[CentOS] OT: New article: Let's block cracker using denyhosts
Craig White
craigwhite at azapple.comFri Mar 31 01:10:25 UTC 2006
- Previous message: [CentOS] OT: New article: Let's block cracker using denyhosts
- Next message: [CentOS] Interesting story re CentOS
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 05:12 +0700, Fajar Priyanto wrote: > On Friday 31 March 2006 12:12 am, Craig White wrote: > > the thread on the fedora-list has pointed out that the denyhosts rpm > > packaging by rpmforge is deficient when compared to the packaging done > > in fedora extras which correlates to all the extra steps necessary in > > your write up. > > > > you might want to... > > > > 1 - provide a suggestion to rpmforge of the post-install scripts used in > > the spec file of the fedora-extras packaging so rpmforge does the same > > > > 2 - provide a suggestion to rpmforge that they remove the fedora-core 4 > > & 5 packages since fedora-extras is packaging them already and there is > > a conflict > > I'm sure Dag is monitoring this list. By the way, is it ok to use FC package > in Centos? How far is the compatibility? Or is it that we shouldn't use it at > all for the sake of security and stability? ---- you got me there. I know that dag's package is a noarch package and it is AFAICT just python scripts so I don't know why the fedora package is labeled arch specific. Probably should ask Tibbits on that. Craig
- Previous message: [CentOS] OT: New article: Let's block cracker using denyhosts
- Next message: [CentOS] Interesting story re CentOS
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
More information about the CentOS mailing list