Discuss

discuss@lists.centos.org

8 participants
34745 discussions

Bind Issues
by John Hinton 08 Feb '05

08 Feb '05

I'm running bind in a chroot environment. It seems that since the Redhat snafu which wrecked bind (yes, I had caching nameserver running as well but not anymore) I have been having problem with my slave nameservers retrieving updates from the master. Looking at the zone records, some are owned by root, some are owned by named. I'm now confused as to what the ownership should be and what permissions should be assigned. Could someone shed some light on this? Thanks, John Hinton

6 7

vendor field is missing
by Farkas Levente 08 Feb '05

08 Feb '05

hi, there are meny centos rpm where the vendor field in not filled. it'd be nice to correct. rpm -qp --queryformat "%{VENDOR} %{NAME}-%{VERSION}\n" *.rpm|egrep -v "CentOS" -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

3 2

updating ALSA
by first last 08 Feb '05

08 Feb '05

Hi, I have installed CentOS 4 beta and everything works apart from the sound. Searching online I have found that Fedora Core 3 requires upgrading ALSA to the very latest version for sound to work on this laptop, that probaly means that I need to upgrade ALSA. Is there anytwhere I can get updates RPMs/SRPMs or do I have to compile the updates? AFAIK alsa is now part of the kernel, will this cause much trouble for future upgrades? Talking about kernels, is it possible to update the kernel to 2.6 on CentOS 3 without breaking much? Thanks Gabriel ___________________________________________________________ ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

3 4

RE: [Centos] Bind Issues
by Foster, Mark 07 Feb '05

07 Feb '05

Hi John. Normally in the redhat setup the named process runs as the named user. This can be seen by running `ps -aux | egrep '[n]amed'` named 1661 0.0 0.2 40108 4836 ? S Jan31 0:25 /usr/sbin/named -u named -t /jail/named As you can see from the first column the user is named. Also the -u flag indicates the same. So if any of your slave zone files are owned by root they won't be writable by named. I recommend you chown those zone files to be owned by named user. -----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces(a)caosity.org [mailto:centos-bounces@caosity.org] On Behalf Of John Hinton Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 8:43 AM To: CentOS(a)caosity.org Subject: [Centos] Bind Issues I'm running bind in a chroot environment. It seems that since the Redhat snafu which wrecked bind (yes, I had caching nameserver running as well but not anymore) I have been having problem with my slave nameservers retrieving updates from the master. Looking at the zone records, some are owned by root, some are owned by named. I'm now confused as to what the ownership should be and what permissions should be assigned. Could someone shed some light on this? Thanks, John Hinton _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS(a)caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

1 0

Official Release Centos 4 Beta for PowerPC/32
by donavan nelson 06 Feb '05

06 Feb '05

The CentOS team is pleased to announce the availability of CentOS 4 Beta for PowerPC/32. This product supports all Apple Macintosh PowerMac, iMac, eMac, iBook and PowerBook hardware running the G3 or G4 PowerPC processor. Partial Mac Mini support is available with alpha quality code. We hope to have installable IBM RS6000 ppc/32 support shortly. Please read the remainder of the announcement at: http://www.centos.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=65 Thank You, The CentOS Team

1 0

Addons
by Joao Medeiros 06 Feb '05

06 Feb '05

Hi All, A newbie question :-( How do I go about installing the add-ons found in CD4? Many thanks, Joao

2 1

Release Announcement: Updated CentOS 4 beta iso and DVD images for i386 and x86_64
by donavan nelson 06 Feb '05

06 Feb '05

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 The CentOS Team is pleased to announce the immediate availability of updated ISO images for CentOS 4.0 Beta for the i386 and x86_64 architectures. The updated CentOS 4.0 Beta images support the following architectures: AMD64, EM64T, AMD Athlon, Athlon XP, Duron, Sempron, Intel Pentium, Pentium Pro, Pentium II, Pentium III, Pentium 4 and Pentium Xeon processors. Please read the full announcement here: http://www.centos.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=61 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.6 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFCAklrCRFXD+VcGBkRAsVjAJ4wpN4xVYPVcCpjdYQfFibB4z9UrwCcCOvy EjqCjgsXPZLl9vCGrk4z0cA= =QmGw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

7 10

Raid 1 - further
by Nigel Kendrick 04 Feb '05

04 Feb '05

Managed to get RAID 1 working but the sync process claimed it was going to take a serious amount of time. Looking at the stats revealed that the sync operation was running at a max of 250kB/sec which seems chronically low. Basic drive performance (hdparm) tests seemed OK so I guess the controller's not up to it? The info that came with the controller was all-but-non-existent but during a reboot I noticed that it flashed up a 'press CTRL-S to enter RAID setup' for about 1/4 sec and I managed to catch it and define card/BIOS-based RAID but this got confusing because when I restarted the server, Linux could still see 'hda' and 'hdc' rather that a single 'drive' as I expected. That's where I left it as I had to go sort out a couple of WIN2K servers (mumble mumble) with trojan infections! Next week I might try putting the drives on separate controllers again and re-setup Linux software RAID, otherwise I'll check out some of the recommendations I saw earlier for better controllers. Thanks NK

1 0

RAID 1 sync
by Nigel Kendrick 04 Feb '05

04 Feb '05

Is my new 300GB RAID 1 array REALLY going to take 18936 minutes to sync!!???

5 6

bug: comps has wrong version number
by Farkas Levente 03 Feb '05

03 Feb '05

hi, comps in rh9 is comps-9-0.20030313 while in the latest centos-3.4 it's comps-3.4centos.0-0.20050105 so the rh9 has higher version number which means this packages not upgraded during an upgrade to any version of centos. and yum also not upgrade this package. imho it's a bug. is there any way to find out what other packages is remain from some older rh version? yours. -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

3 4

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Discuss