Re: configuring interface & configuring MTA time out
On 06/16/2012 02:04 PM, Camaleón wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2012 13:47:38 -0400, Gilbert Sullivan wrote:
>
>> On 06/16/2012 01:28 PM, Camaleón wrote:
>
>>>> Matthew pointed out that my use of netscript 2.4 is sort of
>>>> non-standard for a regular Debian desktop.
>>>
>>> (...)
>>>
>>> And he is right.
>>>
>>> The first thing I would do is removing that package if you don't need
>>> it at all (I don't have it installed, BTW, and running "apt-cache
>>> rdepends netscript" returns void so no other package seems to depend on
>>> it).
>>>
>>>
>> Well, I'm in the situation of not being sure whether or not it's a good
>> idea for me to remove netscript 2.4 and go back to ifupdown.
>
> You have to ask yourself if you really need that package in your system.
> I never heard of it before nor read about it is needed for running VB nor
> any other virtual machine :-?
>
Time for me to do some research, isn't it?
;-)
But I did NOT install netscript on purpose. In examining
/var/log/apt/history.log I can see that it was actually installed when
netbase was upgraded (on 05/19) from version 4.47 to version 5.0. This
is also when ifupdown was automatically removed!
I was assuming that netscript had been installed (and ifupdown removed)
because of virtualbox because networking VMs is one of the supposed
reasons why netscript is needed. But, apparently, aptitude took it upon
itself to make this change when netbase was upgraded.
I'm obviously going to have to do a LOT more digging to begin to begin
to understand these relationships.
>> Apparently, netscript was pulled in by virtualbox.
>
> You have to check this because at a first glance, I see no hard
> requirements for netscript to be pulled with virtualbox.
>
Yup, I was wrong, as I noted above. I made that assumption (about
virtualbox) because it was pointed out that netscript is sometimes
installed to make complex networking arrangements with virtual machines
possible.
I'm kind of working off the cuff this weekend. Lots of various problems
happening in one of those so-called "perfect storms" that beset the
unwary (like me) on occasion.
>> I installed that weeks ago so that I could do some testing of a couple
>> of other GNU/Linux operating systems, and also so that I could fire up
>> an old database analysis package in a DOS VM. If and when I actually
>> create them, I'm going to want to use networking for some of those VMs,
>> and I'm not sure how well that will work without netscript.
>
> It looks rather a complex package that integrates within your host
> networking settings so unless you really need it and you know how to
> configure to play nice with your current setup, I would ditch it.
>
> Sorry but if I had to choose between the host or the guest, first comes
> the host. And the network stack is vital for any system, it has to be
> solid as a rock and you have to know how to deal with it when things like
> this happen. If that's not the case, return to the well-known networking
> method.
>
Your point is well taken. Of course, I'm one of those guys who doesn't
really mind a little craziness now and then -- even if it compromises
his "productivity". Heck, I'm an old geezer. I'm lucky I can walk! Being
productive is just one of those nice-to-haves.
;-)
I may just hang in there with it as long as I have no serious problems
with it -- just in the interest of possibly learning something from the
experience. I can always fall back to the tried-and-true if need be.
>> Anyway, the previous version of netscript never seemed to cause me any
>> problems. It was the new one (version 2.4) that appears to have made
>> things go a little weird on this system.
>
> (...)
>
> Yes, it can be. But to my taste, the description¹ for that package leads
> me to think is not aimed for beginners (meaning: I would not install it
> in my systems unless I really really know what I'm doing :-P).
>
Hey, I'm a guy! The guys in my family have always LOVED fiddling with
stuff we don't understand, and having it blow up in our faces! I'm an
Alfred E. Neuman sort of guy, if you know what I mean.
> "(...) DON'T use this on a pure server - it is VERY useful for a Virtual
> Machine server with complex networking needs. This is because of its
> comprehensive network configuration capabilities. Thus it is a tempting
> replacement when you have to rip out NetworkManager on a server."
>
> It's scaring :-}
>
> ¹http://packages.debian.org/wheezy/netscript-2.4
>
I'm off to do some reading. It'll take me some time because of
conflicting claims on my attention and a brain with a two-bit data path.
I'll be forthcoming if I
a) learn anything, or
b) suffer any hilarious consequences of my choices.
I'm not sure which way I prefer things to go. Heh.
Best regards,
Gilbert
Reply to: