users June 2020

users@lists.fedoraproject.org

103 participants
136 discussions

by Tom Horsley

I constantly get this nonsense in my logwatch mail: > **Unmatched Entries** > crond: pam_systemd(crond:session): Failed to create session: File exists: 1 Time(s) That apparently corresponds to this entry in /var/log/secure: Jun 16 08:42:01 tomh crond[25783]: pam_systemd(crond:session): Failed to create session: File exists And that was apparently generated by this cron job: Jun 16 08:42:01 tomh CROND[25788]: (tweety) CMD (/usr/bin/fetchmail -s >> $HOME/.fetchmail.log 2>&1) What in the blue blazes is it talking about? What file already exists? The fetchmail job runs every minute. Does this happen when the previous fetchmail cron job hasn't finished yet? It would sure be helpful if someone mentioned what file it is that already exists :-). -- Tom Horsley Delray Beach, FL Cell: 561-414-9667

3 years, 11 months

2
1
0 / 0

systemctl status distccd

by Michael J. Baars

Hi, Since it's awfully quiet on the initscripts-devel mailing list. Best regards, Mischa.

3 years, 11 months

4
8
0 / 0

OT: WSL2

by Ranjan Maitra

Dear friends, As someone who does not see the value of Windows (or MacOS), I wonder what thoughts are regarding this: https://towardsdatascience.com/dual-boot-is-dead-windows-and-linux-are-no... For me, I hope that MS does not degrade the linux experience further because more people will have hopped on (assuming that this will be true). Ranjan

3 years, 11 months

4
4
0 / 0

UEFI and BROKEN Parameter Issue : Ref. Fedora-31

by Bimal Kumar

Dear Madam / Sir, Just to share about the issue I faced while Fedora 31 / 32 installation and dual boot with Windows-10. I purchased a new Dell Laptop (Vostro-3580, i5, 8th Gen.) which has Windows-10 preinstalled, but I wanted to make it dual boot. The system was UEFI hence trying to dual Boot - Fedora-31 and Windows-10. For all my Earlier Dell laptops, and all versions of Fedora, I had a great and smooth experience of dual boot / single boot experience with the Legacy BIOS. But now I purchased a new Dell-Vostro-3580, which has ONLY UEFI firmware to boot the laptop and this is the actual Problem, while another issue was that it gives me error and unable to boot into the rescue mode from the grub menu options. I had installed Fedora-31 for almost 20 times (one time Fedora-32 also) including various options of remaking USB installation media through unetbootin/rufus etc. then also troubleshooting and reinstalling grub through rescue mode(using live usb pen drive) chroot... but all remains the temporary solutions. This compelled me to read the installation of Fedora-31.... and I found this .... "" Fedora does not support UEFI booting for 32-bit x86 systems. Only BIOS boot is supported on these systems. Also note that Fedora only fully supports version 2.2 of the UEFI specification. Hardware that supports version 2.3 or later will boot and work normally, but the additional functionality defined by these later specifications will not be available. The UEFI specifications are available from https://www.uefi.org/specs/agreement/."" found at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fedora/rawhide/install-guide/install... The problem I faced, was UEFI (above laptop came with version 1.4) does not remember the partition/location of the boot file of Fedora only, while the grub loads and very well boots into Windows-10 through the option from the grub menu and HANGS if I opt for Fedora-31 from the grub option menu. Finally after a lot of experiments and reading I found that UPGRADE the UEFI firmware reading somewhere on the net and voila.. now all is fixed !! Though it was very very UNFORTUNATE that Dell provided(on Dell website) the upgrade for this new(for me atleast) laptop with a UEFI version - 1.9 (11.03.2020). Just to mention that POOR RESPONSE from Dell Customer Service and NO EMAIL ID available to send email to them !!! The other issue I found was the rescue mode is giving me ERROR, and to address it finally I found that the file rescue in /boot/loader/entry is missing the correct parameter, hence I appended "/boot" and it worked. Just thought to share with you people in case someone could get benefitted from my experiences : 1)Dell should have PROVIDED SUPPORT for older UEFI, or leagcy BIOS or Dell People(Worst People and POOREST CUSTOMER SUPPORT) had provided the latest UEFI firmware(latest is *Version 2.8*, and approved in March 2019 by UEFI). 2) Fedora people may correct the parameter setting for RESCUE boot. For ready reference I am providing the content of the rescue file before and after the correction. [root@localhost entries]# pwd /boot/loader/entries [root@localhost entries]# ls 4c547532c2394079bb6f59b48cb1073d-0-rescue.conf 4c547532c2394079bb6f59b48cb1073d-0-rescue.conf.ORG 4c547532c2394079bb6f59b48cb1073d-5.3.7-301.fc31.x86_64.conf [root@localhost entries]# cat 4c547532c2394079bb6f59b48cb1073d-0-rescue.conf.ORG title Fedora (0-rescue-4c547532c2394079bb6f59b48cb1073d) 31 (Thirty One) version 0-rescue-4c547532c2394079bb6f59b48cb1073d linux /vmlinuz-0-rescue-4c547532c2394079bb6f59b48cb1073d initrd /initramfs-0-rescue-4c547532c2394079bb6f59b48cb1073d.img options $kernelopts grub_users $grub_users grub_arg --unrestricted grub_class kernel [root@localhost entries]# cat 4c547532c2394079bb6f59b48cb1073d-0-rescue.conf title Fedora (0-rescue-4c547532c2394079bb6f59b48cb1073d) 31 (Thirty One) version 0-rescue-4c547532c2394079bb6f59b48cb1073d linux /boot/vmlinuz-0-rescue-4c547532c2394079bb6f59b48cb1073d initrd /boot/initramfs-0-rescue-4c547532c2394079bb6f59b48cb1073d.img options $kernelopts grub_users $grub_users grub_arg --unrestricted grub_class kernel regards, Bimal Kumar

3 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

Re: New HPLIP release 3.20.6 doesn't require plugin for printers whose needed plugin in the past

by Zdenek Dohnal

On 6/17/20 11:03 AM, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > > Zdenek have kind of question: why there are so many patches in the > hplip package? > Is it any problem with accepting Fedora patches by source tree maintainer? Yes, it is - HP upstream is unresponsive in most bugfix cases. > Is there any git or other VCS repo with source tree? (I don't see it > on launchpad) Unfortunately, there isn't. HP's vision of open source is releasing source tarball, not sharing any github/CVS repo for hplip. My predecessors - twaugh and jpopelka - started a github repo for hplip to track at least changes between releases, and I keep it up to date - https://github.com/zdohnal/hplip . There were considerations whether to fork the project, merge the patches and have it like that, but it would cut us off from new drivers, which come from HP, because they have access to HW. > > kloczek > -- > Tomasz Kłoczko | LinkedIn: http://lnkd.in/FXPWxH > > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Zdenek Dohnal Software Engineer Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C

3 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

Re: New HPLIP release 3.20.6 doesn't require plugin for printers whose needed plugin in the past

by Zdenek Dohnal

Hi Tomasz, thank you for testing! Unfortunately, IMO hpcups still loads the plugin... I checked the code and hpcups doesn't look into models.dat - it loads the plugin either way, entry in models.dat seems to be checked only during print queue installation :( . I have the same experience with scanning on my HP laserjet m1536... it actually just loads older plugin anyway... So it wouldn't work on machines were no previous plugin installed. I'll revert the upstream change and report it. On 6/16/20 5:11 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 03:21:35PM +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote: >> There isn't a sucg list, but basically you can check git log at >> https://github.com/zdohnal/hplip . > Thanks, > > So I have HP M1132 MFT 2 and it basically works wi 3.20.6 and WITHOUT > plugin. yay!! > > It's not troublefree, yet: > 1) after installing 3.20.6, priting did not work > cze 16 15:28:27 mother.pipebreaker.pl hpcups[1425079]: common/utils.c 177: validate_plugin_version() Plugin version[3.20.5] mismatch with HPLIP version[3.20.6] > cze 16 15:28:27 mother.pipebreaker.pl hpcups[1425079]: common/utils.c 210: Plugin version is not matching > > 2) I've removed hplip.state file, this caused another error: > cze 16 15:44:55 mother.pipebreaker.pl hpcups[1430487]: common/utils.c 116: unable to open /var/lib/hp/hplip.state: No such file or directory > cze 16 15:44:55 mother.pipebreaker.pl hpcups[1430487]: common/utils.c 166: validate_plugin_version() Failed to get Plugin version from [/var/lib/hp/hplip.state] > cze 16 15:44:55 mother.pipebreaker.pl hpcups[1430487]: common/utils.c 210: Plugin version is not matching > > 3) finally, I've edited /var/lib/hp/hplip.state changing version, now it contains: > -- > [plugin] > installed = 0 > eula = 1 > version = 3.20.6 > -- > > And printing works. What's interesting, the value of installed= seem > irrelevant. > > (above is on Fedora 31) > -- Zdenek Dohnal Software Engineer Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C

3 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

More boot questions

by Robert McBroom

Copied my fedora 29 system to an SSD partition. Booting takes me to Grub-rescue> SuperGrub2 2.04s1 finds the system and boots it but it is read only.?? Knoppix reads and writes to the system with no problem. Used Knoppix to fix /etc/fstab and grub.cfg. I think grub-install is needed from fedora but have to be able to write to the drive.

3 years, 11 months

5
10
0 / 0

New HPLIP release 3.20.6 doesn't require plugin for printers whose needed plugin in the past

by Zdenek Dohnal

Hi all, I'm HPLIP maintainer in Fedora and I would like to ask *the users which have HP printers which needed their HP plugin to test the scratch build* of new hplip. HPLIP released a new version 3.20.6, where most models, which previously required HP plugin, were set to do not require plugin anymore. Although requirement of HP plugin was questionable with some printer models, other models may really needed it and they will not work without it. Please try the following scratch builds: Rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45790790 F32: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45790902 F31: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=45790908 And if the update breaks printing or scanning for you, please let the upstream know here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/hplip Thank you in advance for helping with testing! Zdenek -- Zdenek Dohnal Software Engineer Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C

3 years, 11 months

1
1
0 / 0

Re: New HPLIP release 3.20.6 doesn't require plugin for printers whose needed plugin in the past

by Zdenek Dohnal

There isn't a sucg list, but basically you can check git log at https://github.com/zdohnal/hplip . On 6/16/20 3:14 PM, Tomasz Torcz wrote: > On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 03:01:22PM +0200, Zdenek Dohnal wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> I'm HPLIP maintainer in Fedora and I would like to ask *the users which >> have HP printers which needed their HP plugin to test the scratch build* >> of new hplip. >> >> HPLIP released a new version 3.20.6, where most models, which previously >> required HP plugin, were set to do not require plugin anymore. > Is there a list of printers not requiring plugin anymore? > Downloading this plugin was the most cumbersome. In line with > Murphys's laws, I was noticing hplip was upgraded, and thus requiring > re-downloading plugin, when I had to print/scan something urgently. > > -- Zdenek Dohnal Software Engineer Red Hat Czech - Brno TPB-C

3 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

systemctl status distccd

by Michael J. Baars

Hi, Since it's awfully quiet on the initscripts-devel mailing list. Best regards, Mischa.

3 years, 11 months

1
0
0 / 0

← Newer
1
...
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
...
14
Older →

Jump to page: