- Discuss - lists.centos.org

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

23 May '05

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

2 1

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

23 May '05

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

2 1

segmantation fault
by Adrian Coman 22 May '05

22 May '05

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

5 12

Centos4 and Typo3
by Blaž Bogataj 22 May '05

22 May '05

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

2 1

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

22 May '05

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

5 5

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

22 May '05

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

1 0

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

22 May '05

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

3 2

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

22 May '05

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

1 0

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

22 May '05

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

2 1

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

22 May '05

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

6 7

Software RAID CentOS4
by Gerald Waugh 21 May '05

21 May '05

Hi, I have a system with two IDE controllers running RAID1. As a test I powered down, removed one drive (hdc), and powered back up. System came up fine, so powered down installed a new drive (hdc) And powered back up. /proc/mdstat indicatd RAID1 active with hda only. I thought it would Auto add the new hdc drive... Also when I removed the new drive and added The original hdc, the swap partitions were active hda and hdc but only hda on the other partitions. I has to add the other hdc partitions with mdadm -a. My mdadm.conf looks like; # mdadm.conf written out by anaconda DEVICE partitions MAILADDR root ARRAY /dev/md1 super-minor=1 ARRAY /dev/md0 super-minor=0 ARRAY /dev/md3 super-minor=3 ARRAY /dev/md2 super-minor=2 Shouldn't there be more information for mdadm to work with? How do you replace a failed drive and have it auto-configured? TIA Gerald

3 3

[Out of Office] Re: CentOS Digest, Vol 4, Issue 20
by alex＠parallaxsystems.com.au 21 May '05

21 May '05

I am on annual leave until Monday 23rd May, 2005. If you have an urgent support matter, please log in to the helpdesk site with your support agreement ID and create a ticket.

2 1

Firefox 1.04?
by Matt Bottrell 21 May '05

21 May '05

Just curious if we're likely to see Firefox 1.04 coming out shortly!? 1.03 has some *nasty* vulnerabilities.... and it would be nice to get a new build of 1.04. yeah yeah... I know... wait for the upstream *rant* Geez.... they are dragging there feet on this one. :-(

8 11

Promise FastTrak series
by Steven Moix - Axianet.ch 21 May '05

21 May '05

Hello, In some weeks I'm going to reinstall some old RedHat9 based servers with Promise FastTrak TX2000 "semi-hardware" RAID1 controllers. I just tried to install CentOS 4.0 on a computer with a spare card and as usual both HDD attached to the RAID1 controller are seen separately by the installer because the specific driver for the TX2000 wasn't loaded. Nothing new here, it was always like this on every distro as far as I know. Now I googeled a bit and have some questions: 1. In some forums I could read that the FastTrak series in RAID mode wasn't supported anymore in the 2.6 kernel (was PDCRAID module in the later 2.4 kernels). Quoted apparently from the linux kernel mailing list: >>In 2.6, Promise software RAID support does not exist. In conversations >>with Promise, we all agreed to encourage and support the standard Linux >>RAID, md. So does this mean that I have to use software RAID in linux if I don't want to load the drivers provided by Promise (see question 2)? 2. On the other hand Promise provides the partial source code for their driver, but there is a silly problem with this...I want to install my OS directly on the RAID array :) So I guess that I would have to: - Install CentOS on another computer, compile the driver provided by Promise, make a driver disk (don't ask me how). - Boot CentOS on the server with the controller and type "linux dd" to load this driver disk. - Pray and correct bugs for the next 2 weeks. Is this the right way to go? Any feedback with FastTrak TX2000 or TX4000 controllers would be very welcome, let me know which solution you choosed. Thanks Steven

3 3

Car Performance Tuning
by Alex White 21 May '05

21 May '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 List, I googled on this, and despite getting some hits (due more to the terms performance and tuning I think than anything) I was unable to locate useful links for actual software. I'm seeking software that will run on CentOS (or really any linux install period) that will assist me in testing and tuning my vehicle. I'm involved in import racing and would like to glean as much information from my car as possible while making modifications. Any ideas? Sincerely - -- Alex White prata(a)kuei-jin.org Fingerprint = 58DC 9199 CE73 74E8 B2C1 442E ACF5 92E0 E068 C46C gpg key location: http://www.kuei-jin.org/GPG-KEY-PRATA ~From the withered tree, a flower blooms --Zen Proverb -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Red Hat - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCiywArPWS4OBoxGwRAiE/AKCSk3uaSRjGhXwcPGV11n/bkZay6ACbBv0X LrZqrQsV06sIOPMeWBQDF5Q= =hCiK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 3

CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 3, Issue 11
by centos-announce-request＠centos.org 21 May '05

21 May '05

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. CEBA-2005:xxx CentOS 3 ia64 - lot of updates for U5 (Pasi Pirhonen) 2. CESA-2005:294 CentOS 3 i386 kernel - updated package (Tru Huynh) 3. CESA-2005:294 CentOS 3 x86_64 kernel - updated package (Tru Huynh) 4. CESA-2005:256 CentOS Low 3 i386 glibc - security update (Tru Huynh) 5. CESA-2005:256 CentOS Low 3 x86_64 glibc - security update (Tru Huynh) 6. CESA-2005:106 CentOS Low 3 i386 openssh - security update (Tru Huynh) 7. CESA-2005:106 CentOS Low 3 x86_64 openssh - security update (Tru Huynh) 8. CESA-2005:074 CentOS Low 3 x86_64 rsh - security update (Tru Huynh) 9. CESA-2005:074 CentOS Low 3 i386 rsh - security update (Tru Huynh) 10. CESA-2005:238 CentOS Low 3 x86_64 evolution - security update (Tru Huynh) 11. CESA-2005:238 CentOS Low 3 i386 evolution - security update (Tru Huynh) 12. CEBA-2005:xxx CentOS 3 s390(x) - lot of updates for U5 (Pasi Pirhonen) 13. CESA-2005:256 CentOS 3 Low i386 glibc - security update (Tru Huynh) 14. CESA-2005:256 CentOS 3 Low x86_64 glibc - security update (Tru Huynh) 15. CESA-2005:106 CentOS 3 Low i386 openssh - security update (Tru Huynh) 16. CESA-2005:106 CentOS 3 Low x86_64 openssh - security update (Tru Huynh) 17. CESA-2005:074 CentOS 3 Low x86_64 rsh - security update (Tru Huynh) 18. CESA-2005:074 CentOS 3 Low i386 rsh - security update (Tru Huynh) 19. CESA-2005:238 CentOS 3 Low x86_64 evolution - security update (Tru Huynh) 20. CESA-2005:238 CentOS 3 Low i386 evolution - security update (Tru Huynh) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 20 May 2005 16:05:42 +0300 From: Pasi Pirhonen <upi(a)iki.fi> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CEBA-2005:xxx CentOS 3 ia64 - lot of updates for U5 To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <20050520130542.GA1929(a)core.upi.iki.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" CentOS Errata and Security Advisory CEBA-2005:xxx https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/rhel3as-errata.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: lot of files. Should be rest of the U5-batch. updates/ia64/RPMS/MyODBC-2.50.39-12.1.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/am-utils-6.0.9-2.4.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/anaconda-9.1.5.8-1.RHEL.1.centos.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/anaconda-runtime-9.1.5.8-1.RHEL.1.centos.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/autofs-4.1.3-130.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/bash-2.05b-41.4.centos.0.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/bzip2-1.0.2-11.EL3.1.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/bzip2-devel-1.0.2-11.EL3.1.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/bzip2-libs-1.0.2-11.EL3.1.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/cdda2wav-2.01.0.a32-0.EL3.2.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/cdrecord-2.01.0.a32-0.EL3.2.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/cdrecord-devel-2.01.0.a32-0.EL3.2.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/chkconfig-1.3.13.2-0.3.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/control-center-2.2.0.1-15.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/devlabel-0.48.03-10.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/dos2unix-3.1-15.EL.22.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/dump-0.4b37-1E.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/dvd+rw-tools-5.21.4.10.8-0.EL3.2.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/elinks-0.4.2-8.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/gdm-2.4.1.6-10.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/gedit-2.2.2-4.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/gnome-applets-2.2.2-2.1E.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/gnome-media-2.2.1.1-4.3.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/gnome-vfs2-2.2.5-2E.3.2.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/gnome-vfs2-devel-2.2.5-2E.3.2.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/grep-2.5.1-24.4.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/hotplug-2002_04_01-20.4.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/httpd-2.0.46-46.ent.centos.1.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/httpd-devel-2.0.46-46.ent.centos.1.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/hwdata-0.101.17-1.noarch.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/initscripts-7.31.22.EL-2.centos.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/iscsi-initiator-utils-3.6.2-7.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/jpackage-utils-1.5.38-1jpp_5rh.noarch.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/kernel-utils-2.4-8.37.12.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/kudzu-1.1.22.11-1.centos.0.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/kudzu-devel-1.1.22.11-1.centos.0.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/laus-0.1-70RHEL3.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/laus-devel-0.1-70RHEL3.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/laus-libs-0.1-70RHEL3.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/libwnck-2.2.3-1.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/libwnck-devel-2.2.3-1.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/lsof-4.63-4.1.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/lvm-1.0.8-12.2.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/mailx-8.1.1-31.EL3.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/man-pages-ja-20041215-1.EL3.noarch.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/mikmod-3.1.6-21.3.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/mikmod-devel-3.1.6-21.3.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/mkinitrd-3.5.13.3-1.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/mkisofs-2.01.0.a32-0.EL3.2.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/mktemp-1.5-18.2.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/mod_auth_mysql-20030510-2.ent.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/mod_ssl-2.0.46-46.ent.centos.1.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/net-snmp-5.0.9-2.30E.15.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/net-snmp-devel-5.0.9-2.30E.15.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/net-snmp-libs-5.0.9-2.30E.15.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/net-snmp-perl-5.0.9-2.30E.15.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/net-snmp-utils-5.0.9-2.30E.15.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/net-tools-1.60-20E.7.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/netdump-0.7.7-2.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/netdump-server-0.7.7-2.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/nss_ldap-207-15.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/ntsysv-1.3.13.2-0.3.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/pam_krb5-1.75-1.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/procps-2.0.17-13.7.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/psacct-6.3.2-31.rhel3.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/psmisc-21.3-2.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/pstack-1.2-3.EL.2.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/quota-3.10-7.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/raidtools-1.00.3-8.EL3.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/redhat-config-httpd-1.1.0-4.30.2.noarch.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/redhat-config-users-1.1.18-5.noarch.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/rmt-0.4b37-1E.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/shadow-utils-4.0.3-23.08.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/squid-2.5.STABLE3-6.3E.9.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/strace-4.5.9-2.EL3.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/sysklogd-1.4.1-26_EL3.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/sysreport-1.3.7.2-4.noarch.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/unix2dos-2.2-19.EL.25.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/usermode-1.68-5E.3.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/usermode-gtk-1.68-5E.3.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/vixie-cron-3.0.1-76_EL3.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/ypbind-1.12-5.21.6.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/ypserv-2.8-13.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/zsh-4.0.7-1.EL.2.ia64.rpm -- Pasi Pirhonen - upi(a)iki.fi - http://iki.fi/upi/

1 0

Re: [CentOS] mplayer repository for CentOS
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 21 May '05

21 May '05

From: Adrian Coman <adi.coman(a)gmail.com> > Is there a CentOS yum repository for mplayer&dependencies? From: Ralph Angenendt <ra+centos(a)br-online.de> > http://dag.wieers.com/home-made/apt/> I'm kinda curious. I'm typically tapping the Livna.ORG archives for RHEL3Ux/CentOS3.x (Fedora Core 1 repository) and RHEL4Ux/CentOS4.x (Fedora Core 3 repository) for MPlayer and a number of other programs that Livna.ORG provides. Nothing against DAG, but I typically like to use Fedora Extras/Livna.ORG first, unless I can't find something or have an issue. Does anyone else do this as well, or is DAG the preferred option among most? -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

6 5

Centos4 web hosting Control Panel
by Bob Pierce 21 May '05

21 May '05

I'm looking for a nice Open Source web hosting Control Panel. Is anybody using VHCS with Centos4? Any other suggestions for good control panels? We'd really prefer a panel with a MySQL backend for user settings and such. Bob Pierce Systems Analyst Westman Communications Group pierceb(a)westmancom.com

3 3

iptables port forwarding
by Mark Quitoriano 20 May '05

20 May '05

i'm having a problem viewing logs on forwarded ports from the firewall to another server, i forwarded mail(port 25) from the firewall to an internal server. The problem is when i try to view the logs it just shows the firewall ip as the sender and not the original sender. -- Regards, Mark Quitoriano, CCNA http://www.atamanetworks.com

4 13

clamav in the yum repository
by ljacobs 20 May '05

20 May '05

Has anyone made a version of clamav for CentOS 4? For x86_64 servers? Thanks. --Len Jacobs ________________________________________________________________ Sent via the WebMessaging system at mandala-designs.com

5 4

CentOS 3 / tg3 driver on an HS20 Blade
by Brendon Colby 20 May '05

20 May '05

Greetings: I know it's been mentioned before that the tg3 driver in CentOS 3.4 is buggy. I had to revert to 3.4 today from 4 (fresh install) and now I have no link and thus no network. I'm wondering if this is caused by this bug and what the work-around is. Thanks. Brendon Colby

3 3

How NOT to have a disk recognized by grub?
by Michael 20 May '05

20 May '05

Greetings: I'm upgrading a fileserver running 3.4 (upgrade to a larger disk). I backed up the data from the "old" disk and slapped in a newer, larger disk and installed Centos-3.4. No problems. Now, there are some files on the "old" disk that I forgot to move to the back-up disk, so I'd like to mount the "old" disk as /dev/hdd and reboot the system and transfer the files [hdd (old disk) --> hda (new disk)]. However, the old disk still has Grub on the MBR and when I boot, the system tries to mount the "/boot" and "/" partitions from BOTH disks! I get errors about duplicate partitions and that those dups won't get mounted.The fileserver does boot but with a configuration combination of both systems. Question: Grub is correctly installed and configured on hda. How do I get the boot process to ignore the old disk (and MBR) on hdd??? I tried google but I can't seem to find this fix. Thanks, Michael Chinn

5 6

Re: [CentOS] Re: mplayer repository for CentOS
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 20 May '05

20 May '05

From: Paul Heinlein <heinlein(a)madboa.com> > FWIW, under RH/FC I typically used Fedora Extras and Livna, grabbing DAG > packages only when I was in a real hurry. I haven't yet tried to > integrate either repo into CentOS 4. I've pretty much just stuck with FE+Lorg for RHEL3Ux/CentOS3.x (EL3) and RHEL4Ux/CentOS4.x (EL4) out of "default," because like yourself, I'm already using them with Fedora Core (I use FC1 for EL3, FC3 for EL4). It's just one of those things where I'm already doing configuration management of my FC systems and integrating in packages from FE (although not MPlayer or most of Lorg, for legal reasons in a corporate environment), so I'm just adopting the same for my EL systems as well. So at home, I do the same (only with more packages from Lorg too). But also like yourself, I have used DAG from time-to-time. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: mplayer repository for CentOS -- oops, send wrong signal ...
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 20 May '05

20 May '05

Maciej Zenczykowski wrote: > is there stuff in livna which isn't in dag/dries > hmm... will have to take a look Preston Crawford wrote: > I haven't found much that I needed that wasn't in dag's repository. > Only two items. Here's what I've found. > gtkpod - for iPods, obviously > xine > mplayer > mplayer-plugin > bittorrent > gkrellm > irssi - ncurses IRC client > mozilla-flash > xmms-mp3 > centericq - ncurses Jabber client > pine, even (yes, I still sometimes use that) > Almost everything I've needed has been there. > And that's a wide range of stuff. Oops, I guess I sent the wrong signal. First off, by far, DAG is going to be the most comprehensive. No way would I dispute that. Secondly, my preference for Fedora Extras/Livna.ORG is because of my experience with Fedora Core and "repository mixing." Nothing against DAG, how he manages to keep up, I have no idea, but I've had better luck with Fedora Extras/Livna.ORG in the past. Now I know many people view it as a catch-22 -- the Fedora Extra team seemed to "keep it itself" in the past, and didn't open up a lot of things. All while Red Hat expected the same level of regression testing on Fedora Extras without putting anyone really on it (and leaving it to the former U of Hawaii team). But as of January of this year, Red Hat has really opened up the formal submission process for including things in Fedora Extras, and put people on regression testing submissions. I'm thinking about submitting several of my own RPMs (e.g., IMAP). Which is why I personally prefer to use Fedora Extras/Livna.ORG by default. I only tap DAG when he clear super-set of packages has something that FE/Lorg doesn't. > The only thing I've installed from downloaded binaries has been Java > stuff, jdk, eclipse, tomcat, etc. And I like to install that stuff > manually anyway. Well, there are some serious licensing issues with some of that (like Java -- far more than "patent" ones), so that is expected. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: iptables port forwarding -- name resolution and not forwarding/routing?
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 20 May '05

20 May '05

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists(a)hughesjr.com> > What I do is have an internal DNS server that does internal IPS for my > domain (it is listed as Primary, no secondaries, for my domain). > Internally, mail.hughesjr.com has the internal address .... externally > it real address. > Internal clients point to the internal DNS server (and internal IP) ... > external clients point to the external IP. Exactomundo. In many cases, it's not a fowarding/routing issue, but a name resolution issue. Private systems are resolving to public addresses, and you want to intercept those from ever reaching a public DNS server. That way you can replace the public name/IP everyone else sees with just the private name/IP that the private LAN should access. That means using private DNS servers and _only_ having the private systems resolving to them. Use "forwarder" and other DNS configuration on the private systems to do external resolution for the internal systems anyway. In addition to solving this issue, you get 2 additional benefits: - DNS cache pooling (all systems are resolving to 2-3 private DNS servers) - UDP/53 restriction (only allow UDP/53 through firewall to those 2-3 private DNS servers) -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: [CentOS] RPM dependency graph?
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 20 May '05

20 May '05

From: Christian Nygaard <chris(a)math.uu.se> > Do people know of a tool to generate a visual RPM dependency > graph either in ASCII or with Graphics? Several came out from various Red Hat developers when the "shackles were taken off" and the Red Hat Rawhide team "had at it" with renamed Fedora Core 1 Test in removing years and years of built-up "inter-dependency hell." If you search the [now] Fedora Development lists from August-September 2003, you should see several of them. Some are CLI and some web (PHP?). You can even use them to build pre-assembled package lists for use in Anaconda -- which is really nice if CentOS wants to add its own installation types. E.g., I've always wanted to create a Kerberos Key Distribution Center (KDC aka "key server") install that is rather a minimal package list. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Iptables - PREROUTING
by David González Romero 20 May '05

20 May '05

I have a server whit 2 interfaces of network, where eth0 is the interfaces connetc to internet and eth1 to the internal network. This server hace a Squid only, but i setting the iptables for protection to the server. Iptables run from script and in this script i setting the redirection for the other server in my internal network to port 80 and 443. I follow the diferent how to and many manual, but the redirect no work, the NAT POSTROUTING work and the squid work to. My DNS is Ok, because the consult whit dig command the answer is the assigned ip. Here put the copy of my script: --------------- Begin the Script #Delete Rules iptables -F INPUT iptables -F OUTPUT iptables -F FORWARD iptables -t nat -F ## Modules install modprobe ip_tables modprobe ip_nat_ftp modprobe ip_conntrack_ftp ## FLUSH of Rules iptables -F iptables -X iptables -Z iptables -t nat -F ## Default policy iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT iptables -P OUTPUT ACCEPT iptables -P FORWARD ACCEPT iptables -t nat -P PREROUTING ACCEPT iptables -t nat -P POSTROUTING ACCEPT ##Filter Begin ##Note: eth0 is the network interface connect to router and ## eth1 comnect to lan ## The localhost full iptables -A INPUT -i lo -j ACCEPT ## DROP the ping for eth0 iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -p ICMP --icmp-type echo-request -j DROP ## All pack of router acept. iptables -A INPUT -i eth0 -s rango_ip/29 -d 0/0 -p all -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -i eth1 -s 172.16.0.0/24 -d 172.16.0.211/32 -p all -j ACCEPT ##Redirect server web iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 80 -j DNAT --to 172.16.0.3:80 iptables -t nat -A PREROUTING -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 443 -j DNAT --to 172.16.0.3:443 iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -p tcp -s 172.16.0.0/24 --dport 80 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -p tcp -s 172.16.0.0/24 --dport 443 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -p tcp -s 172.16.0.0/24 --dport 53 -j ACCEPT iptables -A FORWARD -i eth1 -p udp -s 172.16.0.0/24 --dport 53 -j ACCEPT ## DNS Full. ACEPT. iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --sport 53 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --sport 53 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 53 -j ACCEPT ## SQUID iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --sport 3128 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p tcp -m tcp --dport 3128 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --sport 3128 -j ACCEPT iptables -A INPUT -p udp -m udp --dport 3128 -j ACCEPT # Close range of port know iptables -A INPUT -s 0.0.0.0/0 -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 1:1024 -j DROP iptables -A INPUT -s 0.0.0.0/0 -i eth0 -p udp --dport 1:1024 -j DROP # Close the port of webmin iptables -A INPUT -s 0.0.0.0/0 -i eth0 -p tcp --dport 10000 -j DROP ## FORWARD # Do log all forward iptables -A INPUT -j LOG --log-level info iptables -A OUTPUT -j LOG --log-level info iptables -A FORWARD -j LOG --log-level info ## Fnish of table FILTER ## General of MASQUERADE iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 172.16.0.6/32 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 172.16.0.10/32 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE #iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 172.16.0.1/32 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE iptables -t nat -A POSTROUTING -s 172.16.0.9/32 -o eth0 -j MASQUERADE ## Do forward to the interfaces of network # Enable of forwarding echo 1 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/ip_forward /sbin/iptables -L -n > /etc/sysconfig/show /usr/bin/less /etc/sysconfig/show -----------------------------End of Script The output of command "iptables -L -t nat" show me this: Chain PREROUTING (policy ACCEPT) target prot opt source destination DNAT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:www to:172.16.0.3:80 DNAT tcp -- anywhere anywhere tcp dpt:https to:172.16.0.3:443 Some solution?? Regards, David _________________________________________ Tec. David Gonzalez Romero Network/System Administrator CNAP- Centro Nacional Áreas Protegidas Linux counter: 242534 _________________________________________ _________________________________________ Tec. David Gonzalez Romero Network/System Administrator CNAP- Centro Nacional Áreas Protegidas Linux counter: 242534 _________________________________________

2 1

centos-announce spam
by Maciej Zenczykowski 20 May '05

20 May '05

Could we please keep the centos-announce messages in the correct format? Not centos low 3 but low centos 3? Cheers, MaZe

4 3

Re: pronunciation? -- loving CentOS doesn't mean you have to bash Red Hat
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 20 May '05

20 May '05

From: Martyn Drake <martyn(a)drake.org.uk> > To be quite honest with you - that's been and gone so quickly I can't > ever remember what my position was at that time. It actually happened over the span of 2 years before any name change. With the introduction of RHEL as a separate product, RHL was having an identity crisis. It used to be that ".2" was the "enterprise release" (and they even sold SLAs as RHL6.2E), but now there was a 2nd product. Some suits insisted that RHL was still a product -- and some even viewed it as a "competiting" product. I noticed this first hand when RHL7.3, RHL8.0 and RHL9 were "missing" a few things that suddenly "reappeared" later with FC1. Most developers wanted the "shackles off" because RHEL was now the "SLA" product, and RHL was just the incubator for that product now. There was also the continuing nags from CompUSA and other resellers about selling a product that is outdated every 6 months. The result is that Red Hat Linux was deprecated to a project, no longer a product. Vendors largely stopped certifying on RHL after RHL7.3 as the announcements came that updates would only be released for 1 year. Then there were the other projects that added RPMs, etc... and all that finally came to a head in the grand re-design. > I seem to remember it had something to do with Progeny and them > supporting the releases as part of their transition solution. Had _nothing_ to do with Progeny. Progeny just decided to take advantage of the situation and offer $5/month subscriptions in the absence of RHN as of 2003Dec31 (RHL6.2-7.3 EOL) and 2004Apr31 (RHL8.0-9 EOL). Of course, anyone who follows Fedora Legacy knows that even RHL7.3 continued to have updates -- and more ".0" releases like RHL8.0 were dropped due to lack of popularity. > Usually I've gone down the route of using dedicated server providers > that can supply RHEL with the system. That's _exactly_ one of the markets Red Hat was tapping. Red Hat either wants system integrators to use Fedora Core and support their own, or buy RHEL and share the burden with them. > What prompted me to buy my own subscription was that there > were at least two providers that had issues with getting their > RHN satellites/proxies/whatever working and left the machine in > a potentially vunerable state if their install image was a fair a bit > old. That doesn't sound like a Red Hat issue, but a system integrator one. Furthermore, the system integrator _could_ have provided you a YUM repository in the meantime. > Again, I've no problems with this whatsoever. I just wish I could > have purchased a cheaper service with less frills. When Red Hat reaches the economies-of-scale that Microsoft does, then that will happen. But right now, Red Hat has to sell at a price point that is 10x that of Microsoft to get equivalent operating funds for just development. People forget economies of scale is everything. ;-> Most of Red Hat's move into the black came from their Cygnus purchase, and not sales. It wasn't until the subscription model later that they started making a profit atop of their already profitable developer/services unit that Cygnus bought them. > Yggdrasil was my first too. I then worked my way up to Caldera > (spit! spit! spit!) Why? Caldera was a _good_ company until May 2003 (2 months after the original lawsuit, prior to the addedum). Caldera bought SCO and was going to have a split Monterey/IA-64 and Linux/x86 solution. 20 days after the purchase, IBM pulled out of Monterey, yet started to sell their Monterey/Power platform (aka AIX 5L). IBM essentially _squashed_ a _good_ Linux company overnight because it wanted to be the _only_ dual-UNIX/Linux vendor. It saw Monterey/IA-64 (UnixWare 8) as a competitor so it squashed it while it could. Caldera-SCO tried to continue for 18 months, but their entire future was built on low-volume, but high-end sales of UnixWare 8 while their Linux volumes increased. The result was the March 2003 filing, one that I questioned at first, _until_ I read items #50-55. That's when I realized Caldera-SCO was suing for: A) Breach of Contract: Withholding Monterey/IA-64 B) Breach of Non-Compete: Developing Linux/IA-64 Caldera-SCO figured IBM would want the rights to UNIX(R), and IBM would settle in short order. When IBM didn't, they expanded the lawsuit and put up a "smokescreen." They want people to believe their various contractual disputes with IBM, Autozone, Chrysler, etc... are about Linux IP, when they have _no_ ground to stand on. So far, the gambit has worked, largely thanx to the rabid Linux populous who knows nothing about Monetery, and the fact that even the most pro-Linux company is _not_ IBM's friend if you threatened their Power/AIX platforms. Just ask IBM customers who can't buy Linux/x86-64 systems from IBM because IBM tries to sell them Power/AIX, and what IBM does to them if they buy HP Linux/x86-64 systems. ;-> I felt a bit vindicated when Ransom Love, co-founder of Caldera, came out in a Fall 2003 interview with eWeek and basically verified it was all about Monterey, and he didn't agree at all with the May 2003 change of strategy. What really scares me is if and when Caldera-SCO _does_ win on a few counts against IBM, that people will think Caldera-SCO has asserted IP rights on Linux. So far, in all the rulings, on anything Linux, Caldera-SCO has gone no where. But on anything having to do with IBM's Monterey dealings, and possibly "non-compete" violation in the Linux/IA-64 space, the rulings have gone Caldera-SCO's way. I'm afraid a ruling on "non-compete" terms with regard to Linux might be taken as a Linux IP by the media -- and that is very justified given the type of articles we have seen (short of Ransom's interview). To date, Red Hat, Sun and HP have donated about 10x as much in GPL than IBM. People scrutinize Sun for their non-GPL licenses, but don't seem to do the same of IBM -- who has several "non-GPL compatible" licenses on the _majority_ of their so-called "donations." It's like there is the "Linux Quiz Show" and people are tuning in for the money, not the substance. The $1B went to maturing IBM's product line, not Linux donations. The latest $100M is to port 100% proprietary IBM software to Linux, but not open source it. IBM is not our friend. Thank God Linus & co. have watched every donation into the kernel, and made sure no IP was attached (which has held up many of IBM's donations). > but found my footing and went over to Red Hat from that point > onwards. These days I help look after many render farm boxes > and workstations running a combination of Red Hat 7.2 and Fedora Core > 1. We're still converting to FC1 and it's a long and laborious > process given the number of machines that need updating. I adopted APT-RPM for all Red Hat Linux 7+ systems a long time ago. I largely use APT repositories for configuration management. On x86-64, I try to use APT-RPM, but when I need to load both i386 and x86_64 packages, YUM-RPM gets the call. > From that point we'll then going to have to look at 64bit support. YUM-RPM does an outstanding job. My only complaint is that Red Hat stupidly doesn't put the i386 version of Firefox in its repositories alongside the x86_64 packages (it does both for Mozilla though). > Much of our needs are dictated by the software we run, and our > vendors will only support certain distributions. Which is why Studio > Linux http://www.studio-linux.org was born. Why not base it on Fedora Core x86-64? That's one of the things that I'm seeing in Fedora Core like Debian. Instead of just forking from Red Hat Linux never to return (such as Caldera, Mandrake, SuSE, etc... did), people are now forking, but returning to Fedora Core as a base for the next version. That's largely how Debian-based distros work too. > Difficult since we don't have CompUSA here in the UK ;) Or whatever superstores you do have. > The last time I saw a shrink-wrapped Red Hat anything was back in the > days of RH 7, 8 and 9. I even bought some of them to support Red Hat. I have Red Hat Professional Workstation from both RHEL 2.1 and 3. They renamed it (and added volume licenses) the Red Hat Desktop to get the IT media to stop mis-quoting Tiemann that Red Hat _never_ left the desktop. > I'll be good. Has nothing to be with "being good." ;-> I just find that people have an intrinsic feeling that they must define their choice in not only a like of their choice, but a dislike for another. It's not only self-defeating, but many times the facts are not correct. Or my personal favorite, I've seen people state things about Red Hat that actually affect their distro too. I've just seen far too many bugs listed as "Fedora Core-only" when they have been Linux 2.6, Parted, GRUB, cdrecord, etc... issues. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

5 5

mplayer repository for CentOS
by Adrian Coman 20 May '05

20 May '05

Hi, Is there a CentOS yum repository for mplayer&dependencies? Thanks, Adrian

2 1

CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 3, Issue 10
by centos-announce-request＠centos.org 20 May '05

20 May '05

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-2005:238 Low CentOS 3 ia64 evolution - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 2. CESA-2005:238 Low CentOS 3 s390(x) evolution - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 19 May 2005 21:33:00 +0300 From: Pasi Pirhonen <upi(a)iki.fi> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2005:238 Low CentOS 3 ia64 evolution - security update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <20050519183300.GI13577(a)core.upi.iki.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" CentOS Errata and Security Advisory CEBA-2005:238 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2005-238.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: files: updates/ia64/RPMS/evolution-1.4.5-14.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/evolution-devel-1.4.5-14.ia64.rpm -- Pasi Pirhonen - upi(a)iki.fi - http://iki.fi/upi/

1 0

What I miss in yum.conf
by Petr Klíma 20 May '05

20 May '05

Is there an chance how to include an package from "checking" of repository? I can do exclude, but especialy from so big repositories as DAG I want include just a that few which are interesting for me. Is there any way how to do it? [dag] name=Dag RPMs for RHEL-3 exclude=mozilla* baseurl=http://apt.sw.be/redhat/el3/en/$basearch/dag -- Petr Klíma JIHOMILK a.s. Rudolfovská 246/83 370 50 České Budějovice Czech Rpublic phone: +420 389 136 209 e-mail: petr.klima(a)jihomilk.cz

4 3

Timezone Configuration
by kracker 20 May '05

20 May '05

Greetings All, How to does one go about reconfiguring centos's time zone configuration (to the eastern time zone (us)), via the command line? I have tested other GNU/Linux distribution's documentation, tools, files and relevant details with centos and have thus far been unable to find a compatible solution. My apologies if my question is very simple, I have done a fair amount of searching on the subject but have yet to find the command or text file which to use to achieve my goal. Also, I am using Centos 4 (C4) Respectfully, //kracker Sole: Dumb This Down

4 6

OT mod_security
by Franki 19 May '05

19 May '05

Hi guys, I've planning out my upgrade to CentOS4 and one of my plans for security is to impliment the mod_security apache module to filter out unwanted malicious intent. Not having used it before, I wanted to see if anyone here has implimented it and did it block any legit traffic or cause resource traffic/serious slowdowns of their systems? I've asked on the forum about secure virtual hosting and have considered many options but what I have decided on is a combination of vsftp/TLS to chroot users and mod_security to reduce the risk of outside intrusion attempts via HTTP. Is mod_security available as a package on CentOS4/RHEL4 ? I found packages for 3 but thus far none for 4. many thanks rgds Franki

4 6

Re: [CentOS] RE: pronunciation? -- loving CentOS doesn't mean you have to bash Red Hat
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 19 May '05

19 May '05

From: Martyn Drake <martyn(a)drake.org.uk> > When I did try that support, it didn't give me a favourable > impression. However, that's just my opinion. It's good enough that HP is losing lots of clients because HP (among other tier-1 OEMs short of IBM) is finding that Linux their support is sub-par. Even Dell and others are just farming support out to Red Hat. > Others wil no doubt have really benefitted from it. What I really > needed was the errata and updates rather than support, The Fedora Core and Legacy do a fine job for several years. Just not 5+ years like RHEL or SLES. Other than the Debian Project, I've yet to see another distro break 2 years of support. Red Hat used to support the last ".2" for a long time. Unfortunately, by RHL7, they got very popular. Companies where standardizing on ".1" and even, gasp, ".0" relesaes. At one point Red Hat was supporting Red Hat Linux 6.2, 7[.0], 7.1, 7.2, 7.3, 8.0 and 9 _simultaneously_. That was overkill and a waste. I like the current Core-Legacy strategy now. Basically the latest 2 versions are supported as "current," and the Legacy team supports the most popular of the old versions. Companies who want more than 1 year of guaranteed updates on any arbitrary version can now pay for it. > and an overall better overall lifecycle that RHEL promises and indeed, > delivers. I could have gone down the Fedora route, but wasn't too > thrilled with it's overall lifecycle. How was it any different than when Red Hat announced it would no longer support Red Hat Linux more than 1 year _well_before_ the Fedora Project was announced or Red Hat Linux became Fedora Core? I honestly don't blame Red Hat for not wanting to simultaneously support 6-7 revisions simultaneously. Dead beat companies who want to standardize on a release for 2+ years should pay for it. Those of us who either "keep current" _or_ use a very stable/popular release (e.g., Red Hat Linux 7.3, or Fedora Core 1) can stick with Fedora Legacy instead. > I'm a non-commercial user (but neither a charity or educational > establishment) and that $300 per year is a lot of money to pay for a > stable and constantly updated OS. You are paying for subscription, not a license. If you don't want the subscription, run a stable version of Fedora Core that will be supported by Fedora Legacy for a long time. That's what I do with my Fedora Core 1 systems. > You could argue I could use Debian or some other free distribution, Debian, like Fedora, is supported on contributors, in addition to the commercial companies that put paid development on it. Fedora Core is still primarily developed by Red Hat because Red Hat Enterprise Linux's stability is based on it. As such, a lot of Fedora Legacy packages are released by people at Red Hat along side RHEL package releases (although they are often in "testing" because it's up to the community to support them). I have no problem with this sub-1 year "official" support model, and it was announced well before the "name change." Red Hat got tired of expecting people them to support their free product for 3+ years. > but having been a Red Hat Linux user for many years it's what I know > best and feel the most comfortable around. You're talking to someone who started on Yggdrasil and, later, Slackware, and has been installing Red Hat Linux on corporate networks for more than just web services since Red Hat Linux 4.2. I have installed both RHEL as well as RHL/FC at financial companies. I've put a lot of Fedora Core into pilot production, and then when SLAs were required, we switched to RHEL. FC also makes a great "next RHEL generation" evaluation platform, and thanx to Fedora Core 2/3 deployments, many of my clients were able to evaluate how RHEL 4 would operate well in advance. > Now I didn't actually mind PAYING for RHEL, of course not, but I just > find they need to find a sweet spot price for those that may not need > the install/configuration support (like me), Haven't you see the $99 Red Hat Professional Workstation / Red Hat Desktop at your local CompUSA? It's RHEL WS in a shrink wrap package. > or the SLAs, but want the lifecycle the product delivers and the stability > it offers. Is $340 per year worth it for that? Actually, subscriptions are just $179/year. I haven't checked to see if it's only $99 for people who buy the retail shrink-wrapped version at CompUSA or other superstores. > I was paying ï¿½65 a year for the RHN for the last available versions of > the Red Hat Linux and that suited me just fine. That price is now > ï¿½184, and includes features I don't actually need or want. Again, check out your local CompUSA and look for the shrink wrapped version of RHEL WS for $99. ;-> As Michael Tiemann said (and was mis-quoted), at the volume right now, it is cheaper to give away their time in developing Fedora Core and not charging for it than to make a boxed product like Red Hat Linux. The expectations of support at the volume they sell is just not worth their bother. It's cheaper to give away Fedora Core and support it for less than a year, even if they still put people on Fedora Legacy and release updates for longer than that based on popularity and testing support (which they leave to the community). And I don't blame them. > Of course CentOS has now came along, and that's meeting my needs just > fine. Hence why I'm more than happy to make the odd donation when I can. And that's great! But just don't feel the need to demonize Red Hat at the same time. > I'm not bashing Red Hat. Bashing Red Hat would be something along the > lines of "Red Hat sucks; they've done nothing for the community; > they're just another greedy organisation" which would be wrong on all > accounts. Red Hat is also a business and needs to be profitable like > any other business. I recognise that. I also recognise what they've > done for the community as well. They are a good company. Okay. But don't make statements like the one you did then. ;-> > I'm sorry to have come across 'bashing' Red Hat. Not my intention, > most definately. Understood. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

2 1

Re: [OT] FOSS or Freedomware? -- WAS: pronunciation/Red Hat
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 19 May '05

19 May '05

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists(a)hughesjr.com> > MUCH more FOSS oriented I've been taking an informal survey on this for awhile now. I know the new, official acronym is Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). But even before that acronym was popular, I had long argued that Stallman's insistence on calling it "Free Software" when that could be confused with "Freeware" or, worse yet, "Shareware" was a disseervice. I liken that problem to people who like to use the term "Hacker" in general, even though the original term was used to designate someone of creative or other technical skill. "Open Source" doesn't dictate that the source code is free of IP either. And the whole term "open" is overused, especially when people are thinking of "Open Systems" (at least one major Microsoft executive had an entire interview when he confused "Open Source" with "Open Systems") and people argue standards. Which is why I like the term, which I have been using for a long time, of "Freedomware." It conveys that it isn't free of cost, while conveying that it is freedom from many things in the way that at least Americans (if not many others) typically understand -- not always positive either. I actually have a slew of license categorizations on a 2D plot against source and standards: - Freedomware (open source, open standard) - Standardware (proprietary source, open standard) - Sourceware (open source, proprietary standard**) - Commerceware (proprietary source, proprietary standard) **NOTE: E.g., IP or other requirements. I like to differentiate between vendors who adhere to open standards but with proprietary source. E.g., I call the nVidia "nvidia" driver as "Standardware" because it is a standard GLX implementation. I also want to differentiate between "good" vendors who maintain proprietary standards over time, because they value their customers and their own property, and those who purposely don't even maintain internal, proprietary standards, and purposely change file formats regularly, and incompatibily. The former I call "Commerceware." The later is what I call intentional Hostageware: - Hostageware (unmaintainable source, unmaintainable standard) Any software can become Hostageware. If it is unmaintained, eccentric, etc..., that's a risk to the data contained in/produced by the software. Open Source doesn't necessarily mean Open Standard, or that the software will be a common standard. There are a lot of Open Source programs out there with eccentric formats. So any software is really about mitigating risk and not some philosophical non-sense. And I find that sells much better to clients than anything. And most seem to like the term Freedomware too. Because freedom can be both great, and a burden at the same time. -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

Re: [CentOS] RE: pronunciation? -- loving CentOS doesn't mean you have to bash Red Hat
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 19 May '05

19 May '05

> Ubuntu and Knoppix can say they use Debian sources ... SLAX can say it > uses Slackware sources. Those guys have trademarks too. Debian and Slackware don't sell "enterprise" products. And many such projects are non-profit or otherwise. Unless Debian plans to establish itself as a commercial player, they don't need to defend their trademark. In fact, the commercial entity behind Debian is not named Debian, but Progeny. Ian Murdock was smart in this regard. Red Hat was not. Before Red Hat changed their trademark rules and introduced Fedora(TM), Sun could _legally_ distribute anything it wanted and call it "Red Hat(R) Enterprise Linux." Why? Because Sun had grounds to state that Red Hat had failed to enforce their trademark. Especially given the fact that Sun now owned Cobalt, and could show that history directly under their own ownership. That's the reality of US Trademark Law. And because German Trademark Law is even worse (Remember the KIllustrator issues? They weren't even brought to court by Adobe either -- but companies are allowed to sue on behalf of another company without being so empowered), SuSE used to do the same. However, it's becoming clear that Novell may be turning SuSE into a more "Fedora-like" trademark and has publicly made comments on possibly turning it into a non-product project too. The first 100% freely redistributable version of SuSE Linux was 9.2 -- available in full ISO format, and not just FTP without many things. The reality is that Red Hat needed 2 trademarks: One to defend, one to still allow free redistribution, hence Fedora Core. Most of the endeavors in the greater Fedora Project were already set 1-2 years before the name change. With the SuSE purchase, Novell now has 2 as well. The Novell Linux 10 and SuSE Linux 10.x releases will be interesting to watch. In fact, it's funny to see Red Hat and SuSE flip-flop back and forth, following each other's lead (e.g., SLES first, then RHEL, 18-month RHPW/RHD replaced 6-month RHL Prof. on the retail shelf, now 18-month NLD is replacing 6-month SL Prof., etc...). > If Toyota and Honda both got an engine for a car from the same place ... > Honda could certainly say: > Uses the same engine as the Toyota XXXX ... even if Toyota provided them > with the engine. However, Honda or Toyota could _not_ brand the car as the original company without a license. Furthermore, they cannot market the engine as that company, not without a license to do so. Lastly, Honda and Toyota would likely have already had to license the engine in the first place, and such rights to use of the trademark probably would have been included. Red Hat is the first and _only_ (and the last ;-) majority Linux distributor to allow anyone to use their trademarks without a license, and they have an entire history of profilerated forking without enforcement they now much fight retro- actively. That's the reality of the US trademark system and the burden they created for themselves. No one else will ever do the same. What Red Hat reguarly ran up against -- especially with Cobalt and Sun -- is that people assumed they were distributing Red Hat's product, unmodified. They were not and actually distributing a radically different version that was heavily modified. I even had this discussion with a guy who hates RPM and Red Hat, and once he finally realized that his _entire_ viewpoint was based on Cobalts, he _finally_ saw the whole reason for the trademark issues Red Hat now has. It was quite an epiphany. ;-> -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

1 0

RE: [CentOS] web.vcs.u52.k12.me.us/linux/smbldap problems
by Marc Powell 19 May '05

19 May '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On > Behalf Of Johnny Hughes > Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 8:48 AM > To: CentOS ML > Subject: Re: [CentOS] web.vcs.u52.k12.me.us/linux/smbldap problems > > On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 09:41 -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote: > > I am perhaps going about this the hard way of getting SAMBA all running > on > > my Centos 4 install... > > > > These scripts are set up to work with Fedora Core 3 or K12LTSP 4.2 > > > > I got the install to work. It did not seem to hard. > > > > Then the docs tell me to install apt from Fedora project. Well I am > using > > yum so I ignore that. > > > > Next step is to run: > > > > perl -MCPAN -e -shell > > > > perl -MCPAN -e shell > > > (but using CPAN to update perl will break things) I use CPAN all the time and haven't had any problems. Are you saying this because yum/rpm wouldn't know they were installed? Can you expand on your concerns? -- Marc

4 3

pronunciation?
by Todd Blake 19 May '05

19 May '05

Anyone know how centos is actually pronounced? When people I work with ask me which linux I run, I say it like the word scent - oh - s, with a sharp S on the end. How's everyone else say it? How's it supposed to be said?

12 14

Re: [CentOS] Installing CentOS on RAID PATA not SATA - A8V
by Bogdan Nicolescu 19 May '05

19 May '05

Thanks for the detailed information. Starting to make sense. Bogdan --- "Bryan J. Smith" <b.j.smith(a)ieee.org> wrote: > On Wed, 2005-05-18 at 20:23 -0700, Bogdan Nicolescu > wrote: > > My first attempt at RAID... > > I purposely call it Fake/Free RAID (FRAID) for a > reason. > It is a _regular_ ATA controller with *0* extra > hardware. > There is a "trick" 16-bit BIOS that can setup some > RAID > organization. > > It is _useless_ once a 32/64-bit OS boots. > > > Tried a different distribution with the latest > kernel, > > and indeed the PTA drives on the Promise > controller > > were recognized but they were recognized as two > > separate drives while the controller was in RAID > mode > > (rather than IDE mode). > > Correct. Because the system sees the "raw" ATA > channels. > There must be a "trick" 32/64-bit driver to match > the > "trick" 16-bit BIOS. > > This "trick" 32/64-bit driver contains _all_ of the > RAID functionality. *0* is in the hardware, because > the > hardware has *0* RAID firmware other than the > ultra-simple > stripe/mirror access when the 16-bit BIOS is > booting. > > About the same 2-3 companies write these drivers, > and > _all_ vendors license that code. Because it is the > core > IP of those companies, they will _never_ release it. > As such, the drivers are _always_ "closed source" > and > really only available for Windows. The few > companies that > do release Linux drivers release kernel > version-specific > ones that are binary-only, no source code. > > There is a "clean-room" GPL ATA RAID driver in > ataraid.c. > And then interface drivers in hptraid.c, pdcraid.c > and > silraid.c, but they _rarely_ work with most "FRAID" > cards accept for very old ones. And they are > _slower_ > than the OS' RAID (NT LDM, Linux LVM/MD, etc...). > > > Are you saying that even if the drives are > recognized, > > I will not be able to implement RAID in hardware > mode? > > There is _no_ "hardware" mode. The system _always_ > sees > the drives. There must be a "trick" driver to > "hide" the > drives and make them seem organized. > > A _true_ hardware RAID controller _always_ has > on-board > intelligence that directly controls the drives, and > has > the RAID firmware on-board. In those cases, the > system > talks to that on-board intelligence (e.g., > microcontroller > or ASIC) and _never_ actually sees the drives. > Because > all of the RAID intelligence is in the firmware, the > OS > driver is just a basic block driver, so they are > GPL. > > Examples of true hardware ATA RAID include Promise > SuperTrak > (_not_ the FastTrak), Adaptec 2400A/2800A, some (but > not > all) LSI Logic MegaRAID and 3Ware Escalade products. > > These cards cost between $125-$500+. You will _not_ > find a _true_ hardware RAID controller on a > mainboard. ;-> > > > Any other options installing CenOS 4 on > unsupported hd > > controller besides: > > a. install CentOS 4 while drive in recognized hd > > controller > > b. get new kernel > > c. compile/install new kernel (without pulling my > hair > > out) > > d. move drives to unsupported hd controller > > e. set controller to IDE mode > > f. boot using new kernel (while praying) > > g. do software RAID > > Yes, software RAID is typically _faster_ than these > FRAID cards. > Why? Because instead of using the logic of the > FRAID controller, > you get the logic of the OS' buffering. The OS' > buffering will > commit writes and interleave reads far better than a > FRAID > controller's "trick" driver logic. > > > -- > Bryan J. Smith > b.j.smith(a)ieee.org > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > > Beware of those who define their preference in terms > of hate of > another option, and not on the positive merits of > their selection > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >

1 0

httpd and krb5.conf
by Aleksandar Milivojevic 19 May '05

19 May '05

I've noticed that SELinux blocks httpd (standard CentOS httpd, simply installed from RPM) from writing to krb5.conf file. Question. Why on earth would httpd need write access to krb5.conf file?! Sure, it might need read access if it is configured to use Kerberos for authentication, but write!? I mean, web server that modifies one of the critical files (which is used for authentication/authorization)?

4 3

CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 3, Issue 9
by centos-announce-request＠centos.org 19 May '05

19 May '05

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-2005:074 Low CentOS 3 ia64 rsh - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 2. CESA-2005:106 Low CentOS 3 ia64 openssh - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 3. CESA-2005:256 Low CentOS 3 ia64 glibc - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 4. CEBA-2005:258 CentOS 3 ia64 gcc - Bug Fix Advisory (Pasi Pirhonen) 5. CEBA-2005:260 CentOS 3 ia64 binutils - Bug Fix Advisory (Pasi Pirhonen) 6. CEEA-2005:253 CentOS 3 ia64 tzdata - Product Enhancement (Pasi Pirhonen) 7. CESA-2005:074 Low CentOS 3 s390(x) rsh - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 8. CESA-2005:106 Low CentOS 3 s390(x) openssh - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 9. CESA-2005:256 Low CentOS 3 s390(x) glibc - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 10. CEBA-2005:258 CentOS 3 s390(x) gcc - Bug Fix Advisory (Pasi Pirhonen) 11. CEBA-2005:260 CentOS 3 s390(x) binutils - Bug Fix Advisory (Pasi Pirhonen) 12. CEEA-2005:253 CentOS 3 s390(x) tzdata - Product Enhancement (Pasi Pirhonen) 13. CEBA-2005:088 CentOS 3 ia64 authconfig - Product Enhancement Advisory (Pasi Pirhonen) 14. CEEA-2005:263 CentOS 3 ia64 diskdumputils - enhancement update (Pasi Pirhonen) 15. CEEA-2005:357 CentOS 3 ia64 bootparamd - Updated package (Pasi Pirhonen) 16. CEEA-2005:149 CentOS 3 ia64 kdebase - bug fix update (Pasi Pirhonen) 17. CEBA-2005:446 CentOS 3 ia64 krb5 - updated package (Pasi Pirhonen) 18. CEBA-2005:058 CentOS 3 ia64 util-linux - bug fix update (Pasi Pirhonen) 19. CEBA-2005:062 CentOS 3 ia64 pam - bug fix update (Pasi Pirhonen) 20. CEBA-2005:246 CentOS 3 ia64 parted - bug fix update (Pasi Pirhonen) 21. CEBA-2005:147 CentOS 3 ia64 rpm - bug fix update (Pasi Pirhonen) 22. CEEA-2005:088 CentOS 3 s390(x) authconfig - Product Enhancement Advisory (Pasi Pirhonen) 23. CEEA-2005:357 CentOS 3 s390(x) bootparamd - Updated package (Pasi Pirhonen) 24. CEEA-2005:149 CentOS 3 s390(x) kdebase - bug fix update (Pasi Pirhonen) 25. CEBA-2005:058 CentOS 3 ia64 util-linux - bug fix update (Pasi Pirhonen) 26. CEBA-2005:062 CentOS 3 s390(x) pam - bug fix update (Pasi Pirhonen) 27. CEBA-2005:246 CentOS 3 s390(x) parted - bug fix update (Pasi Pirhonen) 28. CEBA-2005:147 CentOS 3 ia64 s390(x) - bug fix update (Pasi Pirhonen) 29. CEBA-2005:446 CentOS 3 s390(x) krb5 - updated package (Pasi Pirhonen) 30. CEBA-2005:292 CentOS 3 ia64 samba - bug fix update (Pasi Pirhonen) 31. CEBA-2005:292 CentOS 3 s390(x) samba - bug fix update (Pasi Pirhonen) 32. CEBA-2005:123 CentOS 3 ia64 initscripts - bug fix update (Pasi Pirhonen) 33. CEBA-2005:123 CentOS 3 s390(x) initscripts - bug fix update (Pasi Pirhonen) 34. CEEA-2005:456 CentOS 3 ia64 cscope - new package adds source code browsing tool (Pasi Pirhonen) 35. CEEA-2005:454 CentOS 3 ia64 gnome-panel and metacity - updated package (Pasi Pirhonen) 36. CEEA-2005:455 CentOS 3 ia64 wget - updated package (Pasi Pirhonen) 37. CEEA-2005:454 CentOS 3 s390(x) gnome-panel and metacity - updated package (Pasi Pirhonen) 38. CEEA-2005:455 CentOS 3 s390(x) wget - updated package (Pasi Pirhonen) 39. CESA-2005:294 CentOS 3 ia64 kernel - updated package (Pasi Pirhonen) 40. CEEA-2005:453 CentOS 3 ia64 linuxwacom - new package (Pasi Pirhonen) 41. CEEA-2005:456 CentOS 3 s390(x) cscope - new package adds source code browsing tool (Pasi Pirhonen) 42. CESA-2005:294 CentOS 3 s390(x) kernel - updated package (Pasi Pirhonen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 18 May 2005 20:58:16 +0300 From: Pasi Pirhonen <upi(a)iki.fi> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2005:074 Low CentOS 3 ia64 rsh - security update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <20050518175816.GS13577(a)core.upi.iki.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" CentOS Errata and Security Advisory CESA-2005:074 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2005-074.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: files: updates/ia64/RPMS/rsh-0.17-17.6.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/rsh-server-0.17-17.6.ia64.rpm -- Pasi Pirhonen - upi(a)iki.fi - http://iki.fi/upi/

1 0

Re: [CentOS] Installing CentOS on RAID PATA not SATA - A8V
by Bogdan Nicolescu 19 May '05

19 May '05

--- Chris Mauritz <chrism(a)imntv.com> wrote: > Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith(a)ieee.org> wrote: > > >If you want just ATA/SATA support of single drives, > that will work. > >The RAID functionality will never work, because it > is 100% software-based > >(the 16-bit BIOS setup is just for boot-time). > > > >I call this "FRAID" and it is not hardware RAID (it > adds *0* hardware). > >Any drivers will be proprietary and not open > source, because they > >contain RAID code licensed from a 3rd party that is > not GPL (and > >never will be, because it is the core IP of that > 3rd party and the > >lifeblood of their business). > > > > > > > > Be very 'FRAID. 8-) If it was me, I'd figure out > how to get the drives > recognized as plain old ATA drives and then use the > software RAID > striping native to Linux rather than depend on the > promise card to do > anything other than act as an ATA controller. I > think the likelihood of > roaching the volume while depending on the promise > software RAID bandaid > is probably rather high for no performance payoff > whatsoever. > > Cheers, > > C > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > My first attempt at RAID... Tried a different distribution with the latest kernel, and indeed the PTA drives on the Promise controller were recognized but they were recognized as two separate drives while the controller was in RAID mode (rather than IDE mode). Are you saying that even if the drives are recognized, I will not be able to implement RAID in hardware mode? Any other options installing CenOS 4 on unsupported hd controller besides: a. install CentOS 4 while drive in recognized hd controller b. get new kernel c. compile/install new kernel (without pulling my hair out) d. move drives to unsupported hd controller e. set controller to IDE mode f. boot using new kernel (while praying) g. do software RAID --------------------------------- TIA Bogdan

2 1

RE: [CentOS] spamassassin
by Marc Powell 19 May '05

19 May '05

> -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces(a)centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces@centos.org] On > Behalf Of mbest(a)pendragon.org > Sent: Monday, May 16, 2005 3:41 PM > To: CentOS mailing list > Subject: Re: [CentOS] spamassassin > > > pulling my hair out... > > > > bayes: bayes db version 0 is not able to be used, aborting! > > at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.0/Mail/SpamAssassin/BayesStore/DBM.pm > > line 160. > > This is exactly the same situation I was complaining about earlier today. > > It all comes down to something happening with the autolearn or something > in the running Spamassassin causes the bayes db to become version 0 from > version 3, and stop working. > > If anyone comes across a solution, we'll both be appreciative. Number two hit on Google purports a solution. Have you seen it? http://64.233.187.104/search?q=cache:7ANQ2UIWWeUJ:lists.elvandar.org/pip ermail/spamassassin-users/2004-September/014432.html+%22bayes:+bayes+db+ version+0+is+not+able+to+be+used,+aborting!%22&hl=en Searching less literally indicates this is an issue across many distributions. Perhaps an email to spamassassin-users would help find a solution. -- Marc

4 5

Announce list filters
by Henk van Lingen 19 May '05

19 May '05

Hi, (sorry, new thread, already dropped the previous postings) Johnny H. just posted a surprising feature: filtering options for the announce list. But they don't seem to be right or there is no announce standard. Pasi is posting storms of non i386 things. He uses: "CentOS 3 s390" the filter has: "CentOS-3 s390" Regards, -- Henk van Lingen, Systems & Network Administrator (o- -+ Dept. of Computer Science, Utrecht University. /\ | phone: +31-30-2535278 v_/_ http://henk.vanlingen.net/ http://www.tuxtown.net/netiquette/

3 6

Re: [CentOS] Installing CentOS on RAID PATA not SATA - A8V
by Bryan J. Smith <b.j.smith＠ieee.org> 19 May '05

19 May '05

If you want just ATA/SATA support of single drives, that will work. The RAID functionality will never work, because it is 100% software-based (the 16-bit BIOS setup is just for boot-time). I call this "FRAID" and it is not hardware RAID (it adds *0* hardware). Any drivers will be proprietary and not open source, because they contain RAID code licensed from a 3rd party that is not GPL (and never will be, because it is the core IP of that 3rd party and the lifeblood of their business). There are independent, clean room GPL drivers (ataraid + pdcraid), but they are likely to corrupt your volume -- especially on newer FRAID BIOSes that may change the organization. -----Original Message----- From: Bogdan Nicolescu <bo2k2(a)yahoo.com> Sent: May 18, 2005 3:31 PM To: CentOS mailing list <centos(a)centos.org> Subject: [CentOS] Installing CentOS on RAID PATA not SATA - A8V I'm trying to install CentOS 4 on an A8V on the PATA/Raid drives on the Promise controller. The Promise controller is recognized (sata_promise), but the PATA drives are not recognized. Base on this thread https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=147303 it seems that there is a patch which was merged in 2.6.11 to get pata working. Any ideas how to proceed? Thanks in advance Regards Bogdan _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org

2 1

Installing CentOS on RAID PATA not SATA - A8V
by Bogdan Nicolescu 18 May '05

18 May '05

I'm trying to install CentOS 4 on an A8V on the PATA/Raid drives on the Promise controller. The Promise controller is recognized (sata_promise), but the PATA drives are not recognized. Base on this thread https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=147303 it seems that there is a patch which was merged in 2.6.11 to get pata working. Any ideas how to proceed? Thanks in advance Regards Bogdan

1 0

Centos-announce censoring :-)
by Maciej Zenczykowski 18 May '05

18 May '05

Hi! I have a quick question about the centos-announce mailing list, is there some guide as to what the subject lines of all the mails there are (ie. for regexps)? I want to filter everything that isn't related to CentOS 4 i386 out to /dev/null... Cheers and thanks, MaZe.

2 1

KPPP: why root?
by Mark Weaver 18 May '05

18 May '05

Hi All, I'm wondering about something that seems a bit odd. I've setup a CentOS 4 box for a client that is "still" using dial-up and to activate the connection appears to require root privileges. Why is this? The reason Linux was loaded on this box was to provide a very functional box that could be easily locked down so when the cat was away the mice couldn't play, however, if the mice need root access to activate the dial-up connection this really defeats the purpose. Whats up with Kppp needing root access? thanks, Mark

4 10

RE: check permissions of all my files!
by israel.garcia＠cimex.com.cu 18 May '05

18 May '05

> I'm looking for some kind of report with this information.. > Is there some command? Some tool? >>Define "check". I have no idea what you mean, so I'm going to take >>a couple of guesses. Don't take this the wrong way, but you've .... I mean, How do I know if some of my users changed the original permissions of any of my files? I mean, How do I know if my files have the correct (original)permissions? I'd like, if it's possible, some kind of report daily by email or in some log file with this information...? Tripwire do that? Thanks for your soon answers! Regards, Israel

3 3

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss