
> Is dbus actually *required* for even a server system? Is this 
> requirement only for the new udev? If so, why is it not getting pulled 
> in on my system? And if so, why is my system working now without it?
> 

The OP mentioned he selected the desktop profile thats probably why it
got pulled in. Dbus is not required with the default profile. 

-- 

- Yohan Pereira

The difference between a Miracle and a Fact is exactly the difference
between a mermaid and a seal.
                -- Mark Twain

Re: [gentoo-user] Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[FredL]

On 2013/07/23 13:20, Yohan Pereira wrote:
> On 23/07/13 at 07:06am, Tanstaafl wrote:
> On 2013-07-22 6:08 PM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I wonder why you didn't have dbus installed.
> 
> I don't have dbus installed either, but I'm still on the old udev.
> 
> I've been planning on updating it this weekend (so I'll have time to
> deal with any issues), but when I do an emerge -pvuDN world, dbus is 
> NOT
> in the list of things to install.
> 
> So, since you didn't actually answer his question, I'll ask it again...
> 
> Is dbus actually *required* for even a server system? Is this
> requirement only for the new udev? If so, why is it not getting pulled
> in on my system? And if so, why is my system working now without it?
> 
> 
> The OP mentioned he selected the desktop profile thats probably why it
> got pulled in. Dbus is not required with the default profile.

yes but that might not be related to my choosen profile because it is 
not required too for a minimal install (no X, only the basics), in fact 
what I am doing is not the gentoo way like the one described in the 
handbook (mainly because the full install process is scripted) so don't 
be worried about the trouble I had, You probably won't encounter the 
same by doing a regular upgrade.

Sorry for confusing you

[gentoo-user] Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[Steven J. Long]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> dbus is NOT a desktop daemon. This is very important, and that single
> misunderstanding is probably behind all the fud you read about it.
> 
> dbus implements a message bus - an amazingly useful thing to have.
> 
> Why do you need or want a message bus?
> 
> You might as well ask why do you need or want any other form of IPC you
> already have, as that is what dbus is. It's a very small, light daemon,
> can run system-wide or per-session and has the potential to many of the
> IPC implementations you already have. Those are the ones that don't
> happen to show up in ps so you hear very little whinging about them.

You might as well just use the existing IPC mechanisms too, especially on a
server. Oh wait, that would take experience and the humility borne of it.

> That desktop systems are the main user of dbus at this point in time
> doesn't change one bit what dbus is designed to do and it's usefulness.

Actually it was designed to be a desktop bus. That its mission has crept, or
arguably the "developer" has made a land-grab, doesn't change that.

Note I am not saying anything at all about the technical merits of dbus itself.
I actually quite like the base protocol, just not all the crap on top of it.
Kinda how I feel about the Java VM, fwtw.

Regards,
steveL
-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[Neil Bothwick]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 850 bytes --]

On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 03:17:51 +0100, Steven J. Long wrote:

> > You might as well ask why do you need or want any other form of IPC
> > you already have, as that is what dbus is. It's a very small, light
> > daemon, can run system-wide or per-session and has the potential to
> > many of the IPC implementations you already have. Those are the ones
> > that don't happen to show up in ps so you hear very little whinging
> > about them.  
> 
> You might as well just use the existing IPC mechanisms too,

Yes, lets have lots of IPC mechanisms instead of one daemon that handles
IPC for everything. While we're at it, let's get rid of syslog and add
file logging code to every program that needs it. cron and at seem a bit
of a waste of space too.


-- 
Neil Bothwick

Micro-: (prefix) anything both very small and very expensive.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[Alan McKinnon]

On 24/07/2013 11:02, Neil Bothwick wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jul 2013 03:17:51 +0100, Steven J. Long wrote:
> 
>>> You might as well ask why do you need or want any other form of IPC
>>> you already have, as that is what dbus is. It's a very small, light
>>> daemon, can run system-wide or per-session and has the potential to
>>> many of the IPC implementations you already have. Those are the ones
>>> that don't happen to show up in ps so you hear very little whinging
>>> about them.  
>>
>> You might as well just use the existing IPC mechanisms too,
> 
> Yes, lets have lots of IPC mechanisms instead of one daemon that handles
> IPC for everything. While we're at it, let's get rid of syslog and add
> file logging code to every program that needs it. cron and at seem a bit
> of a waste of space too.


you forgot that shared library nonsense. Every app should just bundle
static copies of everything it needs and leave it up to the dev to deal
with bugs and security issues




-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[Steven J. Long]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> you forgot that shared library nonsense. Every app should just bundle
> static copies of everything it needs and leave it up to the dev to deal
> with bugs and security issues

And you forgot: -lc prob'y because it's not required. -lrt comes into play too.
I'd recommend a book or two, but I have the feeling you're not a coder, and your
only response has been derogatory, so I don't think you'd get very far with them.

Shame really, you and Neil were two of the people I most respected on this list.

-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[Alan McKinnon]

On 24/07/2013 19:51, Steven J. Long wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> you forgot that shared library nonsense. Every app should just bundle
>> static copies of everything it needs and leave it up to the dev to deal
>> with bugs and security issues
> 
> And you forgot: -lc prob'y because it's not required. -lrt comes into play too.
> I'd recommend a book or two, but I have the feeling you're not a coder, and your
> only response has been derogatory, so I don't think you'd get very far with them.
> 
> Shame really, you and Neil were two of the people I most respected on this list.
> 


Hey dude, lighten up a bit.

Neil and I are more than double the average age on this list.
We're full of shit. And both British. So we're both full of shit twice.

Peace and hugz OK?



-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[Steven J. Long]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Peace and hugz OK?

Definitely :-)

"POSIX 4: Programming for the Real World" (Gallmeister, 1995)
"UNIX Network Programming vol 2: Interprocess Communications" (Stevens, 1999)

iirc the first is on safari-online; you can download code from the second here:
http://www.kohala.com/start/unpv22e/unpv22e.html

More here:
https://foss.aueb.gr/posix/

If you've not had the pleasure of W Richard Stevens' writing, you have a treat
in-store. I'd guess you guys have at least read some of the TCP/Illustrated series,
though.

Regards,
steveL.
-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Re: Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[Alan McKinnon]

On 24/07/2013 22:18, Steven J. Long wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote:
>> Peace and hugz OK?
> 
> Definitely :-)
> 
> "POSIX 4: Programming for the Real World" (Gallmeister, 1995)
> "UNIX Network Programming vol 2: Interprocess Communications" (Stevens, 1999)
> 
> iirc the first is on safari-online; you can download code from the second here:
> http://www.kohala.com/start/unpv22e/unpv22e.html
> 
> More here:
> https://foss.aueb.gr/posix/
> 
> If you've not had the pleasure of W Richard Stevens' writing, you have a treat
> in-store. I'd guess you guys have at least read some of the TCP/Illustrated series,
> though.
> 
> Regards,
> steveL.
> 


I'll look into those, but do take note those books are 14 and 18 years
old - that's eternity in our world.

Basics never change, details do. Some features are here for the long
haul and I doubt anything will really change them: pipes, named pipes,
unix sockets and things of that ilk. The real bugbear with IPC is people
reinventing the wheel over and over and over to do simple messaging -
writing little daemons that do very little except listen for a small
number of messages from localhost and react to them.

Use a generic message bus for that! It fits nicely in the grand Unix
tradition of do one job and do it well, and few apps have passing
messages around as their core function. Hand it off to the system,
that's what it's there for.

One day I might well do an audit of a typical server base system and
count all the apps that have a hidden roll-your-own message process in
place. I'm certain the results will be scary.


-- 
Alan McKinnon
alan.mckinnon@gmail.com

[gentoo-user] Reinventing the wheel

[Steven J. Long]

Alan McKinnon wrote:
> Steven J. Long wrote:
> > "POSIX 4: Programming for the Real World" (Gallmeister, 1995)
> > "UNIX Network Programming vol 2: Interprocess Communications" (Stevens, 1999)
> > 
> > More here:
> > https://foss.aueb.gr/posix/
> 
> I'll look into those, but do take note those books are 14 and 18 years old

Yes I am aware of that ;) The age is not the point. The content and its relevance are.
Further, you want Lewine 1994, first published 1991, if you're at all concerned about
portability, so make it 20 years; and that doesn't get you the deep insight that really
matters: read the books on the site in order if you want that, doing the exercises if
you want to actually implement stuff. And ask in #friendly-coders for some more books ;)

> - that's eternity in our world.

It's only really an eternity in compute-time, afaic. Calling something "innovation"
doesn't make it innovative. And it certainly doesn't make it an invention.

Nor is the speed with which fads and modern capitalism can move, any indication of
progress. Sure a lot's "happened". But not much has changed. "One True Way" is still
around, it's just mutated into "N+1 True Way", as we read something about "Plan to throw
one away, you will anyway" and we've "innovated" that to "Throw every version away" as
we don't know what an ABI promise means, and it's soo easy just to push a binary update,
when you don't have to deal with the consequent service failure.

> Basics never change, details do. Some features are here for the long
> haul and I doubt anything will really change them: pipes, named pipes,
> unix sockets and things of that ilk.

Which is why a 14-year old book describing them is still valid. There's actually a
decade of other books by Stevens before that, and APUE (on the site) was updated in 2005
by Rago (who was writing about SysV networking at the same time as the first UNP and
APUE.) Stevens himself died unfortunately: a _great_ loss.

If you look on the site, you'll see vol 1 of UNP was also updated. And that's where the
"eternity of changes" have really taken place: in remote networking, not in local IPC,
which is a solved problem. If you know the background. And a programmer always should
(or get another job, if learning it is too much.)

There are newer versions of both APUE and UNP vol 1, but I hear they're not as good.
So I'll get them when they're a bit cheaper, and I have some idle time.

> The real bugbear with IPC is people
> reinventing the wheel over and over and over to do simple messaging -

Which is exactly why it pays to know about the existing mechanisms instead of trying
to reinvent them. What you're saying here is exactly my point.

> writing little daemons that do very little except listen for a small
> number of messages from localhost and react to them.
> 
> Use a generic message bus for that!

There's no need. Most apps have a select/poll routine (or the equivalent) in any case,
especially the ones that respond to events, including pretty much all desktop apps. So
either you respond to the IPC channel in the main event routine, or you do some in a
thread. There's several mechanisms, and several methods to do different things. POSIX
gives you the standardised components: it's up to you to put them together.

wrt "a generic message bus" that's called a "message queue". And a programmer who finds
them "too difficult to use" is basically a nub. I've read people say that because it's
not an fd, it's not worth using. Which is completely amateur afaic: that's an awfully
small comfort-zone. By all means push for an eventfd in POSIX: but in the meantime, be
capable of more than one thing.

AF_UNIX datagram sockets are fine too, and are in fact what dbus uses. As I said, I never
actually criticised dbus itself: I'm fine with a desktop-session bus, to multiplex and
broadcast the various events of user interest, and I quite liked the protocol when I first
read up on it.

To use that as basic plumbing for other things, is a bad idea imo. All you're doing is
implementing a central point of failure, that has the additional borkage of being involved
with user desktop events. A complete encapsulation nightmare imo. But I don't really
care what other people do with their boxes: it doesn't affect me, so why should I? As
others have pointed out, dbus is certainly not required for a production server, and I
sincerely doubt it ever will be. There's too many experienced admins and coders who quietly
earn a living off clean systems, without ever getting involved in mailing-list debates.

> It fits nicely in the grand Unix tradition of do one job and do it well,

See below wrt filesystems.

> and few apps have passing messages around as their core function. Hand it off to the
> system, that's what it's there for.

Exactly: the operating-system. It's such a common problem, and it has wider implications
to do with scheduling and priority that come up around synchronisation, that it's all been
provided several times already.

> One day I might well do an audit of a typical server base system and
> count all the apps that have a hidden roll-your-own message process in
> place. I'm certain the results will be scary.

So long as you don't think using OS IPC counts as "roll-your-own." It doesn't: dbus is the
"roll-your-own", or rather "use someone else's purportedly ready-rolled", only its developers
want it to be the only mechanism, and used for everything, much like their plans for systemd.

I gave up reading code for a lot of stuff, about a year after I started using Gentoo. I
found it too disappointing, especially for apps I loved using. The real problem, imo,
is that people don't pass around, review and patch code, in the way that they used to in
the early days: every system was built from source, as Gentoo is now. The trend more and
more is to obfuscated idiot-boxes where "everything is taken care of for you"; until you
need something they didn't think of, when it gets tricky. The idiot-software keeps getting
in your way, thinking it knows what you need better than you do, there's no plain-text config
in sight, data is all kept in "efficient" binary (aka proprietary) format so it's impossible
to debug, and the 'devs' keep whining about "use-cases" and wanting to question your motives,
instead of helping you get the job done and out the door.

People can deride me as living in some fantasy world, dreaming of days when there were only
500 machines or w/e. It really doesn't bother me: to me it's like deriding the Calculus
because it was derived in the 18th Century, and saying Arabic numerals are "too complex
for the average user" so let's "simplify" and use IIIIII for 6. It merely displays a lack of
fundamental knowledge, about the basics of CS: which is no longer what's taught in the IT
Marketing depts of today. And fretting about ignorant opinion of the task in front of you is a
recipe for failure.

In this case, reinventing the basic OS is like saying let's have a userland daemon to mediate
access to the hard-drive. "There's far too many apps that are basically small daemons that do
little but wait and respond to filesystem activity, reacting to the contents of the files. Use
a generic daemon for that!"

You see my point? That's what libc is for, and it has an awful lot more specified in POSIX
than Standard C.

We all owe a deep debt to RMS for POSIX, and its public availability; without it Linux would
never have got off the ground.

"Good Programming is not learned from generalities, but by seeing how significant programs
 can be made clean, easy to read, easy to maintain and modify, human-engineered, efficient
 and reliable, by the application of common sense and good programming practices.
 Careful study and imitation of good programs leads to better writing."
  -- Kernighan & Plauger (1978)

It's a shame that so many youngsters think "new" == "good", and don't want to learn from the
people who were in their shoes 30-50 years ago, and passed down the craft. (What else would
they have done with it? ;) Personally I love reading the old simple stuff (and I mean really
basic), as it keeps me grounded. But there's an awful lot more that isn't so simple, and the
reason it's still around is obvious: "Damn, that shit works". Much like calculus still works.

Regards,
igli
-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

[gentoo-user] Re: Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[Steven J. Long]

Neil Bothwick wrote:
> Steven J. Long wrote:
> > Alan McKinnon wrote:
> > > You might as well ask why do you need or want any other form of IPC
> > > you already have, as that is what dbus is. It's a very small, light
> > > daemon, can run system-wide or per-session and has the potential to
> > > many of the IPC implementations you already have.
> >
> > You might as well just use the existing IPC mechanisms too,
> 
> Yes, lets have lots of IPC mechanisms instead of one daemon that handles
> IPC for everything.

It's called an "operating system."

> While we're at it, let's get rid of syslog and add
> file logging code to every program that needs it. cron and at seem a bit
> of a waste of space too.

Strawmen burn so well, don't they?

I know, let's do all process-scheduling in user-space, I mean who needs preemptive
multi-tasking when we have such experts in the early userspace at our disposal.
User-land threading works really well too: so long as we worship at the altar of
the great God Lennart, blocking and synchronisation can be handled via prayer and
the sacrifice of a small, modular utility every sunrise.

-- 
#friendly-coders -- We're friendly, but we're not /that/ friendly ;-)

Re: [gentoo-user] Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

[Markus Kaindl]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1857 bytes --]

Am 22.07.2013 23:35, schrieb FredL:
>>
>> Do you perhaps have NetworkManager or wicd installed?
>>
>>
>> no, none of them, it is a very basic install, with only the minimum
>> packages installed . I have checked at the init script and find a line
>> in the depend section saying :
>>
>> after lo lo0 dbus
>>
>> but dbus is not yet installed, can this be the cause of my problem?
> 
> so I have just installed dbus and add it to default runlevel and my
> net.* script are loaded correctly setting my static config, so every
> thing is fine now.
> 
> But why do we need dbus in a very minimalistic system? I was thinking
> that it would be helpful in a full desktop environnement for
> automagically mounting device and things like that...
> 
> Saying that I've just remenbered that I have selected the desktop
> profile instead of the default one, can this be why my init script need
> dbus for starting net iface?
> 

As Bruce did show: You don't need to have dbus installed for net.* to
work. Also it did work, when you started net.* it manually, without
having dbus installed, right?

I don't know, what did start dhcp on your interfaces, you should check
that. AFAIK your kernel does a automatic dhcp-configuration of your
interfaces when you have set CONFIG_IP_PNP_DHCP. You could try to
disable dbus and check, if your interfaces get up with dhcp again and
then disable CONFIG_IP_PNP or all CONFIG_IP_PNP_*-options and check
again. (If they where activated of course ;)  )

For your net.* initscripts not starting automatically I don't have an
idea other than maybe you forgot to add them to the runlevels right now,
but that would not explain, why they do start after adding dbus...

It would be interesting, to know, what did really happen, so please let
us know, what you find out ;)

Regards,
Markus


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 901 bytes --]