Discuss May 2005

discuss@lists.centos.org

221 participants
344 discussions

java-1.4.2-sun-compat
by John Newbigin 23 May '05

23 May '05

This is not specifically a CentOS question but it relates to a problem I am having on CentOS-3. I though someone here might have come across something similar before. I use the JPackage provided java-1.4.2-sun-compat but it has recently switched arch from noarch to i586. Yum understandably refuses to upgrade this package. Should I bother with yum or just upgrade it manually? John. -- John Newbigin Computer Systems Officer Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies Swinburne University of Technology Melbourne, Australia http://www.ict.swin.edu.au/staff/jnewbigin

2 1

Nightly housekeeping/Logwatch periodically not running
by Chris Mauritz 23 May '05

23 May '05

I've noticed something strange with a 3.4 test box that is basically just sitting here in the lab. I've got it configured to forward me the Logwatch run (which seems to go off at 4:02am by default). Every couple of days, that logwatch run goes missing. I haven't really dug down to find out if the cron job is crapping out or if postfix is dropping the report on the floor. Is anyone else having this problem? It's a completely vanilla 3.4 system with all the latest patches on a single P4 3.4ghz machine. Otherwise, the system seems to be just dandy. It's quite speedy and has never given me an instant of trouble. *scratching my head* Cheers, C

2 1

segmantation fault
by Adrian Coman 22 May '05

22 May '05

Hi, On a CentOS4 I've updated kdelibs and everything that up2date has signaled me to, and now I get segmentation fault when running xmms (installed from the Centos4 dvd) and also when running gmplayer which is installed from DAG repository for EL4. Is anyone in my position or it's just me? Do you know why? Adrian

5 12

Centos4 and Typo3
by Blaž Bogataj 22 May '05

22 May '05

Hello, Does anybody use Centos4 and Typo3 as web portal? For all functionalities (graphic) of the portal Image Magick and GD Library must be installed. Are these packets already included in any packet of php... or not? If the answer is not, where can I found these two packets compiled for Centos? Or is there any other solution ? I'dont like to compile these packets, since I have to maintain them by myself. Thanks. Blaž

2 1

Re: [CentOS] Re: mplayer repository for CentOS
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 22 May '05

22 May '05

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists(a)hughesjr.com> > I don't know if I would call it FUD ... BUT, if repos are going to work > together, they have to use consistent names for packages, so that > versioning will work properly. Agreed. Red Hat really wants to see this with the greater Fedora Project, but I there is a long way to go and a lot of concessions still to be made. I don't blame anyone for the lack of consolidation. > Just for the record, using the Fedora Core library on CentOS-4 can be > problematic (and even DAGs repo, for that matter) ... in that both can > overwrite base CentOS libraries. I find as long as I align the versions correctly, and _only_ tap Fedora Extras and Livna.ORG (and _not_ Fedora Core), I haven't had an issue. > I would highly recommend that you use a includepkg= in your yum > configuration for any external repo (even things like centosplus). I am aware of such details. In many cases, I'm maintaining my own, internal repositories anyway for multiple systems. > Karanbir Singh is working on a rebuild of FC Extras that uses > functionality already in CentOS-4 and doesn't upgrade any packages > (unless required) that are part of the base centos. Since FC is not > CentOS, and there are differences in some libraries, I would > recommend Karanbir's repo over FC Extras (for CentOS-4). I don't > have the address of this site handy right now...I'm sure someone does. One thing I'm tiring of is the inconsistency between FC/RHL and RHEL. It's one thing that is looking better about SL and NLx every day. I'm waiting to see what Novell does with SL 10.x and NLx 10. > Just be careful when using any external repo, as it can replace things you > don't want. Exactly. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

5 5

Re: [CentOS] Re: mplayer repository for CentOS
by Bryan J. Smith 22 May '05

22 May '05

I think DAG made a good point that if the SPEC files are only written for the latest release of a distro, it's not a RPM, APT/YUM or repository issue. Being that he has far more experience than I in maintaining the same package for multiple versions, I guess I've been a bit ignorant of that viewpoint. -----Original Message----- From: Les Mikesell Date: 05-5-21 20:35 To: CentOS mailing list Subj: Re: [CentOS] Re: mplayer repository for CentOS On Sat, 2005-05-21 at 00:58, Dag Wieers wrote: > Bryan, that's more a apt/yum issue than it is a repository issue. If you > think repository maintainers should divide their repository in all > possible permutations of what people might want (and what > cross-requirements exist between these repositories), you have not > maintained a big repository. Do any of the yum-like tools have the ability to work at the src rpm level in addition to the binary ones? That is, could you maintain a a single repository of extra packages that work with a range of distributions/versions/libraries and have a tool automatically build them on the requesting system if a matching binary rpm didn't already exist? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Re: Hi, Bryan; was: Re: pronunciation? <snip> -- don't shoot the messenger ...
by Bryan J. Smith 22 May '05

22 May '05

From: Collins Richey > Sounds pretty religious-based to me. > IBM=bad > HP,Sun, RedHat, SCO=good. > OTOH, from some of your comments, Novell=better. Are you really that shallow? IBM is our partner, not our friend. Sun has its interests too, and has 5 different entities of focus, which vary. Red Hat is a tale of two companies, cut-throat business combined with GPL-analness (like Stallman on one side, Microsoft on the other - an unique balace). And Caldera-SCO post-May 2003 is no longer a software company, and as of their lobbying of Congress as of January 2004, they are basically condeming the right to digital assembly. There is no such thing as good/bad. Companies have their reasons for doing things. But what I can't stand is people like yourself holding different companies to different standards. Trust nothing but actual community donations - because everything else can change tomorrow. > You've provided plenty of one-liners in this discussion. I don't take the time to explain things for my health. In fact, most people complain about my verbosity. And this "summary" you provided is wholly inaccurate and not even relevant. > Plus there's the underlying religious belief, > at least that's how I've read it, that IBM's efforts to make money > are inherently suspect and/or evil No. You haven't heard a word I said. I have repeatedly said that Linux people should not be shallow, and confuse money with actual donations to the community. As I call it, it's the "Linux Quiz Show" and many people squabble over many things, but apparently if IBM does the same thing or even worse, people assume they can't be bad. SCO v. IBM resulted because of two companies - or bigger than the other. Sun has been repeatedly scrutinized for things that IBM does and few (outside of Linus and other developers) seem to question. Whatever people get all hussy about, the media reports, even if its levied unevenly. And boy to some Linux people seem to get all so political and "anti" all the time. > and RedHat's attempts to do the same are blameless and > praiseworthy. Please point me to the non-GPL compatible (let alone just non-GPL) software Red Hat develops! Stallman was brilliant, because after AT&T was broken up and could now sell UNIX, he _knew_ companies can change overnight. When Red Hat kills its GPL focus, then you will hear me point out the same deals. Until then, no matter what Red Hat does commercially, we benefit from what they do. Stallman's moral delima at the foundation of _several_ companies (not just Red Hat) - the ultimate savior from themselves. IBM is still heavily non-GPL and, again, the irony is that their GPL and even GPL donations still trail even Sun if you can believe that. Does that mean IBM is bad? I could care less about such a simplication! But IBM does have a history of destroying even GPL-centric companies when they see them as a threat. Sun and HP have a long history of standards - although IBM is improving in many areas, but still scary in others. After all, if I'm CEO of IBM, the patent king, I've gotta be careful. I hold any company to the same standard. I don't thin IBM is "bad" -- but damn if they are as "good" as many other companies - at least to date. But, again, companies can change overnight, so all we're left with is what they gave in GPL or GPL compatible software. And that's the _only_ standard that is consistent. I keep a watchful eye, and hold them to actual _community_ donations. No company should feel obligated, but Linux users need to be a little less "shallow" than bad/good. And they need to hold _all_ companies to the _same_ standard. So far, I see a lot of vendor/brand-name bigotry flying around that reminds me of the Windows world. > All of this has little to do with CentOS, and fortunately > CentOS isn't into the religion/blame game. Then leave it off the list in the first place. When I see a company demonized or slandered, while another is praised, it's typically based not on actual considerations of their donation to the community, but blind vendor alignments - the whole reason AT&T became a problem, then Microsoft, etc... Don't shoot the messenger, I'm not the one slamming companies. But when I see it, I will stop to point out what assumptions are incorrect. You can't get upset with me without getting upset with those that keep proliferating the vendor non-sense. So let us make it about GPL and GPL compatible software, and not consider the private lawsuits, or the non-GPL compatible (let alone proprietary) R&D. Let's just keep focused on the community, and not make the community a place where people trash companies off-the-cuff. Your simplification is noted as your inability to comprehence anything complex, such as the fairly limited history I have tried to provide on the companies you seem to love/hate so much. I don't trust any company, I only trust the source, and I only favor companies who donate the most GPL and GPL compatible source. Because it's the only thing that remains if and when they do change.

3 2

Re: [CentOS] mplayer repository for CentOS
by Bryan J. Smith 22 May '05

22 May '05

That Red Hat exited the desktop market. -----Original Message----- From: Collins Richey Date: 05-5-21 17:34 To: CentOS mailing list Subj: Re: [CentOS] mplayer repository for CentOS On 5/21/05, Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith(a)ieee.org> wrote: [ snips ] > ...Red Hat marketing to try to repair a lot of the damage that eWeek's > mis-quotes of Michael Tiemann did back in 2003. > An what might these misquotes and this damage be? I've done a little googling with those keywords and found nothing of interest. I haven't a clue what you're talking about. -- Collins Head teachers of the world unite: you have nothing to lose but the Start button. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

Re: Hi, Bryan; was: Re: pronunciation? <snip> -- don't shoot the messenger ...
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 22 May '05

22 May '05

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists(a)hughesjr.com> > IBM has since totally changed their thoughts with regards to GNU/Linux. Actually, their cut-off of Monterey had everything to do with their current change in strategy on Linux back in 2000+. Monterey was established before IBM's interest in GNU/Linux. After IBM realized that it could use an economical complement in Linux, it saw a Monterey/IA-64 version as a thread (this was before x86-64 established itself). Hence the result. > They (like RedHat) are still a business that needs to make money ... but > both they (and RedHat) are doing many things to make GNU/Linux much > better. But in actual "meat" -- HP, Red Hat and even Sun have done far more for GPL GNU/Linux. IBM's support has been sporadic, and heavily non-GPL. Now I _have_ noted a few of their kernel contributions, and their 500 patent donation actually made me rethink my stance. But still, in comparison to even Sun, they are anemic. Especially when they yanked support for Linux on their desktops and notebooks, even at the height of their involvement. HP and even Sun have expanded in comparison. Right now IBM's involvement has been limited to certain, enterprise-specific considerations. And even their Java has not been anywhere near GPL -- not even SWT. > Would they rather you buy their hardware and software, yes (ie, AIX). > Would they rather you ran Linux on their Hardware, if you were going to > run it (vice on HP), yes. But they are actually preventing clients from going with another vendor by contract. In reality, IBM is no better than what Caldera-SCO is now doing, and IBM has actually been the "master" in that approach. > But the fact remains that IBM is put more money into Linux than > anyone else. That's the "Linux Quiz Show" I'm talking about. You're tuning in for the money, not the substance. Maturing your own product line and not sharing your developments is what IBM is doing, not HP, Red Hat or even Sun. And in most cases, IBM's licenses are no better than Sun's -- let alone IBM has not even matched 1/10th of the GPL donations of HP, Red Hat or Sun. That's what I'm talking about. > IBM is a founding member and large donor to OSDL ( http://www.osdl.org > ) ... which employs Linus Torvalds and Andrew Morton (among others) to > do Linux kernel work exclusively. And that's one of the very few highlights of IBM. They have also helped out LPI tremendously. But when it comes to actual donations and endeavors, they are very, very, _very_ proprietary. IBM's entire solutions are built upon proprietary tiers with little-to-no standards, whereas HP and Sun are at least "open standard," and HP's frameworks are increasingly open source based (with heafty donations). What I'm trying to say here is that IBM is offering "vendor lock-in" no different than Microsoft from a solutions standpoint, which matches the fact that they are porting their proprietary software to Linux and leaving it proprietary. Other than some community endeavors like OSDL, support of LPI, their entire Linux effort is 98% proprietary, and most of the remaining 2% is not "GPL compatible." While I appreciate IBM's efforts, I really find it ironic that people don't hold IBM to the same standards as Sun or Red Hat. And when it comes to a leading R&D company that is also a tier-1 OEM, HP is far more of a community donator than IBM. IBM has only stood behind the GPL when it has favored them, like in the Caldera-SCO lawsuit (although I admit their legal team _does_ seem to "get" the GPL, and are using it well in the lawsuit). > They also employ Andrew Tridgell (samba creator). Where is Linux > without OSDL and IBM? Many companies are involved with OSDL. It's not just IBM. In fact, last time I checked, HP and Red Hat were also heavily involved. I know Sun is now participating (although I'm sure no where near the other 3). In fact, Red Hat has continually been the company that has solved many GPL issues when the have arisen, instead of just complaining about them. E.g., Qt/KDE -- instead of fighting it, they created GNOME. The new Java reliance on OpenOffice.org 2.0? Red Hat has been the catalyst for renewed GCJ development. > Whatever people want to talk about is fine with me :) Same here. But I don't want people complaining about my posting factual information in response to snide comments. They can ignore it if they don't like it. If you embrace it, I think you'll find why I get a lot of the work I do as a Linux architect all over the US. Because I don't demonize companies and products with 1-liners. I explain their strategies and their technologies in a very technical and legal way. Trust me, I don't know how many times I've gone into a client and the one business developer or mid-executive who has veto'ed every other consultant finally gives his approval to the technical leads. Because he knows I'm not going to take the company down a religious-based solution. I'm going to architect a solution that is about mitigating risk, and factoring in the vendor interests into minimizing that risk. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

2 1

Re: mplayer repository for CentOS
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 22 May '05

22 May '05

From: William Warren <hescominsoon(a)emmanuelcomputerconsulting.com> > considering the FUD fedora talks about mixing repositories. It's not FUD, it's an issue with Debian as well. >From what I've seen, for the most part, as long as you pick one or the other repository, you're okay. E.g., either DAG or FE+Lorg. One of the reasons for the greater Fedora Project (outside of the Fedora Core name change and trademark issues) was the continued sprawling of repositories. Fedora Extras was supposed to address this, but even I'll admit that it seemed a little too much "you're on your own" in the first 18 months of its existance. I.e., the former U of Hawaii Fedora Project didn't do much to help anyone but their own, existing project set, and the new Livna.ORG repository fork (for legal reasons). But as of this year, there is now a formal submittal process. And being a software engineer myself with a lot of experience in formal lifecycle and testing, I kinda prefer the quality I see out of Red Hat's regression and other testing. Maybe it's because I had horrors with FreshRPMS before I switched to Fedora.US (before Red Hat's involvement), and instantly saw many issues go away. But FE/Lorg seems to have everything I want. Only a couple times have I tapped DAG, and then I only did it temporarily in my APT/YUM files to avoid "repository mixing" issues anytime I did an upgrade later. BTW, just so everyone know, this e-mail was _not_ to argue the merits of "which repository is better / sucks." I was just interested in finding out if anyone is like me, tapping FE/Lorg, or if most everyone is just using DAG. That's all. I might try a few systems under test and see how it all goes. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

6 7

← Newer
1
...
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
...
35
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss May 2005