Discuss May 2005

discuss@lists.centos.org

221 participants
344 discussions

Package dependancy
by Kyle Gordon 30 May '05

30 May '05

Hey folks, I'm running CentOS4 (excellent work btw :-) here, and have apt installed and configured to pull from http://apt.sw.be/redhat/el4/en/i386/ It's all working swimmingly, other than when I try to install nagios-plugins, whereupon it bails out looking for perl(Net::SNMP) Am I missing a repository here, or has something gone amiss with dependancies? Regards Kyle

3 4

real used RAM!
by israel.garcia＠cimex.com.cu 30 May '05

30 May '05

List, I've installed my CentOS Server running progress 9.1D database system, with only 15 users working every day, this server has 2GB RAM, so, my question is: Why the 2GB of RAM is always used? Even with only one user connected... How can I messuare the real RAM MEM used by my system split in proccess? Is there another tools which I use to compare the results from top. Or vmstat? Regards, Israel

5 4

PostgreSQL/SELinux Error - relation "pg_catalog.pg_user" does not exist
by Matt Arnilo S. Baluyos (Mailing Lists) 30 May '05

30 May '05

hello everyone, i'm trying to run a postgresql service on my newly-installed centos4 box. i have been able to recreate my users, set up the permissions, and restore the database dump. also, i can already log-in to my databases. there is, however, one annoying problem. whenever i type \du (or \d or \l) on the psql prompt, i get the following error: ERROR: relation "pg_catalog.pg_user" does not exist after some googling, i'm beginning to suspect that this is a SELinux issue. i then try to disable SELinux on the postgresql daemon by doing: # setsebool postgresql_disable_trans true that does not work unfortunately as i'm still stuck with the same error. while i can definitely just disable SELinux on this box, i would want a more elegant solution that solves this annoying problem. can anyone help me on this? thanks in advance! matt -- Stand before it and there is no beginning. Follow it and there is no end. Stay with the ancient Tao, Move with the present.

12 27

VPN
by Simone 30 May '05

30 May '05

Hi list, I am trying to create a VPN between two different locations. On the first location we have a cisco pix 525 Natting the internal 192.168.100.x network, while on the second location we have a Centos3 box Natting via iptables the internal 192.168.10.x netowrk. My goal is to connect this 2 over the internet via IPsec. I created the IPsec Net2Net via the network configuration graphic tool, and I configured the cisco following the howto http://www.johnleach.co.uk/documents/freeswan-pix/freeswan-pix.html . From my understanding, I should have an ipsec0 network device showing up, so that I could route all traffic from 192.168.10.x directed to 192.168.100.x through it. The thing is that when I try to ifup ipsec0 I get the following errors: modprobe: modprobe: Can't locate module ripemd160 modprobe: modprobe: Can't locate module cast128 modprobe: modprobe: Can't locate module lzs modprobe: modprobe: Can't locate module lzjh So, after googling and reading a lot with no success, I would like to ask for advice on this, and successfull story :). I really need to have this VPN running, and I am not tied to this one solution only, linux-to-linux VPN, openVPN or anything else you could suggest would be great. Thanks in advice Simone

4 6

Re: [CentOS] Re: CentOS and SL, together? -- attributing statements to me (that I didn't make)
by Bryan J. Smith 30 May '05

30 May '05

There's nothing like asking someone to "give it a rest" while taking the opportunity to make fun of them. Lucky for you (and the list), I can laugh at myself, because I can seem comical at times. But in all seriousness, just remeber to hold us all to the same standard. And we are all responsible for what we say and how we say it, and I'll never claim to be better than the worst of the list. If anything, I'm the one who draws them out from time to time, because I'm the one who occassionally gets sick of the rheotic so I'll challenge them. And an annoying thread results, as I'm sure many found it to be. Otherwise, your statements are noted to be a fairly accurate portral of myself. And I'm sure my over-use of underline emphasis won't be the only thing that offends many sometime in a future thread as well. ;-> -----Original Message----- From: Chris Mauritz Date: 05-5-29 23:23 To: CentOS mailing list Subj: Re: [CentOS] Re: CentOS and SL, together? -- attributing statements to me (that I didn't make) Bryan J. Smith wrote: >From: Dag Wieers > > >>Bryan, stop generalising and dramatising. >> >> > >What dramatising? At some point, several people decide that anything they dislike was said by me. >Several other people said far more negative comments about CIPE than myself > > How about just giving it a rest? Your comments are often abrasive. Fortunately, there is also some good information sprinkled in there for people who can overlook the attitiude (or challenged social skills). Finding some happy medium where you express your opinion without insulting the people you're trying to "help" would be a good thing. You do get bonus points for the profuse usage of underlining in your posts though.... Can't we all just get along???? _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

OSCAR for Centos vote
by Morten Kjeldgaard 30 May '05

30 May '05

Those of you who would like to see Centos on the supported-list for the clustering software OSCAR, head over to http://oscar.openclustergroup.org/register and cast your vote! Cheers, Morten -- Morten Kjeldgaard, Asc. professor, Ph.D. Department of Molecular Biology, Aarhus University Gustav Wieds Vej 10 C, DK-8000 Aarhus C, Denmark Lab +45 89425026 * Mobile +45 51860147 * Fax +45 86123178 Home +45 86188180 * ICQ 27224900 * http://www.bioxray.dk/~mok

4 4

Re: CentOS and SL, together? -- the _real_ history of Red Hat Linux support
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 29 May '05

29 May '05

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell(a)gmail.com> > Here's a classic example: somewhere in the updates of RH 7.2, > the apache DSO module for mod_perl was finally compiled with > the correct options and became usable as shipped so people > running web sites with it no longer had to recompile apache > with mod_perl included statically. This was also supplied > in the 7.3 release. Unfortunately it broke again when RH 8.0 > moved to apache 2.0 but that's beside the point - or perhaps > it was the beginning of the new era. Yes, it's a ".0". We've been through this. At this point, I could care less what you think of the 2-2-2, 6-6-6 model. I _never_ said it's the "best." I just said that many of us believe it's the best we know of, and several vendors agree. > What, in fedora, is ever going to be equivalent of that > RH 7.2 -> RH 7.3 transition where features weren't exactly > frozen but there was a focus on getting existing things > right without introducing new problems. First off, I've been very critical of Red Hat's decision to drop revisions as of RHL8.0->9. But, Fedora Core 1 was pretty much the ".2" from Red Hat Linux 9, the ".1" from Red Hat Linux 8.0, the ".0" There were _some_ "sanity checks" in Fedora Core 1, but it was pretty much a "drop in" for Red Hat Linux 9. That's why I call them in my configuration management system: CL3.0: Red Hat Linux 8.0 CL3.1: Red Hat Linux 9 CL3.2: Fedora Core 1 Then Red Hat changed things with CL4.0, Fedora Core 2. But then they matured in CL4.1, Fedora Core 3. Now I wish Red Hat would have used a revision to warn us that Fedora Core 2 was a ".0" -- but it was well known that they were switching the kernel, among other things common to ".0" (like SELinux, udev -- although not totally until FC3, etc...). The reality here is that Red Hat _must_ continue to keep something aligned with the 2-2-2, 6-6-6 model in Fedora Core's development. So far, they have pretty much done this. Fedora Development-Test-Core replaces Red Hat Rawhide-Beta-Linux. Fedora Core _continues_ to hit a 6 month release schedule, just like Red Hat Linux before it (with exception of the "switchover" from Red Hat Linux 10 to Fedora Core 1 -- which added 2 months). There was basically a "maturity" in Fedora Core 1 beyond Red Hat Linux 9, which several things fixed in Fedora Core 1 also being applied in RHEL 3 updates. Fedora Core 4 hasn't been released yet, but it looks to be a CL5.0, which several changes (e.g., GCC 4.0). I wish Red Hat would stick with GCC 3.4 for one more release, and making it a CL4.2, and then change GCC in Fedora Core 5 (which would be CL5.0). But the quality of Fedora Core is reduced, it _will_ affect RHEL. Red Hat knows this, although I think the lack of revisions starting with Red Hat Linux 9 is starting to cause some concern. I'm one of the people that has been vocal on this. So don't you assume for a moment that I am not critical of Red Hat. In fact, I'm using Novell 9-10 / SuSE 9-10.x as an example that there is _no_reason_ Red Hat shouldn't be using revisions on Fedora Core. > No one here is interested in SLA's, or we wouldn't be having this > discussion on the mail list of a distribution that doesn't offer them. But the discussion is _why_ CentOS doesn't have this or that. This is what I mean by "ignorance" -- people don't stop to realize that it's based on RHEL, several maintainers have stated it will continue to be based on RHEL, and RHEL is SLA-focused, completely. Because Red Hat _does_ take owernship of anything it ships with it. > We just want a product that mostly works and isn't too far behind > the developers. Then if you're talking anything Red Hat developed, then you want Fedora Core. What I designate as CL4.1, Fedora Core 3, is _very_ _stable_ IMHO. Of course CL4.0, Fedora Core 2, was not, and I avoided it. And yes, I sure wish Red Hat would re-introduce versioning in the Fedora Core releases, after that stopped with Red Hat Linux 9. > Come on - I would have guessed that you still had some RH 7.3 boxes > in production too. Or do you only work with companies that will > pay for vendor support on everything? First off, Red Hat Linux 7.3 is _still_ supported by Fedora Legacy. But that's not the point here. The point is _please_ show me any release that Red Hat supported for 4 years other than Red Hat Linux 6.2 and Red Hat Linux 7.3? Pretty much Red Hat's unofficial history has been "support the last .2 release for 2 years, drop most of the .0/.1 releases." Red Hat's unofficial policy has _never_ been to support Red Hat Linux releases a long time. When Red Hat Linux 8.0 came out, and Red Hat Linux 6.2 dropped, Red Hat was also going to drop Red Hat Linux 7, 7.1 and was considering 7.2. All of the sudden, people bitched and moaned. Why? Because a lot of companies had standardized on Red Hat Linux 6.2 nad Red Hat Linux 7.1. And that's when this whole "myth" of Red Hat supposedly supporting .0/.1 releases for 2+ years began, let alone .2 releases for seemingly forever. The reality is that people had sold companies on the fact that Red Hat was Microsoft, and 5+ years support was going to be maintained so they could get Linux in companies. That was _never_ true. So when bosses started questioning why, the buck was passed onto Red Hat. In fact, Red Hat _rarely_ did it more than 2 years for a ".2" release. E.g., the second Red Hat Linux 7 came out, Red Hat dropped 5.2 -- and they had dropped 5.0 and 5.1 well before that (by Red Hat Linux 6.1). At various points of Red Hat Linux 7.x releases, they started dropping Red Hat Linux 6.x releases. But by the time Red Hat Linux 8.0 came out, Red Hat Linux 6.2 and 7.1 were so widely adopted, people didn't want to budge. The old, unwritten rule of upgrade to the last .2/.3, and the previous version's .2/.3, was no longer being accepted by users when Red Hat Linux 8.0 came out. They expected Red Hat to support there distros longer -- a total _waste_ at bugfixes for 7 simultaneous revisions. Which is why the new 1 year support policy was announced -- over 18 months _before_ the Fedora Project was announced. Now Red Hat continued to support Red Hat Linux 7.3, because it was the "last .3," but they wanted a blanket policy of "don't expect us to support it more than one year." That's always been their "underpromise, overdeliver." They just wanted people to stop expecting them to do things they _never_ did. I still can't believe people still proliferate things they _never_did_ do before they introduced Red Hat Linux 8.0. Companies that want a 5+ year supported distro need to pay for RHEL. And those same consumers were the ones already complaining that Red Hat Linux was "too experimental." Hence the SLA ownership. Now, after all this, am I just an asshole? Or am I merely trying to explain the realities of Red Hat's _real_ history? People who believed that Red Hat would support .2/.3 releases more than 2 years, or every little .0/.1 release more than 1 year were lying to themselves. Red Hat never ran into that _until_ they tried to introduce Red Hat Linux 8.0 and drop support for at least 6.2, 7 and 7.1, as well as 7.2 now that 7.3 had been out. Not even SuSE promised to support their releases more than 2 years, and have typically fallen short. And only the Debian project seems to have a history of support on-par with Red Hat (but they also aren't as adopting as Red Hat simultaneously either). So, when is this going to end? When I've decided to live in this "When Red Hat was 'good'" fantasy that many others seem to live in? -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

2 1

Re: CentOS and SL, together? -- attributing statements to me (that I didn't make)
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 29 May '05

29 May '05

From: Collins Richey <crichey(a)gmail.com> > I roll my eyes when I hear how good and great and all-virtuous > RedHat is, On GPL. That's all. On GPL. IBM is praised while HP, Red Hat and Sun are demonized. Companies have their agendas, and we need to be _cautious_. But one thing remains: Stallman's Moral Delima Which means that the only thing that matters in the end is GPL. As long as Red Hat is a 100% GPL company, nothing else matters. Same deal with IBM. If they go 100% GPL, I'll love them too. Heck, I'd just be happy if they'd drop the CPL and IPL on their donations. They virtually have no GPL, at least Sun can claim some major ones. > and I roll my eyes when I hear some of the complaints about > RedHat. As is always (at least since the time of ancient Greece) the > case, somewhere in the middle lies truth. I'm just thankful that > CentOS makes the RedHat software with all its benefits AND warts > available to a wider audience. Agreed. Did I ever disagree with that? > I'm essentially a believer in FOSS. I prefer to use the term Freedomware, which doesn't need a definition to those not familiar. ;-> > I would never purchase a shrink-wrapped RedHat were it still available, > nor do I have any need for an SLA, As is your choice. No one at Red Hat is forcing you to do so. Tiemann basically said in not so few words that they don't want you as a consumer, only possibly a user of Fedora Core if you wish. > but I'm very thankful that RedHat fully subscribes to the GPL and makes its > SRPM's available. Which is why, taking everything else away because it's "subjective" to many people from different views, is why Red Hat is a "friend" and not so much of a "partner." > As a wiser person than I said in another post, it doesn't help much to > tell someone who is used to having a particular feature that he can't > have that any more and why. Of course it does. If they would have looked at early Fedora Core 2 development, they would have known what to expect. Then they would have known what to tell their clients, and how to come up with a solution that minimizes risk to existing operations. Blaming Red Hat for something outside their control does nothing. Or should I put it this way, if you _complain_ about something, there is nothing wrong with someone else explaining why you shouldn't. You can't complain about me trying to explain things any more than someone who is just complaining in the first place. > Even less does it help to tell that person that he is an ignorant fool I reserved the word "ignorant" until it got to the point that they just didn't care why, how or how to accommodate such very likely and similar changes in the future. At some point, if you choose to be ignorant, you are only hurting yourself. > and better off without that feature. I _never_ said he was "better off without that feature." I *NEVER* SAID THAT! At least 2 _other_ people did, as well as the Red Hat rationales. I never said either way whether CIPE was good or bad -- I _purposely_avoided_ doing so! This is what I really _hate_ about these lists. All of the sudden, _anything_ negative said by _anyone_ in a thread is attributed only to me -- and I'm the focal point for 100% of what people don't like. REGARDLESS IF I SAID IT OR NOT! 100% GETS PUT ON MY NAME! At this point, you are not bothering to accurate listen to what I actually said. There is a "method to my madness" and I'm pretty darn ethical in my approach. And that includes _reserving_opinion_ of whether or not something should or should not be included. And just trying to understand why decision are made by others. It's funny, people say I don't try to look at something from someone else's viewpoint. I'm quite the opposite. Whether it's a client, vendor or individual, I step into their shoes. In fact, one of the reasons I try to explain things is so people don't fall into the same assumptions again. Because assumptions are the biggest problems of all. And I really think some people would rather hate than to stop and be tolerant of people and projects who typically don't have the same focus as they. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

2 1

Re: [CentOS] Re: centos] Re: Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- WAS: Hi, Bryan
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 29 May '05

29 May '05

From: R P Herrold <herrold(a)owlriver.com> > Bryan - Please don't overstate this and make a problem where > none exists. There is an infinity of choices of which you > list three ... > Nor does one _have_ to 'get involved' with either the > RH-Fedora or Centos project to do effective distribution > building, or add-on packaging. There are independent > packagers who have packaged for years and years outside of > RH's Fedora and its required representations and paperwork to > be a committer, outside of Centos. Tummy, Matthias (pre-his > move to RH Fedora Extras), Dag, again my longstanding archive. > RPMForge offers a home. You too my statement out of context. I was talking about how to affect CentOS _directly_! I didn't say those were the only ways to help Linux in general. Because, after all, the people I have a problem with aren't complaining about what is or isn't available in the Linux world. They are complaining why CentOS doesn't have this, and typically blaming Red Hat. So given the criteria of CentOS, my 3 major options are pretty much it. 1. Get involved with Fedora, so things change early 2. Get involved with CentOS, to help out the additional projects 3. Or just complain and nothing changes RHEL is pretty much about what we make in Fedora. CentOS is pretty much what we add around RHEL. Complaints don't do anything, they are generally destructive. And they are even more so a "slap in the face" to those who actually take the time to be constructive and help out these projects. If you don't like Red Hat, tell them so in Bugzilla! They want to _know_ what poeple are having issues with -- they _will_ respond and try to please. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Re: CentOS and SL, together?
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 29 May '05

29 May '05

From: Collins Richey <crichey(a)gmail.com> > It's just too bad that there is really nothing on offer for these > former customers. Please don't suggest Fedora. The customers who are > complaining the loudest are not interested in experimental versions. To me, the quality of Fedora Core is no better or no less than Red Hat Linux before it. One thing I _do_ find is that people are making claims on Red Hat Linux that were _never_ true. SLAs were _never_ offered, except on Red Hat Linux 6.2 "E". Support was virtually never offered as standard beyond installation. Yes, there were and still are professional services, but they are typically more for development anyway (which includes Fedora). Updates were typically cut off for all releases except the last .2 once the next series came out. This all changed in the version 7 series, because companies and users started demanding it. But after the version 7 series, 2 years before Fedora, Red Hat switched back to no more updates beyond one year. So as far as "abadonment," I never saw anything Red Hat did above and beyond as unofficial charity. And I rather tire of claims that Red Hat did this or did that on Red Hat Linux when they _never_ did. Which is why I scratch my head. Especially when you compare what people want and the fact that there's virtually no other company that offers it. Even SuSE doesn't make it's 2 year guarantees, and they are yanking support on SuSE Linux 7. It's almost like there is this Red Hat Linux product that existed like a myth, a word-of-mouth fairy tale. And that's what just makes me roll my eyes. At the same time, people still complain about the GLibC 2.0 change, the GCC 2.96/3.0 change, the NPTL change, etc... It's like even the critics sometimes contradict themselves -- much like I also see done with Microsoft as well. It's not that Red Hat doesn't have its issues or focus. It's just that people need to focus on those details that are actual issues, and not invent things. Like this Red Hat Linux product I never knew existed. ;-> -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

3 2

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