- Discuss - lists.centos.org

how to restart the USB driver
by Jerry Geis 09 Jun '07

09 Jun '07

How do I restart the USB driver on centos 5? I am getting a dump in /var/log/messages and I cannot mount the USB thumbdrive I plug in. It does not auto mount nor can I mount it. Thanks, Jerry

2 1

using a previous /home dir
by Shawn Brown 09 Jun '07

09 Jun '07

Hi, how can I use my previous /home partion under a new installation of cent0S5? Is it something like: mount it chown it (so the UIDs match) fstab it (suggestions here pelase) Was using fc6 that died in an update (I think XP under vm ware crashed) and segfaulted on reboot. Wanted to go to centOS anyway so... Um, the /home is a mirrored raid device across 2 disks. I can mount it fine. Sorry if this seems so simple to find it on google. I searched around and thought I'd ask before going further thinking maybe someone has a howto or would suggest a reinstall of centOS5 with it pointed to the /home directory I'd like to use. Wasn't sure how to do that without reformatting is though. I doubt this is relevant at this moment but the previous installation was i686 and the new on is x86_64 Thanks and happy to be finallying using centOS Shawn

2 1

Kernel Panic - possibly NFS related?
by Jesse Cantara 09 Jun '07

09 Jun '07

Hi Folks, This is my first post here, and unfortunately it's to ask for help in figuring out a kernel panic I am running into. The machine in question has run fine without problem for quite some time, running as a database/web server. It has an identical (hardware) twin that performs essentially the same functions, but which has not had any kernel panics. The only recent change I've made of note before the kernel panics started, is to set up an NFS share on both of those machines, each of which is mounted by three other machines. It seems like whenever there is any more than a negligible amount of activity over those NFS shares, that one machine gets a kernel panic. There are a relatively large number and size of files in each of the shares (70+ gigabytes, 10,000+ files), organized into directories so there aren't more than 100 or so files in any given directory. I'm not doing anything "weird" over the NFS either, just reading and writing zip files. I've never run into a kernel panic before (lucky?) and I can't find much information about analyzing the wreckage. I don't believe any log files are saved of the event. Otherwise, I would provide more information. The kernel I am using is: 2.6.18-8.1.4.el5 CentOS release 5 (Final) I don't have any unusual packages installed, just the default configuration, apache, mysql, and a few other trivial things. Thanks for any help you all can provide. If there is any glaring omissions of information, please excuse me, I'd be glad to help you all help me :) I just am not sure exactly what to provide. Thanks, -Jesse Cantara

2 1

Glib and unknown user id with LDAP
by tblader 09 Jun '07

09 Jun '07

Hello All. Anyone know how to fix this[0]? I've got some Centos 4.5 boxes running as LDAP clients (user ids are not in /etc/passwd or/etc/shadow). If I make uid 230 local on the host, there is no error message. Adobe acrobat also does the same thing. The users are able to authenticate with LDAP on login, so at least part of the system knows where to look for user ids. Looking on google seems to suggest a glib bug, but I haven't run across a patch/fix for it yet. Anyone have one? Thanks [0] GLib-WARNING **: getpwuid_r(): failed due to unknown user id (230) GConf Error: Failed to contact configuration server; some possible causes are that you need to enable TCP/IP networking for ORBit, or you have stale NFS locks due to a system crash. See http://www.gnome.org/projects/gconf/ for information. (Details - 2: IOR file '/tmp/gconfd-somebody/lock/ior' not opened successfully, no gconfd located: No such file or directory) [1] passwd: files ldap shadow: files ldap group: files ldap

1 0

Can't connect firewire HD
by Dago Pacheco 09 Jun '07

09 Jun '07

Hi..... I just bought a External HD with USB/FireWire interfaces. I was trying to connect it by firewire and nothing happened, but it's connected by USB, there is no problem. This is the "fdisk - l" output when i connect it by USB Disco /dev/sdc: 160.0 GB, 160041885696 bytes 255 cabezas, 63 sectores/pista, 19457 cilindros Unidades = cilindros de 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes With firewire, there is just nothing for the external HD The firewire port it's integrated to my motherboard as an ATX form card. The USB port where i connect the HD is in the same card Hope u can help me. Thanks a lot -- ________________________ Dago Pacheco Encargado de Informática Maestranza Makimet Ltda.

4 4

Kernel statistics package availability?
by Mark Hull-Richter 09 Jun '07

09 Jun '07

Are there any good packages (or just places to look) to observe and track kernel behavior (other than to add such and build a custom kernel)? I'm doing some performance analysis on different types of i/os on different file systems, and I need far more sophisticated information than iostat or vmstat produce. Any useful suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks. -- Mark Hull-Richter DATAllegro (www.datallegro.com) 85 Enterprise, 2nd Floor, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Ofc: 949-680-3082 fax: 949-680-3001

3 2

SSH suddenly started failing :(
by John Lagrue 09 Jun '07

09 Jun '07

All of a sudden I can no longer ssh into my server running CentOS 4.5 This is what happens: [john@lt-131-jdl-f7 ~]$ ssh -Y -p 2222 192.168.0.1 john(a)192.168.0.1's password: Connection to 192.168.0.1 closed by remote host. Connection to 192.168.0.1 closed. And yes, the account does exist and the password is correct! Looking at the logs, I see this: Jun 7 18:51:37 moray1 sshd(pam_unix)[11348]: authentication failure; logname= uid=0 euid=0 tty=NODEVssh ruser= rhost=192.168.0.209 user=john Jun 7 18:51:46 moray1 sshd[11348]: Accepted password for john from ::ffff:192.168.0.209 port 57755 ssh2 Jun 7 18:51:46 moray1 sshd(pam_unix)[11352]: session opened for user john by (uid=500) Jun 7 18:51:46 moray1 pam_loginuid[11352]: set_loginuid failed opening loginuid Jun 7 18:51:46 moray1 pam_loginuid[11352]: set_loginuid failed Does any of this make sense? I've tried it on three different clients and get the same thing every time. JDL Jun 7 18:51:46 moray1 sshd[11352]: fatal: PAM session setup failed[14]: Cannot make/remove an entry for the specified session

10 20

Mail Avenger
by John Hinton 08 Jun '07

08 Jun '07

Is anybody using mailavenger on a CentOS system? If so, could you post your experiences? Like quality of the program, server loads and number of email messages processed and power of server.. Those sorts of good info things. http://www.mailavenger.org/ This looks really sweet! Fighting spam before the smtp process and it looks like it works with just about any MTA. So, it could reject instead of bouncing. It looks like it deals with huge numbers of the normal nuances after receipt. Thanks, John Hinton

2 1

PHP 5.2 ?
by mbneto 08 Jun '07

08 Jun '07

Hi, I am looking for php 5.2.x for Centos 4 (or 5). In the list's archive I found a post requesting the same info about it back in november 2006 but nothing after that. I was wondering if there are any news about it for Centos 4 or Centos 5? Regards.

1 0

Upgrading mysql5 from centosplus
by Dhawal Doshy 08 Jun '07

08 Jun '07

Hello List, I have a regular install of centos 4.4 i386 (lately updated to 4.5), a new application needs mysql > 5.0.x The natural way to do this was: yum --enablerepo=centosplus update mysql However, after all the dependency / transaction checks.. i get this.. Dependencies Resolved ============================================================================= Package Arch Version Repository Size ============================================================================= Updating: mysql i386 5.0.27-1.el4.centos centosplus 3.3 M Installing for dependencies: mysqlclient14 i386 4.1.22-1.el4s1.1 centosplus 1.2 M php-common i386 5.1.6-3.el4s1.5 centosplus 135 k php-pdo i386 5.1.6-3.el4s1.5 centosplus 219 k Updating for dependencies: mysql-devel i386 5.0.27-1.el4.centos centosplus 2.3 M mysql-server i386 5.0.27-1.el4.centos centosplus 9.9 M perl i386 4:5.8.8-4.el4s1 centosplus 11 M perl-DBD-MySQL i386 3.0008-1.el4.centos centosplus 145 k php-mysql i386 5.1.6-3.el4s1.5 centosplus 77 k Transaction Summary ============================================================================= Install 3 Package(s) Update 6 Package(s) Remove 0 Package(s) Total download size: 29 M Is this ok [y/N]: y Downloading Packages: Running Transaction Test Finished Transaction Test Transaction Check Error: file /etc/php.ini from install of php-common-5.1.6-3.el4s1.5 conflicts with file from package php-4.3.9-3.22.5 Now i did manage to solve the problem, which looked pretty straight-forward 'yum --enablerepo=centosplus update mysql php' (note: added php).. but shouldn't the dependency checker be taking care of this? - dhawal

2 1

zenity question
by Jerry Geis 08 Jun '07

08 Jun '07

I am using zenity in the --progress mode. Is there any way to not have the OK and CANCEL buttons showing? I have read the man page and didnt see any. Thanks, Jerry

1 0

CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 28, Issue 7
by centos-announce-request＠centos.org 08 Jun '07

08 Jun '07

Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to centos-announce(a)centos.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to centos-announce-request(a)centos.org You can reach the person managing the list at centos-announce-owner(a)centos.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CentOS-announce digest..." Today's Topics: 1. CESA-2007:0385-01: Moderate CentOS 2 i386 fetchmail security update (John Newbigin) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2007 09:22:58 +1000 From: John Newbigin <jnewbigin(a)ict.swin.edu.au> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2007:0385-01: Moderate CentOS 2 i386 fetchmail security update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <46689352.8060905(a)ict.swin.edu.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed The following errata for CentOS-2 have been built and uploaded to the centos mirror: RHSA-2007:0385-01 Moderate: fetchmail security update Files available: fetchmail-5.9.0-21.7.3.el2.1.6.i386.rpm fetchmailconf-5.9.0-21.7.3.el2.1.6.i386.rpm More details are available from the RedHat web site at https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rh21as-errata.html The easy way to make sure you are up to date with all the latest patches is to run: # yum update -- 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 ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ CentOS-announce mailing list CentOS-announce(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce End of CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 28, Issue 7 **********************************************

1 0

Location of xgraphics routines
by Peter Morgan 08 Jun '07

08 Jun '07

Hi I have an application that uses the Xwindows graphics library. Things like XOpenDisplay XDrawLine XCreateSimpleWindow XDrawString and many more Under all the CENTOS 4.X systems these were automatically loaded. I dont have these loaded under my CENTOS 5 system. I get a heap of undefined references when I compile the code. Could someone tell me, point me, where these routines now reside on the distribution. thanks Peter

3 2

Re: [CentOS] C5 i386 kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.18-8.1.3.el5.i686.rpm from vault
by David Thompson 08 Jun '07

08 Jun '07

Robert Spangler wrote: >> Is anyone else seeing this? > >I don't see that file at all. Once I did a refresh and the 8.1.3 series files disappeared. I dunno if there are multiple servers hiding behind some kind of load balancer with some part not in sync or just what's going on. Any of the architects want to speak up? Dave

1 0

DatOptic RAID Array >2TB?
by Benjamin Karhan 08 Jun '07

08 Jun '07

i'm trying to set up a hardware RAID array (eRAID from DatOptic) under CentOS. we have two more of these arrays which have worked very well for their purposes (backup and/or portable storage), but neither of our older arrays exceeded the dreaded 2TB barrier (one of them is, in fact, 2TB). the server i'm currently testing with is running CentOS4.5, but i do have CentOS5 servers i could use. the problem i'm running into is that the array SHOULD be recognized as ~3TB, but i'm unable (even using "parted") to see it as more than ~2TB. it sounds suspiciously like the typical "2TB limitation" problem, but i was under the impression that CentOS4 (and 5) can handle much larger (8TB?) filesystems. in fact, the kernel "USB Mass Storage" driver that detects the array when i plug it in only detects the device as 2TB as well. (so, it could easily be a limitation of that hardware driver, although i couldn't find any specification for that limitation when i googled for it). i should say, although i dread the possible suggestions that may arise from admitting it, that the array also supports FireWire and SATA connections. (we are STRONGLY inclined to wanting to use the array as USB, as our primary concern is easy portability and not speed) the RAID array is the DatOptic eRAID, with 5 750GB disks in a RAID-5 array. the array itself seemed to have no problem creating the ~3TB volume, but it does not detect as that size when i hook it up. here are the relevant kernel logs: SCSI subsystem initialized Initializing USB Mass Storage driver... scsi0 : SCSI emulation for USB Mass Storage devices Vendor: USB 2.0 Model: Storage Device Rev: 0111 Type: Direct-Access ANSI SCSI revision: 02 USB Mass Storage device found at 3 usbcore: registered new driver usb-storage USB Mass Storage support registered. SCSI device sda: 4294920192 512-byte hdwr sectors (2198999 MB) sda: assuming drive cache: write through SCSI device sda: 4294920191 512-byte hdwr sectors (2198999 MB) sda: assuming drive cache: write through sda: unknown partition table Attached scsi disk sda at scsi0, channel 0, id 0, lun 0 and here's what "parted" also says about the array: Disk geometry for /dev/sda: 0.000-2097128.999 megabytes Disk label type: gpt Minor Start End Filesystem Name Flags it's important that we get full use of the array (1TB is a lot of space to waste). anyone have any ideas, suggestions, comments, or criticisms? any help would be greatly appreciated... B. Karhan simon(a)pop.psu.edu PRI/SSRI Unix Administrator

3 2

C5 i386 kernel-debuginfo-common-2.6.18-8.1.3.el5.i686.rpm from vault
by David Thompson 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Is anyone else having trouble getting some RPMs from vault? When I navigate to http://vault.centos.org/debuginfo/5/i386/ ...and try to click on (e.g.) kernel-PAE-debuginfo-2.6.18-8.1.3.el5.i686.rpm I get 404 errors (The requested URL /debuginfo/5/i386/kernel-PAE-debuginfo-2.6.18 -8.1.3.el5.i686.rpm was not found on this server). But then if I wait a while and try again, maybe I get it. Is anyone else seeing this? Thanks. Dave Thompson UW-Madison

2 1

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

On 6/6/07, pctech(a)mybellybutton.com <pctech(a)mybellybutton.com> wrote: > If people don't want it because of my chosen distribution method, that's fine by me. I'll just keep my documents to myself and then they don't have to worry about it. Then do so, and keep it off this list. This started an argument last year, and it seems to be starting one now. --------------------------------------------- It wouldn't have started one then, nor one now, if people wouldn't try to tell me what to do with my own document. At the end of the day I will distribute it in any manner that I see fit. Just because someone doesn't like the way I distribute it doesn't mean that they have the right to tell me what to do with it or how to give it to people. If they don't like my distribution method then they are free not to ask for it. Nobody's making them ask for it. I *CLEARLY* stated in my original e-mail who the intended target audience was. -- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

11 18

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

--- Jordi Espasa Clofent <sistemes.llistes(a)intergrid.cat> wrote: > > I want to mention/remind that Karanbir is a very > active part of > > CentOS and has given a lot of time and hard work > to me and the > > whole community. > > Yes. When I've said my words against pctech's point > of view I've done it > with people like Karanbir, Johnny, Jim, Lance, > Ralph, Daniel and so on > in mind. > > ¿How many hours do they spend in front of their > machines, trying to > improve this beautiful project? > > At least, their altruistic and generous attitude > deserves all our respect. > > -- > Thanks, > Jordi Espasa Clofent > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > I took a little peak at the document in mention, and there is one thing that bothers me about it. It is the mentioning of this little sentence "this document contains information compiled from many sources." Now i am not no English major or proclaim to be, but when you take other people work and use it in your work are you not suppose to cite that? How do we know he did copy and paste other peoples work and then call it his own? there is not one citation in his work. If this has happen and that was my work, damn i know i would of be mighty pissed about that! Can not say oh since he took it from so many places he does not know all the sites, books...etc that is not an excuse either. i know my writing is bad, but you get the idea what i am trying to say!!! and the reason i am saying anything is when a person acts like a jag i can be a bigger jag!!!!!!! Steven -------------------------------------------- Actually I *DID* cite my sources in the document. Look at the section entitled "Application Documentation and HowTo Links". Nice try at slandering me though. Although I *HAVE seem to have forgotten to input the links for the Linux HA web site and HowTos. That will be corrected in the next revision. "On the side of the software box, in the 'System Requirements' section, it said 'Requires Windows or better'. So I installed Linux." _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

4 3

procmail, and the care and feeding of mailing list content received
by R P Herrold 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

speed kills of course -- In my immediate prior post, I reversed the match and the anchor operators. ^ *List-Id:.*centos\.centos\.org ^ *Subject:.*CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document should have been * ^List-Id:.*centos\.centos\.org * ^Subject:.*CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document of course. Fortunately, in my local setup I had set content to be dropped to be saved to a file while I tested. -- Russ Herrold

1 0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Hi, Ashton, Jeremy - Workstream Inc. wrote: > At least Frank took the initiative to write a document. Yes, there will > be mistakes in it. No, it will not include all the information under > the sun. Perhaps there are better documents or book available out > there. But, at least he took the initiative to do his own work. The only reason I pitched in is because, he is : (a) an idiot, with no idea of what he is talking about (b) has no regard for the work that we do (c) clueless about the idea of community and (d) I dont quite like the idea of pushing non-shareable / non-community friendly licensed material here, specially under the guise of 'hey, I am doing you all a favour'. If what he is saying is correct and a community initiative cant work, we wont have Linux today where it is and people would not be making the sort of time and effort commitments they do into these projects. Anyway, he asked a question - I just asked him to facilitate an answer. Unless, of-course, he does not really want an answer and was just taunting and blowing his own horn. > Once again I am reminded how immature the community can be at times. > Can we not all get along and drop these childish antics and retorts? Absolutely, I agree. Its a free world and people have a right to go do as they please - more so in these free software environs we like to live in, but you see what happens is that when someone is going to stand back and slagg off other people - other people have the right to call his antics just that. antics. Finally, I await this bible-of-firewall docs that he has come up with. - KB ------------------------------------------------------ I will address your points in the order and manner in which you have made them. (a) This ia an overly broad statement. What exactly do I not know that I am talking about, about? (b) Where have I *EVER* stated that I had no regard for the work that you do. Show me ONE occurrence. You cannot, because I have not. (c) How am I clueless about the idea of community? The last time I checked communities rallied together to help one another. I have offered my document FOR FREE to anyone that would like it. How is that not helping the community? (d) It is perfectly shareable. I have stated on this list many times, and to people individually, that they are free to post it wherever they like. I've even stated on this list more than once that I would be happy to send anyone that asks the source Word file that was used. I have never told ANYONE that they could not post it anywhere. I stated that *I* could not afford to host it. Where have I ever said that the community initiative doesn't or won't work? I've never stated that either. I stated that I had been burned by a wiki article to the point that lawyers were involved so I don't use wiki. I never stated that anyone else couldn't post the document to the wiki. I am not sure what question you are referring to. Which one would that be? All I see are accusations and name calling, no questions. Your sarcasm about my "bible of firewall docs" is petty and unbecoming. I never once stated that it was the be-all end-all of firewall documents. What I *DID* say, however, was that I compiled a document to help me out and thought that others in the community would like it. Nothing more and nothing less. I will be more than happy to send it to you, just like I have been more than happy to send it to everyone else. Let me know where you would like it sent to. -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/cento

3 2

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

>> So you chose to distribute your document via PDF and it is what 15MB in >> size? You email this to those who are interested...do you do one single >> mailing with all the addresses or do you individually email them? How >> many of these guys can take a 15MB attachment or a 20MB message? >> Probably all but I wonder how many of those who did not ask, did not do >> so because they do not have a mailbox on a system that can swallow a >> 20MB message. >> > > I chose to distribute my document via PDF because it was the best way to > make it cross platform. Nothing more, and nothing less. EVERY platform > supports PDF. Not every platform supports Microsoft Office. The > document size is 8.8Mb to be exact. A far cry from 15MB or 20MB. And, > since I didn't publish the size of the document in my e-mail they > wouldn't know how large it was to decide not to ask. If someone would > like the document source, they're welcome to it. Again, I chose PDF for > portability. No other reason. Actually, having it available in html too would be a good thing imho. > > Out of the 53 documents that I have sent out since I posted this, there > have been three bounce backs. One because someone's mailbox was full > and two because the document was too big. Well, another mode of distribution might be good then... > >> Les: >> Did you miss the 'revision history' link that removes all doubt about >> who said what? >> > > Did you see where I posted that the revision history tends to get > ignored by alot of people? I even stated what exactly happened in my > case. Sorry. Allowing someone else to revise my document, even with a > revision history, isn't worth being contacted by lawyers because of a > revision someone else made. If you can't understand that, I'm sorry. Right, so you are now going to discount the fact that on the centos wiki modifications are only possible by admins, yourself or those whom you allow? >> You then complain about >> >> "Currently I have a domain, yes, however my bandwidth is rather limited. >> By cost, not by speed. I don't feel like incurring hundreds of >> dollars in usage fees to post this on my domain." >> >> but don't feel like posting on the Centos wiki but do yap about 'big' >> names like IEEE... >> > > I "yapped" about a big site like IEEE because I am hoping that I can get > THEM to host the document, because I am limited to my monthly bandwidth. > The difference between the IEEE site and wiki is that IEEE will host the > actual document. Wiki is a whole different animal. That's like > comparing apples to corn. When I hit the cap, I have a significant > usage penalty. I am giving this document out for free. I cannot afford > to pay $100 a month in bandwidth fees when I go over my cap. Do you or do you not know that you can put a pdf in a wiki? ------------------------------------------------------- I will address your points one at a time. To be honest, I never thought about making it HTML. You're right. That wouldn't be a bad idea. I have no problem with doing that if I can find a way to do it without breaking the formatting too badly. I don't know what the CentOS wiki specifically can or cannot do. I know what my experience is with wiki's thus far. Nobody has talked to me about this one tiny bit. They have just said, "You should do this and you should do that." Nobody have ever sent me an e-mail to the list or to my e-mail about ANYTHING with regards to the wiki and what it was capable of. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

On Wednesday 06 June 2007 23:06:30 John bowden wrote: > On Wednesday 06 June 2007 16:27:28 Max Hetrick wrote: > > pctech(a)mybellybutton.com wrote: > > > Unfortunately, I have had nothing, thus far, but bad experiences with > > > wikis. Especially when you begin letting others "mark up" something > > > that you've posted there. At that point, because your name is on it, > > > you "own" all of their mistakes. I'm not saying that the CentOS wiki > > > is like that, just wikis in general. > > > > > > WikiPedia is probably one of the most horrifically obvious examples of > > > what I am talking about. Not only do you have all of the blatant > > > inaccuracies, which tend to get attributed back to the original article > > > author, but you also have all of the drama that goes along with it. > > > > > > Things start to go sideways when you begin to let others exert their > > > own creative control over something with your name on it. I'm all for > > > the free exchange of ideas, information, and knowledge. I'm not all > > > for getting blamed for some crap someone added to something with my > > > name on it. Been there, done that, don't need that drama anymore. > > > > > > Some wikis, again I speak in general, not of the CentOS wiki, also > > > demand that you turn over any and all rights to whatever you post > > > there. While I enjoy sharing my knowledge with the world for free, I > > > will be damned if I will give up my rights to profit from it in the > > > future. Even the BSD license doesn't expect this. > > > > > > This document, the firewall one, is the first in a series of documents > > > that I plan on writing. I've worked very hard to get it to the state > > > that it is at right now. It's what I consider a "living document" and > > > will be changing as necessary. The second in the series is a document > > > on building a network monitor based on open source tools. I've just > > > begun writing it. I am hoping to have it completed in a couple of > > > months, now that I have a format I am happy with for my documents. The > > > third of the series will be on building a VPN concentrator based on > > > open source tools. Part of what takes me so long to write these > > > documents is that I don't actually enjoy writing. I enjoy doing. The > > > firewall document started out of necessity to build multiple Linux > > > based firewalls consistently and rapidly for myself and just morphed > > > into something that I decided to share with the community. I figured > > > that since there wasn't much out there that was useful others might > > > like it. > > > > > > While it's, most definitely, not the be-all end-all of Linux based > > > firewall information, I think it's a pretty good document that I've > > > worked very hard to write in a presentable manner that most people > > > could understand and even expand upon for themselves. I am all for > > > receiving comments and suggestions for future revisions of the > > > document, any document that I write for that matter. I'm just not all > > > for having my documents hacked apart by every Tom, Dick, and Harry on > > > the Internet and then all of the misinformation getting lumped onto my > > > shoulders because I happen to be the person that wrote the original > > > document. I've already had enough drama from the CentOS forums where I > > > got accused of being an e-mail address harvester for a spammer. No > > > thanks. I don't need that in my life. I'm just a computer network > > > engineer that THOUGHT he was doing the right thing by giving back to > > > the community. > > > > Understood, that's your right. It seems kind of silly, though, to go to > > the trouble of writing so much, then limit yourself with sharing to only > > a very small percentage of the CentOS community by broadcasting a > > message to e-mail you for documentation. Documentation is supposed to be > > readily available, that's the point of it, at least from my perspective, > > no matter what the license or stipulations of the content are. > > > > Although you can pick out a license for your material that would cover > > protecting the interests you have expressed, yet at the same time > > allowing others to share in your material. One of the Creative Commons > > license, or another, would do the trick. > > > > That said, do you not have a place to host the document then? It seems > > that if you've gone to that much trouble to write something, then > > perhaps you just need a spot somewhere to host the document? > > > > Regards, > > Max > > _______________________________________________ > > CentOS mailing list > > CentOS(a)centos.org > > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > Just a thought how about releasing it as a "how to"? Can I have a copy please? I don't care how you distribute it, e mail, snail mail or by pigeon mail. My cat prefers the pigeon method ;-) -------------------------------------------------- Sure. Where would you like me to send it ot? I'd be more than happy to. -- Guy Fawkes, the only man to enter the house's of parliment with honest intentions, (he was going to blow them up!) Registered Linux user number 414240 _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Frank Tanner III wrote: >> I think you should keep it locked up and not share it with anyone. >> There are probably hundreds of similar documents freely available out there. > Name me a dozen documents that contain similar information to what mine > contains. Send me a copy of what your document is, and I shall be happy to point out a dozen or so resouces that have *better* info than what you provide. - KB -------------------------------------------------- Sure. Where would you like me to send it to? -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219@icq _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

hey pctech, Instead of sniping with you over your chosen way to control access: May i have a copy please? If I like it i would offer the following: I'll put this up on my businesses site for you, give you full accreditation, and it will only be a downloadable document(unless you want it viewable as well). Since my server is unmetered bandwidth overages aren't an issue. ----------------------------------------- Sure. I have no problem with this, and never have. Where would you like me to send it to? pctech(a)mybellybutton.com wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > pctech(a)mybellybutton.com wrote: >> Unfortunately, I have had nothing, thus far, but bad experiences with wikis. > Especially when you begin letting others "mark up" something that you've posted > there. At that point, because your name is on it, you "own" all of their > mistakes. I'm not saying that the CentOS wiki is like that, just wikis in > general. >> WikiPedia is probably one of the most horrifically obvious examples of what I > am talking about. Not only do you have all of the blatant inaccuracies, which > tend to get attributed back to the original article author, but you also have > all of the drama that goes along with it. >> Things start to go sideways when you begin to let others exert their own > creative control over something with your name on it. I'm all for the free > exchange of ideas, information, and knowledge. I'm not all for getting blamed > for some crap someone added to something with my name on it. Been there, done > that, don't need that drama anymore. >> Some wikis, again I speak in general, not of the CentOS wiki, also demand > that you turn over any and all rights to whatever you post there. While I > enjoy sharing my knowledge with the world for free, I will be damned if I will > give up my rights to profit from it in the future. Even the BSD license > doesn't expect this. >> This document, the firewall one, is the first in a series of documents that I > plan on writing. I've worked very hard to get it to the state that it is at > right now. It's what I consider a "living document" and will be changing as > necessary. The second in the series is a document on building a network > monitor based on open source tools. I've just begun writing it. I am hoping > to have it completed in a couple of months, now that I have a format I am happy > with for my documents. The third of the series will be on building a VPN > concentrator based on open source tools. Part of what takes me so long to > write these documents is that I don't actually enjoy writing. I enjoy doing. > The firewall document started out of necessity to build multiple Linux based > firewalls consistently and rapidly for myself and just morphed into something > that I decided to share with the community. I figured that since there wasn't > much out there that was useful others might like it. >> While it's, most definitely, not the be-all end-all of Linux based firewall > information, I think it's a pretty good document that I've worked very hard to > write in a presentable manner that most people could understand and even expand > upon for themselves. I am all for receiving comments and suggestions for > future revisions of the document, any document that I write for that matter. > I'm just not all for having my documents hacked apart by every Tom, Dick, and > Harry on the Internet and then all of the misinformation getting lumped onto my > shoulders because I happen to be the person that wrote the original document. > I've already had enough drama from the CentOS forums where I got accused of > being an e-mail address harvester for a spammer. No thanks. I don't need that > in my life. I'm just a computer network engineer that THOUGHT he was doing the > right thing by giving back to the community. > > > Understood, that's your right. It seems kind of silly, though, to go to > the trouble of writing so much, then limit yourself with sharing to only > a very small percentage of the CentOS community by broadcasting a > message to e-mail you for documentation. Documentation is supposed to be > readily available, that's the point of it, at least from my perspective, > no matter what the license or stipulations of the content are. > > Although you can pick out a license for your material that would cover > protecting the interests you have expressed, yet at the same time > allowing others to share in your material. One of the Creative Commons > license, or another, would do the trick. > > That said, do you not have a place to host the document then? It seems > that if you've gone to that much trouble to write something, then > perhaps you just need a spot somewhere to host the document? > > ---------------------------------------- > > Currently I have a domain, yes, however my bandwidth is rather limited. By cost, not by speed. I don't feel like incurring hundreds of dollars in usage fees to post this on my domain. > > > Licensing is good and fine, except for the fact that once you post something on a wiki, in most cases, anyone that comes along can freely add to and modify the content of what you've posted. This happens on Wikipedia quite frequently. This doesn't cover the "It's your fault because you wrote the document" blame that gets lumped on you when something goes wrong from a change that someone else made. The person who's name is on the document is the one that is going to get his or her neck wrung by the pissed off person. I've had it happen in the past. I don't care to repeat it. I really don't like lawyers sending me letters because of stupidity like that. > > I originally chose the method that I use for disseminating it because, to be honest, I don't really see that there is enough interest in it to invest the time or money into something larger. I have, however, considered asking the admins of the IEEE Computer Society, LOPSA, or AZSAGE if I could post it on their sites when I renew my memberships. > > > > Regards, > Max > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFGZtJgHoeeepPau2ERAvcMAJ4voQ+EUg/StcW3vEg5ZhLMGv3NcQCgpsha > podiuZE3dvwhaV4GUcI3C5Y= > =n8/R > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- > Scanned with Copfilter Version 0.84beta2 (P3Scan 2.2.1) > AntiSpam: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 > AntiVirus: ClamAV 0.90.2/3369 - Wed Jun 6 15:12:37 2007 > by Markus Madlener @ http://www.copfilter.org > -- My "Foundation" verse: Isa 54:17 No weapon that is formed against thee shall prosper; and every tongue that shall rise against thee in judgment thou shalt condemn. This is the heritage of the servants of the LORD, and their righteousness is of me, saith the LORD. -- carpe ductum -- "Grab the tape" CDTT (Certified Duct Tape Technician) Linux user #322099 Machines: 206822 256638 276825 http://counter.li.org/ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

In case anyone is interested. Frank Tanner III emailed me his PDF file and I've put it up on my Web site at the following URL: http://www.vigyan.com/~blbates/Building-a-Linux-Firewall.pdf Do with it what you will. --------------------------------------------------- Thank you for hosting it. I would like to note that I revise it on a frequent basis because it is, what I consider to be, a living document. When new versions of the software come out, or I decide on a format change, typo, you name it. The same could be said for the other documents in the pipe. -- Brent L. Bates (UNIX Sys. Admin.) M.S. 912 Phone:(757) 865-1400, x204 NASA Langley Research Center FAX:(757) 865-8177 Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001 Email: B.L.BATES(a)larc.nasa.gov http://www.vigyan.com/~blbates/ _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

3 2

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Around 03:34pm on Thursday, June 07, 2007 (UK time), Brent L. Bates scrawled: > In case anyone is interested. Frank Tanner III emailed me his PDF file > and I've put it up on my Web site at the following URL: > > http://www.vigyan.com/~blbates/Building-a-Linux-Firewall.pdf > > Do with it what you will. What, even post it to a WIKI - GR&D :-) Steve ---------------------------------------------------- Someone posting it to a wiki is perfectly fine with me. I never said that nobody could. I said that *I* wouldn't. There is a difference. -- A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is top-posting a bad thing? 15:45:20 up 10 days, 2:03, 0 users, load average: 0.02, 0.02, 0.00 _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

On Thu, 07 Jun 2007 18:12:33 +0100 Karanbir Singh <mail-lists(a)karan.org> wrote: ... I want to mention/remind that Karanbir is a very active part of CentOS and has given a lot of time and hard work to me and the whole community. Thanks Karanbir. ------------------------------------------------------- I would tend to agree with you. However, he seems to go out of his way to badmouth other people's accomplishments and attempts to help out the community. -- Thanks http://www.sqlhacks.com The SQL knowledge base _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

> I want to mention/remind that Karanbir is a very active part of > CentOS and has given a lot of time and hard work to me and the > whole community. Yes. When I've said my words against pctech's point of view I've done it with people like Karanbir, Johnny, Jim, Lance, Ralph, Daniel and so on in mind. ¿How many hours do they spend in front of their machines, trying to improve this beautiful project? At least, their altruistic and generous attitude deserves all our respect. --------------------------------------------------- And I have never denied their accomplishments, nor badmouthed their integrity. I can't say the same about them with regards to me, however. -- Thanks, Jordi Espasa Clofent _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

1) Power off 2) Automatic updates with GNOME
by Niki Kovacs 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Hi, 1) When I'm doing a server install as well as a desktop install, I always start from a minimal install, then add components as needed. Now I noticed that on a minimal system (no X11, no GNOME), when doing either 'halt' or 'shutdown -h now', the machine halts... but doesn't switch off the power. The user has to do it manually. (I vaguely remember that on older Slackware versions, one had to manually load the apm module). On the other hand, once I install a graphical environment ('yum grouinstall "X Window System"', 'yum groupinstall "GNOME Desktop Environment"'), shutting down the machine also shuts down the power. Q: how can I switch off the power on a machine with just a basic install? 2) When installing a GNOME environment, there's a sort of graphical system update notifier daemon in the system tray, which occasionally tells me "There are 3 updates available" or something. How can I deactivate this thing? I'm meant to install this in our public libraries, and I want the average user - who barely knows how to handle a mouse, left alone system updates - to be confronted as little as possible to gory system details. Q: how can I turn the system update notifier off... or even uninstall it (since I manage the system via rpm and yum on the commandline)? Cheers, Niki Kovacs

4 4

kernel panic on Tyan Mobo's with CentOS 4
by Eric Solomon 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

We've had a spate of these lately - about 3 or 4 boxes. I have a feeling we just got a bad run of motherboards, but thought I'd try to get some feedback. These are servers running with the Tyan Thunder K8SD (dual core AMD's, S2882 model). They have three onboard NIC's, two Broadcom gig NIC's BCM5704C's and an Intel 82551QM which is a 10/100 board. We use the Broadcom NIC's in this case with the tg3 driver. The kernel panics happen somewhat at random, though most frequently seen when scp'ing a large number of files (after a couple gigs they'll crash pretty reliably). Last night we had a box go down under very little load. I couldn't copy and paste from the console or scroll up - the one thing I got that seems relevant is the following: RIP <ffffffffa0092774> {:tg3:tg3_poll+177{ RSP <ffffffff8045a878> The tg3 bit is why I suspect something with the network ports. Has anyone run into this? What's the best way to track this down - is there a setting where I can save a core file, or do I just need to hook up a terminal and leave it on 24-7? Thanks for any help. -- Eric Solomon Senior Unix Engineer Clickability ____________________________________ Simplifying Content Management 130 Battery Street, Suite 300 San Francisco CA 94111 Tel 415-575-5125 eric(a)clickability.com Fax 415-538-0839 http://www.clickability.com

1 0

core 2 duo motherboards and centos 4
by Joe Pruett 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

from my googling around, it doesn't look there is a single motherboard that supports core 2 duo and works without patches or tweaks. is that true? the main thing we want is: core 2 duo support 4g of 800mhz (or better) ram sata gig ether with pxe boot we can live without pata or usb for a while. we've tried intel 965 and asus p5b based boards with various levels of ease of install, but all required some kind of driver update, which just isn't acceptable to us. well, i guess it could be acceptable if it could be built in to a pxe boot setup, but so far i haven't found any docs to even let me understand how hard/easy that might be. does v5 support any of these boards better?

26 69

virt-install and kickstart
by Costa, Jeff 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Has anyone successfully used a kickstart file in tandem with the "virt-install" command? I can get a generic install to begin if I omit the "-x" flag and the kickstart parameters? It seems that virt-install simply ignores my kickstart parameters. virt-install --location=http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/centos/4.5/os/i386/ --noautoconsole --file=/dev/VolGroup00/lv_centos45 --name=CENTOS_45 --ram=256 --nographics -d -p -x "ks=http://192.168.1.98/centos45.cfg ip=192.168.1.97 netmask=255.255.255.0 dns=192.168.1.1 gateway=192.168.1.1" ----------------------------------------- "This email (including any attachments) is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient you must not copy, use, disclose, distribute or rely on the information contained in it. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply email and delete the email from your system. Confidentiality and legal privilege attached to this communication are not waived or lost by reason of mistaken delivery to you. Lend Lease does not guarantee that this email or the attachment(s) are unaffected by computer virus, corruption or other defects. Lend Lease may monitor incoming and outgoing emails for compliance with its Email Policy. Please note that our servers may not be located in your country."

2 1

error in kickstart file for raid1 setup
by Dave 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Hello, I'm trying to do a kickstart install of centos5. I'm pulling it off a network server and i'm getting an error, in the parsing of the file. It refers to line 31, i'm not going to show the complete file, but here is the indicated line: raid swap --fstype swap --level=RAID1 raid.4 raid.7 and the raid lines: part raid.7 --size=512 --ondisk=hdb part raid.4 --size=512 --ondisk=hda My parse error message is: "option --device is required" The raid lines indicate which drive to work on, i'm not seeing the issue. Any help appreciated. Thanks. Dave.

3 2

how to upgrade Centos 5 correctly?
by Robinson Tiemuqinke 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Hi, I've just turned from Fedora Core to Centos 5, And would like to know the 'official' way/mechanism to upgrade a bunch of Centos 5 machines. My basic situation is: hundred of machines will be installed with Centos 5.0 by means of kickstart. and then the machines will always uses Centos 5.0 kickstart images for initial installation, not Centos 5.1, Centos 5.2, etc. So my questions are: 1, If the above possible? Since I take lot effort to have hacked Centos 5.0 images to make it work for my mixed environment, and I don't like to do the same work every three months. 2, Based on Centos 5.0 initial installation, can I upgrade the Centos 5.0 machines to Centos 5.1 level, 5.2 level, and so on, by means of continuous online upgrade but not reinstallation, right? 3, For continuous online upgrade, which repositories should I download and keep updated daily? If the extras/ and updates/ are enough? Or I have to download addons/ centosplus/ fasttrack/ as well, or even isoes/ and os/? 4, I've changed file /etc/yum.repos.d/CentOS-Base.repo to use only os/ and updates/ repositories. and when it is needed, I manually pull packages from other Centos 5 repositories. Is this the 'official' way? or not? I mean, should I better include repositories like 'centosplus/'? Thanks a lot, sorry for too many questions as I am a newbie to Centos. ____________________________________________________________________________________ Get the Yahoo! toolbar and be alerted to new email wherever you're surfing. http://new.toolbar.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/index.php

3 3

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by Brent L. Bates 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

In case anyone is interested. Frank Tanner III emailed me his PDF file and I've put it up on my Web site at the following URL: http://www.vigyan.com/~blbates/Building-a-Linux-Firewall.pdf Do with it what you will. -- Brent L. Bates (UNIX Sys. Admin.) M.S. 912 Phone:(757) 865-1400, x204 NASA Langley Research Center FAX:(757) 865-8177 Hampton, Virginia 23681-0001 Email: B.L.BATES(a)larc.nasa.gov http://www.vigyan.com/~blbates/

2 1

Problem Rsyncing to mirrors for yum repo
by Peter Farrow 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Hi There, I run my own yum repo and have started seeing this error on the 4.5 repo rsync: opendir "4.5/os/i386/CentOS/RPMS/.~tmp~" (in CentOS) failed: Permission denied (13) This is to do with the upstream rysnc server, I have tried several different rsync servers and each chokes on this .~tmp~ directory. If I remove it, it copies again on next rsync and thereafter chokes as above. Any ideas? I wondered if it was mechanism applied to stop further sync's from the repo as 4.5 is now "old hat" (no pun intended :-) ) Regards Pete

1 0

Java package status?
by Les Mikesell 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Has this RH errata made it into Centos5 yet? http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2007-0365.html If so, what does it take to fix the problem of tomcat not running under Sun Java? Do you have to remove all packages that contain jars and reinstall them? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell(a)gmail.com

2 2

Re: Contact the CentOS WebMaster (was FlameFest Firewall Doc stuff)
by Jim Perrin 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

God help me I know I said let it die, but it was continued elsewhere also. I'll try to keep this forest fire in ONE location. On 6/7/07, Frank Tanner III <pctech(a)mybellybutton.com> wrote: Okay, lets try to contain this to ONE forum (mailing list) please. > See... Your whole response to my whole firewall document thing is EXACTLY why I didn't post it on your wiki. Because you are autocratic. Some community. Someone tries to GIVE to the community and the community shits on them. You had this exact same problem last year when you did this as well. Einstein defined insanity as someone performing the same actions and expecting differing results. > For the record, in less that 24 hours I had FIFTY THREE requests for the document straight from the mailing list. Which doesn't help the THOUSANDS of users who frequent the wiki, forum instruction, etc, and who don't wish to give up their email address to someone they don't know on the web. While I understand and sympathize with your previous experiences, you have to understand theirs also. > Actions like yours are EXACTLY why businesses don't want to use Linux in production and why they feel that Linux advocates are a bunch of whiny primadonna bitches. Okay now this argument is just baseless. If this were the case RH wouldn't be in business, there'd be no demand for centos, Sun wouldn't have donated hardware, we wouldn't have over 150 mirrors worldwide, and there wouldn't be a metric assload (yes this is a legitimate scale of measurement, Johnny Hughes told me so) of ISVs out there offering our software. Not everyone uses linux. Some regard linux users as whiny bitches. Sometimes they're right. But broad generalizations like yours are what got you into this mess in the first place. "I had a bad experience on 1 wiki... ALL WIKIS ARE EVIL!" ... "People on the intartubes don't want to give out their email addy to strangers and are hassling me about it... no wonder businesses don't use linux!" Seriously now, some points: 1. If you want COMPLETELY restricted access to post helpful information we can provide you a spot if it's quality work. 2. You'll only have to post 1 copy of it, instead of mailing it out every time someone asks. It'll reduce your bandwidth if you're really concerned about it. 3. LET THIS DAMN THREAD DIE ALREADY. You advertised your piece. Folks responded. It's done. In the future, if you don't want this kind of response, please don't advertise it here. If you do post it to the mailing list again, I can pretty much bet you'll get the same response.... That's what makes CentOS so great.. it's consistent and reliable! </shameless plug> -- During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. George Orwell

3 2

CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 28, Issue 6
by centos-announce-request＠centos.org 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to centos-announce(a)centos.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to centos-announce-request(a)centos.org You can reach the person managing the list at centos-announce-owner(a)centos.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of CentOS-announce digest..." Today's Topics: 1. CESA-2007:0385 Moderate CentOS 3 i386 fetchmail - security update (Tru Huynh) 2. CESA-2007:0385 Moderate CentOS 3 x86_64 fetchmail - security update (Tru Huynh) 3. CESA-2007:0385 Moderate CentOS 5 i386 fetchmail Update (Karanbir Singh) 4. CESA-2007:0385 Moderate CentOS 5 x86_64 fetchmail Update (Karanbir Singh) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 7 Jun 2007 11:31:34 +0200 From: Tru Huynh <tru(a)centos.org> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2007:0385 Moderate CentOS 3 i386 fetchmail - security update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <20070607093134.GA22721(a)sillage.bis.pasteur.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" CentOS Errata and Security Advisory CESA-2007:0385 fetchmail security update for CentOS 3 i386: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2007-0385.html The following updated file has been uploaded and is currently syncing to the mirrors: i386: updates/i386/RPMS/fetchmail-6.2.0-3.el3.4.i386.rpm source: updates/SRPMS/fetchmail-6.2.0-3.el3.4.src.rpm You may update your CentOS-3 i386 installations by running the command: yum update fetchmail Tru -- Tru Huynh (CentOS-3 i386/x86_64 Package Maintenance) http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xBEFA581B

1 0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 pctech(a)mybellybutton.com wrote: > > Unfortunately, I have had nothing, thus far, but bad experiences with wikis. Especially when you begin letting others "mark up" something that you've posted there. At that point, because your name is on it, you "own" all of their mistakes. I'm not saying that the CentOS wiki is like that, just wikis in general. > > WikiPedia is probably one of the most horrifically obvious examples of what I am talking about. Not only do you have all of the blatant inaccuracies, which tend to get attributed back to the original article author, but you also have all of the drama that goes along with it. > > Things start to go sideways when you begin to let others exert their own creative control over something with your name on it. I'm all for the free exchange of ideas, information, and knowledge. I'm not all for getting blamed for some crap someone added to something with my name on it. Been there, done that, don't need that drama anymore. > > Some wikis, again I speak in general, not of the CentOS wiki, also demand that you turn over any and all rights to whatever you post there. While I enjoy sharing my knowledge with the world for free, I will be damned if I will give up my rights to profit from it in the future. Even the BSD license doesn't expect this. > > This document, the firewall one, is the first in a series of documents that I plan on writing. I've worked very hard to get it to the state that it is at right now. It's what I consider a "living document" and will be changing as necessary. The second in the series is a document on building a network monitor based on open source tools. I've just begun writing it. I am hoping to have it completed in a couple of months, now that I have a format I am happy with for my documents. The third of the series will be on building a VPN concentrator based on open source tools. Part of what takes me so long to write these documents is that I don't actually enjoy writing. I enjoy doing. The firewall document started out of necessity to build multiple Linux based firewalls consistently and rapidly for myself and just morphed into something that I decided to share with the community. I figured that since there wasn't much out there that was useful others might like it. > > While it's, most definitely, not the be-all end-all of Linux based firewall information, I think it's a pretty good document that I've worked very hard to write in a presentable manner that most people could understand and even expand upon for themselves. I am all for receiving comments and suggestions for future revisions of the document, any document that I write for that matter. I'm just not all for having my documents hacked apart by every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the Internet and then all of the misinformation getting lumped onto my shoulders because I happen to be the person that wrote the original document. I've already had enough drama from the CentOS forums where I got accused of being an e-mail address harvester for a spammer. No thanks. I don't need that in my life. I'm just a computer network engineer that THOUGHT he was doing the right thing by giving back to the community. Understood, that's your right. It seems kind of silly, though, to go to the trouble of writing so much, then limit yourself with sharing to only a very small percentage of the CentOS community by broadcasting a message to e-mail you for documentation. Documentation is supposed to be readily available, that's the point of it, at least from my perspective, no matter what the license or stipulations of the content are. Although you can pick out a license for your material that would cover protecting the interests you have expressed, yet at the same time allowing others to share in your material. One of the Creative Commons license, or another, would do the trick. That said, do you not have a place to host the document then? It seems that if you've gone to that much trouble to write something, then perhaps you just need a spot somewhere to host the document? ---------------------------------------- Currently I have a domain, yes, however my bandwidth is rather limited. By cost, not by speed. I don't feel like incurring hundreds of dollars in usage fees to post this on my domain. Licensing is good and fine, except for the fact that once you post something on a wiki, in most cases, anyone that comes along can freely add to and modify the content of what you've posted. This happens on Wikipedia quite frequently. This doesn't cover the "It's your fault because you wrote the document" blame that gets lumped on you when something goes wrong from a change that someone else made. The person who's name is on the document is the one that is going to get his or her neck wrung by the pissed off person. I've had it happen in the past. I don't care to repeat it. I really don't like lawyers sending me letters because of stupidity like that. I originally chose the method that I use for disseminating it because, to be honest, I don't really see that there is enough interest in it to invest the time or money into something larger. I have, however, considered asking the admins of the IEEE Computer Society, LOPSA, or AZSAGE if I could post it on their sites when I renew my memberships. Regards, Max -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGZtJgHoeeepPau2ERAvcMAJ4voQ+EUg/StcW3vEg5ZhLMGv3NcQCgpsha podiuZE3dvwhaV4GUcI3C5Y= =n8/R -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

2 1

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

> Why don't you ask the Wiki gurus and put it on the CentOS Wiki? Yes, I agree whit that. The idea is always the same: beneficing the community. In this case, put the manual into the wiki would be greater for all CentOS users. ----------------------------------------------- Unfortunately, I have had nothing, thus far, but bad experiences with wikis. Especially when you begin letting others "mark up" something that you've posted there. At that point, because your name is on it, you "own" all of their mistakes. I'm not saying that the CentOS wiki is like that, just wikis in general. WikiPedia is probably one of the most horrifically obvious examples of what I am talking about. Not only do you have all of the blatant inaccuracies, which tend to get attributed back to the original article author, but you also have all of the drama that goes along with it. Things start to go sideways when you begin to let others exert their own creative control over something with your name on it. I'm all for the free exchange of ideas, information, and knowledge. I'm not all for getting blamed for some crap someone added to something with my name on it. Been there, done that, don't need that drama anymore. Some wikis, again I speak in general, not of the CentOS wiki, also demand that you turn over any and all rights to whatever you post there. While I enjoy sharing my knowledge with the world for free, I will be damned if I will give up my rights to profit from it in the future. Even the BSD license doesn't expect this. This document, the firewall one, is the first in a series of documents that I plan on writing. I've worked very hard to get it to the state that it is at right now. It's what I consider a "living document" and will be changing as necessary. The second in the series is a document on building a network monitor based on open source tools. I've just begun writing it. I am hoping to have it completed in a couple of months, now that I have a format I am happy with for my documents. The third of the series will be on building a VPN concentrator based on open source tools. Part of what takes me so long to write these documents is that I don't actually enjoy writing. I enjoy doing. The firewall document started out of necessity to build multiple Linux based firewalls consistently and rapidly for myself and just morphed into something that I decided to share with the community. I figured that since there wasn't much out there that was useful others might like it. While it's, most definitely, not the be-all end-all of Linux based firewall information, I think it's a pretty good document that I've worked very hard to write in a presentable manner that most people could understand and even expand upon for themselves. I am all for receiving comments and suggestions for future revisions of the document, any document that I write for that matter. I'm just not all for having my documents hacked apart by every Tom, Dick, and Harry on the Internet and then all of the misinformation getting lumped onto my shoulders because I happen to be the person that wrote the original document. I've already had enough drama from the CentOS forums where I got accused of being an e-mail address harvester for a spammer. No thanks. I don't need that in my life. I'm just a computer network engineer that THOUGHT he was doing the right thing by giving back to the community. -- Thanks, Jordi Espasa Clofent _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

7 7

Modules from a newer kernel with older kernel?
by Miguel Medalha 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Is it possible to use driver modules from Fedora 7 with CentOS 5? That is to say, modules from a kernel version 2.6.21 with a kernel version 2.6.18. I would like to try libata.ko, ata_piix.ko and some other with the kernel I am using with CentOS 5. Will it be safe? Thank you!

2 1

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

On 6/6/07, pctech(a)mybellybutton.com <pctech(a)mybellybutton.com> wrote: > > Why don't you ask the Wiki gurus and put it on the CentOS Wiki? > > Yes, I agree whit that. The idea is always the same: beneficing the > community. > In this case, put the manual into the wiki would be greater for all > CentOS users. > > ----------------------------------------------- > > Unfortunately, I have had nothing, thus far, but bad experiences with wikis. Especially when you begin letting others "mark up" something that you've posted there. At that point, because your name is on it, you "own" all of their mistakes. I'm not saying that the CentOS wiki is like that, just wikis in general. [...] Please don't start this again. You can view last year's argument about this here: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2006-August/thread.html#67803 PCtech: You are certainly entitled to control your copyrighted material however you like, but if you look at how the rest of the open source community handles this type of information, you must be able to see that the method you are using is not typical. It's the type of thing that makes other people uncomfortable. Again, you are completely entitled to handle it however you like, but you need to expect people will consider your method unsavory. -------------------------------------------------- It is VERY typical in the open source community. Name me ONE open source project that just ANYONE can submit changes to that will go live without some sort of vetting process. You can't. Because there are none. A large percentage of the open source projects don't even accept submissions from people that aren't on the development team. I don't need to expect anything of the sort. I don't HAVE to offer this document, or any of the future ones, to people. I do it because I WANT to. For the good of the community as it were. That doesn't mean that I have to give up all of my rights to who can actually change the document that I spent the time to write. How is the way I am disseminating it ANY less "savory" than posting it on a web site for people to download? Because I choose e-mail? It allows ME to control the cost of disseminating the information. It allows ME to control the alterations to my document. I've tried disseminating things in a wiki format before. No thanks. One letter from a lawyer was quite enough. I don't know about you, but *I* don't want to have to defend myself against someone for something that I give out for free and wrote, initially, for myself. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

4 5

How to set up maxium masseage size per user basic
by Indunil Jayasooriya 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Hi All, I am runnig sendmail 8.13.8 with MailScanner-4.58.9-1 on CentOS 5. I want to setup a rule which filters message sizes. Below is the situation. I have 20 users. They currently have full freedom to send and recive mails. No message size checking is done. Now I want to limit message size per user basic. Let's say that 5 users can only send mails up to 7 MB and they can recieve up to 5 MB. 10 users can only send mails up to 10 MB and they can recieve up to 7 MB. and the remaining 5 users can only send mails up to 2MB and they can recieve up to 3 MB How to set a rule like this. In Mailscanner, There is a file called max.message.size.rules It is given below. I wrote a rule. But it still does not work. pls see below [root@mailgw rules]# cat max.message.size.rules To: userx(a)example.com 5M To: *(a)example.com 3M From: userx(a)example.com 7M From: *(a)example.com 2M # FromOrTo: default 0 Could you pls let me know where I have gone wrong? -- Thank you Indunil Jayasooriya

1 0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Linux Firewall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

pctech(a)mybellybutton.com wrote: > > Unfortunately, I have had nothing, thus far, but bad experiences with wikis. Especially when you begin letting others "mark up" something that you've posted there. At that point, because your name is on it, you "own" all of their mistakes. I'm not saying that the CentOS wiki is like that, just wikis in general. > > WikiPedia is probably one of the most horrifically obvious examples of what I am talking about. Not only do you have all of the blatant inaccuracies, which tend to get attributed back to the original article author, but you also have all of the drama that goes along with it. Did you miss the 'revision history' link that removes all doubt about who said what? -------------------------------------------------- Yeah. I saw it. Your snippy comment just shows EXACTLY what I am talking about. I also know, for a fact, that a large percentage of the people that read a wiki ignore that when something goes wrong and go straight to the source. I've seen it far too many times. I've seen the "Well, your information is wrong. You said this." "No I didn't." "Yes you did. Look at your wiki." "No I didn't. Look at the revision history. Someone else did." "It's your posting, you're responsible, so it's your fault and your information is wrong." You might be surprised how few people even care who said what. They hold the original author responsible. No thanks. I don't need that drama. This started out as a project solely for my own use. Nothing more and nothing less. It morphed to what it is today because I didn't see anything like it out on the 'Net at the time. At the end of the day, it has my name on it, so it's my heartburn if someone marks it up and it's wrong. If people don't want it because of my chosen distribution method, that's fine by me. I'll just keep my documents to myself and then they don't have to worry about it. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

6 7

what is extra/ updates/ and weak-updates/ under /lib/modules/<kernel>/ directories?
by Robinson Tiemuqinke 07 Jun '07

07 Jun '07

Hi, there are three 'extra' directories under /lib/modules/<kernel>/ directories for each kernel version. Any one can explain what is the real functions for these three directories, and how to use them correctly? I found a document talks a little about it at http://linux.dell.com/files/presentations/Red_Hat_Summit_May_2006/Driver_Up…, but would like to know more real alive examples to see how I can really use the kernel driver update mechanism. Thanks. ____________________________________________________________________________________ No need to miss a message. Get email on-the-go with Yahoo! Mail for Mobile. Get started. http://mobile.yahoo.com/mail

1 0

Error on sound files with totem removed
by Mark Hull-Richter 06 Jun '07

06 Jun '07

I decided to go ahead and remove totem (don't much care for it anyway), and when I double-click a sound file in nautilus, it runs mplayer to play the file, but I also get an error window (from mplayer) that says "[AO OSS] audio_setup: Can't open audio device /dev/dsp: Device or resource busy" but it is playing the sound file just fine. I can close the error window and everything works; if I close mplayer instead, both mplayer and the error window disappear. What gives? -- Mark Hull-Richter DATAllegro (www.datallegro.com) 85 Enterprise, 2nd Floor, Aliso Viejo, CA 92656 Ofc: 949-680-3082 fax: 949-680-3001

2 2

Yum (dependency) problem on latest 4.5 updates
by fredex 06 Jun '07

06 Jun '07

Hi! running a Centos 4.5 system here. This week when I do "yum update" I get this output: # yum update Loading "protectbase" plugin Setting up Update Process Setting up repositories kbs-CentOS-Extras 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 update 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 pidgin 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 rpmforge 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 base 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 addons 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 Reading repository metadata in from local files 122 packages excluded due to repository protections Resolving Dependencies --> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait. ---> Package mpeg2dec.i386 0:0.4.1-2.el4.rf set to be updated ---> Package x264.i386 0:0.0.0-0.4.20070529.el4.rf set to be updated ---> Package mutt.i386 5:1.4.1-12.0.3.el4 set to be updated --> Running transaction check --> Processing Dependency: libx264.so.54 for package: vlc --> Processing Dependency: libx264.so.54 for package: ffmpeg --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Missing Dependency: libx264.so.54 is needed by package vlc Error: Missing Dependency: libx264.so.54 is needed by package ffmpeg which is a problem I've never encountered before. One odd thing about it is that I've ALREADY GOT libx264.so.54, it comes as part of the x264 rpm. I also noticed today that a 4.5 box there is having the same problem, so I'm left to assume that there's something wrong with this last batch of updates?????? Advice would be appreciated. Thanks! -- ---- Fred Smith -- fredex(a)fcshome.stoneham.ma.us ----------------------------- I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. ------------------------------ Philippians 4:13 -------------------------------

5 6

Unrecognized character \xED at perl-Date-Calc-5.4-1.2.2.1.i386.rpm line 1
by beast 06 Jun '07

06 Jun '07

I've just install centos 5.0 on new PC. However it gives this error while installing per-Date-Calc: [root@piranha tmp]# perl -ivh perl-Date-Calc-5.4-1.2.2.1.i386.rpm Unrecognized character \xED at perl-Date-Calc-5.4-1.2.2.1.i386.rpm line 1. what could be the problem? --beast

3 3

NFS v4
by Francois Caen 06 Jun '07

06 Jun '07

Hello all, Do you guys use NFS v4 in production? Is the Linux implementation ready enough? The feeling I'm getting by looking at RH doc and other web sites is that v4 was added in a hurry and is not mainstream yet. I don't want to use something too cutting edge that will break down the road. Is that the case? In my case, it would be a CentOS5 server with CentOS4 client. Thanks, -- Francois Caen

6 9

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss