Discuss November 2005

discuss@lists.centos.org

232 participants
368 discussions

Re: [CentOS] [Fwd: [suse-amd64] OFF-TOPIC - *very* bad]
by Brian T. Brunner 15 Nov '05

15 Nov '05

Not a problem. I see it frequently. What's happening is that sudo doesn't ask for a password within "a few" of having gotten a good password. I have noticed that if I wait any significant period of time, I do get the challenge again. This is on CentOS 4, i686. Brian Brunner brian.t.brunner(a)gai-tronics.com (610)796-5838 >>> wam(a)HiWAAY.net 11/15/05 08:05AM >>> I saw this on the SuSE AMD64 list & decided to pass it along, since it seems like a sneaky problem. Later posts confirm it is *NOT* AMD64-specific, nor SuSE 9.3 specific .... -- William A. Mahaffey III --------------------------------------------------------------------- Remember, ignorance is bliss, but willful ignorance is LIBERALISM !!!! ******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated

1 0

RE: [CentOS] php version
by Ash Christopher 15 Nov '05

15 Nov '05

yum install php?? Maybe I am missing something. ________________________________ From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On Behalf Of Mark Quitoriano Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 9:54 AM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: [CentOS] php version How can i install php 4 on Centos 4? is there RPMs for centos 4? or can i use srpms(php4) of centos 3 to be used for centos 4? -- Regards, Mark Quitoriano, CCNA http://www.atamanetworks.com Fan the flame... http://www.spreadfirefox.com/?q=user/register&r=19441

7 11

other repositories question
by dan1 15 Nov '05

15 Nov '05

Hello. I would like to know how other repositories than the official ones for CentOS 4 affect an update of a package if a package is present in both repositories. Will yum install the package that it finds having the highest version number ? and if so, is there a mean to tell yum that we would like to keep the preference to one repository instead of the highest version number on a possibly other repository ? I ask that because I realise that having multiple repositories added to yum might mix up things if the packages placed there are compiled for newer versions, and even possibly create another system than CentOS by updating several main common packages. That would do something between a CentOS and a cAos distribution, is that right ? For example, I would like to use Dag Wieers' repos, but I am in fear that some mix up might happen if there are several same packages with different versions than the official CentOS ones (and is it possible to have same packages there? ). Thanks. Regards, Daniel

3 6

centos 4.x repo on mirrors
by Farkas Levente 15 Nov '05

15 Nov '05

hi, while all the centos 3.x release points to the 3.6 on all mirror sites, the 4.x series still has it's own directory. why are not these just links to 4.2? yours. lrwxrwxrwx 1 97 ftp 3 Nov 10 01:31 3 -> 3.6/ lrwxrwxrwx 1 97 ftp 3 Nov 3 21:01 3.1 -> 3.3/ lrwxrwxrwx 1 97 ftp 3 Nov 3 21:01 3.3 -> 3.4/ lrwxrwxrwx 1 97 ftp 3 Nov 3 21:01 3.4 -> 3.5/ lrwxrwxrwx 1 97 ftp 3 Nov 10 01:31 3.5 -> 3.6/ drwxrwxr-x 14 root root 4096 Oct 28 17:31 3.6/ lrwxrwxrwx 1 97 ftp 3 Nov 3 21:01 4 -> 4.2/ drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Jul 18 23:11 4.0/ drwxr-xr-x 2 root root 4096 Oct 21 19:54 4.1/ drwxrwxr-x 12 root root 4096 Oct 13 13:59 4.2/ -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

3 2

selinux stuff - I just don't get
by Craig White 15 Nov '05

15 Nov '05

I am getting tons of these messages since I updated to 4.2 Nov 12 12:21:39 srv1 dbus: Can't send to audit system: USER_AVC pid=2839 uid=81 loginuid=-1 message=avc: denied { send_msg } for scontext=user_u:system_r:unconfined_t tcontext=user_u:system_r:initrc_t tclass=dbus Now I can see this process... # ps aux|grep 2839 dbus 2839 0.0 0.3 16168 1888 ? Ssl Nov11 0:13 dbus- daemon-1 --system root 17173 0.0 0.1 3748 668 pts/2 S+ 12:22 0:00 grep 2839 but I'm wondering how do I fix selinux so that it doesn't 'deny' this? Thanks Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean.

13 39

RESOLVED YUM error "can't create transaction lock"
by James B. Byrne 15 Nov '05

15 Nov '05

I found the culprit. The original yum process from November 4th was stalled. I killed this and the lock problem has been resolved. -- *** e-mail is not a secure channel *** mailto:byrnejb.<token>@harte-lyne.ca James B. Byrne Harte & Lyne Limited vox: +1 905 561 1241 9 Brockley Drive fax: +1 905 561 0757 Hamilton, Ontario <token> = hal Canada L8E 3C3

2 1

Re: [CentOS] selinux stuff - I just don't get -- "outgoing firewallsare broken"
by Brian T. Brunner 14 Nov '05

14 Nov '05

> How's forever work for you? ;-> Absolutely FINE thank you! When your WizWonder package is housebroken, let me try it if I'm interested. Until then, a (stubbornly) broken distro will persuade me to try something else. That's why I left Windows, I guess, if you prognosticate correctly, it will be why I leave RedHat/CentOS. btw this has nothing to do with Firewalls at all. I bought a firewall (router) and use it. If I had to upgrade firewall firmware versions, and the new versions broke running applications, I'd consider the new firewall firmware BROKEN. As is, I don't mind SELinux, because I can disable it at installation time. I will continue to do so until it is no longer broken. Brian Brunner brian.t.brunner(a)gai-tronics.com (610)796-5838 >>> thebs413(a)earthlink.net 11/14/05 11:24AM >>> "Brian T. Brunner" <brian.t.brunner(a)gai-tronics.com> wrote: > How do we define Ready? I gave that answer in the text you > replied to: when it doesn't break things. How's forever work for you? ;-> NPTL, ANSI C++, GLibC 2 and many other adoptions Red Hat has made still break things. Heck, we're not even looking at recent things -- from 4K stacks to ACLs. ;-> > You ask about applications not being SELinux aware. The > proper things for SELinux to do in those cases is advise > the operator that SELinux can't manage this app because it > isn't SELinux aware, and that whatever security holes that > application embodies are outside the scope of SELinux. I think that's what the advisement is. You can start disabling some aspects of SELinux -- such as with permissive mode. > This is consistent with SELinux being a *service* to the > operator, not a bully-boss to the operator and the > authors/maintainers of every package Joe Operator might > have on his system. Actually, SELinux _is_ a "bully-boss" to the operator. It will _always_ be a "bully-boss" to the operator. > No, it doesn't. I think _many_ people other than myself have seen _many_ viewpoints on this issue. Why many people seem to think that there must be no less than an absolutism on SELinux until it accomplishes no less than the _impossible_ is beyond me. > It's about ownership of control. Is this RedHats' system > to break if they want to compel me to do things their way? Yes. And you have these options.. 1. Learn it and see if it fits 2. Put it into another mode (e.g., permissive) 3. Disable it 4. Look to another distro choice Red Hat has its reasons, and it's not going to change those reasons. Common Criteria is a major driver right now because of Linux can achive higher CC levels than Windows, while still running applications (which Windows virtually can_not_ do), then Microsoft will lose federal installations en masse. > If not, then distributing SELinux with a > default of 'on' when it breaks running systems is > distributing a broken software package. SELinux will _always_ break running systems. Just like a "deny all outgoing" firewall will too. > Translate: Everybody is out of step except my boy! > (and those who happen to be in step with him). Exactly! SELinux by default is here to stay if you choose Red Hat. > I say Broken, and Disabled for Good. Then that's your choice. Red Hat has made their default, but you still have choice. > The proper things for SELinux to do in cases of > non-compliant apps is to advise the operator that SELinux > can't manage this app because it isn't SELinux aware, and > that whatever security holes that application embodies are > outside the scope of SELinux. That's a *service*. You seem to fail to understand what SELinux does. ;-> > Breaking said applications is a broken application. Then add outgoing firewalls to the same list. Oh, you just turn an outgoing firewall off? Well then, that's your solution. ;-> I don't know if I could make a better analogy. -- Bryan P.S. SELinux is _not_ a service. It is an _enforcement_ in the kernel. There are hundreds of rules. Applications either learn to make SELinux considerations, help write rules, or a combination of both. SELinux is basically the biggest change to Linux in a long, long time -- breaking the 30+ year legacy UNIX model. -- Bryan J. Smith | Sent from Yahoo Mail mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org | (please excuse any http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ | missing headers) _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ******************************************************************* This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated

4 5

OpenMosix
by Alan Sparks 14 Nov '05

14 Nov '05

Anyone have any experience running OpenMosix on CentOS 3? Are you using a kernel custom built or from somewhere? Any maintenance headaches wrt kernel updates? Thanks in advance. -Alan -- Alan Sparks, UNIX/Linux Systems Integration and Administration <asparks(a)doublesparks.net>

1 0

RE: [CentOS] Rebuilding RPMs
by Bowie Bailey 14 Nov '05

14 Nov '05

From: Matt Hyclak [mailto:hyclak@math.ohiou.edu] > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2005 at 12:09:49PM -0500, Bowie Bailey enlightened us: > > From: Karanbir Singh [mailto:Mail-Lists@karan.org] > > > > > > Bowie Bailey wrote: > > > > I am trying to install the Cluster RPMS from rpm.karan.org. > > > > But since I have updated my kernel with yum, I have the wrong > > > > kernel for a couple of the packages. > > > > > > > > I think I can just grab the source RPM and do a rebuild, but > > > > having never attempted that before, I just want to make sure > > > > I'm not missing anything. (I have built RPMs from source > > > > tarballs, so I know how to setup the build environment) > > > > > > > > It looks like I can just do this: > > > > > > > > # rpmbuild --rebuild cman-kernel-2.6.9-36.0.src.rpm > > > > > > > > Is there anything else I need to do? > > > > > > > > > > Just simple rebuilds will work, you might need to work out what > > > order they are built in - and some pkgs like the cman-kernel > > > need a specified --target i686 passed in via the rpmbuild. > > > > Hmmm...no luck there. It still wants the older kernel. > > For the *-kernel packages, you'll have to rpm -i the src.rpm, edit > the spec file, and rebuild from that. Making progress here. One more question and I think I'll be done. I installed the source package and edited the spec file to change the kernel version and remove the fake-build-provides requirement (as I can't seem to find it and it appears to be safe to remove based on a previous conversation on this list). I still have a build requirement for the kernel-hugemem package. I don't have the hugemem kernel installed and I'm just trying to build the smp package. Is it safe to remove this dependency if all I care about is the smp package? $ rpmbuild -bb --target=i686 rpm/SPECS/cman-kernel.spec Building target platforms: i686 Building for target i686 error: Failed build dependencies: kernel-hugemem = 2.6.9-22.0.1.EL is needed by cman-kernel-2.6.9-36.0.i686 Thanks, Bowie

2 1

gd2 on Centos 3.6?
by Mike Kercher 14 Nov '05

14 Nov '05

I need to upgrade gd from 1.8 to 2.x, but can't find any rpm's to do so. If I try to rebuild a .src.rpm, I get into a dependency hell. Does anyone know how I can accomplish this upgrade without getting into a source install? Mike

2 1

← Newer
1
...
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
...
37
Older →

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss November 2005