Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
24 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

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


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

Paul Hartman-3
On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 3:42 PM, FredL <[hidden email]> 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?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 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 <[hidden email]> 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?


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 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?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

Alan McKinnon-2
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
[hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 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




Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

Alan McKinnon-2
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
[hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 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.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

Neil Bothwick
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.

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 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...



Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

tanstaafl-2
In reply to this post by Alan McKinnon-2
On 2013-07-22 6:08 PM, Alan McKinnon <[hidden email]> 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?

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

Bruce Hill, Jr.
On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 07:06:18AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:

> On 2013-07-22 6:08 PM, Alan McKinnon <[hidden email]> 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                       ^^
[hidden email]
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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

Yohan Pereira
In reply to this post by tanstaafl-2
On 23/07/13 at 07:06am, Tanstaafl wrote:

> On 2013-07-22 6:08 PM, Alan McKinnon <[hidden email]> 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: 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 <[hidden email]> 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

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

Steven J. Long
In reply to this post by Alan McKinnon-2
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 ;-)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

Neil Bothwick
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.

signature.asc (205 bytes) Download Attachment
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

Alan McKinnon-2
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
[hidden email]


Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

Steven J. Long
In reply to this post by Neil Bothwick
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 ;-)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

Steven J. Long
In reply to this post by Alan McKinnon-2
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 ;-)

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Re: Fresh install and problem with net.* init.d script

Alan McKinnon-2
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
[hidden email]


12