users November 2020

users@lists.fedoraproject.org

127 participants
147 discussions

Re: Deprecating SCP
by Jakub Jelen 03 Nov '20

03 Nov '20

On 11/2/20 4:36 PM, Kamil Dudka wrote: > On Monday, November 2, 2020 3:44:39 PM CET Jakub Jelen wrote: >> Hi Fedora users! >> >> Over the last years, there were several issues in the SCP protocol, >> which lead us into discussions if we can get rid of it in upstream [1]. >> Most of the voices there said that they use SCP mostly for simple ad-hoc >> copy and because sftp utility does not provide simple interface to copy >> one or couple of files back and forth and because of people are just >> used to write scp rather than sftp. >> >> Some months ago, I wrote a patch [2] for scp to use SFTP internally >> (with possibility to change it back using -M scp) and ran it through >> some successful testing. The general feedback from upstream was also >> quite positive so I would like to hear also opinions from our users. >> >> It still has some limitations (missing -3 support, it will not work if >> the server does not run sftp subsystem, ...), but it should be good >> enough for most common use cases. >> >> Today, I set up a copr repository with the current openssh from Fedora + >> the patch [2] for anyone to test and provide feedback, either here on >> the mailing list, or in the github PR according to ones preferences. >> >> I am looking for any kind of feedback from the idea through the >> usability, implementation. Is this something you would like to see in >> Fedora soon? Do you have something against this? Is your use case missing? >> >> [1] >> https://lists.mindrot.org/pipermail/openssh-unix-dev/2020-June/038594.html >> [2] https://github.com/openssh/openssh-portable/pull/194/ >> [3] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjelen/openssh-sftp/ > > How is the "compatibility scpd to support old clients" going to differ > from the current implementation? I can think of a solution that in the end, there will be just the server parts of the current scp and the client code branches will be gone or support sftp only. But this can change as we are not there yet. > libcurl implements its own SCP client over libssh. Will this implementation > continue to work after OpenSSH gets updated on servers? With the above update, everything will work as before -- it affects only the client scp binary. > Applications often allow users to pass arbitrary URLs to libcurl. So one can, > for example, use scp:// URLs to specify a kickstart for Anaconda. The fact > that scp utility will be reimplemented over SFTP does not help much in this > case. Each build of libcurl that supports scp:// supports sftp:// as well. > But libcurl will not transmit scp:// requests over sftp:// in case SCP is not > supported by the remote server any more. As Simo wrote, I think it is something that will have to happen sooner or later inside of libcurl or libssh or in users configurations. But again, the above change should not have any effect on this. Regards, -- Jakub Jelen Senior Software Engineer Crypto Team, Security Engineering Red Hat, Inc.

3 3

BTFS - Raid1 for System Disk
by Jorge Fábregas 03 Nov '20

03 Nov '20

Hi everyone, I'm experimenting with Fedora 33 & BTRFS on VM for a setup I'd like to do in my desktop in the near future. I'd like to have my system drive with BTRFS on a RAID1 profile. I was experminenting with a simple / (root filesystem) subvolume but it appears GRUB2 can't work properly with it. I get the famous: "Sparse file is not allowed" during boot (and no way to access GRUB2 menu). It boots fine but I can't longer edit the GRUB2 menu during boot. Fine, I read somewhere that /boot wasn't allowed with BTRFS in Fedora? ok, I then tried to create a separate ext4 /boot partition (using Anaconda) but it created a mess (partition-wise) so I'm going to install it again with just one disk as /dev/vda1 for /boot and vda2 for BTRFS , then afterwards I'll copy partition tables to /dev/vdb, rsync /boot and balance to RAID1. I'd like my desktop to have a RAID1 setup for my main drive and be able to remove either disk and boot seamlessly. Is this possible with BTFS & GRUB2 these days? I tried to followed link [1] but it doesn't work with Fedora33. Does anyone know of any online guide to accomplish this with F33? Also , is it really necessary to have a separate /boot partition? Aren't there any workarounds? I'd like to keep stuff simple and have only BTRFS / & /home subvolumes. Thanks! -- Jorge

2 4

Install Fedora -
by Bob Goodwin 02 Nov '20

02 Nov '20

There must be some other way to install fedora than using "mediawriter?" I want to install a copy of fedora-33 on another drive and I would like to try a different method if someone can suggest one. Google has not helped ... -- Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA FEDORA-32/64bit LINUX XFCE Fastmail POP3

13 40

mkdir problem
by Frank Elsner 02 Nov '20

02 Nov '20

Hi, I need help as I don't understand my problem. I've a local directory [root@siffux misc]# ls -la total 4 drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 0 Nov 2 09:54 . dr-xr-xr-x. 21 root root 4096 Jul 7 13:28 .. drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 0 Nov 2 09:54 Media I don't understand [root@siffux misc]# mkdir Backups mkdir: cannot create directory ‘Backups’: Permission denied [root@siffux misc]#

2 2

FC33 won't upgrade
by ToddAndMargo 01 Nov '20

01 Nov '20

Hi All, My Fedora Test Virtual Machine (qemu-kvm) won't upgrade to 33 from, 32. I say it is upgrading then boot almost immediately back into FC32. # rpm --rebuilddb # rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest # dnf --enablerepo=* update --refresh --disablerepo=brave* # dnf install python3-dnf-plugin-system-upgrade # dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=33 --allowerasing --best --disablerepo=brave* # rpm --import /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-fedora-33-primary # dnf system-upgrade -v reboot --debugsolver And I forgot how to use --debugsolver to see what is going wrong. -T

4 16

systemd-resolved + adguard?
by Neal Becker 01 Nov '20

01 Nov '20

Since updating to f33 today, adguard stopped working. Any thoughts on how to configure a system to take advantage of both systemd-resolved and adguard (or similar)? Thanks, Neal

5 5

F32 => F33 Error: Transaction test error: [unseen space]
by Beartooth 31 Oct '20

31 Oct '20

Running ]# dnf system-upgrade download --refresh --releasever=33 --allowerasing gets me a transaction test error saying At least 674MB more space needed on the / filesystem. But gparted shows /dev/sda with 111.79 GB including 87.94 GB unused, and /dev/sdb1 with 1.8 TB, and only 4 MB used. Partitioning seems simple till I have to use it, and then immediately bewilders me. What do I have to do?? -- Beartooth Staffwright, Not Quite Clueless Power User Remember I know little (precious little!) of where up is.

7 7

Jump to page: