[Nut-upsuser] Return on experience with an Emerson/Liebert GXT3

[Charles Lepple]

On Oct 1, 2014, at 9:03 PM, paul.chavent at fnac.net wrote:

>> It should run as user "nut" in Debian. You may want to reinstall the nut-server package, and check the post-inst error messages to make sure that the "nut" user is created, and that it is in the "nut" group as well.
> 
> The user nut and the group nut have been created..

Ah, right, because you are using the Debian upsdrvctl with a hand-compiled driver. I would recommend copying the whole Debian ./configure line, including the part that sets the default user and group to "nut".
> 
>> Not sure that is where the "user" declaration is being parsed. upsdrvctl just passes arguments to the drivers via the command line (including "-u", although that is not read from the configuration file, but from upsdrvctl's command line).
> 
> https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/blob/master/drivers/upsdrvctl.c#L60
> 
> I'm quite sure that it is the place where the config file is parsed...

What I should have said is that upsdrvctl is not where the "user = " is being interpreted (although you are correct, it is parsed and ignored). I was thinking of this line in the driver core:

https://github.com/networkupstools/nut/blob/master/drivers/main.c#L295

> And the init script of the debian package don't explicitly append "-u nut" in wheezy. See the attached patch in my first message.

Since we don't ship that init file in the generic NUT source package anymore, that will need to be discussed with the Debian maintainers - probably at http://bugs.debian.org

>> Can you show us the exact configuration syntax you are using?
> 
> 8<-----/etc/nut/ups.conf------
> user = nut
> 
> [liebert]
>     driver = usbhid-ups
>     port = /dev/usb/hiddev0
>     productid = 0008
> 8<----------------
> 
>> There are some fixes that were added in 2.6.4 to try and work around incorrect exponents in the voltages. You can try starting the usbhid-ups driver directly, adding "-DDD" to see if any messages are logged about "assuming correction factor =". It could be that we did not cover all the different ways those values could be wrong.
> 
> Ok, i will give it a try.
> 
> Regards.
> 
> Paul.

-- 
Charles Lepple
clepple at gmail