[CentOS-announce] CESA-2011:0373 Important CentOS 4 i386 x86_86 firefox - security update
CentOS Errata and Security Advisory CESA-2011:0373 firefox security update for CentOS 4 1386 x86_64: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0373.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: i386: firefox-3.6.15-2.el4.centos.i386.rpm x86_64: firefox-3.6.15-2.el4.centos.x86_64.rpm src: firefox-3.6.15-2.el4.centos.src.rpm signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS-announce mailing list CentOS-announce@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CESA-2011:0374 Important CentOS 4 i386 x86_86 thunderbird - security update
CentOS Errata and Security Advisory CESA-2011:0374 thunderbird security update for CentOS 4 1386 x86_64: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0374.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: i386: thunderbird-1.5.0.12-36.el4.centos.i386.rpm x86_64: thunderbird-1.5.0.12-36.el4.centos.x86_84.rpm src: thunderbird-1.5.0.12-36.el4.centos.src.rpm signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS-announce mailing list CentOS-announce@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CESA-2011:0375 Important CentOS 4 i386 x86_86 seamonkey - security update
CentOS Errata and Security Advisory CESA-2011:0375 seamonkey security update for CentOS 4 1386 x86_64: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0375.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: i386: seamonkey-1.0.9-68.el4_8.centos.i386.rpm seamonkey-chat-1.0.9-68.el4_8.centos.i386.rpm seamonkey-devel-1.0.9-68.el4_8.centos.i386.rpm seamonkey-dom-inspector-1.0.9-68.el4_8.centos.i386.rpm seamonkey-js-debugger-1.0.9-68.el4_8.centos.i386.rpm seamonkey-mail-1.0.9-68.el4_8.centos.i386.rpm x86_64: seamonkey-1.0.9-68.el4_8.centos.x86_64.rpm seamonkey-chat-1.0.9-68.el4_8.centos.x86_64.rpm seamonkey-devel-1.0.9-68.el4_8.centos.x86_64.rpm seamonkey-dom-inspector-1.0.9-68.el4_8.centos.x86_64.rpm seamonkey-js-debugger-1.0.9-68.el4_8.centos.x86_64.rpm seamonkey-mail-1.0.9-68.el4_8.centos.x86_64.rpm src: seamonkey-1.0.9-68.el4_8.centos.src.rpm signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS-announce mailing list CentOS-announce@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-es] PHP- Con soporte para zend framework
Hola colegas : Que debo instalar en mi server para dar soporte zend framework a php ? ..o sea que pueda ser capaz de interpretar frameworksuso php 5.1.6 .no se si me supe explicar bien, pero espero que tengan mas o menos idea de lo que necesito .gracias de antemano -- Javier -- Universidad de Oriente.Cuba: http://www.uo.edu.cu http://www.facebook.com/UO.Cuba http://twitter.com/Univ_Ote_Cuba -- Participe en: *- V Conferencia Internacional Caricostas. Mayo 2011. http://www.cemzoc.uo.edu.cu/index.php?option=com_contenttask=viewid=24Itemid=1 *- VII Encuentro Internacional Ciudad Imagen y Memoria. Mayo 2011. http://www.uo.edu.cu/eventos/cim2011.pdf *- IV Congreso Internacional de Psicología. Julio 2011. http://cip.eventos.uo.edu.cu/ -- ___ CentOS-es mailing list CentOS-es@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-es
Re: [CentOS-es] PHP- Con soporte para zend framework
Hola Instala el paquete php-pear y luego sigue los pasos de esta página [1], en resumen: - Instalar yum install php-pear - Editar (si es necesario) la directiva include_path en /etc/php.ini - Reiniciar httpd - Agregar el Canal de Zend en Pear - Y ya esta. [1] http://code.google.com/p/zend/ ___ CentOS-es mailing list CentOS-es@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-es
Re: [CentOS-es] Borré /boot ¿Podría reinstalarlo?
Miguel me mataste el sueño, sufri tu problema como si me pasase a mi. Ojala lo resuelvas y que todo te salga bien. Ahora como hacer para que no pase esto... ademas de evitar borrados indebidos? Lo mejor que es? ( ya estoy previniendo para que no me pase nunca) guardar una iso con la imagen de la partición boot e ir actualizándola? tengo varios discos en los servidores montados cosa que no hay problema de espacio. Algún guru que me devuelva poder dormir! Desde ya mil gracias. ___ CentOS-es mailing list CentOS-es@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-es
[CentOS-es] dns centos integrado con active directory
hola: tengo un dns (bind)en centos que quiero integrar con active directory alguien puede darme una mano? Atte Jose Manuel GPG Key ID: UBCMEOLVQMHEILINJBE ___ CentOS-es mailing list CentOS-es@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-es
Re: [CentOS-es] Repositorio PowerStack para CentOS
El día 15 de marzo de 2011 05:28, Santi Saez santis...@woop.es escribió: Hola! Quería presentar aquí también el proyecto PowerStack [1] en el que he estado trabajando el los últimos meses como mejora para la distribución CentOS. La primera versión es un repositorio que contiene las últimas versiones de LAMP (PHP 5.3.5 + MySQL 5.5.9 y Apache 2.2.17), aunque el proyecto pretende ser algo mas que un repositorio para Yum, lo cuento en un post: http://woop.es/2011/02/presentacion-powerstack/ Para actualizar a las últimas versiones de PHP + MySQL + Apache en tu CentOS es tan sencillo como: rpm -Uvh http://now.powerstack.org/ yum update El wiki tiene el listado completo de paquetes, características, roadmap, etc.. si alguien se anima a probarlo *las sugerencias serán muy bienvenidas*! :) Excelente mi amigo Santisaez , esperemos que sea de larga duracion sldss -- rickygm http://gnuforever.homelinux.com ___ CentOS-es mailing list CentOS-es@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-es
Re: [CentOS] The delays on CentOS 5.6 are causing EPEL incompatibilities
Not that it matters, but the last time I checked, SL had not released their 4.9 or 5.6 releases either. On the other hand, unlike CentOS, Scientific Linux (SL) is backporting 5.6 security fixes. Indeed, all of the security issues CentOS 5.5 has right now aren't in SL. SL is a fine product and people can use it if they want, but lets not pretend that they are releasing every point release before CentOS. They haven't. Indeed, before 2009 they significantly lagged behind CentOS. However, for the last two years, every SL release has been on before the CentOS release, or within two weeks of the CentOS release. [Left column CentOS release date, right column SL release date. 4.8 08/22/09 07/21/09 4.9 03/02/11 For 4.9, I say not applicable; SL is current with security fixes, and, as I understand it, 4.9 is just 4.8 + security fixes. Indeed, CentOS isn't mastering iso images for 4.9. 5.3 04/01/09 03/19/09 Within two weeks. 5.4 10/21/09 11/05/09 SL was two weeks after the CentOS release. 5.5 05/15/10 05/19/10 CentOS won--by all of four days. Don't get me wrong, SL is a good build and I highly recommend it ... but they do not beat CentOS on releases by months as seems to be insinuated here in the last couple of weeks. SL is tied with CentOS for all 2009, 2010, and 2011 releases. What tips the scales in SL's favor is that they have a solid policy in place to have timely security updates: https://www.scientificlinux.org/documentation/faq/errata And, yes, I am repeating myself, but all 5.6 security updates are available for SL 5.5 users until they can master some SL 5.6 ISO images. This has been SL's policy for over a couple of years: http://ever-increasing-entropy.blogspot.com/2009/08/perfect-illustration-of-why-i-now.html I blogged about why I am in the process of making the switch to SL here: http://set.tj/+kcsa http://samiam.org/blog/20110319.html --- As an open-source developer, I understand the frustration of working hard and having a lot of freeloaders not appreciating my work. I feel people posting here talking about how unprofessional CentOS is acting are completely missing the point: CentOS is acting unprofessional because, well, they aren't being paid. Being professional means that money is changing hands. A person does not get treated like a customer unless they are paying customer. Just as most restaurants don't allow people to sit at their tables unless they order something, open source developers have no obligation whatsoever to their users unless said users appropriately compensate them for their time. CentOS has no obligation to ever make another security patch again. They have no obligation to release 5.6, 6.0, or any other release of their software. Quite frankly, I think Karanbir Singh would be in his right to say Listen, I need to spend more time with my family and can not continue working on CentOS unless I get paid for my time. Yeah, a lot of freeloaders would flame him for asking for money (look at the flame fest the Nexuiz developers got when they commercialized their open-source game), but this is a perfectly healthy boundary for an open-source developer to establish. Some developers don't like announcing boundaries like that; a lot of open source projects never formally die. They have this way of becoming inactive without any formal announcements and just floundering. I've seen this tape played many times before: http://maradns.blogspot.com/2009/09/rant-putting-closure-on-project.html Another example is djbdns, which is over ten years old; the last formal release of djbdns has three known security holes: http://set.tj/+kcvb http://samiam.org/blog/20110103.html - Sam ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] The delays on CentOS 5.6 are causing EPEL incompatibilities
On 23/03/11 03:41, John R. Dennison wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 04:22:36AM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote: CentOS 4.8 (95 days late) and CentOS 5.3 (69 days late) have been the worst delays. But now CentOS 5.6 is already at 69 days and CentOS 6.0 is past 133 days delay, an all time record (not counting CentOS 2 :-)). You keep tossing out late. late implies a published deadline and I've yet to see one. I see best effort and will try comments in many places, but never a published deadline. So, why the focus on late? I see time-lines clearly published in this FAQ on the CentOS website: https://www.centos.org/modules/smartfaq/faq.php?faqid=7 Quote: How long after redhat publishes a fix does it take for CentOS to publish a fix? Our goal is to have individual RPM packages available on the mirrors within 72 hours of their release, and normally they are available within 24 hours. Occassionally packages are delayed for various reasons. On rare occasions packages may be built and pushed to the mirrors but not available via yum. (This is because yum-arch has not been run on the master mirror. This may happen when issues with upstream packages are discovered shortly after their release, and if releasing the package would break it's functionality.) Update Sets (see this FAQ) will have Security Errata released was stated above, while the BugFix and Enhancement errata are actually tested more rigorisly and released after the new ISO for the Update Set is produced. This will normally be within 2 weeks of the Update Set release. The above FAQ creates an expectation of 2 weeks being the norm. Equally it is not unreasonable to define any release made after two weeks to be late (or later than hoped if you prefer) by the developers own hopes and expectations. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] The delays on CentOS 5.6 are causing EPEL incompatibilities
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 06:45:46AM +, Ned Slider wrote: I see time-lines clearly published in this FAQ on the CentOS website: Trimmed for brevity. This will normally be within 2 weeks of the Update Set release. The above FAQ creates an expectation of 2 weeks being the norm. Equally it is not unreasonable to define any release made after two weeks to be late (or later than hoped if you prefer) by the developers own hopes and expectations. later than hoped is a little more on target. You know as well as I do that there has never been a release date published for releases, be they primary or point releases. I read the above as an intended goal, not a hard and fast project time-line; but I will grant that it does lead consumers to expect it within the time frame referenced. That write-up should, in my opinion, be changed to reflect the realities of the situation which are that there are no published release dates and that releases are best-effort affairs. I just get irritated by seeing nothing but negative comments out of people that have been consumers of the project for years, or in the case of the post that this is a reply to, by someone that was part of the project itself. To be honest I can't recall the last time I saw Dag have anything positive to say about CentOS. Heck, I would like to see 5.6 drop as much as the next guy but I am not, nor for that matter is the overwhelming majority of the user base, crying and complaining about it. Do people honestly think that the constant lambasting as seen here and in the forums is doing anything to get 5.6 out the door faster? Do people think the suggestions on the -devel list build motivation for the developers to put in even more hours churning out that which people get for free? If people have nothing positive to say then, please, don't say anything at all. Seriously... If you don't like how the releases are going then make arrangements to use something else; but please do the rest of us a favor and do so quietly as no one cares to hear about it and it's just more noise for this list. CentOS isn't the only game in town unless binary compatibility with upstream is an organizational requirement; and if that's the case wait for the releases patiently. Or, and here's a truly novel idea, purchase the upstream product. Just realize that _they_ don't publish release dates, either. If these two alternatives don't meet your needs and you require binary compatibility with upstream then roll up your sleeves, get your hands dirty, and start building the releases yourself. Steps to do so have recently been published on centos-devel and are in the web-accessible archive for that list. It wasn't all that far in the past that there would be core project members posting on this list fairly regularly; sadly all the negative crap directed at them, both directly and indirectly, has pushed most all of them away. Personally I'd rather they be here and the complainers move on elsewhere. John -- Anybody can win unless there happens to be a second entry. -- George Ade (1866 - 1944), American writer, newspaper columnist, and playwright pgpOGZshKaPtf.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] The delays on CentOS 5.6 are causing EPEL incompatibilities
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Sam Trenholme strenholme.use...@gmail.com wrote: As an open-source developer, I understand the frustration of working hard and having a lot of freeloaders not appreciating my work. I feel people posting here talking about how unprofessional CentOS is acting are completely missing the point: CentOS is acting unprofessional because, well, they aren't being paid. Being professional means that money is changing hands. Being a professional isn't just a question of money; it's also a question of attitude and presentation. The developers' use something else if you're unhappy replies are unprofessional, no matter what their level of frustration with the criticism being directed at them might be. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Some relevant information
On 03/22/2011 08:37 AM, Sam Trenholme wrote: Hello everyone: * DNS does not have a refresh rate. In DNS, the person running the domain determines what the refresh rate (it's called TTL in DNS) for their records is; for example, Google has a TTL of once per hour and my domains (maradns.org, etc.) have a TTL of one day. * As mentioned before, Scientific Linux 6.0 is out. What hasn't been mentioned here is that while SL 5.6 hasn't come out, 5.6 security updates are being backported to SL 5.5. Ditto with SL 4 (no 4.9 but security patches look current) And we try very hard not to release things until they pass our QA testing. We are still finding and correcting issues with the 5.6 things that we have built (things not properly linking when compared to upstream, etc). One we release something, we can't take it back. If we release a package that is linked incorrectly, it gets out to millions of machines. If it is broken, it does not matter if it is fast. Everyone will need to make their own decisions on what they want. = For example, do you want things like this or not: Verifying certmonger-0.30-4.el5.x86_64.rpm against certmonger-0.30-4.el5.x86_64.rpm certmonger-0.30-4.el5.x86_64.rpm FAIL ref:656933 +/-:-10856 %:1 - Verifying libtevent-0.9.8-10.el5.x86_64.rpm against libtevent-0.9.8-10.el5.x86_64.rpm libtevent-0.9.8-10.el5.x86_64.rpm FAIL ref:36184 +/-:-192 %:0 - And then looking at the reason for the fails: Differing package requirements certmonger-0.30-4.el5.x86_64.rpm.out: --- work/SL-req 2011-03-23 02:53:25.0 -0500 +++ work/RHEL-req 2011-03-23 02:53:25.0 -0500 @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libsmime3.so()(64bit) libssl3.so()(64bit) -libtalloc.so.1()(64bit) +libtalloc.so.2()(64bit) libtevent.so.0()(64bit) libxmlrpc.so.3()(64bit) libxmlrpc_client.so.3()(64bit) Differing package requirements libtevent-0.9.8-10.el5.x86_64.rpm.out: --- work/SL-req 2011-03-23 02:53:26.0 -0500 +++ work/RHEL-req 2011-03-23 02:53:26.0 -0500 @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) -libtalloc.so.1()(64bit) +libtalloc.so.2()(64bit) libtevent.so.0()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 = What does that mean ... it means that those 2 packages were built against the wrong version of libtalloc. Those packages use the older library for libtalloc, not the newer one. Will that package work like the upstream one ... probably not. I do not make it a practice of checking Scientific Linux links to upstream. I only check ones we specifically have issues with, to see if anyone else gets it to build correctly. We initially had this same issue in our 5.6 build and for us it is now corrected because of our QA process. It is still in the SL 50x Rolling. It takes hours to analyze all the packages in a build ... I do not have hours to spend on doing it for SL ... but here is another error that I found in the SL tree when figuring out build issues in the CentOS 5.6 tree: Differing package requirements kdbg-2.0.2-1.2.1.i386.rpm.out: --- work/RHEL-req 2011-03-23 08:43:18.0 + +++ work/SL-req 2011-03-23 08:43:18.0 + @@ -13,7 +13,6 @@ libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4) libdl.so.2 -libfam.so.0 libgcc_s.so.1 libidn.so.11 libkdecore.so.4 This is not in any way trying to slight the SL distro, it is a very good product (as is CentOS). These are just a couple of examples of things we have fixed in our 5.6 build in the last week that are also in SL that I know about because I specifically checked SL when we found the issue in CentOS. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EXT4 Filesystem Mount Failed (bad geometry: block count)
On 03/23/11 3:05 AM, Balaji wrote: Dear All, Currently using RHEL6 Linux and Kernel Version is 2.6.32-71.el6.i686 and DRBD Version is 8.3.10 I don't know what is the problem and Can some one throw light on this peculiar problem Please replay me ASAP. the problem is, thats a RED HAT system, not a CENTOS system. Try Red Hat Support. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EXT4 Filesystem Mount Failed (bad geometry: block count)
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:07 AM, John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com wrote: On 03/23/11 3:05 AM, Balaji wrote: Dear All, Currently using RHEL6 Linux and Kernel Version is 2.6.32-71.el6.i686 and DRBD Version is 8.3.10 I don't know what is the problem and Can some one throw light on this peculiar problem Please replay me ASAP. the problem is, thats a RED HAT system, not a CENTOS system. Try Red Hat Support. Hehe, good luck with RED HAT support and DRBD is build from source. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Some relevant information
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote: And then looking at the reason for the fails: Differing package requirements certmonger-0.30-4.el5.x86_64.rpm.out: --- work/SL-req 2011-03-23 02:53:25.0 -0500 +++ work/RHEL-req 2011-03-23 02:53:25.0 -0500 @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libsmime3.so()(64bit) libssl3.so()(64bit) -libtalloc.so.1()(64bit) +libtalloc.so.2()(64bit) libtevent.so.0()(64bit) libxmlrpc.so.3()(64bit) libxmlrpc_client.so.3()(64bit) Differing package requirements libtevent-0.9.8-10.el5.x86_64.rpm.out: --- work/SL-req 2011-03-23 02:53:26.0 -0500 +++ work/RHEL-req 2011-03-23 02:53:26.0 -0500 @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) -libtalloc.so.1()(64bit) +libtalloc.so.2()(64bit) libtevent.so.0()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 = What does that mean ... it means that those 2 packages were built against the wrong version of libtalloc. Those packages use the older Ouch. Johnny, I'd really like to replicate this error, but I just don't have the visibility into your build configurations. Saying it's easy to do yourself doesn't work, because there are subtleties in the configurations, such as whether mock configurations use the older, CentOS 5.5 release or the existing set up updated CentOS pre-release 5.6 components, that can generate precisely this sort of issue. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] The delays on CentOS 5.6 are causing EPEL incompatibilities
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 4:54 AM, Tom H tomh0...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 2:29 AM, Sam Trenholme strenholme.use...@gmail.com wrote: As an open-source developer, I understand the frustration of working hard and having a lot of freeloaders not appreciating my work. I feel people posting here talking about how unprofessional CentOS is acting are completely missing the point: CentOS is acting unprofessional because, well, they aren't being paid. Being professional means that money is changing hands. Being a professional isn't just a question of money; it's also a question of attitude and presentation. The developers' use something else if you're unhappy replies are unprofessional, no matter what their level of frustration with the criticism being directed at them might be. Developer, singular. It's just Johnny doing that. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Some relevant information
On 03/23/2011 07:53 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 5:42 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote: And then looking at the reason for the fails: Differing package requirements certmonger-0.30-4.el5.x86_64.rpm.out: --- work/SL-req 2011-03-23 02:53:25.0 -0500 +++ work/RHEL-req 2011-03-23 02:53:25.0 -0500 @@ -38,7 +38,7 @@ libpthread.so.0(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libsmime3.so()(64bit) libssl3.so()(64bit) -libtalloc.so.1()(64bit) +libtalloc.so.2()(64bit) libtevent.so.0()(64bit) libxmlrpc.so.3()(64bit) libxmlrpc_client.so.3()(64bit) Differing package requirements libtevent-0.9.8-10.el5.x86_64.rpm.out: --- work/SL-req 2011-03-23 02:53:26.0 -0500 +++ work/RHEL-req 2011-03-23 02:53:26.0 -0500 @@ -5,7 +5,7 @@ libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.2)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.3.4)(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit) -libtalloc.so.1()(64bit) +libtalloc.so.2()(64bit) libtevent.so.0()(64bit) rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) = 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) = 4.0-1 = What does that mean ... it means that those 2 packages were built against the wrong version of libtalloc. Those packages use the older Ouch. Johnny, I'd really like to replicate this error, but I just don't have the visibility into your build configurations. Saying it's easy to do yourself doesn't work, because there are subtleties in the configurations, such as whether mock configurations use the older, CentOS 5.5 release or the existing set up updated CentOS pre-release 5.6 components, that can generate precisely this sort of issue. CentOS has it lined correctly ... it is SL that has it linked incorrectly. I have been building CentOS for 8 years Nico .. I do NOT need your help to build it. I try to tell you how I build it, but you tell me I don't know what I am doing. If you want to use CentOS then use it. Stop filling up the mailing lists with your trolling diatribe. Get this straight ... I do not need you to TEACH me anything about CentOS, the process used to build it, the process used to distribute it, how it originated, where it is moving to, or anything else about it. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] The delays on CentOS 5.6are causing EPEL incompatibilities
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote: On 3/22/11 7:38 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote: You missed my point to the poster. While Centos is my defacto production OS, he mentioned switching to Ubuntu which is nothing like RHEL. So I thought instead of going with such a diff paradigm, that using SL might be more similar in tool set then Ubuntu. But if the underlying issue is that Red Hat is intentionally making the rebuilds difficult, any derivative is going to be fragile. RH fired at Novell and Oracle, but CentOS and SL are hit by the muzzle blast. I wonder if RH is aware that we're pretty consistent advertizing for RH. Is there another UV we can call TUV? I don't suppose RH would care if we (CentOS SL) both disappeared. Insert spiffy .sig here: Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts. //me *** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated** ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] The delays on CentOS 5.6are causing EPEL incompatibilities
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:14 AM, Brunner, Brian T. bbrun...@gai-tronics.com wrote: centos-boun...@centos.org wrote: On 3/22/11 7:38 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote: You missed my point to the poster. While Centos is my defacto production OS, he mentioned switching to Ubuntu which is nothing like RHEL. So I thought instead of going with such a diff paradigm, that using SL might be more similar in tool set then Ubuntu. But if the underlying issue is that Red Hat is intentionally making the rebuilds difficult, any derivative is going to be fragile. RH fired at Novell and Oracle, but CentOS and SL are hit by the muzzle blast. I wonder if RH is aware that we're pretty consistent advertizing for RH. Is there another UV we can call TUV? I don't suppose RH would care if we (CentOS SL) both disappeared. Insert spiffy .sig here: Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts. I think it would bother them. I've repeatedly used CentOS, in a test environment, to then convince companies to purchase RHEL licenses. I've also supported mixed networks of RHEL and CentOS, CentOS on the dev boxes that get all the internal support issues because we do internal abuses to them, and RHEL for production environments. That's probably. 300 enterprise licenses, just from me, in all those different environments. And CentOS was a *big* step. And with the CentOS licenses, the clients didn't feel bound to use *only* the official upstream published components: they felt free to experiment, more. (Ask about the Musicbrainz port to CentOS 4, then RHEL 4, if you're curious: asking our favorite upstream vendor to do that one would have been very, very painful.) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EXT4 Filesystem Mount Failed (bad geometry: blockcount)
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote: On 03/23/11 3:05 AM, Balaji wrote: Dear All, Currently using RHEL6 Linux and Kernel Version is 2.6.32-71.el6.i686 and DRBD Version is 8.3.10 We're pretty much unable to help because yours is a RHEL6 system, we're stuck at RHEL5.5 until our team gets RHEL6 == CentOS6 out the door. So, we'd LOVE to be able to help! Honest! We just can't. Did you do a clean install of RHEL6, or did you instead upgrade from RHEL5.5 or 5.6? If the latter, if you're somehow using the previous version NTFS tools, that might cause your current problem. I don't know what is the problem and Can some one throw light on this peculiar problem Please replay me ASAP. the problem is, thats a RED HAT system, not a CENTOS system. Try Red Hat Support. That was a perfect example of the go away answers I've seen on this list too many times. Insert spiffy .sig here: Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts. //me *** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated** ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EXT4 Filesystem Mount Failed (bad geometry: block count)
On Mar 23, 2011, at 6:05 AM, Balaji balajisun...@midascomm.com wrote: Dear All, Currently using RHEL6 Linux and Kernel Version is 2.6.32-71.el6.i686 and DRBD Version is 8.3.10 DRBD is build from source and Configured DRBD with 2 Node testing with Simplex Setup Server 1 : 192.168.13.131 IP Address and hostname is primary Server 2 : 192.168.13.132 IP Address and hostname is secondary Finally found that drbd0, drbd1 mount failed problem Found some error messages in dmesg block drbd0: role( Secondary - Primary ) block drbd1: role( Secondary - Primary ) EXT4-fs (drbd0): bad geometry: block count 5242880 exceeds size of device (5242711 blocks) EXT4-fs (drbd1): bad geometry: block count 2621440 exceeds size of device (2621351 blocks) The drbd is working fine and is output as below [root@primary ~]# cat /proc/drbd version: 8.3.10 (api:88/proto:86-96) GIT-hash: 5c0b046982443d4785d90a2c603378f9017b build by r...@primary.mydomain.com, 2011-03-22 11:27:11 0: cs:WFConnection ro:Primary/Unknown ds:UpToDate/DUnknown C rs ns:0 nr:0 dw:0 dr:677 al:0 bm:0 lo:0 pe:0 ua:0 ap:0 ep:1 wo:b oos:20970844 1: cs:WFConnection ro:Primary/Unknown ds:UpToDate/DUnknown C rs ns:0 nr:0 dw:0 dr:1009 al:0 bm:0 lo:0 pe:0 ua:0 ap:0 ep:1 wo:b oos:10485404 [root@primary ~]# I have search and findout the same problem and its solved (links as below) http://lists.linbit.com/pipermail/drbd-user/2009-October/012812.html But in my case the problem is not solved (changed the meta-disk internal as flexible-meta-disk internal and tested) The same as working in ext3 filesystem and its not working in ext4 filesystem. Please find attached primary.zip file contains message log files and drbd configuration file for more analysis. I don't know what is the problem and Can some one throw light on this peculiar problem Please replay me ASAP. Thanks in Advance I would take this to the drbd list. -Ross ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Some relevant information
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:12 AM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote: On 03/23/2011 07:53 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: Ouch. Johnny, I'd really like to replicate this error, but I just don't have the visibility into your build configurations. Saying it's easy to do yourself doesn't work, because there are subtleties in the configurations, such as whether mock configurations use the older, CentOS 5.5 release or the existing set up updated CentOS pre-release 5.6 components, that can generate precisely this sort of issue. CentOS has it lined correctly ... it is SL that has it linked incorrectly. Understood. I'd like to replicate or examine the error. Building it yourself, without that access to your unique build environment or a way to gracefully replicate it, represents dozens or hundreds of man-hours for each contributor who'd like to help. That's a little hard to do right now. I have been building CentOS for 8 years Nico .. I do NOT need your help to build it. I try to tell you how I build it, but you tell me I don't know what I am doing. Ohh. Then I guess all the requests for help in the last few months were looking for something else? Johnny, I'm trying to help. I'm trying to get the ducks lined up to be *able* to help, and not spend my time waddling around a little pond. If you want to use CentOS then use it. Stop filling up the mailing lists with your trolling diatribe. Get this straight ... I do not need you to TEACH me anything about CentOS, the process used to build it, the process used to distribute it, how it originated, where it is moving to, or anything else about it. Fine. Then show *US* how you're doing it. Publish the /etc/mock/ files you use, and provide some visibibility to the bootstrapping you're allegedly using for CentOS 6, and we'd love to help on this and future releases. The build components in the build repository, for example, are pretty old and clearly out of date. Point us to the current versions, please! I can't make you learn about source control, you apparently get by without it. I'd be glad to help the other devs use it to make that build structure available. You can actually use Dag Weier's work over at RPMforge as a good example of it, and it does integrate well with mock. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] OFFTOPIC :: IB hardware choice
Hi! I would need an advice from those that use IB (as admins :) ) i have a choice between : 1. Mellanox InfiniHost® III Lx HCA card, single-port CX4, DDR, PCIe x8, mem-free, tall bracket, RoHS R5 2. QLogic Single Port 20 Gb InfiniBand to x16 PCI Express Adapter (Single Pack) aside the price is there anything else that could help me make a discrimination between this two? (these will be used in twin servers for a small (up to 24 nodes) parallel cluster) Thanks! Adrian smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] EXT4 Filesystem Mount Failed (bad geometry: blockcount)
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote: On Mar 23, 2011, at 6:05 AM, Balaji balajisun...@midascomm.com wrote: Dear All, Currently using RHEL6 Linux and Kernel Version is 2.6.32-71.el6.i686 and DRBD Version is 8.3.10 DRBD is build from source and Configured DRBD with 2 Finally found that drbd0, drbd1 mount failed problem Found some error messages in dmesg block drbd0: role( Secondary - Primary ) block drbd1: role( Secondary - Primary ) EXT4-fs (drbd0): bad geometry: block count 5242880 exceeds size of device (5242711 blocks) EXT4-fs (drbd1): bad geometry: block count 2621440 exceeds size of device (2621351 blocks) The same as working in ext3 filesystem and its not working in ext4 filesystem. I would take this to the drbd list. -Ross Since it works with ext3, and drdb isn't complaining, EXT4 is (disregard my previous NTFS blather) this seems to be an ext4 problem. Insert spiffy .sig here: Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts. //me *** This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated** ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] ACPI errors during bootup
Hi, Am trying to build SMP kernel. Took kernel-2.6.18-194.src.rpm, extracted, rpmbuilded with SMP option. Successfully compile the new kernel and when using that kernel to boot up, following errors were shown up(highlighted in bold red color): My kernel config file has ACPI and PCI configs enabled. Any pointers to what caused the problem are appreciated. ** * BIOS-e820: 0001 - 0009e000 (usable) BIOS-e820: 0009e000 - 000a (reserved) BIOS-e820: 000e - 0010 (reserved) BIOS-e820: 0010 - 1fee9000 (usable) BIOS-e820: 1fee9000 - 2000 (reserved) BIOS-e820: fff0 - 0001 (reserved) 0MB HIGHMEM available. 510MB LOWMEM available. Memory for crash kernel (0x0 to 0x0) notwithin permissible range disabling kdump Using x86 segment limits to approximate NX protection DMI not present or invalid. Using APIC driver default ACPI: Unable to locate RSDP Allocating PCI resources starting at 3000 (gap: 2000:dff0) Detected 1000.103 MHz processor. Built 1 zonelists. Total pages: 130793 Kernel command line: root=/dev/ram ramdisk_size=20 ramdisk_start=0x600 c onsole=ttyS0,9600n8 plat=bryce reboot=warm n Local APIC disabled by BIOS -- you can enable it with lapic Enabling fast FPU save and restore... done. Enabling unmasked SIMD FPU exception support... done. Initializing CPU#0 CPU 0 irqstacks, hard=c076f000 soft=c074f000 PID hash table entries: 2048 (order: 11, 8192 bytes) Console: colour dummy device 80x25 Dentry cache hash table entries: 65536 (order: 6, 262144 bytes) Inode-cache hash table entries: 32768 (order: 5, 131072 bytes) Memory: 503320k/523172k available (2189k kernel code, 19224k reserved, 920k data , 232k init, 0k highmem) Checking if this processor honours the WP bit even in supervisor mode... Ok. Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value calculated using timer frequency.. 2000. 20 BogoMIPS (lpj=1000103) Security Framework v1.0.0 initialized SELinux: Initializing. selinux_register_security: Registering secondary module capability Capability LSM initialized as secondary Mount-cache hash table entries: 512 CPU: L1 I cache: 32K, L1 D cache: 32K CPU: L2 cache: 512K Intel machine check architecture supported. Intel machine check reporting enabled on CPU#0. Checking 'hlt' instruction... OK. SMP alternatives: switching to UP code Freeing SMP alternatives: 14k freed CPU0: Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor 1.00GHz stepping 08 SMP motherboard not detected. Local APIC not detected. Using dummy APIC emulation. Brought up 1 CPUs *checking if image is initramfs... it is Freeing initrd memory: 10554k freed NET: Registered protocol family 16 PCI: PCI BIOS revision 2.10 entry at 0xff67f, last bus=4 PCI: Using configuration type 1 Setting up standard PCI resources ACPI: Interpreter disabled. Linux Plug and Play Support v0.97 (c) Adam Belay pnp: PnP ACPI: disabled usbcore: registered new driver usbfs usbcore: registered new driver hub PCI: Probing PCI hardware ACPI Error (tbxfroot-0645): No valid RSDP was found [20060707] ACPI Exception (tbxfroot-0400): AE_NOT_FOUND, RSDP structure not found - Flags=8 [20060707] ACPI: System description tables not found ACPI Error (tbxfroot-0645): No valid RSDP was found [20060707] ACPI Exception (tbxfroot-0400): AE_NOT_FOUND, RSDP structure not found - Flags=8 [20060707] ACPI: System description tables not found ACPI Error (tbxfroot-0645): No valid RSDP was found [20060707] ACPI Exception (tbxfroot-0400): AE_NOT_FOUND, RSDP structure not found - Flags=8 [20060707] ACPI: System description tables not found ACPI Error (tbxfroot-0645): No valid RSDP was found [20060707] ACPI Exception (tbxfroot-0400): AE_NOT_FOUND, RSDP structure not found - Flags=8 [20060707] ACPI: System description tables not found ACPI Error (tbxfroot-0645): No valid RSDP was found [20060707] ACPI Exception (tbxfroot-0400): AE_NOT_FOUND, RSDP structure not found - Flags=8 [20060707] ACPI: System description tables not found ACPI Error (tbxfroot-0645): No valid RSDP was found [20060707] ACPI Exception (tbxfroot-0400): AE_NOT_FOUND, RSDP structure not found - Flags=8 [20060707] ACPI: System description tables not found ACPI Error (tbxfroot-0645): No valid RSDP was found [20060707] ACPI Exception (tbxfroot-0400): AE_NOT_FOUND, RSDP structure not found - Flags=8 [20060707] ACPI: System description tables not found ACPI Error (tbxfroot-0645): No valid RSDP was found [20060707] ACPI Exception (tbxfroot-0400): AE_NOT_FOUND, RSDP structure not found - Flags=8 [20060707] ACPI: System description tables not found ACPI Error (tbxfroot-0645): No valid RSDP was found [20060707] ACPI Exception (tbxfroot-0400): AE_NOT_FOUND, RSDP structure not found - Flags=8 [20060707] ACPI: System description tables not found ACPI Error (tbxfroot-0645): No valid RSDP was found [20060707]
Re: [CentOS] ACPI errors during bootup
sri wrote: Hi, Am trying to build SMP kernel. Took kernel-2.6.18-194.src.rpm, extracted, rpmbuilded with SMP option. Successfully compile the new kernel and when using that kernel to boot up, following errors were shown up(highlighted in bold red color): My kernel config file has ACPI and PCI configs enabled. what's wrong with the ditribution-built kernel (which has SMP AFAIK)? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] The delays on CentOS 5.6 are causing EPEL incompatibilities
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, John R. Dennison wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 04:22:36AM +0100, Dag Wieers wrote: CentOS 4.8 (95 days late) and CentOS 5.3 (69 days late) have been the worst delays. But now CentOS 5.6 is already at 69 days and CentOS 6.0 is past 133 days delay, an all time record (not counting CentOS 2 :-)). You keep tossing out late. late implies a published deadline and I've yet to see one. I see best effort and will try comments in many places, but never a published deadline. So, why the focus on late? John, The definition of late according to many dictionaries: after the expected or usual time Let me ask you the same question, why the focus on late ? Kind regards, -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- dagit linux solutions, i...@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/ [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Duplicate Mails
On Monday, March 21, 2011 07:53:04 pm Max Hetrick wrote: If anyone is using Thunderbird, there's a handy add-on called Remove Duplicate Messages on Mozilla's add-on site. As a pointer, the kmail I'm using, from within Kontact, also can do de-duplication; click 'Folder' then 'Remove Duplicate Messages.' Ctrl-* is the listed keyboard shortcut. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] ACPI errors during bootup
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:33 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg nicolas.thierry-m...@imag.fr wrote: sri wrote: Hi, Am trying to build SMP kernel. Took kernel-2.6.18-194.src.rpm, extracted, rpmbuilded with SMP option. Successfully compile the new kernel and when using that kernel to boot up, following errors were shown up(highlighted in bold red color): My kernel config file has ACPI and PCI configs enabled. what's wrong with the ditribution-built kernel (which has SMP AFAIK)? And if you tweaked the .config files in the SRPM, please post your altered file or a diff against the original file. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] The delays on CentOS 5.6 are causing EPEL incompatibilities
On Tue, 22 Mar 2011, Les Mikesell wrote: Building the kernel shouldn't be an issue - but look at the SL notes on the srpms that don't build with the listed dependencies as shipped - and they aren't being picky about the library linkages matching the RH binaries like CentOS is. If the RH build links things from source they don't ship, how much can you trust the projects that depend on that source to be able to ship timely updates? Sometimes looking at the list and the posts, I feel like I am watching a group of nuns, talking (speculating) about the life issues of Las Vegas showgirls In trial building the upstream's '6' sources, about the only circular build dependency that comes to mind was an openMPI / valgrind '-devel' pair that was cross dependent and needed for later packages. It was easy enough to 'bootstrap' around, as the dependencies were not 'versioned' such that a prior valgrind worked just fine to break the circularity The compulsive obsession on matching every library version exactly is usually just not an issue to most users of any distribution, so long as they do not have a third-party (and non-LSB conformant) application that absolutely positively needs a given library for some reason. Some of the very high end accellerated graphics drivers oriented for some NVidia chipsets in certain blade configurations fall over and die back to non-accelerated, because the driver vendor is calling some non-exposed library interface; some simulation software return slightly varying results out several bits of precision. Other than that, the Unix that we live in is very forgiving with a quick recompile thanks to the FSF / GNU work on the autotools PLUG: if the darn applications were written to a given LSB level, these issues would go away. But frankly for what one pays for some of these applications, adding a license from upstream is lost in the 'rounding error' of the price /PLUG I am not against such efforts to match at the library version level [it is articulated as part of what CentOS does], but it is usually not the end of the world when a person has to port around some minor deviation in the build environment 'Mother superior 'Les, later ... they do rely on the upstream which previously was not openly hostile to rebuilds It was not always so ... in the early days, there was pushback against the rebuild efforts in general; there is pushback toward commercial 'free-riders' now. This comes and goes, and really there is no substitute for actually 'doing' rather than talking in the cloister It is not the end of the world when one hits a build problem, as the sources, at the end of the day, are provided, and one can study and read. Indeed, as the collection of Linux variants (and thus soliutons of others to study) out there has grown, it is much easier these days to solve such issues [I solved a cfengine-3.1.4 yesterday with minimal effort] -- Russ herrold ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Some relevant information
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote: It takes hours to analyze all the packages in a build ... I do not have hours to spend on doing it for SL ... but here is another error that I found in the SL tree when figuring out build issues in the CentOS 5.6 tree: Which is why opening the process would mean more people are doing that work for you. Much like Linus Torvalds is not doing a lot of programming anymore these days. If you don't want to become the Linus of CentOS, that's fine too, but I don't see the point in doing this behind doors all by yourself if sharing and coordination would solve most of the issues. You pick, build and sign what you like from a shared pool of information. -- -- dag wieers, d...@wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- dagit linux solutions, i...@dagit.net, http://dagit.net/ [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors] ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] OFFTOPIC :: IB hardware choice
Hi! I would need an advice from those that use IB (as admins :) ) i have a choice between : 1. Mellanox InfiniHost(r) III Lx HCA card, single-port CX4, DDR, PCIe x8, mem-free, tall bracket, RoHS R5 2. QLogic Single Port 20 Gb InfiniBand to x16 PCI Express Adapter (Single Pack) aside the price is there anything else that could help me make a discrimination between this two? (these will be used in twin servers for a small (up to 24 nodes) parallel cluster) Thanks! Adrian I would be curious to know what the QLogic IB card is. There was a version that was a Mellanox chip. Those things were terrible. If it's a model 7200 series I believe it's a qlogic chip known as either PathScale or TrueScale. These chips perform WAY better than the InfiniHost chips. Especially if you use an MPI library that is able to make use of QLogic's now open source PSM stuff. -- Tony Placilla aplaci...@jhu.edu ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 73, Issue 4
Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to centos-annou...@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-requ...@centos.org You can reach the person managing the list at centos-announce-ow...@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-2011:0370 Moderate CentOS 4 x86_64 wireshark - security update (Johnny Hughes) 2. CESA-2011:0370 Moderate CentOS 4 i386 wireshark - security update (Johnny Hughes) -- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:47:45 -0500 From: Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2011:0370 Moderate CentOS 4 x86_64 wireshark - security update To: CentOS-Announce centos-annou...@centos.org Message-ID: 4d891901.8050...@centos.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 CentOS Errata and Security Advisory CESA-2011:0370 wireshark security update for CentOS 4 x86_64: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0370.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: x86_64: wireshark-1.0.15-2.el4.x86_64.rpm wireshark-gnome-1.0.15-2.el4.x86_64.rpm src: wireshark-1.0.15-2.el4.src.rpm -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 253 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/attachments/20110322/ea6ea563/attachment-0001.bin -- Message: 2 Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2011 16:47:55 -0500 From: Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2011:0370 Moderate CentOS 4 i386 wireshark - security update To: CentOS-Announce centos-annou...@centos.org Message-ID: 4d89190b.1030...@centos.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 CentOS Errata and Security Advisory CESA-2011:0370 wireshark security update for CentOS 4 1386: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0370.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: i386: wireshark-1.0.15-2.el4.i386.rpm wireshark-gnome-1.0.15-2.el4.i386.rpm src: wireshark-1.0.15-2.el4.src.rpm -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 253 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/attachments/20110322/fb07cf41/attachment-0001.bin -- ___ CentOS-announce mailing list centos-annou...@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce End of CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 73, Issue 4 ** ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] how can we help? was: Re: The delays on CentOS 5.6 are causing EPEL incompatibilities
2011/3/23 R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com This comes and goes, and really there is no substitute for actually 'doing' rather than talking in the cloister as i see it, the problem is while the users expectation has grown, the work became harder. so i believe the real question is: how can we help the CentOS project? how can we unload the developers so that they do more high level and/or creative things with less work? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Some relevant information
On Wednesday, March 23, 2011 09:56:34 am Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: Understood. I'd like to replicate or examine the error. Building it yourself, without that access to your unique build environment or a way to gracefully replicate it, represents dozens or hundreds of man-hours for each contributor who'd like to help. That's a little hard to do right now. He's given out his build system requirements. Last I saw it was 'C5.5 fully updated' (which I take to be 'with all the current public updates') but, no, you can grep the archives for yourself for the mock version he said. I read that message; it gave enough information to get started. And to replicate the error you have to do the work; there is no shortcut, and if you don't have time to put that many hours into it (like me; I don't have that kind of time right now either) then you can't replicate it. Besides, it's already fixed in the C5 tree, so replication is not really useful at the moment, at least not to CentOS, I would think. Ohh. Then I guess all the requests for help in the last few months were looking for something else? Yes, they were. None of the requests for help I saw included 'help us build or re-tool the buildsystem' as part of the request. Requests were made for help with specific tasks; building or source control for changed specs was not found in any of those requests. If you're going to help someone, you have to help that someone in the areas that that someone wants help; if you go to the auto mechanic and ask for an oil change it doesn't help for that mechanic to go ahead and do an engine overhaul just because the mechanic would rather help by doing an engine overhaul, even if an oil change *is* a side-effect of an engine overhaul. Fine. Then show *US* how you're doing it. Publish the /etc/mock/ files you use, He has done this. More than once, now, in the CentOS-devel list. Go read the archives; it's all there. and provide some visibibility to the bootstrapping you're allegedly using for CentOS 6, and we'd love to help on this and future releases. Ok, let's try this again. The bootstrapping of the buildroots is a process that isn't really finished until the last package is built and tested as binary compatible If all the packages aren't built, or if all the packages have not passed QA, then the full bootstrap is not known. Bootstrapping a major version bump for a distribution is a really a one-time event, I would think, and the specifics of that bootstrap likely will not be usable (the general way of going about it will be) as such on the next major version. Bootstrapping a from-source rebuild is at the moment, and as far as I know, the least documented of the steps involved, but at the same time information has been posted as to the initial seed for the rebuild, and for the bootstrapping start point. While I could do the legwork and post the link for you in the archives, I think you should go find it yourself. The build components in the build repository, for example, are pretty old and clearly out of date. Point us to the current versions, please! How do you know that those are not the current versions for building and QAing C4.x and C5.x? For C6 they're not going to publish until they have proven working versions. C4 and C5 are old enough and build scripts for old base distributions don't need changing for every release if the old version still works, no? The CentOS developers did not ask for (that I saw, at least) and at this point in time apparently neither want nor need help with the build piece; we have some promises that the process will be better documented for C6, and we'll not see that document until it is known that the process works to a fully-released conclusion. So hold on to your hat, be patient, and wait on the release or go build it yourself for already published documents/e-mails. It is doable. Once you do it be sure to publish your results. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Affordable KVM over IP switch
--On Wednesday, March 23, 2011 03:19:49 AM + Miguel Medalha miguelmeda...@sapo.pt wrote: The D-Links are NOT suitable for professional use. I used one of their models and it hanged on me multiple times. Because it is powered by the keyboard/mouse/video connectors, the only way to recover it is to physically disconnect ALL cables and reconnect them again. Ok, I won't argue with that; a it fails in this scenario overrides a it works for me. I will add though, that were it got into the state described above was where I was able to recover it by using the reset button. You might want to try that next time instead of the cable disconnect solution. But no, it shouldn't happen to begin with, and that power aspect is clearly a design flaw. If I had a better make/model to recommend, I'd mention it, but I don't. I suspect that they are out there, but I can't say which. Devin ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] how can we help? was: Re: The delays on CentOS 5.6 are causing EPEL incompatibilities
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, cornel panceac wrote: 2011/3/23 R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com This comes and goes, and really there is no substitute for actually 'doing' rather than talking in the cloister as i see it, the problem is while the users expectation has grown, the work became harder. ehhh? It has not gotten materially harder to build, if indeed it has gotten harder at all. 4.9 sailed out (thanks, Johnny -- also there was no new ISO set and anaconda to spin); 5.6 has some niggles which are being worked out in QA; and my trial building of the 6 sources, INCLUDING A RE-WRITE of my local autobuilder, took less than a week, for getting the first pass done. I am not happy with the package build scheduler (it is too naiive and not as efficient as I would like it) That said, I then rebuilt those sources 3 more rounds, to make sure they are self-hosting and stabilized, BEFORE turning to address trademark and branding issues. If a person were inclined to see the process and get a flavor for doing rounds of rebuilding to ensure convergance, rebuild gcc, or glicb from an unpacked tarball, with the minimal shell tools building environment for 'bootstrapping' into a new environment so i believe the real question is: how can we help the CentOS project? how can we unload the developers so that they do more high level and/or creative things with less work? I am substantially certain the archive of this list or the -devel list contains suggesting identifying trade-marks that leaked out of 'redhat-logos', and branding changes not affirmatively required by the 'elide other's trademarks' requirement; large numbers of bugs are never touched and confirmed as reproduceable, or still viable; pushing fixes upstream [we had an email inquiry today, wanting to help extend CentOS to add a new national language that will not occur here, but is a perfectly reasonable translation project to push into Fedora so it eventually flows down here ... ] It is perfectly reasonable to 'toil in the vinyards' of Fedora to cause future CentOS versions to benefit from the effort -- Russ herrold ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] ACPI errors during bootup
At Wed, 23 Mar 2011 19:34:10 +0530 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote: Hi, Am trying to build SMP kernel. You do know that the *stock* CentOS 5.x kernels (2.6.18-...) are already built as SMP kernels? That is, under RHEL 5/CentOS 5 you don't even get uniprocessor kernels, unless you build them yourself (and there isn't much need to bother). Took kernel-2.6.18-194.src.rpm, extracted, rpmbuilded with SMP option. Successfully compile the new kernel and when using that kernel to boot up, following errors were shown up(highlighted in bold red color): My kernel config file has ACPI and PCI configs enabled. Any pointers to what caused the problem are appreciated. ** * BIOS-e820: 0001 - 0009e000 (usable) BIOS-e820: 0009e000 - 000a (reserved) BIOS-e820: 000e - 0010 (reserved) BIOS-e820: 0010 - 1fee9000 (usable) BIOS-e820: 1fee9000 - 2000 (reserved) BIOS-e820: fff0 - 0001 (reserved) 0MB HIGHMEM available. 510MB LOWMEM available. Memory for crash kernel (0x0 to 0x0) notwithin permissible range disabling kdump Using x86 segment limits to approximate NX protection DMI not present or invalid. Using APIC driver default ACPI: Unable to locate RSDP Allocating PCI resources starting at 3000 (gap: 2000:dff0) Detected 1000.103 MHz processor. Built 1 zonelists. Total pages: 130793 Kernel command line: root=/dev/ram ramdisk_size=20 ramdisk_start=0x600 c onsole=ttyS0,9600n8 plat=bryce reboot=warm n Local APIC disabled by BIOS -- you can enable it with lapic Enabling fast FPU save and restore... done. Enabling unmasked SIMD FPU exception support... done. Initializing CPU#0 CPU 0 irqstacks, hard=c076f000 soft=c074f000 PID hash table entries: 2048 (order: 11, 8192 bytes) Console: colour dummy device 80x25 Dentry cache hash table entries: 65536 (order: 6, 262144 bytes) Inode-cache hash table entries: 32768 (order: 5, 131072 bytes) Memory: 503320k/523172k available (2189k kernel code, 19224k reserved, 920k data , 232k init, 0k highmem) Checking if this processor honours the WP bit even in supervisor mode... Ok. Calibrating delay loop (skipped), value calculated using timer frequency.. 2000. 20 BogoMIPS (lpj=1000103) Security Framework v1.0.0 initialized SELinux: Initializing. selinux_register_security: Registering secondary module capability Capability LSM initialized as secondary Mount-cache hash table entries: 512 CPU: L1 I cache: 32K, L1 D cache: 32K CPU: L2 cache: 512K Intel machine check architecture supported. Intel machine check reporting enabled on CPU#0. Checking 'hlt' instruction... OK. SMP alternatives: switching to UP code Freeing SMP alternatives: 14k freed CPU0: Intel(R) Celeron(R) M processor 1.00GHz stepping 08 SMP motherboard not detected. Local APIC not detected. Using dummy APIC emulation. Brought up 1 CPUs *checking if image is initramfs... it is Freeing initrd memory: 10554k freed NET: Registered protocol family 16 PCI: PCI BIOS revision 2.10 entry at 0xff67f, last bus=4 PCI: Using configuration type 1 Setting up standard PCI resources ACPI: Interpreter disabled. Linux Plug and Play Support v0.97 (c) Adam Belay pnp: PnP ACPI: disabled usbcore: registered new driver usbfs usbcore: registered new driver hub PCI: Probing PCI hardware ACPI Error (tbxfroot-0645): No valid RSDP was found [20060707] ACPI Exception (tbxfroot-0400): AE_NOT_FOUND, RSDP structure not found - Flags=8 [20060707] ACPI: System description tables not found ACPI Error (tbxfroot-0645): No valid RSDP was found [20060707] ACPI Exception (tbxfroot-0400): AE_NOT_FOUND, RSDP structure not found - Flags=8 [20060707] ACPI: System description tables not found ACPI Error (tbxfroot-0645): No valid RSDP was found [20060707] ACPI Exception (tbxfroot-0400): AE_NOT_FOUND, RSDP structure not found - Flags=8 [20060707] ACPI: System description tables not found ACPI Error (tbxfroot-0645): No valid RSDP was found [20060707] ACPI Exception (tbxfroot-0400): AE_NOT_FOUND, RSDP structure not found - Flags=8 [20060707] ACPI: System description tables not found ACPI Error (tbxfroot-0645): No valid RSDP was found [20060707] ACPI Exception (tbxfroot-0400): AE_NOT_FOUND, RSDP structure not found - Flags=8 [20060707] ACPI: System description tables not found ACPI Error (tbxfroot-0645): No valid RSDP was found [20060707] ACPI Exception (tbxfroot-0400): AE_NOT_FOUND, RSDP structure not found - Flags=8 [20060707] ACPI: System description tables not found ACPI Error (tbxfroot-0645): No valid RSDP was found [20060707] ACPI Exception (tbxfroot-0400): AE_NOT_FOUND, RSDP structure not found - Flags=8 [20060707] ACPI: System description tables not found ACPI Error
Re: [CentOS] Some relevant information
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:15 PM, Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu wrote: On Wednesday, March 23, 2011 09:56:34 am Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: Understood. I'd like to replicate or examine the error. Building it yourself, without that access to your unique build environment or a way to gracefully replicate it, represents dozens or hundreds of man-hours for each contributor who'd like to help. That's a little hard to do right now. He's given out his build system requirements. Last I saw it was 'C5.5 fully updated' (which I take to be 'with all the current public updates') but, no, you can grep the archives for yourself for the mock version he said. I read that message; it gave enough information to get started. mock version is not the same as mock files. Really. The mixing of older, CentOS 5.5 versus updated components can get tricky, and the tweaks to enable the use of unsigned locally managed components requires thought (or should!!). There are also components in the RHEL 5.6 SRPM's that have mutual dependencies and have to be built together. I don't care to spend all that time rebuilding all that work if I don't have to. And to replicate the error you have to do the work; there is no shortcut, and if you don't have time to put that many hours into it (like me; I don't have that kind of time right now either) then you can't replicate it. Besides, it's already fixed in the C5 tree, so replication is not really useful at the moment, at least not to CentOS, I would think. Fine. Then show *US* how you're doing it. Publish the /etc/mock/ files you use, He has done this. More than once, now, in the CentOS-devel list. Go read the archives; it's all there. and provide some visibibility to the bootstrapping you're allegedly using for CentOS 6, and we'd love to help on this and future releases. Ok, let's try this again. The bootstrapping of the buildroots is a process that isn't really finished until the last package is built and tested as binary compatible If all the packages aren't built, or if all the packages have not passed QA, then the full bootstrap is not known. *Current status* would be helpful. Bootstrapping a major version bump for a distribution is a really a one-time event, I would think, and the specifics of that bootstrap likely will not be usable (the general way of going about it will be) as such on the next major version. Bootstrapping a from-source rebuild is at the moment, and as far as I know, the least documented of the steps involved, but at the same time information has been posted as to the initial seed for the rebuild, and for the bootstrapping start point. While I could do the legwork and post the link for you in the archives, I think you should go find it yourself. And then a miracle occurred. Yes. The build components in the build repository, for example, are pretty old and clearly out of date. Point us to the current versions, please! How do you know that those are not the current versions for building and QAing C4.x and C5.x? For C6 they're not going to publish until they have proven working versions. C4 and C5 are old enough and build scripts for old base distributions don't need changing for every release if the old version still works, no? Becuse I read them. Many, not all are centos-3 specific. Others are behavioral replicas, with no indication which is actually in use. That's the sort of thinig source control is so useful for. Getting not just your source, but your build chain under into the source management helps assure the overall quality and consistency of what you do, and be able to replicate your build environment. I've looked at the previous requests for help. I stink at graphics, unfortunately, but have considerable difficulty replicating the other issues because the build environment is undocumented. The CentOS developers did not ask for (that I saw, at least) and at this point in time apparently neither want nor need help with the build piece; we have some promises that the process will be better documented for C6, and we'll not see that document until it is known that the process works to a fully-released conclusion. So, you're saying they don't want help, only help with what they want help with, thank you very much? So hold on to your hat, be patient, and wait on the release or go build it yourself for already published documents/e-mails. It is doable. Once you do it be sure to publish your results. Or hop to Scientificic Linux, where the resulting delays are not so large. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Install on Dell PowerEdge T310
Hi, this is the first time I install linux on a dell server. Simply I booted from a centos 5.5 x64 dvd but I cant see the disks.. is there something I miss ? thanks very much for any help luigi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Install on Dell PowerEdge T310
admin lewis wrote: Hi, this is the first time I install linux on a dell server. Simply I booted from a centos 5.5 x64 dvd but I cant see the disks.. is there something I miss ? Have you configured any raid disk controllers in the bios first? This is a very common question - servers with RAID controllers need to set up with your chosen disk configuration first - when they're happy they will announce their effective device to the OS where the usual partitioning and md-raid, lvm etc can take place. HTH thanks very much for any help luigi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos attachment: rkampen.vcf___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Install on Dell PowerEdge T310
on 18:40 Wed 23 Mar, admin lewis (adminle...@gmail.com) wrote: Hi, this is the first time I install linux on a dell server. Simply I booted from a centos 5.5 x64 dvd but I cant see the disks.. is there something I miss ? thanks very much for any help 1: Comfirm your boot menu settings 2: Comfirm your BIOS settings (CD/DVD is active) 3: Verify your download (md5sum / sha1sum). 4: Try the DVD in another system 5: Burn and try another disk 6: Try another boot option / medium: flash, PXE/kickstart, etc. If you're provisioning a datacenter or multiple systems, I'd jump straight to #6 myself. -- Dr. Ed Morbius, Chief Scientist /| Robot Wrangler / Staff Psychologist| When you seek unlimited power Krell Power Systems Unlimited| Go to Krell! ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Install on Dell PowerEdge T310
Le 23/03/2011 18:40, admin lewis a écrit : Hi, this is the first time I install linux on a dell server. Simply I booted from a centos 5.5 x64 dvd but I cant see the disks.. is there something I miss ? thanks very much for any help luigi What have you as Raid Controller ? H200, H700, something else ? Alain -- == Alain Péan - LPP/CNRS Administrateur Système/Réseau Laboratoire de Physique des Plasmas - UMR 7648 Observatoire de Saint-Maur 4, av de Neptune, Bat. A 94100 Saint-Maur des Fossés Tel : 01-45-11-42-39 - Fax : 01-48-89-44-33 == ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Install on Dell PowerEdge T310
On 03/23/11 10:40 AM, admin lewis wrote: Hi, this is the first time I install linux on a dell server. Simply I booted from a centos 5.5 x64 dvd but I cant see the disks.. is there something I miss ? does that system have some form of PERC raid controller? you need to go into the PERC Bios (or use Dell's utility disk and the raid configuratator) and define whatever level of hardware raid you want, creating logical volumes that your OS will see as 'disks'. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] The delays on CentOS 5.6 are causing EPEL incompatibilities
On 3/23/2011 10:40 AM, R P Herrold wrote: Sometimes looking at the list and the posts, I feel like I am watching a group of nuns, talking (speculating) about the life issues of Las Vegas showgirls The showgirls are picky about who they let under the covers. So I suppose we have to wait for the movie version to get the inside story... It is not the end of the world when one hits a build problem, as the sources, at the end of the day, are provided, and one can study and read. It is just hard for an outsider to reconcile the statements about the build process not needing any changes or more resources with the lack of a target time. Or that binary compatibility is the critical thing with the distribution becoming incompatible with 3rd party repositories built against upstream's current base. Or that it is easy enough to do by yourself with problems delaying a release. The parts just don't seem to fit together. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] The delays on CentOS 5.6 are causing EPEL incompatibilities
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Les Mikesell wrote: It is just hard for an outsider to reconcile the statements about the build process not needing any changes or more resources with the lack of a target time. Or that binary compatibility is the critical thing with the distribution becoming incompatible with 3rd party repositories built against upstream's current base. Or that it is easy enough to do by yourself with problems delaying a release. The parts just don't seem to fit together. I guess you are saying you are an outsider, Les ... get off the bench talking the game, and start testing As to the needs of an individual rebuilding the sources, compared to a distribution of CentOS much wider coverage, HughesJr already pointed out that literally millions of machines are affected by a rushed release; exploratory trailling builds for a single build 'scratch' effort are scarcely comparable. There is no reason they SHOULD 'fit together' Life is like that -- messy and not exact --- I gave two specific examples of binary compatability mattering; on the -devel list a person says they've never seen the problem. These are not conflicting observations --- just the well known fact that one cannot 'prove' a negative fact The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence -- Russ herrold ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Install on Dell PowerEdge T310
2011/3/23 John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com: On 03/23/11 10:40 AM, admin lewis wrote: Hi, this is the first time I install linux on a dell server. Simply I booted from a centos 5.5 x64 dvd but I cant see the disks.. is there something I miss ? does that system have some form of PERC raid controller? you need to go into the PERC Bios (or use Dell's utility disk and the raid configuratator) and define whatever level of hardware raid you want, creating logical volumes that your OS will see as 'disks'. Thanks very much to all, now I have understood.. anyway it's a perc s300.. I see I can make a virtual disk read-only... very interesting.. well .. to have a /boot partition read-only is a non-sense... thanks to all again... someone has told google is your friend .. ..but I say I prefer human friend.. :-) -- Admin Lewis ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Apache/Active Directory authentication
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011, Michael B Allen wrote: Yes, but using the machine principal you're able to request any number of service principals that are SERVICENAME/machinename. For this to work in a virtual hosting environment, you need multiple machine names (since we're talking about making a number of HTTP/blah principals). Whilst I accept The machinename of the principal does NOT have to match the actual machine name. You could create a User object called alice with servicePrincipalName values of HTTP/as1.busicorp.local, HTTP/mycomputer.net and HTTP/test1 and requesting tickets for any of those names will work just fine. AD just searches for an account with a servicePrincipalName value that matches the principal requested for the service ticket. Pedantic note: If you have the same servicePrincipalName value on more than one account, AD will actually choke and not return a ticket at all (because the request is ambiguous), there is no constraint in AD to stop people from accidentally adding the same SPN to multiple accounts and AD will not return any kind of meaningful error about it. Sure, but if you're not a domain admin, you've only got a machine principal, and your own principal (which I can use to join machines to the domain). Given those, and *not* a domain admin credential, how do you create those principals? jh___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Affordable KVM over IP switch
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Devin Reade g...@gno.org wrote: --On Wednesday, March 23, 2011 03:19:49 AM + Miguel Medalha miguelmeda...@sapo.pt wrote: The D-Links are NOT suitable for professional use. I used one of their models and it hanged on me multiple times. Because it is powered by the keyboard/mouse/video connectors, the only way to recover it is to physically disconnect ALL cables and reconnect them again. Ok, I won't argue with that; a it fails in this scenario overrides a it works for me. I will add though, that were it got into the state described above was where I was able to recover it by using the reset button. You might want to try that next time instead of the cable disconnect solution. But no, it shouldn't happen to begin with, and that power aspect is clearly a design flaw. If I had a better make/model to recommend, I'd mention it, but I don't. I suspect that they are out there, but I can't say which. Devin I've had good luck with the Dell 71PXP, which is easy to find used for under $100. I also use Aten 2L5502UP cables to convert PS/2 to USB for the servers. Ryan ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Affordable KVM over IP switch
Ok, I won't argue with that; a it fails in this scenario overrides a it works for me. I will add though, that were it got into the state described above was where I was able to recover it by using the reset button. You might want to try that next time instead of the cable disconnect solution My unit does not have a reset switch. I told you it's a PITA :-) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] ESXi 4.1 and Cluster Fencing
Hi. I'm new to configuring Clustering . The CentOS 5.5 guest machines will be running on ESXi 4.1 . I'm configuring the clustering using Conga . I see that there is support for using ESX to do the fencing. The problem I have is that the guest machines are not allowed to have access the management network as per security policies. The guest machines don't no access to the management IPs of any of the hardware as per security policies. How should I implement fencing. Thanks Greg Machin Systems Administrator - Linux Infrastructure Group, Information Services [cid:image001.gif@01CBEA14.4DD102E0] Phone +64 4 914 5254 or 0508 650200 ext 5254 | Fax +64 4 913 5759 3 Cleary Street, Waterloo | Private Bag 31914, Lower Hutt 5040 http://www.openpolytechnic.ac.nz [cid:image002.gif@01CBEA14.4DD102E0]Please consider the environment before printing this email. inline: image001.gifinline: image002.gif___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] ESXi 4.1 and Cluster Fencing
On 03/23/2011 11:19 PM, Machin, Greg wrote:
Hi.
I’m new to configuring Clustering .
The CentOS 5.5 guest machines will be running on ESXi 4.1 . I’m
configuring the clustering using “Conga” . I see that there is support
for using ESX to do the fencing. The problem I have is that the guest
machines are not allowed to have access the “management network” as per
security policies. The guest machines don’t no access to the management
IPs of any of the hardware as per security policies. How should I
implement fencing.
Thanks
*Greg Machin*
*Systems Administrator - Linux*
Infrastructure Group, Information Services
Phone+64 4 914 5254 or 0508 650200 ext 5254| Fax+64 4 913 5759
3 Cleary Street, Waterloo | Private Bag 31914, Lower Hutt 5040
http://www.openpolytechnic.ac.nz
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
Use fence_manual ... but it is not supported officially by TUV in
production environments ...
Regards.
--
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] How does Linux Repair actually work
Thanks to the help of folks on this forum, I now have my Centos 4 box up and working, however I do have a question on how the repair actually worked. After starting the Linux Repair, the process found my installed Linux. Some of you will remember that I had accidentally erased the /boot and /boot/grub directories, but I had most of the files saved (not the symbolic links) and put them back into the directories *and* I did run a rpm reinstall. When Linux Repair found the installed Linux, did it create a new /boot and /boot/grub *or* did it just use what I had put there? [I am now downloading Centos 5.5 which I'll install on a new drive and then face the challenges of moving my backup data to the new OS] Todd -- Ariste Software Petaluma, CA 94952 http://www.aristesoftware.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] ESXi 4.1 and Cluster Fencing
Use fence_manual ... but it is not supported officially by TUV in production environments ... Do not use that... How does that actually fence the offending node when it needs to? The concept of fencing is for the preservation of data integrity, circumventing it with a manual fence is useful only for testing, if you need to fence an errant node in production and don't, it might just corrupt your shared storage. Sigh... Make a firewall provision, it's imperative you get fencing right. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] How does Linux Repair actually work
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 6:34 PM, Todd Cary t...@aristesoftware.com wrote: Thanks to the help of folks on this forum, I now have my Centos 4 box up and working, however I do have a question on how the repair actually worked. After starting the Linux Repair, the process found my installed Linux. Some of you will remember that I had accidentally erased the /boot and /boot/grub directories, but I had most of the files saved (not the symbolic links) and put them back into the directories *and* I did run a rpm reinstall. When Linux Repair found the installed Linux, did it create a new /boot and /boot/grub *or* did it just use what I had put there? [I am now downloading Centos 5.5 which I'll install on a new drive and then face the challenges of moving my backup data to the new OS] Todd If you're referring to the linux rescue and using chroot /mnt/sysimage, it just used what it found there. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Install on Dell PowerEdge T310
Am 23.03.2011 19:33, schrieb admin lewis: Thanks very much to all, now I have understood.. anyway it's a perc s300.. I see I can make a virtual disk read-only... very interesting.. well .. to have a /boot partition read-only is a non-sense... thanks to all again... someone has told google is your friend .. ..but I say I prefer human friend.. :-) https://access.redhat.com/kb/docs/DOC-19840 Alexander ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Some relevant information
* As mentioned before, Scientific Linux 6.0 is out. What hasn't been mentioned here is that while SL 5.6 hasn't come out, 5.6 security updates are being backported to SL 5.5. Ditto with SL 4 (no 4.9 but security patches look current) And we try very hard not to release things until they pass our QA testing. Let me make something clear: I have been a CentOS user since 2006. I really, really appreciate all of the contributions the CentOS team has made--contributions which have been made without being properly compensated for the time and effort made. We are still finding and correcting issues with the 5.6 things that we have built (things not properly linking when compared to upstream, etc). As I mentioned before, the CentOS team owes me nothing. If the CentOS team decides tomorrow that deathmatching Nexuiz (errr, Xonotic, because how dare anyone try making money with their open-source project) is more fun than making security updates and getting 5.6 or 6 out the door, enjoy yourselves! CentOS does not owe me a single release more or even a single security update. For me, I would rather have timely releases and security updates than guaranteed binary compatibility. My appeal of a RHEL clone is that I will be able to use a RHEL 5 clone until 2014 (RHEL 6 clone until 2017) and have security issues fixed. Anyway, thank you for the great work, and it has been a pleasure using CentOS for so many years! - Sam ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Some relevant information
Sam Trenholme wrote: * As mentioned before, Scientific Linux 6.0 is out. What hasn't been mentioned here is that while SL 5.6 hasn't come out, 5.6 security updates are being backported to SL 5.5. Ditto with SL 4 (no 4.9 but security patches look current) And we try very hard not to release things until they pass our QA testing. Let me make something clear: I have been a CentOS user since 2006. I really, really appreciate all of the contributions the CentOS team has made--contributions which have been made without being properly compensated for the time and effort made. We are still finding and correcting issues with the 5.6 things that we have built (things not properly linking when compared to upstream, etc). As I mentioned before, the CentOS team owes me nothing. If the CentOS team decides tomorrow that deathmatching Nexuiz (errr, Xonotic, because how dare anyone try making money with their open-source project) is more fun than making security updates and getting 5.6 or 6 out the door, enjoy yourselves! CentOS does not owe me a single release more or even a single security update. For me, I would rather have timely releases and security updates than guaranteed binary compatibility. My appeal of a RHEL clone is that I will be able to use a RHEL 5 clone until 2014 (RHEL 6 clone until 2017) and have security issues fixed. I think I'm seeing a miss-understanding here - please correct me if I'm wrong. Binary Compatibility means that rpms made for RHEL will just work on CentOS. If binary compatibility is dropped in favor of just getting a patch out the door, then sooner or later an rpm or module that used to work will fail and trying to track down the problem and resolve it will be made more difficult as the provider of the rpm has two (or more) possible build environments and dependencies to deal with. Be careful what you wish for!! Anyway, thank you for the great work, and it has been a pleasure using CentOS for so many years! - Sam ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos attachment: rkampen.vcf___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Managing users and passwords
I plan to make my current Centos 4 HD a slave and install Centos 5.5 on a new HD (master). Then comes the challenge of of moving all of my /home/user data to the new master. I have some preliminary questions: Is this a good strategy for installing Centos 5.5: keep the Centos 4 on a slave disk? Will the Centos 5.5 detect the slave disk (Centos 4)? Is there a way to move the users, groups and passwords from one disk to the new Centos 5.5? IT departments must have servers go down or want to install a new version of Linux and have the same challenges. Todd -- Ariste Software Petaluma, CA 94952 http://www.aristesoftware.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
