[12:23] <Innatech> ScottK: I just did apt-get install ifrename -- and apt-get removed udev, ubuntu-minimal and some other packages --WITHOUT WARNING.  Ever seen that before?
[12:23] <ScottK> I've seen it with aptitude, but not apt.
[12:30] <Innatech> ScottK: http://www.pastebin.ca/632533
[12:31] <Innatech> kinda scary. 
[12:33] <ScottK> I'd suggest looking at the package dependencies and then filing a bug against apt or ifrename depending.
[12:35] <infinity> Err, that's not a bug.
[12:35] <infinity> In anything.
[12:36] <infinity> You need to look at apt-get's output before you blindly answer "yes, I'd love to do that".
[12:36] <infinity> ifrename correctly conflicts with udev (actually, it's the other way around, i think, but whatever)
[12:38] <ScottK> OK.
[12:38] <lcdd> googling for "apt-get -y" ubuntu
[12:39] <lcdd> ...reveals a ton of guides using that option
[12:39] <infinity> Yeah, cause "-y" is such a brilliant idea.
[12:39] <Innatech> I did't force it. 
[12:39] <lcdd> i'd like to have a chat with whoever started that
[12:39] <Innatech> plain old apt-get install. 
[12:39] <Innatech> It didn't warn me. Period. 
[12:40] <Innatech> I'll try and revert it and then reproduce it w/a typescript. 
[12:40] <infinity> Innatech: Then it must have stopped and said "new packages installed: ifrename, packages removed: udev, etc, etc, etc" and given you a [Y/n]  prompt.
[12:40] <Innatech> nope.
[12:40] <Innatech> If it had, I wouldn't have said anything.
[12:40] <soren> infinity: 
[12:40] <soren> whoops
[12:40] <Innatech> Indicated no packages to remove, then apparently removed a lot of my system.
[12:43] <infinity> Yeah, I see no way apt could do that wihout a mangled config, or piping "yes" to it...
[12:43] <Innatech> Me neither. Yet...
[12:43] <soren> infinity: Dapper used ifrename from udev, didn't it?
[12:43] <infinity> soren: Don't recall when udev starting doing ifrenaming on its own.
[12:44] <soren> infinity: Feisty, I think.
[12:44] <soren> infinity: and Innatech specifically said LTS..
[12:44] <ajmitch> morning
[12:44] <Innatech> Can I just slap ubuntu-minimal ubuntu-common mdadm and lvm2 back on there or am I in for a reinstall? 
[12:45] <infinity> soren: Yeah, he's using dapper.  They pretty obviously conflict.
[12:46] <infinity> adconrad@terranova:~$ apt-cache show udev | grep ^Conflicts
[12:46] <infinity> Conflicts: hotplug, ifrename
[12:46] <infinity> And that's just fine.
[12:46] <infinity> What's not fine is the behaviour he saw from apt, which I've never seen in my life.
[12:46] <infinity> Innatech: Is it possible you just stuttered on the enter key? :)
[12:46] <Innatech> well, I'm going to try restoring what dkpg shows was removed. We'll see what happens. 
[12:47] <Innatech> infinity: Occams razor demands I consider it, but I swear it showed 0 packages to remove. 
[12:47] <soren> infinity: I'm clearly an idiot. If udev needed ifrename to do interface renaming... Why would they conflict?
[12:48] <infinity> soren: It doesn't.
[12:48] <infinity> soren: It does it on its own, hence the conflict.
[12:48] <infinity> soren: For non-udev systems, you need ifrename to do the same job.
[12:49] <soren> infinity: Didn't we just agree that that was only the way it has been done since Feisty?
[12:49] <infinity> soren: You agreed to that, I went to check for myself. :P
[12:49] <Innatech> OK. This router was softRAIDed....I'm going to reboot it. We'll see what happens.....
[12:50] <soren> infinity: Ok... We agreed that something had changed at some point. :)
[12:50] <soren> infinity: Maybe I'm just thinking of the net-persistent-rules blah vs. iftab.
[12:51] <ajmitch> most likely, that was recent
[12:51] <soren> Yeah, feisty for sure.
[12:51] <Innatech> is that "blah" you mentioned a way for me to prevent device assignments from changing w/o using ifrename and iftab?
[12:51] <soren> infinity: What's the problem with using iftab?
[12:51] <soren> Innatech: ^^
[12:52] <infinity> Innatech: udev should handle iftab on its own, you don't need ifrename if you're using udev.  That's why they conflict.
[12:52] <Innatech> OK..well on this reboot, eth3 and eth5 (which on the prior boot were eth3 and eth4) are now eth5 and eth6. WTF?! (at least it came back up, I guess...)
[12:53] <Innatech> I scared to test apt-get now. Heh. 
[12:53] <Innatech> *I'm
[12:54] <soren> Innatech: And what's in iftab?
[12:54] <Innatech> lemme see. 
[12:54] <Innatech> soren: just eth0. >headsmack<
[12:55] <Innatech> And on reboot, the link came up on one of the NICs ports---the lack of which is what got me into this in the first place. 
[12:56] <Innatech> Will apt-get output show up in a typescript?
[12:57] <infinity> Should do.
[12:57] <Innatech> alright, then. Let me see if I can reproduce this before I get too much further into troubleshooting my actual problem.
[01:00] <Innatech> OK--nevermind. I need to beat the crap out of my part-time "help."  Someone made a naughty alias. 
[01:00] <Innatech> >:( 
[01:00] <infinity> Ah-ha.
[01:00] <Innatech> yeah. 
[01:01] <ajmitch> oops
[01:01] <Innatech> probably was supposed to be temporary. Still terminally stupid. 
[01:03] <Innatech> amazingly, everything seems fine. That's fairly cool. It's not everyday I manage to rip out some of the core of a distro, plop it back in and have smooth sailing.....
[01:05] <infinity> If it was core, it would have screamed louder. :)
[01:05] <infinity> You didn't take out anything that was Essential or Required, just some nice-to-haves.
[01:10] <Innatech> ubuntu-standard and ubuntu-minimal *sounded* important. 
[01:11] <Innatech> and seeing LVM2 and mdadm vanish scared me. But, alls well that ends well.
[01:12] <Innatech> (I'm still not sure what LVM2 and mdadm have to do w/ifrename.....but I probably don't really need to know. )
[01:16] <soren> Innatech: Because ifrename conflicts with udev on which mdadm and lvm2 depend.
[01:16] <Innatech> ooh. Of course.
[01:44] <Innatech> OK, so--back on the dual core Opteron -- LTS server installer is hanging after HW detection. (After it prompts for hostname and HTTP proxy.) It seems like this server really doesn't want to run Dapper. Are there steps I can take to gather useful information for maintainers? (I have tried  both "nolapic" and "noapic nolapic" .)
[01:47] <infinity> We run edgy on our dual-core machines in the Canonical datacentre.
[01:48] <Innatech> I can do that if neccessary--I'd rather not proliferate platforms, though. I've been using Dapper almost everywhere, and CentOS5 where I can't user Dapper. I'm really over the RHEL environment, though. I'm much happier in Ubuntu/Debian land. 
[01:49] <Innatech> Anyway, I was just wondering if there's anything useful I can do at this point in terms of gathering information useful to the Dapper team. 
[01:51] <Innatech> can I exit the installer and look for a log in the ramdisk somewhere? 
[02:11] <Shaddox> Hi everyone.
[02:12] <Shaddox> What is the best FTP server to install on a server using Ubuntu?
[02:12] <Shaddox> What is most common, rather.
[02:18] <Nafallo> vsftpd
[02:18] <Shaddox> Ah.
[02:19] <Shaddox> Er, though I'm not sure if I can get -any- FTPD to work.
[02:19] <Shaddox> I have all my webhosting stuff on a seperate partition, mounted at /www, and want to be able to make /www/usr/<username> for users to have their hosting, and have FTP access for it.
[02:19] <Shaddox> Someone told me vsftpd wouldn't work for that, cause it doesn't follow mounts.
[02:21] <Shaddox> Ah, screw it. Only one way to find out.
[02:41] <Nafallo> I do what Shaddox probably wants :-)
[02:49] <Innatech> how can I make the installer give me a shell when it gets caught waiting eternally for something?
[02:52] <Nafallo> alt+f2?
[02:53] <Innatech> yeah...it really is locked up, then. Oh well.
[03:05] <Innatech> OK..I got into the syslog. It's hanging because partman can't find any volumes. This server has a mess of drives hanging off of a 3ware card. Do I need to use the alternative installer? 
[03:07] <Nafallo> gnight
[03:09] <Innatech> night!
[03:57] <ScottK> Innatech: That's what I'd do.  I've never had much luck with the primary one.
[03:57] <Innatech> Great. Thanks. 
[04:55] <ryanakca> ScottK: oh fun :) eGroupware decided to split eGroupWare (wich contained both eGroupWare & eGroupWare-egw-pear) into two seperate .tar.gz. Is there any way to figure out the depends of egroupware-egw-pear if in the egroupware debian/control there is:
[04:55] <ryanakca> Depends: egroupware-core (= ${Source-Version})
[04:56] <ryanakca> I suppose I can just use that in the -egw-pear package? or do I have to go egroupware-core (>= 1.4.001)
[04:56] <ScottK> The upstream INSTALL file usually tells you about required stuff.
[04:57] <ryanakca> and... it's a circular depends
[04:57] <ScottK> For example the -pear package probably depends on a pear DB that core doesn't
[04:57] <ScottK> Right.  Can't have that
[04:57] <ryanakca> egroupware-core depends on egroupware-egw-pear, and vice-versa
[04:57] <ryanakca> at least from I see
[04:58] <ScottK> Can't have that.  You need to pick one.
[04:58] <ScottK> Is egroupware main or universe?
[04:58] <ryanakca> -core is probably more important, and let's ditch the -egw-pear
[04:58] <ryanakca> universe
[05:03] <ryanakca> ScottK: hmmm. I guess we'll just sync. Debian already took care of it without me.
[05:03] <ryanakca> that or merge
[05:04] <ScottK> ryanakca: The Australia/MZ contingent is wide awake in #ubuntu-motu.  They understand this stuff way better than me
[05:05] <ryanakca> ok
[05:30] <totalnewbie> hello 
[05:31] <totalnewbie> anybody have some time?
[05:31] <totalnewbie> :)
[05:32] <totalnewbie> can anybody teach me how to create a server?
[05:33] <Dessan> totalnewbie, A server for what? 
[05:57] <Innatech> motu = ? 
[05:58] <Innatech> aside from Mark of the Unicorn? 
[09:21] <soren> Innatech_away: MOTU == Masters Of The Universe. The team of developers who look after the universe component in Ubuntu.
[09:35] <ivoks> amm...
[09:36] <ivoks> i'm looking at the bug 81242
[09:36] <ubotu> Launchpad bug 81242 in postfix "postfix-ldap is linked against gnuTLS" [Medium,Triaged]  https://launchpad.net/bugs/81242
[09:36] <totalnewbie> #ubuntu
[09:37] <ivoks> should we build postfix against both gnutls and openssl?
[09:39] <soren> ivoks: Nah. Why would we?
[09:39] <ivoks> well, postfix is atm
[09:39] <ivoks> that creates problems with ldap
[09:39] <ivoks> which is build against openssl
[09:39] <ivoks> (which is ilegal btw :)
[09:41] <soren> ivoks: Why?
[09:41] <soren> ivoks: postfix is not GPL, is it?
[09:42] <ivoks> i was refering to openldap
[09:42] <ivoks> but it also isn't gpl
[09:42] <soren> Oh, right. Didn't notice.
[09:43] <ivoks> so, dump gnutls?
[09:44] <ivoks> :)
[09:46] <soren> ivoks: Hang on. You say ldap is built against openssl and postfix is built against.. what?
[09:46] <ivoks> both :)
[09:46] <ivoks> postfix against openssl, and postfix-tls against gnutls :)
[09:47] <ivoks> pardon
[09:47] <ivoks> postfix-ldap
[09:47] <ivoks> check out ldd /usr/lib/postfix/dict_ldap.so
[09:47] <soren> Welll, in a perfect world, we'd make postfix use gnutls, but I have a feeling that's not very easy to do (otherwise someone would probably have done it already).
[09:48] <ivoks> and ldd /usr/sbin/postfix
[09:49] <soren> I haven't got postfix-ldap installed.
[09:49] <ivoks> eh, anyway:
[09:49] <ivoks> libgnutls.so.13 => /usr/lib/libgnutls.so.13
[09:49] <ivoks> and:
[09:49] <ivoks> libssl.so.0.9.8 => /usr/lib/i686/cmov/libssl.so.0.9.8
[09:49] <ivoks> but ldd slapd:
[09:49] <ivoks> libssl only
[09:50] <soren> So slapd uses openssl, postfix-ldap uses gnutls, and postfix uses openssl? That's pretty crackful.
[09:51] <ivoks> yeah :/
[09:51] <stephanbuys> what is the reason for resistance to openssl (as opposed to gnutls?)
[09:51] <ivoks> license
[09:52] <soren> evil!
[09:52] <stephanbuys> ah
[09:53] <ivoks> stephanbuys: http://www.gnome.org/~markmc/openssl-and-the-gpl.html
[09:54] <stephanbuys> there's been some interest from the Google SoC project to have LDAP-out-of-the-box (https://wiki.ubuntu.com/GoogleSoC2007) - according to Rick these library issues are also holding up the inclusion of OpenLDAP 2.3?
[09:54] <ivoks> the thing is that openssl devs don't nag about breaking their license
[09:55] <ivoks> but that could always change
[09:55] <ivoks> and the problem is that openssl has better performance than gnutls
[09:56] <stephanbuys> ivoks, having glanced over that page it seems like a shame. as you said, performance and maturity...
[09:56] <ivoks> yeah, stupid 'we did this' caluse
[09:56] <ivoks> that destroyed xfree too :)
[09:57] <stephanbuys> ah - but it destroyed Xfree when they tried to go that route didn't it? on the other hand openssl has basically been prolific for ages...
[09:58] <ivoks> there wasn't any substitute for it... now there are mozilla's nsss and gnutls
[09:58] <soren> Weird. When I build postfix on my build server, it doesn't pull in libgnutls13..
[09:58] <ivoks> but, with worse performance
[09:58] <ivoks> soren: true and it shouldn't
[09:59] <ivoks> but the binary we ship is build with it...
[09:59] <soren> http://launchpadlibrarian.net/8170757/buildlog_ubuntu-gutsy-i386.postfix_2.4.3-1ubuntu1_FULLYBUILT.txt.gz
[09:59] <soren> Our buildd's pull in libgnutls13 when they build postfix.
[09:59] <soren> if they didn't it couldn't be linked against it.
[09:59] <ivoks> i just builded postfix-ldap, so i'll check it out
[10:01] <ivoks> heh... i don't get it...
[10:01] <ivoks>  libgnutls.so.13 => /usr/lib/libgnutls.so.13
[10:01] <ivoks> and no gnutls-dev package...
[10:01] <soren> ivoks: In a pbuilder?
[10:01] <ivoks> no :/
[10:02] <ivoks> i have to do it in pubilder too
[10:02] <ivoks> i just didn't set it up yet :/
[10:02] <soren> I've just done it in an sbuild. Hang on.
[10:02] <soren> wtf..
[10:03] <soren>         libgnutls.so.13 => /usr/lib/libgnutls.so.13 (0x00002af524b6a000)
[10:04] <ivoks> cute :)
[10:04] <soren> Aw, crap.
[10:04] <soren> Priority: important
[10:05] <ivoks> gnutls? doh...
[10:09] <soren> ...but that's not why.
[10:09] <soren> libldap2-dev -> libldap2 -> libgnutls13.
[10:10] <ivoks> hehe
[10:11] <ivoks> and slapd depends on libssl
[10:11] <ivoks> very nice... incompatibile openldap and it's tools
[10:11] <ivoks> that could be a reason why connecting to ldaps doesn't work with most of the tools
[05:05] <ryanakca> ScottK: hmm. From the marketting view, would we be better of installing the server as gutsy or feisty?
[05:06] <mralphabet> there's a view other then the functional view?
[05:09] <ryanakca> mralphabet: hehe, well, I'm setting up an eGroupWare server for Kubuntu Devel, and the plan is to also market it as "Look at the synergy between Kubuntu Gutsy and Ubuntu Server. You can set up a collaboration server and then easily access it threw Kubuntu's KDE-PIM suite."
[05:09] <ryanakca> That type of thing, to get more enterprises using Kubuntu & Ubuntu Server
[05:09] <ScottK> ryanakca: I think Gutsy.
[05:10] <ryanakca> yeah, and that way I wouldn't have to get it backported to Feisty :) Thanks
[05:10] <ryanakca> Now I just have to figure out why it's in experimental (changelog doesn't say, it just went experimental after a new release)
[05:11] <ScottK> You might e-mail the maintainer.
[05:14] <tck-afk> qustion peeps
[05:14] <tck-afk> the default command line mail program
[05:15] <tck-afk> is that called mailx
[05:15] <tck-afk> and is it similar to the one part of mailutils program?
[05:16] <mralphabet> http://packages.ubuntu.com/feisty/mail/mailx
[05:17] <tck-afk> yes ive installed that
[05:17] <tck-afk> the package in mailutils is called mail though
[05:17] <tck-afk> what is the diff. between mail and mailx ?
[05:17] <tck-afk> http://packages.ubuntu.com/feisty/mail/mailutils
[05:18] <tck-afk> ok have it
[05:18] <tck-afk> mailx is a sym link to mail
[05:20] <tck-afk> the GNU mailutils has some nice features in it, i might get that instead