Program terminated with signal 6, Aborted. #0 0x41050c14 in ?? () (gdb) bt #0 0x41050c14 in ?? () #1 0x41050a2c in ?? () #2 0x41050a2c in ?? () Previous frame identical to this frame (corrupt stack?)gdb, you are not helping me here.
apt-get --download-only dist-upgrade # grab pkgs at work
apt-get dist-upgrade # go home and do the dist-upgrade
apt-get dselect-upgrade # WTF?!? I had a lot of held-back pkgs?!?
# Seems dselect-upgrade is more aggressive...
apt-get install xserver-xorg # Funny apt-get tried to sneak away
# my xserver-xorg (I lost it after dist-upgrade)
aptitude dist-upgrade # Hmmm, perhaps even better than
# dselect-upgrade...
Today: (I ran out of Smart 3G prepaid credits last night :/)
apt-get update # Hmmm, apt's rather verbose lately
# with locales and stuff
apt-get install kubuntu-desktop # Heh, somehow I figured that was missing...
After all this, I seem to have a completely-upgraded Kubuntu system now (verified by doing dist-,dselect-, upgrade again,) despite the lack of a proper updating tool for Kubuntu (Ubuntu has its own Update Manager.) Still, FWIW I had to go through some hoops along the way (like all those multiple dist-upgrade invocations; I’ve done that before (twice) on the Breezy -> Dapper path, but thrice on Dapper -> Edgy? Just, wow…) but I got to learn some new stuff too (like pairing perlis and elric (my new 3G phone) via Bluetooth on the console.
However, if I was in a hurry, I would have just e2mkfs‘d my partitions and started over. But then again, would I have had to move from Dapper to Edgy if I wanted to do that install dance all over again?
Granted, the upgrade process needs some improvement: either elevate dist-upgrade’ capabilities to an even higher, godlike status, or make use of a different upgrader (dselect and aptitude does seem to have the upper edge’ compared to apt-get…)
I guess there’s still some advantage of me not following the Edgy development process too closely (SoC, getting a new job, and school makes such a busy mix /etc/fstab and a reboot, fixed that.
Update 2: Seems hibernate still doesn’t work (although suspend to RAM works absolutely fine.) A look of the resume process seems to show similarities between this bug, but I’ve yet to confirm.
# run command1 in background, and the sleeping killerNote: kill (the shell buildin) prints some error messages, which you should filter
command1 &
pid=$!
( sleep 60; kill $pid ) &
# other stuffs
command2
# wait command1
wait $pid
"Y-" < "Y'" < "-Y-" < "Y-"
--default-key and append an exclamation mark at the end of the key
ID.
This was in the gpg manpage, but nowhere near the documentation of
--default-key:
Note that you can append an exclamation mark (!) to key IDs or fingerprints.
This flag tells GnuPG to use the specified primary or secondary key and not
to try and calculate which primary or secondary key to use.
So, now I'm happy:
$ gpg --sign --default-key '797ebfab!'
You need a passphrase to unlock the secret key for
user: [...]
$ gpg --sign
gpg: signatures created so far: xx
Please enter the PIN
[sigs done: xx]
sysvinit. It separates jobs into different “run levels” and can either run a job when particular run levels are entered (e.g. /etc/init.d/rc 2) or continually during a particular run level (e.g. /sbin/getty).
The /etc/init.d/rc script is also based on the System V one (and is in the sysv-rc package), it simply executes the stop then start scripts found in /etc/rcN.d (where N is the run level) in numerical order.
Why change it?
Running a fixed set of scripts, one after the other, in a particular order has served us reasonably well until now. However as Linux has got better and better at dealing with modern computing (arguably Linux’s removable device support is better than Windows’ now) this approach has begun to have problems.
The old approach works as long as you can guarantee when in the boot sequence things are available, so you can place your init script after that point and know that it will work. Typical ordering requirements are:
/etc/fstab./etc/fstab may require tools in /usr which is a network filesystem that cannot be mounted until after networking has been brought up.
The two states shown in red (“waiting” and “running”) are rest states, normally we expect the job to remain in these states until an event comes in, at which point we need to take actual to get the job into the next state.
The other states are temporary states; these allow a job to run shell script to prepare for the job itself to be run (“starting”) and clean up afterwards (“stopping”). For services that should be respawned if they terminate before an event that stops them is received, they may run shell script before the process is started again (“respawning”).
Jobs leave a state because the process associated with them terminates (or gets killed) and move to the next appropriate state, following the green arrow if the job is to be started or the red arrow if it is to be stopped. When a script returns a non-zero exit status, or is killed, the job will always be stoped. When the main process terminates and the job should not be respawned, the job will also always be stopped.
As already covered, events generated by the init daemon or received from other processes cause jobs to be started or stopped; also manual requests to start or stop a job may be received.
The communication between the init daemon and other processes is bi-directional, so the status of jobs may be queries and even changes of state to all jobs be received.
How does it differ from launchd?
launchd is the replacement init system used in MacOS X developed as an “Open Source” project by Apple. For much of its life so far, the licence has actually been entirely non-free and thus it has only become recently interesting with the licence change.
Much of the goal of both systems appears initially to be the same; they both start jobs based on system events, however the launchd system severly limits the events to only the following:
/etc/fstab) is available and writable.
The launchd model expects the job to “sit and wait” if it is unable to start, rather than provide a mechanism for the job to only be started when it doesn’t need to wait. Jobs that need /usr to be mounted would need to spin in a loop waiting for /usr to be available before continuing (or use a file in a tmpfs to indicate it’s available, and use that modification as the event).
This is not especially surprising given that Apple have a high degree of control over both their hardware and the actual underlying operating system; they don’t need to deal with the wide array of different configurations that we have in the Linux world.
Had the licence been sufficiently free at the point we began development of our own system, we would probably have extended launchd rather than implement our own. At the point Apple changed the licence, our own system was already more suitable for our purposes.
How does it differ from initng?
Initng by Jimmy Wennlund is another replacement init daemon intended to replace the sysvinit system used by Linux. It is a dependency-based system, where upstart is an event-based system.
The notion of a dependency-based system is interesting to talk about at this point. Jobs declare dependencies on other jobs that need to happen before the job itself can be started. Starting the job causes its dependencies to be started first, and their dependencies, and so on. When jobs are stopped, if running jobs have no dependencies, they themselves can be stopped.
It’s a neat solution to the problem of ordering a fixed boot sequence and the problem of keeping the number of running processes to a minimum needed.
However this means that you need to have goals in mind when you boot the system, you need to have decided that you want gdm to be started in order for it, and its dependencies, to be started. Initng uses run levels to ensure this happens, where a run level is a list of goal jobs that should be running in that run level.
It’s also not clear how the dependencies interact with the different types of job, a dependency on Apache would need the daemon to be running where a dependency on “checkroot” would need the script to have finished running. Upstart handles this by using different events (“apache running” vs. “checkroot stopping”).
Again while interesting, Initng does not solve the problems that we wanted to solve. It can reorder a fixed set of jobs, but cannot dynamically determine the set of jobs needed for that particular boot.
A typical example would be that if the only dependency on the job that configures networking is the mount network filesystems job, then should that job fail or notbe a goal (e.g. because there are no network filesystems to be mounted) the result is that network devices themselves will not be configured. You could make everything a goal, and just use the dependencies to determine the order, however this is less efficient than just ordering the existing sysv-rc scripts (which
can be done at install time).
Another example is that often you simply don’t know whether something is a dependency or not without reading other configuration, for example the mount network filesystems may be a dependency of everything under /usr or may just be a dependency of anything allowing the user to login if it just mounts /home.
The difference in model can be summed up as “initng starts with a list of goals and works out how to get there, upstart starts with nothing and finds out where it gets to.”
How does it differ from Solaris SMF?
SMF is another approach to replacing init developed by Sun for the Solaris operating system. Like initng it’s a dependency-based system, so see above for the differences between those systems and upstart.
SMF’s main focus is serive management; making sure that once services are running, they stay running, and allowing the system administrator to query and modify the states of jobs on the system.
Upstart provides the same set of functionality in this regard, services are respawned when they fail and system administrators can at any time query the state of running services and adjust the state to their liking.
Will it replace cron, inetd, etc?
The goal of upstart is to replace those daemons, so that there is only one place (/etc/event.d) where system administrators need to configure when and how jobs should be run.
In fact, the goal is that upstart should also replace the “run event scripts” functionality of any daemon on the system. Daemons such as acpid, apmd and Network Manager would send events to init instead of running scripts themselves with their own perculiar configuration and semantics.
A system administrator who only wanted a particular daemon to be run while the computer was on AC power would simply need to edit /etc/event.d/daemon and change “on startup” to “on ac power”.
What about compatibility?
There’s a lot of systems administrators out there who have learned how Linux works already and will not want to learn again immediately, there’s also a large number of books that cover the existing software and won’t cover upstart for at least a couple of years.
For this reason, compatibility is very important. upstart will continue to run the existing scripts for the forseeable future so that packages will not need to be updated until the author wants.
Compatibility command-line tools that behave like their existing equivalents will also be implemented, a system administrator would never need to know that crontab -e is actually changing upstart jobs.
Does it use D-BUS?
“To D-BUS people, every problem seems like a D-BUS problem.” —Erik TroanThe UNIX philosophy is that something should do just one job, and do it very well. upstart’s one job is starting, supervising and stopping other jobs; D-BUS’s one job is passing messages between other jobs. D-BUS does provide a mechanism for services to be activated when the first message is sent to them, thereby starting other jobs. Some people have taken this idea and extended it to suggest that all a replacement init system need do is register jobs with D-BUS and turn booting into a simple matter of message parsing. This seems wrong to me, D-BUS would need to be extended to supervise these services, provide means for them to be restarted and stopped; as well as deal with being process #1 which means cleaning up after children whose parent’s have died, etc. It seems far simpler to arrange for D-BUS to send an event to init when it needs a service to be started, and focus on being a very good message passing system. The IPC mechanism used by upstart is not currently D-BUS because of various problems, however it’s always been expected that even if init itself doesn’t communicate with D-BUS directly, there would be a D-BUS proxy that would ensure messages about all init jobs and events would be given to D-BUS and D-BUS clients could send messages to init to query and change the state of jobs. What is the implementation plan? Because this is process #1 we are changing, we want to make sure that we get it right. Therefore instead of releasing a fully-featured daemon and configuration to the world, we’re developing it in the following stages:
/sbin/init while running the existing sysv-rc scripts. This is the shake-down test of the daemon, can it perform the same job as the existing sysvinit daemon without any regressions?/etc/rcS.d scripts replaced by upstart jobs. These consitute the majority of tasks for booting the system into at least single-user mode, and contain many of the current ordering problems and race conditions. If the daemon solves the problems here, it will be a success.upstart package for testing before it becomes the init daemon.
We welcome any experienced users who want to help test this; install the package and follow the instructions in /usr/share/doc/upstart/README.Debian to add a boot option that will use upstart instead of init. If your system boots and shut downs normally (other than a slightly more verbose boot without usplash running) then it is working correctly.
Other types of events will be added as required during development and testing. Currently only a basic client tool (initctl) has been written, compatibility tools such as shutdown will be written over the next week or two before it replaces our sysvinit package.
#!/bin/bash
testname="tuxpaint"
root_geometry= xprop -root _NET_DESKTOP_GEOMETRY cut -d= -f2
root_x= echo $root_geometry cut -d, -f1
root_y= echo $root_geometry cut -d, -f2
xc=$((root_x/2-1))
yc=$((root_y/2-1))
capture_tuxpaint ()
tuxpaint --startblank --nolockfile --lang $1 --640x480 --windowed --nosound &
sleep 1
xte "mousemove $xc $yc"
xte "mouseclick 1"
sleep 1
xte "key Escape"
sleep 2
import -silent -window "Tux Paint" $testname-$1.png
xte "mousermove -120 -40"
xte "mouseclick 1"
for lang in tuxpaint --lang help awk '$1~/^[[:lower:]]/ print $1 ' ; do
capture_tuxpaint $lang
done
I’m not entirely happy with it, but it’s at least a starting point. Ideally, I’d make .pat files to use with visgrep to find coordinates for the button images instead of hardwiring the approximate button positions. Also, the script needs a companion script to configure the system for testing (i.e. perform the locales configuration and install all fonts).
Here are the resulting screenshots which show up a few problems with the translations. It looks like the quit dialog strings have been updated since they were first translated, so now we need retranslation for several languages. Also, there are some languages, like Swahili and Klingon, for which there are no locales in glibc in Debian. I’ll have to talk to the glibc maintainers about that. And for that matter, I don’t even know if a DFSG-free Klingon font exists.
In any event, I’m delighted with the results, and look forward to using xautomation more for GUI testing.
1 For one thing, several languages require special fonts. For another, there is no way to get tuxpaint to tell you what locales it supports. Granted, there is --lang help, but this is a crude approximation, as the mapping between language and locale is arbitrarily hardwired (which hmh on #debian-devel irc pointed out to me is just plain wrong). It doesn’t help me at all in the arduous task of configuring glibc locales so I can test them. For that, I need to look at i18n.c.
2 I tried using xmacro at first, but xmacrorec just made my pointer jiggle back and forth. It seemed like it was updating the position for a short distance, and then X was resetting it back to the former position of the pointer. Some strange interaction with my window manager, perhaps? But ultimately I am happier with the xautomation approach anyway.
Next.