On Mon, 2 May 2005, Jiri Kosina wrote:
> This, among other things, means (when looking at the latest report), that
> 31 sites, if I count correctly, would be marked 'CT', even if everything
> else, apart from R-GMA, was tested as OK.
There again, from the user's point of view out of 28 sites that ran and
failed the test job 23 are presently advertising "R-GMA" as an installed
software environment: that's (roughly) a 25% chance of job failure because
of a misconfigured site. That's better than it was:
http://www.listserv.rl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind04&L=lcg-rollout&I=-3&P=426476
http://www.listserv.rl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind04&L=lcg-rollout&I=-3&P=437452
but it still seems to be a little high.
One positive effect of making R-GMA a critical test ought to be that
CICs/ROCs etc. should be pro-active in helping sites get it to work
(assuming they have the required expertise themselves!).
> I have posted many times questions regarding non-working R-GMA setup (I am
> using YAIM on RH 7.3 on both farms I manage, and I _never_ got R-GMA
> working, neither did I receive any helpful advice)
Undocumented feature warning: MON box is not supported on RH7.3!
http://www.listserv.rl.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A2=ind0504&L=lcg-rollout&I=-3&P=50695
I have managed to beat one into submission though - it boiled down to
making sure everything was looking at the right version of python.
Hth
Henry
--
Dr. Henry Nebrensky [log in to unmask]
http://people.brunel.ac.uk/~eesrjjn
"The opossum is a very sophisticated animal.
It doesn't even get up until 5 or 6 p.m."
