Greetings Arnaud and others, I've been using NUT with Gentoo Linux for a couple of years now. I recently installed SUSE Linux 10.0 and I'm having difficulty getting it to recognize my UPS (MGE Ellipse). I tried the MGE-PSP package, but the GUI crashes immediately on startup. I decided to get just NUT running correctly before worrying about that. I uninstalled MGE-PSP and am left wtih the NUT 2.0.2-4 package from MGE. This thread from June/July 2005 shed some light on the problem: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/nut-upsuser/2005-July/000037.html For me, hotplug is not calling the libhidups script to the correct permissions on the USB device. If I fix it manually (e.g. by running "ACTION=add DEVICE=/proc/bus/usb/002/002 TYPE=usb /etc/hotplug/usb/libhidups"), NUT works fine. However, the permissions are reset on reboot. Same if I unplug and reconnect the USB cable, a new device is created with the wrong permissions (root:root/0644). I suppose I could write myself an init script to fix the permissions before NUT starts, but I'd rather just get hotplug to do what is expected of it. Any ideas? Thanks, Paul Mogren --------------------------------- Yahoo! Photos ? Showcase holiday pictures in hardcover Photo Books. You design it and we?ll bind it! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/nut-upsuser/attachments/20060113/1e3fe199/attachment.htm
2006/1/13, Paul Mogren <fkamogee@yahoo.com>:> > Greetings Arnaud and others, >Hi Paul, I've been using NUT with Gentoo Linux for a couple of years now. I recently> installed SUSE Linux 10.0 and I'm having difficulty getting it to > recognize my UPS (MGE Ellipse). > > I tried the MGE-PSP package, but the GUI crashes immediately on startup. I > decided to get just NUT running correctly before worrying about that. I > uninstalled MGE-PSP and am left wtih the NUT 2.0.2-4 package from MGE. >I also found a minor ABI incompatibility between glibmm 2.4 (linked with PSP) and 2.8 (shipped with suse 10) which lead to that crash. Simply rebuilding the packages on suse 10 did the trick... This thread from June/July 2005 shed some light on the problem:> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/nut-upsuser/2005-July/000037.html > > For me, hotplug is not calling the libhidups script to the correct > permissions on the USB device. If I fix it manually (e.g. by running > "ACTION=add DEVICE=/proc/bus/usb/002/002 TYPE=usb > /etc/hotplug/usb/libhidups"), NUT works fine. However, the permissions are > reset on reboot. Same if I unplug and reconnect the USB cable, a new device > is created with the wrong permissions (root:root/0644). > > I suppose I could write myself an init script to fix the permissions > before NUT starts, but I'd rather just get hotplug to do what is expected of > it. Any ideas? >quite franckly, I've searched and not found anything working fine. The only solution I've found, while waiting for better, is to start nut as root (to do this, I was really out of solution). This is a udev system, without the old hotplug support, and which seems broken to me. Anyhow, I've got to investigate and contact our (MGE) SuSE / Novell partner. I've just released these packages internally for qualification tests, so these should be out in about a week). Thanks for your report, Arnaud -- Linux / Unix Expert - MGE UPS SYSTEMS - R&D Dpt Network UPS Tools (NUT) Project Leader - http://www.networkupstools.org/ Debian Developer - http://people.debian.org/~aquette/ OpenSource Developer - http://arnaud.quette.free.fr/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/nut-upsuser/attachments/20060113/406dacc0/attachment.html
Apologies, I replied to author instead of the list. --- Paul Mogren <fkamogee@yahoo.com> wrote:> Date: Sat, 4 Feb 2006 19:43:28 -0800 (PST) > From: Paul Mogren <fkamogee@yahoo.com> > Subject: Re: [Nut-upsuser] SUSE 10.0 and MGE Ellipse > To: Peter Selinger <selinger@mathstat.dal.ca> > > Peter, > > /proc/bus/usb/BBB/DDD is not a symlink in the "ln > -s" > sense; that's why I quoted my usage of the term. It > appears as a regular file, which is correct for > libusb > access, though it pertains to a device. The file is > created by the SYMLINK directive in this udev rule: > > SUBSYSTEM="usb_device", PROGRAM="/bin/sh -c 'X=%k > X=$${X#usbdev} B=$${X%%%%.*} D > =$${X#*.}; echo bus/usb/$$B/$$D'", SYMLINK+="%c" > > What I observed is that appending > permissions-related > directives to that rule causes those permissions to > be > applied to the /dev/usbdevB.D device file, and not > to > the regular file at /proc/bus/usb/BBB/DDD. > > Thanks anyway > -Paul > > > --- Peter Selinger <selinger@mathstat.dal.ca> wrote: > > > Paul Mogren wrote: > > > > > > I spent some time on it this weekend. I > deciphered > > the > > > release note to mean we need to use udev rules > > and/or > > > the hwup mechanism. I tried with udev rules and > > got > > > close: I managed to write a rule that set the > > > permissions on /dev/usbdevB.D, in the same rule > > that > > > adds a "symlink" at /proc/bus/usb/BBB/DDD; > > however, I > > > had no success at setting the permissions on > > > /proc/bus/usb/BBB/DDD. > > > > Paul, > > > > are you saying that /proc/bus/usb/BBB/DDD is a > > symlink to > > /dev/usbdevB.D? > > > > In this case, the permissions on > > /proc/bus/usb/BBB/DDD are ignored, as > > symbolic links don't really have meaningful > > permissions or > > ownership. Trying to set the permissions of a > > symbolic link will > > update the permissions of the link target. Trying > to > > change the > > ownership of a symbolic link has the analogous > > effect, unless you use > > "chown -h". However, who owns a symbolic link has > no > > practical effect, > > as it is always ignored when trying to open or > > manipulate the link. > > > > In short, if the permissions of /dev/usbdevB.D are > > set correctly, > > everything should work, and you should not need > > anything more. > > > > -- Peter > > > > > __________________________________________________ > Do You Yahoo!? > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > http://mail.yahoo.com >__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com