On Mon, 28 Jul 2003, Junichi Tanaka wrote:
> Dear Emanuele,
>
> To install RPMs for the LCFG server,
> I just used "installpackage-ngserver73" command.
> So this command seems to select the latest version to
> install RPMs, that is, this command dose not use
> lcfgng-server-rpm.h.
This has been a common problem for lots of people, is it
worth asking WP4 to make update-serverside more intelligent
and actually read a list of rpms to install?
Steve
>
> Anyway I will check the version of all RPMs.
>
> Best Regards,
> [log in to unmask]
>
> From: Emanuele LEONARDI <[log in to unmask]>
> Subject: Re: se-cfg.h
> Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:52:11 +0200
>
> > Dear Junichi,
> >
> > the version for edg-lcfg-seinfo-defaults-s1 listed in the
> > lcfgng-server-rpm.h file in the lcg1 CVS repository is
> > edg-lcfg-seinfo-defaults-s1-2.0.1-edg1 and corresponds to the analogous
> > version listed in the lcfgng-client-component-rpm.h file, i.e.
> > edg-lcfg-seinfo-2.0.1-edg1.
> >
> > As a general recommendation, we would prefer all sites to use exactly
> > the same rpm versions as those listed in the lcg1 CVS repository.
> >
> > In this specific case, though, the EDG SE configuration is still in a
> > "work-in-progress" state, so I am pretty sure that most of the SE
> > functionalities in the tag we published are either broken or
> > ill-configured. If you have good reasons to stay with your current
> > version 2.0.2, feel free to do so. Only:
> >
> > a) make sure that you also update the version in
> > lcfgng-client-component-rpm.h
> > b) move from the SARoot to the SARoot_alice syntax in your config files
> > (you have already done this)
> > c) keep in mind that you are misaligned with the other sites when
> > checking and comparing problems in the SE configuration area
> >
> > Hopefully, we will get a more "correct" tag from EDG and the LCG
> > certification&test group very soon, and most of the SE rpms will be
> > updated.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Emanuele
> >
> > Junichi Tanaka wrote:
> > >
> > > Dear Emanuele,
> > >
> > > From: Emanuele LEONARDI <[log in to unmask]>
> > > Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 10:00:58 +0200
> > > >
> > > > Going through the seinfo definitions in
> > > > /usr/lib/lcfg/defaults/server/seinfo-1.def on the LCFGng server, I see
> > > > that SARoot is defined as a simple value which by default is set to "/".
> > > > This is consistent with the way it is used by the object in
> > > > /etc/obj/seinfo.
> > > >
> > > > Please make sure that the rpm edg-lcfg-seinfo-defaults-s1-2.0.1-edg1 is
> > > > installed on the LCFGng server and edg-lcfg-seinfo-2.0.1-edg1 is
> > > > installed on the SE node.
> > >
> > > At our LCFGng server:
> > > [lcgadmin@dglcfg0 RPMS]$ rpm -qa|grep seinfo
> > > edg-lcfg-seinfo-defaults-s1-2.0.2-edg1
> > >
> > > So 2.0.2 not 2.0.1.
> > >
> > > Best Regards,
> > > [log in to unmask]
> > >
> > > > Junichi Tanaka wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear all,
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a question about se-cfg.h.
> > > > > When I did "mkxprof -v -r -s -S. our-se",
> > > > > I met a "SARoot" problem in line 77 of se-cfg.h:
> > > > >
> > > > > seinfo.SARoot /
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't understand LCFGng in detail but
> > > > > this may not be consitent with the definition of
> > > > > "/usr/lib/lcfg/defaults/server/seinfo-1.def".
> > > > >
> > > > > So I commented out this line and then I added
> > > > > seinfo.SARoot_alice /
> > > > > seinfo.SARoot_atlas /
> > > > > seinfo.SARoot_cms /
> > > > > seinfo.SARoot_lhcb /
> > > > > seinfo.SARoot_dteam /
> > > > > to se-cfg.h.
> > > > >
> > > > > Is it correct?
>
--
Steve Traylen
[log in to unmask]
http://www.gridpp.ac.uk/
|