Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

34758 discussions

How do I revert back to a non-CentOSPlus install?
by Jens Jensen 06 Aug '06

06 Aug '06

I installed PHP 5.0.4 from the CentOSPlus repo a week ago, but now the yum cronjob seems to have upgraded to a new kernel, a new MySQL and god knows what else. Big mistake. How do I (safely) revert back to the stock CentOS 4.3 rpms? I want to keep PHP 5.0.4, but that's it. Is there a cleaner way than uninstalling the rpms, editing the repo file and the (re)installing from base? I just recently learned about the protectbase plugin, which I intend to use from here on out. The damage is done though. This question is a repost from the forums. They sadly don't seem to recieve much traffic. Best regards, Jens

5 4

Strange problem with web-based apps
by Thomas E Dukes 05 Aug '06

05 Aug '06

Hello, I'm not sure if this is a DNS problem as it has just recently started happening or at least I just recently noticed it was happening. This only happens outside my local network. I can only describe the problem. I use OpenWebmail for webmail. I can read mail, delete mail but cannont send mail. I uses webmin, most this I can admin remotely from this, some I cannot such as the File Manager. I use OSCommerce. Some things I can do from the admin panel, some things I cannot such as update inventory. When the problem occurs, I get the error in the browser "Cannot Find Server". Again, this only happens from outside my local network and it only affects some actions. Any ideas? TIA Eddie

1 0

Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Fierwall Document
by Frank Tanner III 05 Aug '06

05 Aug '06

On Thu, 2006-08-03 at 21:41 -0400, w.arkwolf wrote: > On Thursday 03 August 2006 17:13, pctech(a)mybellybutton.com wrote: > > For those of you that either have an older revision of my firewall > > document, or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new version > > available. The current version of the document is version 3.1. It's > > changed rather significantly in some areas. > > Okay... As some of us may never have heard of this document, would it be > improper to ask where is might be found ? > > -arkwolf As I don't have a site to host it at, I've been offering to e-mail it to people. In the relative near future, the owner of the Firewall Builder web site said that he'd be happy to house a copy there under contributed documents. The copies I offer for e-mail will always be the "freshest", however. > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS(a)centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- --------------------------------------------------- Frank Tanner III (pctech(a)mybellybutton.com) ICQ: 1730844 AIM: KalokSundancer MSN: pctech(a)mybellybutton.com YIM: fbtanner

4 3

Computer 1A question
by Todd Cary 05 Aug '06

05 Aug '06

I want to delete all files that have the pattern of "*.zip" in the directory /home/mydir and all sub-directories. rm -Rf /home/mydir/*.zip produces an error. What did I overlook? Thanks..... -- Ariste Software 2200 D Street Ext Petaluma, CA 94952 (707) 773-4523

6 9

RE: Re: Re: Re: [CentOS] Centos Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 05 Aug '06

05 Aug '06

>> Actually, I've been chatting online for about 20 years now. First on BBSes >and then in IRC. Again, the CentOS forums and the people on this mailing list >that I had problems with are the only ones that I have encountered this issue >with. >> >> Those offers came AFTER the flame-fest began, not before. > >No. As was already pointed out, mine was the second reply inviting you >to post it to the wiki. Revisionist history doesn't work when there's >an unbiased mailing list archive. > Well, according to the order in which I received the e-mails, the initial erply was NOT from you, so guess again. >-- >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

3 2

CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 18, Issue 5
by centos-announce-request＠centos.org 05 Aug '06

05 Aug '06

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-2006:0603 Important CentOS 4 ia64 libtiff - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 2. CESA-2006:0615 Moderate CentOS 4 ia64 gnupg - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 3. CESA-2006:0603 Important CentOS 4 axp libtiff - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 4. CESA-2006:0615 Moderate CentOS 4 axp gnupg - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 5. CESA-2006:0615 Moderate CentOS 3 ia64 gnupg - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 6. CESA-2006:0603 Important CentOS 3 ia64 libtiff - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 7. CESA-2006:0615 Moderate CentOS 4 s390(x) gnupg - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 8. CESA-2006:0603 Important CentOS 4 s390(x) libtiff - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 9. CESA-2006:0603 Important CentOS 3 s390(x) libtiff - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 10. CESA-2006:0615 Moderate CentOS 3 s390(x) gnupg - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) 11. CESA-2006:0608 Critical CentOS 3 ia64 seamonkey - security update (Pasi Pirhonen) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Fri, 4 Aug 2006 22:40:44 +0300 From: Pasi Pirhonen <upi(a)centos.fi> Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2006:0603 Important CentOS 4 ia64 libtiff - security update To: centos-announce(a)centos.org Message-ID: <20060804194044.GB12771(a)centos.fi> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2006:0603 https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2006-0603.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: files: updates/ia64/RPMS/libtiff-3.6.1-12.ia64.rpm updates/ia64/RPMS/libtiff-devel-3.6.1-12.ia64.rpm -- Pasi Pirhonen - upi(a)iki.fi - http://pasi.pirhonen.eu/ Top-postings silently ignored

1 0

RE: RE: Re: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 05 Aug '06

05 Aug '06

>On Fri, 4 Aug 2006, pctech(a)mybellybutton.com wrote: > >> Wrong...His FIRST e-mail said, "Who are you and why should we care?" >> and THAT is when I responded the way I did. > >And was that the best way to respond ? > >You could have said who you were, and why your firewall document is >important to the community. Or simply ignored him. > Maybe I did overreact. And the onus is on me for that. However, he shouldn't have fricken posted if he didn't care. I apologize to the group, as a whole for the overreaction. However, I won't respond for "sticking up for myself" when I was flamed. The forums for CentOS set the tone for WHY I overreacted. Right or wrong, the vocal "minotiry" of any group sets the "public face" of that group. You can have 500 people, but if the 10 "loudest" people in the group act in a certain manner then the group as a whole gets the reputation of being that way. >Kind regards, >-- dag wieers, dag(a)wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- >[all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power] >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

3 2

RE: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Infromational Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 05 Aug '06

05 Aug '06

>John Masters wrote: >> >> >> On 8/4/06, *Paul Heinlein* <heinlein(a)madboa.com >> <mailto:heinlein@madboa.com>> wrote: >> >> >> You forgot to politely inquire about the identity of this "Matthew >> Miller.". >> >> >> I resent the implication that my mental facilities are impaired. Or, >> in the words of the Carry On team "Infamy, Infamy, they've all got it >> in for me." > ><tinfoil hat> > >Hey, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get >you.... > ></tinfoil hat> > You know what? Forget it. It's not worth all of the bullshit. I will just keep my documents and such to myself. I was gonna upload it to the wiki site. That's what I get for trying to be helpful. No good deed goes unpunished I guess. I will go back to lurking since the information that I wanted to impart isn't; this has been made readily apparent to me; wanted nor appreciated. Now I know why TLDP doesn't have many current documents. > >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

3 2

RE: Re: [CentOS] CentOS Based Fierwall Document
by pctech＠mybellybutton.com 05 Aug '06

05 Aug '06

>pctech(a)mybellybutton.com wrote: >>> Well, with an attitude like that, I can say that I don't think your >>> absence on the list will be missed. That's a mighty big chip on your >>> shoulder. It must be heavy. >>> >>> *shrug* >>> >>> >> >> And YOU wouldn't have a big chip on your shoulder if you OFFERED something >you worked for many months on up to people and got flamed for your troubles? >> > > >Nobody flamed you. Someone who was likely quite busy asked in a curt >way who you were why your message was relevant. The flaming didn't >begin until you started behaving like a scorned girlfriend over it. Get >over it already. You're simply digging yourself in deeper. Just stop it. > >sheeesh.... > If he was so fricken busy why did he even bother to reply? I will tell you why. He was having a bad day and decided that he needed to vent on someone. The problem is he picked someone that will stick up for themselves. > >_______________________________________________ >CentOS mailing list >CentOS(a)centos.org >http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

4 3

Re: [CentOS] Centos Based Fierwall Document
by Ian Kaufman 05 Aug '06

05 Aug '06

>>"For those of us who have neither?" > > Yeah. Because this statement doesn't give the tone of overt hostility at all.....*eyeroll* I see no hostility in someone asking a question that directly acknowledges what your original post stated: "For those of you that either have an older revision of my firewall document, or are otherwise keeping track of it, there is a new version available." He plainly asks what if we don't have the older version or are not keeping track of it, but are otherwise interested? I think you are reading in to it too much. Someone not privy to your original thread announcing the document shows interest, and you basically retort it's none of his business (and less politely I might add). Now who's the elitist? Ian

3 2

Jump to page:

2026

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss