[CentOS-docs] Application for joining Chinese (simplified) Team
Hello all, Thank you very much for viewing the letter. This is Haowei (English name: Cyrus Evans) from China, who is a professiona IT editor and English interpretor. As I have gained more than 3 years' experience of localizatioin work and so much experience opensource software (including mybboard, smf etc.). As an experienced contributor, I wirte this letter to apply for joining localization work of Simplified Chinese. I hope that anyone lead this work here could contact me? My Gtalk: haowei...@gmail.com My Contribution Plan 1. Chinese localization work of centos software. 2. Join Chinese localization work of wiki. I am looking forward to your reply. Thank you very much. Yours Sincerely, ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Application for joining Chinese (simplified) Team
Am 20.04.11 18:01, schrieb Cyrus Evans: I hope that anyone lead this work here could contact me? Timothy: I think you two should talk :) Cheers, Ralph ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Application for joining Chinese (simplified) Team
Dear Haowei, Thanks for your offer! :) I've added you to my gmail chat account to further discuss the matter. In case you haven't yet done so, please create a wiki account (see Section 3 in http://wiki.centos.org/Contribute ) Regards, Timothy ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] Fwd: Re: Application for joining Chinese (simplified) Team
-- 转发的消息 -- 发件人：Cyrus Evans haowei...@gmail.com 日期：2011-4-21 上午8:38 主题：Re: [CentOS-docs] Application for joining Chinese (simplified) Team 收件人：Timothy Lee timothy.ty@gmail.com Hi Timothy. I am currently keeping online on my another gmail for daily work. Would you like to meet me and talk there? kevinallen...@gmail.com 在 2011-4-21 上午8:32，Timothy Lee timothy.ty@gmail.com写道： ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS-docs] Application for joining Chinese (simplified) Team
Dear Ralph, Can you give HaoweiLee (wiki account) permission to change all Chinese pages. Thanks! He'll be working on the simplified Chinese translations. :) Regards, Timothy On 04/21/2011 03:41 AM, Ralph Angenendt wrote: Am 20.04.11 18:01, schrieb Cyrus Evans: I hope that anyone lead this work here could contact me? Timothy: I think you two should talk : ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-docs] 回复：Fwd: Re: Application for joining Chinese (simplified) Team
Hi Ralph,Timothy, Besides giving me edit access on wiki,I would also want to apply for translating centos website with Timothy as there is only English version. Would you please also let me know how could we do that? Thank you vary much. BTW,as I have talked with Timothy,we will keep working on different different Chinese translation. I will focus on Simplified Chinese, and Timothy will focus on Traditional Chinese. --邮件发自网易手机邮-- 以下是引用原文 发件人：Timothy Lee timothy.ty@gmail.com 发送时间：2011-04-21 10:23 主题：Fwd: Re: [CentOS-docs] Application for joining Chinese (simplified) Team 收件人：cyrus_ev...@163.com Original Message Subject:Re: [CentOS-docs] Application for joining Chinese (simplified) Team Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2011 10:23:02 +0800 From: Timothy Lee timothy.ty@gmail.com To: Mail list for wiki articles centos-docs@centos.org Dear Ralph, Can you give HaoweiLee (wiki account) permission to change all Chinese pages. Thanks! He'll be working on the simplified Chinese translations. :) Regards, Timothy On 04/21/2011 03:41 AM, Ralph Angenendt wrote: Am 20.04.11 18:01, schrieb Cyrus Evans: I hope that anyone lead this work here could contact me? Timothy: I think you two should talk : ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0450 CentOS 4 i386 x86_64 xorg-x11 Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory CEBA-2011:0450 xorg-x11 bugfix update for CentOS 4 i386 and x86_64: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0450.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: i386: xorg-x11-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-doc-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-font-utils-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-sdk-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-tools-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-twm-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-xauth-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-xdm-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-Xdmx-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-xfs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-Xnest-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-Xvfb-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm x86_64: xorg-x11-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-doc-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-font-utils-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-sdk-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-tools-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-twm-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-xauth-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-xdm-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-Xdmx-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-xfs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-Xnest-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-Xvfb-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm src: xorg-x11-6.8.2-1.EL.68.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] CEBA-2011:0216 CentOS 5 x86_64 vnc Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:0216
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0216.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
x86_64:
95a33840c4dfdafde335b03093c5c678 vnc-4.1.2-14.el5_6.6.x86_64.rpm
228eaec0c7f9df994b6100118c80240a vnc-server-4.1.2-14.el5_6.6.x86_64.rpm
Source:
908a89b31ceefa6de0a905698e7bdac5 vnc-4.1.2-14.el5_6.6.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0033 CentOS 5 x86_64 conga Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:0033
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0033.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
x86_64:
57ba15e655580a4ec5f4834252696c98 luci-0.12.2-24.el5.centos.0.x86_64.rpm
a0b895d8c6b372f5c7ca0d5794cb155c ricci-0.12.2-24.el5.centos.0.x86_64.rpm
Source:
cfaf1fe498770339aba9858172b4d5ff conga-0.12.2-24.el5.centos.0.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CESA-2011:0394 Important CentOS 5 i386 conga Update
CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2011:0394 Important
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0394.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
i386:
1048f9bb172cfbde8557d39828ae580f luci-0.12.2-24.el5.centos.1.i386.rpm
7ffcb8436b387eaf30ed1683f3ef120b ricci-0.12.2-24.el5.centos.1.i386.rpm
Source:
ed08bb9e3a7beb670700bc1830e32009 conga-0.12.2-24.el5.centos.1.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0172 CentOS 5 i386 gdbm Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:0172
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0172.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
i386:
a8fdf362618bf70866b33adb98edf180 gdbm-1.8.0-26.2.1.el5_6.1.i386.rpm
cb1dab90f7fa35628742717a279462f3 gdbm-devel-1.8.0-26.2.1.el5_6.1.i386.rpm
Source:
bdd2e5b5d61521b0e0f0069cbe2e2ada gdbm-1.8.0-26.2.1.el5_6.1.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CESA-2011:0394 Important CentOS 5 x86_64 conga Update
CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2011:0394 Important
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0394.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
x86_64:
6876b352f595b24bb20dfd4c86325dea luci-0.12.2-24.el5.centos.1.x86_64.rpm
9b1ff70b3cb5e14b92db6205e37ec95f ricci-0.12.2-24.el5.centos.1.x86_64.rpm
Source:
ed08bb9e3a7beb670700bc1830e32009 conga-0.12.2-24.el5.centos.1.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0456 CentOS 5 i386 xorg-x11-server Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:0456
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0456.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
i386:
5f929a401b6af7ed81f5a205d59dc0d3
xorg-x11-server-sdk-1.1.1-48.76.el5_6.4.i386.rpm
f81b25d045449be8f17cca16578c53c0
xorg-x11-server-Xdmx-1.1.1-48.76.el5_6.4.i386.rpm
82ace941b9250f66576f8e7c59cca97c
xorg-x11-server-Xephyr-1.1.1-48.76.el5_6.4.i386.rpm
f4a73640c4d599b2f742f532b8184e7c
xorg-x11-server-Xnest-1.1.1-48.76.el5_6.4.i386.rpm
48176694aecb2be6c02ae6544f675ecf
xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.1.1-48.76.el5_6.4.i386.rpm
6d72e45d2faf1879a2679f261a86d6e3
xorg-x11-server-Xvfb-1.1.1-48.76.el5_6.4.i386.rpm
f6c2872350ded552f444bd4bb8f12272
xorg-x11-server-Xvnc-source-1.1.1-48.76.el5_6.4.i386.rpm
Source:
9b3b73de2a36da52e6cb3c2a276a6d4f xorg-x11-server-1.1.1-48.76.el5_6.4.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0457 CentOS 5 x86_64 xorg-x11-xfs Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:0457
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0457.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
x86_64:
0184a9e755eb3b7711b837c9d6971b88 xorg-x11-xfs-1.0.2-5.el5_6.1.x86_64.rpm
ef02db4a85d8258344c852396355a9e8 xorg-x11-xfs-utils-1.0.2-5.el5_6.1.x86_64.rpm
Source:
c48a88afa248b4ce26b0679086798160 xorg-x11-xfs-1.0.2-5.el5_6.1.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CESA-2011:0170 Moderate CentOS 5 x86_64 libuser Update
CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2011:0170 Moderate
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0170.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
x86_64:
88a7e1acd85ddce6762e0e522555ff49 libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.i386.rpm
f0c44bde109468a0b15e823f374a3667 libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm
69c601686f7a13af9cb1e04db50583de libuser-devel-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.i386.rpm
57673961cd66a59d2eedfea71f616209 libuser-devel-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm
Source:
103d743cb8745b1eb638ae6180ea823b libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0457 CentOS 5 i386 xorg-x11-xfs Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:0457
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0457.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
i386:
7cf77dcf53cfd03319dabc67f557b47b xorg-x11-xfs-1.0.2-5.el5_6.1.i386.rpm
b362a6cd37912e713b3c527eae58d5c0 xorg-x11-xfs-utils-1.0.2-5.el5_6.1.i386.rpm
Source:
c48a88afa248b4ce26b0679086798160 xorg-x11-xfs-1.0.2-5.el5_6.1.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0388 CentOS 5 x86_64 openswan Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:0388
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0388.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
x86_64:
a8d2a3f43d3f0e5c825eca9db830e07f openswan-2.6.21-5.el5_6.4.x86_64.rpm
ab41a304391d79c2712d8e8ed9a6c4cb openswan-doc-2.6.21-5.el5_6.4.x86_64.rpm
Source:
cfe41e13302c7e9fc6d560c0b7f4936e openswan-2.6.21-5.el5_6.4.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CESA-2011:0170 Moderate CentOS 5 i386 libuser Update
CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2011:0170 Moderate
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0170.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
i386:
88a7e1acd85ddce6762e0e522555ff49 libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.i386.rpm
69c601686f7a13af9cb1e04db50583de libuser-devel-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.i386.rpm
Source:
103d743cb8745b1eb638ae6180ea823b libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0456 CentOS 5 x86_64 xorg-x11-server Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:0456
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0456.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
x86_64:
b1b260549c8275cbc546a55f27408603
xorg-x11-server-sdk-1.1.1-48.76.el5_6.4.x86_64.rpm
5bcb78d24eaa21e53974ca7a4432fd7e
xorg-x11-server-Xdmx-1.1.1-48.76.el5_6.4.x86_64.rpm
1d416ff541cb6f6d06f47a9d8b033910
xorg-x11-server-Xephyr-1.1.1-48.76.el5_6.4.x86_64.rpm
bd825b1a7e6b5e70ae94fc219341e1fc
xorg-x11-server-Xnest-1.1.1-48.76.el5_6.4.x86_64.rpm
e3a500133af6844e5ce5c2819f1147e6
xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.1.1-48.76.el5_6.4.x86_64.rpm
fafe84c63b47796b435be7bdb7fd973b
xorg-x11-server-Xvfb-1.1.1-48.76.el5_6.4.x86_64.rpm
c55a7d76253790f357e54cc947c58f3e
xorg-x11-server-Xvnc-source-1.1.1-48.76.el5_6.4.x86_64.rpm
Source:
9b3b73de2a36da52e6cb3c2a276a6d4f xorg-x11-server-1.1.1-48.76.el5_6.4.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0033 CentOS 5 i386 conga Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:0033
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0033.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
i386:
ba0f8423b6557f8eea242acfad07c36b luci-0.12.2-24.el5.centos.0.i386.rpm
ed3bdc309be88c6a991900e983adba3f ricci-0.12.2-24.el5.centos.0.i386.rpm
Source:
cfaf1fe498770339aba9858172b4d5ff conga-0.12.2-24.el5.centos.0.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0172 CentOS 5 x86_64 gdbm Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:0172
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0172.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
x86_64:
c41f3d8277d5cd6dc378e276e0c57a88 gdbm-1.8.0-26.2.1.el5_6.1.i386.rpm
91091f7d5aa4a7e3fd988a7a2d29d5a4 gdbm-1.8.0-26.2.1.el5_6.1.x86_64.rpm
070557d3f219ade55c480fdb40f3d248 gdbm-devel-1.8.0-26.2.1.el5_6.1.i386.rpm
0fc29d8ab6960926f2b4479b5f232cfc gdbm-devel-1.8.0-26.2.1.el5_6.1.x86_64.rpm
Source:
bdd2e5b5d61521b0e0f0069cbe2e2ada gdbm-1.8.0-26.2.1.el5_6.1.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0216 CentOS 5 i386 vnc Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:0216
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0216.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
i386:
f95e008550abd457c7e3ef2692c83f4e vnc-4.1.2-14.el5_6.6.i386.rpm
7a8edb4e600f3235e19156af8a6b80b7 vnc-server-4.1.2-14.el5_6.6.i386.rpm
Source:
908a89b31ceefa6de0a905698e7bdac5 vnc-4.1.2-14.el5_6.6.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0142 CentOS 5 i386 libvirt Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:0142
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0142.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
i386:
9e50042207d4355c083c328e1fbb2321 libvirt-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1.i386.rpm
bc185d6a0379287abc79e118bd793fc9 libvirt-devel-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1.i386.rpm
bc21f7fa829b11301cc65f5e8e0db3f6 libvirt-python-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1.i386.rpm
Source:
32563cb820db4342dac141137661d652 libvirt-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0142 CentOS 5 x86_64 libvirt Update
CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory 2011:0142
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0142.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( md5sum Filename )
x86_64:
90669f45e7e939841444095a6a9ce1f5 libvirt-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1.i386.rpm
ac805036f476604ee8901986104c33fa libvirt-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1.x86_64.rpm
04a112b23c41184c3d18d2bc4fbf2230 libvirt-devel-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1.i386.rpm
222926bb07fe75b6205b84cd5a79c0ba libvirt-devel-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1.x86_64.rpm
2ee2823a24d27aa521e332d0e9700a11 libvirt-python-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1.x86_64.rpm
Source:
32563cb820db4342dac141137661d652 libvirt-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1.src.rpm
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:27:16PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote: Maybe having it said so publicly and be such a respected Linux community member may help certain people wake up and smell the coffee. Respected? I can't recall a single article of his that mentioned CentOS that wasn't disparaging. I find such one-sided and opinionated writings hard to respect. John -- There is no moral precept that does not have something inconvenient about it. -- Denis Diderot (1713 - 1784), French philosopher and chief editor of the historic project to produce L'Encyclopidie, as quoted in Dictionary if Foreign Quotations (1980) by Mary Collison, Robert L. Collison, p. 235 pgpRG0m1e7r88.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Cant find out MCE reason (CPU 35 BANK 8)
On 03/22/11 19:00, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Vladimir Budnev wrote: 2011/3/22m.r...@5-cent.us CHOMP So with 2 4-core Xeons, I don't understand how you can get 3x and 5x. Could you post some raw messages, either from /var/log/message or from /var/log/mcelog? sure here they are before night party: MCE 24 CPU 52 BANK 8 TSC 372a290717a MISC 68651f81186 ADDR 7dd2ad840 STATUS cc000281009f MCGSTATUS 0 MCE 25 snip At this point, I throw up my hands. I have *no* idea how they could get numbers like CPU 52, unless something's wrong in the o/s - I mean, you are running 64 bit, right? Yeah, x86_64 I have an idea dunnothe thing is we r runngin 4.8 centos. Its old enough and mcelog version is old enough also, mb it decodes something completely wrong. It could be that 4.8 doesn't really understand the CPU. Anyway thanks so much for your time and answers. Hope we will find those dimms in experiments. Seriously - how old is this? I think you should call your vendor: some will give you phone or email support, even after the end of warranty. mark Forgot to write our solution, mb it will be usefull for someone. In our case the problem was(as expected) in DIMM modules. After replacing no more scare mcelogs e.t.c. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Named, logging of requests
This is not really CentOS-specific - sorry. On a name server, I would like to log ns queries (specifically, queries which result with no answer) regarding one domain (for which my ns is authoritative). Is this possible? I know you can turn on logging globally using the logging section of named.conf. - Jussi -- Jussi Hirvi * Green Spot Suvilahdenkatu 1 B 78 * 00500 Helsinki * Finland Tel. +358 9 493 981 * Mobile +358 40 771 2098 (only sms) jussi.hi...@greenspot.fi * http://www.greenspot.fi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
Respected? I can't recall a single article of his that mentioned CentOS that wasn't disparaging. I find such one-sided and opinionated writings hard to respect. Okay, maybe that was an assumption too far in regards to respect. Perhaps not so one-sided if he had received an email reply from the devs assuming he did indeed send one to KB. To be fair, it does seem pretty lifted from the list, which is a point of view that not everyone agrees with. He should really have sent the article to the devs and offered them a chance respond to his comments and have those worked into the article. I assume that wasn't done. As for the other side of the point of view, please refer to JH's response to me comment. I'll paraphrase for you: You can still take it or leave it. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?
Many thanks for the rpm's. I had some evolution stored documents that I really needed. I've applied them to two systems. Is it possible that the gnome panel problem is only on CRT's and not LEDs? Seems like one of my systems fixed itself when I changed monitors. -- M Reynolds McClatchey JrVP Engineering and Inventory Southern Aluminum Finishing Co Inc 404-355-1560 x222 Voice 1581 Huber St NW404-350-0581 Fax Atlanta GA 30318 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] is the list dead?
Is the list dead, or just quiet all of the sudden? -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers SoftDux Website: http://www.SoftDux.com Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com Office: 087 805 9573 Cell: 082 554 7532 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] is the list dead?
Is the list dead, or just quiet all of the sudden? I'm going to assume people have stopped whining now that their beloved 5.6 is out. :-) -- Drew This started out as a hobby and spun horribly out of control. -Unknown ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] is the list dead?
On 4/20/2011 9:06 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote: Is the list dead, or just quiet all of the sudden? -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers SoftDux Website: http://www.SoftDux.com Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com Office: 087 805 9573 Cell: 082 554 7532 I think they exhausted themselves - all the release 6, 5.6, and glibc 'issues' just plain tuckered 'em out! Poor fellow geeks. :-) ENW ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] is the list dead?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:13 PM, Drew drew@gmail.com wrote: Is the list dead, or just quiet all of the sudden? I'm going to assume people have stopped whining now that their beloved 5.6 is out. :-) -- HAHAH! Ok, that makes sense. For a moment I thought we were all banned from the list, or it got so flooded than it was shutdown or something. -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers SoftDux Website: http://www.SoftDux.com Technical Blog: http://Blog.SoftDux.com Office: 087 805 9573 Cell: 082 554 7532 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] is the list dead?
Rudi Ahlers wrote: Is the list dead, or just quiet all of the sudden? Yep, it's dead, and you didn't read this, either. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Ian Murray murra...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Okay, maybe that was an assumption too far in regards to respect. Perhaps not so one-sided if he had received an email reply from the devs assuming he did indeed send one to KB. To be fair, it does seem pretty lifted from the list, which is a point of view that not everyone agrees with. He should really have sent the article to the devs and offered them a chance respond to his comments and have those worked into the article. I assume that wasn't done. No. News reporting is about picking up and distilling the sentiment of what's going on. The article has done that. It doesn't have to be a complete factual research project with totally fair and balanced chances for everyone to have their say. If the Devs had responded, that would have been nice, but not a requirement. As for the other side of the point of view, please refer to JH's response to me comment. I'll paraphrase for you: You can still take it or leave it. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong. JH's responses are absolutely out of line and if I were KB I would be seriously sitting down with him to have a chat about his attitude. He doesn't seem to realize that telling people to f*ck off is not acceptable behavior, no matter who you are or what you do. It doesn't matter if you provide something for free, because it's not free. Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and energy into it. Choosing CentOS was based on claims on the web site, and the promise of an open alternative to Redhat, not an open alternative when we get around to it, and by the way, just be happy we deem it worthy to give you anything at all. The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to everyone who has chosen to support and proselytize CentOS throughout the years. The idea that the Devs are the only ones who do any real work on the project is complete BS. It was the *users* who put all the hard work into implementing CentOS and building up the usage numbers, not JH and the CentOS project Devs. Also, based on this post where JH throws around the numbers [1], one can only assume that the real reason behind keeping the dev process closed is to maintain the egos of those on the inside -- since all avenues of logic seem to have been exhausted. // Brian Mathis [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/centos@centos.org/msg69365.html ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOs 5.6 and Time Sync
On 4/13/2011 7:35 AM, Mailing List wrote: Hi, I have upgraded my Dell C151 to the latest 5.6. I have always used ntp to sync this machine and then the rest of the machines in the network would sync from it. Since the update I cannot keep the right time on the machine. This is with / without ntp. I have attempted various scenario's with no luck. I am now trying the old kernel now as I type this out. If anyone else has any links or ideas that I should check out It would be greatly appreciated. Just a quick note about my setup. I do not use any gui. As mentioned I have not had any issues with this machine and it's time until I upgrade. AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+ 3gb of ram. TIA. Brian. I hope I'm not the only one having this issue with ntp and the new 5.6 kernels.. I am still stuck on the old 5.5 kernel, anything from the 5.6 era and I start seeing time issues. Brian. smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 74, Issue 6
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. CEBA-2011:0450 CentOS 4 i386 x86_64 xorg-x11 Update (Johnny Hughes) 2. CEEA-2011:0408 CentOS 4 i386 x86_64 tzdata Update (Johnny Hughes) -- Message: 1 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 06:38:25 -0500 From: Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org Subject: [CentOS-announce] CEBA-2011:0450 CentOS 4 i386 x86_64 xorg-x11Update To: CentOS-Announce centos-annou...@centos.org Message-ID: 4daec5b1.4010...@centos.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 CentOS Errata and Bugfix Advisory CEBA-2011:0450 xorg-x11 bugfix update for CentOS 4 i386 and x86_64: https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0450.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: i386: xorg-x11-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-doc-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-font-utils-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-sdk-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-tools-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-twm-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-xauth-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-xdm-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-Xdmx-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-xfs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-Xnest-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-Xvfb-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm x86_64: xorg-x11-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-deprecated-libs-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-devel-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-doc-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-font-utils-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-libs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-Mesa-libGL-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.8.2-1.EL.68.i386.rpm xorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-sdk-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-tools-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-twm-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-xauth-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-xdm-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-Xdmx-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-xfs-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-Xnest-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm xorg-x11-Xvfb-6.8.2-1.EL.68.x86_64.rpm src: xorg-x11-6.8.2-1.EL.68.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/20110420/c554842d/attachment-0001.bin -- Message: 2 Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 06:38:50 -0500 From: Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org Subject: [CentOS-announce] CEEA-2011:0408 CentOS 4 i386 x86_64 tzdata Update To: CentOS-Announce centos-annou...@centos.org Message-ID: 4daec5ca.1010...@centos.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 CentOS Errata and Enhancement Advisory 2011:0408 Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2011-0408.html The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: noarch: tzdata-2011d-3.el4.noarch.rpm SRC: tzdata-2011d-3.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/20110420/e661793d/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 74, Issue 6 ** ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:06 AM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:27:16PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote: Maybe having it said so publicly and be such a respected Linux community member may help certain people wake up and smell the coffee. Respected? I can't recall a single article of his that mentioned CentOS that wasn't disparaging. I find such one-sided and opinionated writings hard to respect. I don't think that I've ever read an article of his before but respect isn't earned by praising a distribution or criticizing another. You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a reflexion of the CentOS lists. If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these types of articles... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Convert Filesystem to Ext4
On 19/04/2011 23:51, Kenni Lund wrote: Den 19/04/2011 19.42 skrev Matt lm7...@gmail.com mailto:lm7...@gmail.com: On a running 64 bit CentOS 5.6 box is it possible to convert from Ext3 to Ext4 to improve performance? This is entirely from memory, so it might be incorrect and not relevant anymore: When ext4 got released, it was possible to upgrade ext3 to ext4, but while you would gain some ext4 features and minor performance improvements, the only way to get native ext4 performance, was to delete and recreate the partition. That's not quite true, you can force files on a partition to be re-created using extents with something like the below: find /home -xdev -type f -print0 | xargs -0 chattr +e find /home -xdev -type d -print0 | xargs -0 chattr +e Cheers, John. -- John Beranek To generalise is to be an idiot. http://redux.org.uk/ -- William Blake smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] rpm libuser-devel is not signed
Hello, 'yum update' runs into the following error message. Package libuser-devel-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.i386.rpm is not signed regards Olaf ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
No. News reporting is about picking up and distilling the sentiment of what's going on. The article has done that. It doesn't have to be a complete factual research project with totally fair and balanced chances for everyone to have their say. If the Devs had responded, that would have been nice, but not a requirement. I was just trying to be fair, otherwise I get flamed. As for the other side of the point of view, please refer to JH's response to me comment. I'll paraphrase for you: You can still take it or leave it. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong. JH's responses are absolutely out of line and if I were KB I would be seriously sitting down with him to have a chat about his attitude. He doesn't seem to realize that telling people to f*ck off is not acceptable behavior, no matter who you are or what you do. Totally agree, but I don't see it changing any time soon. It doesn't matter if you provide something for free, because it's not free. Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and energy into it. Choosing CentOS was based on claims on the web site, and the promise of an open alternative to Redhat, not an open alternative when we get around to it, and by the way, just be happy we deem it worthy to give you anything at all. My big beef has always been that the website and project name suggest one thing (i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different. I think Zonker got that one spot on. My suggest to the devs is to change the name and update the website and then there is no pretense. Name change will never happen, though, as it is a valued brand now. I bet you if you did a rebuild off of CentOS, they would make you take out all references just like RH do. The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to everyone who has chosen to support and proselytize CentOS throughout the years. The idea that the Devs are the only ones who do any real work on the project is complete BS. It was the *users* who put all the hard work into implementing CentOS and building up the usage numbers, not JH and the CentOS project Devs. Also, based on this post where JH throws around the numbers [1], one can only assume that the real reason behind keeping the dev process closed is to maintain the egos of those on the inside -- since all avenues of logic seem to have been exhausted. I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give me sufficient information to start a competing rebuild. I have long since concluded that the devs do it for their own reasons and certainly not for any altruistic reasons. // Brian Mathis [1] http://www.mail-archive.com/centos@centos.org/msg69365.html ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails
Hi, I just finished installing a CentOS 5.6 x86_64 system and the first thing I wanted to do after the install is to apply the software patches. But I get the following error when I try to run 'yum update': Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed and yum update exits without applying any of the patches. I tried clearing the cache and re-running the update command but I get the same error. Any help with this would be much appreciated. Best regards, Andre ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote: Hi, I just finished installing a CentOS 5.6 x86_64 system and the first thing I wanted to do after the install is to apply the software patches. But I get the following error when I try to run 'yum update': Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed and yum update exits without applying any of the patches. yum --skip-broken update 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] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails
Brunner, Brian T. wrote: centos-boun...@centos.org wrote: Hi, I just finished installing a CentOS 5.6 x86_64 system and the first thing I wanted to do after the install is to apply the software patches. But I get the following error when I try to run 'yum update': Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed and yum update exits without applying any of the patches. yum --skip-broken update Thanks for the quick reply! Unfortunately, that did not seem to fix the problem. I get the same error. :-( Andre 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 -- Andre Charbonneau Research Computing Support, IMSB National Research Council Canada 100 Sussex Drive, Rm 2158 Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0R6 613-993-3129 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to any user? Or users who keep repeating again and again the same boring old stuff? I think that we now all know what to expect and what not to expect from CentOS. And that some here are frustrated with it, while some aren't. Is there anything else relevant to add? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails
On 04/20/2011 04:53 PM, Andre Charbonneau wrote: Hi, I just finished installing a CentOS 5.6 x86_64 system and the first thing I wanted to do after the install is to apply the software patches. But I get the following error when I try to run 'yum update': Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed and yum update exits without applying any of the patches. I tried clearing the cache and re-running the update command but I get the same error. You can disable the gpg signature check with --nogpgcheck (not recommended) or wait for a fixed package. -- Filipe Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails
Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed You could use --nogpgcheck but this is really weird that some packages are not signed. It may mean that the package is not from the trusted source, so you should not use --nogpgcheck on a serious environment. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails
Mathieu Baudier wrote: Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed You could use --nogpgcheck but this is really weird that some packages are not signed. It may mean that the package is not from the trusted source, so you should not use --nogpgcheck on a serious environment. Yes, that's what I thought too about not disabling gpg. yum info on the package reports that the update is coming from the 'updates' repo, and that repo is configured to be: [updates] name=CentOS-$releasever - Updates mirrorlist=http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=$releaseverarch=$basearchrepo=updates #baseurl=http://mirror.centos.org/centos/$releasever/updates/$basearch/ gpgcheck=1 gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-CentOS-5 This is all the default settings from a fresh install; I'm not aware that anything changed in these configs. If this package is not signed, then I guess other people should be able to reproduce the problem if they point to the default repos, right? Or maybe it is something on my system's config that is different? Thanks again! Andre ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Andre Charbonneau Research Computing Support, IMSB National Research Council Canada 100 Sussex Drive, Rm 2158 Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0R6 613-993-3129 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] SNMP monitoring options
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 12:37:28PM -0700, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote: Ummm, Cacti and I'm sure Opsview use rrdtool to generate there graphs. In fact, my post was to ask for a more friendly tool as Cacti graphs get un ruley. 'Unruly' graphs? Not sure what you mean. The data presentation is poor? The package is hard to use? I'm a Cacti user, and while sometimes the docs are a little cryptic, the developers are very supportive and there is an active user community with a pretty helpful forum. -- Charles Polisher ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Filipe Rosset rosset.fil...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/20/2011 04:53 PM, Andre Charbonneau wrote: Hi, I just finished installing a CentOS 5.6 x86_64 system and the first thing I wanted to do after the install is to apply the software patches. But I get the following error when I try to run 'yum update': Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed and yum update exits without applying any of the patches. You can disable the gpg signature check with --nogpgcheck (not recommended) or wait for a fixed package. Another workaround: Put this line in /etc/yum.conf exclude=libuser* yum update will now work. Then when a fixed version is out, be sure to remove the exclude line. Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails
Akemi Yagi wrote: On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Filipe Rosset rosset.fil...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/20/2011 04:53 PM, Andre Charbonneau wrote: Hi, I just finished installing a CentOS 5.6 x86_64 system and the first thing I wanted to do after the install is to apply the software patches. But I get the following error when I try to run 'yum update': Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed and yum update exits without applying any of the patches. You can disable the gpg signature check with --nogpgcheck (not recommended) or wait for a fixed package. Another workaround: Put this line in /etc/yum.conf exclude=libuser* yum update will now work. Then when a fixed version is out, be sure to remove the exclude line. Akemi Thanks for the tip! That seems to be working; my update process is underway now. Thank you all for the help, Andre ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Andre Charbonneau Research Computing Support, IMSB National Research Council Canada 100 Sussex Drive, Rm 2158 Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0R6 613-993-3129 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails
Another option is to exclude it on the command line yum -x libuser update /Marcel -Original Message- From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of Andre Charbonneau Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2011 1:16 PM To: CentOS mailing list Subject: Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails Akemi Yagi wrote: On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Filipe Rosset rosset.fil...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/20/2011 04:53 PM, Andre Charbonneau wrote: Hi, I just finished installing a CentOS 5.6 x86_64 system and the first thing I wanted to do after the install is to apply the software patches. But I get the following error when I try to run 'yum update': Package libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.x86_64.rpm is not signed and yum update exits without applying any of the patches. You can disable the gpg signature check with --nogpgcheck (not recommended) or wait for a fixed package. Another workaround: Put this line in /etc/yum.conf exclude=libuser* yum update will now work. Then when a fixed version is out, be sure to remove the exclude line. Akemi Thanks for the tip! That seems to be working; my update process is underway now. Thank you all for the help, Andre ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos -- Andre Charbonneau Research Computing Support, IMSB National Research Council Canada 100 Sussex Drive, Rm 2158 Ottawa, ON, Canada K1A 0R6 613-993-3129 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails
These packages are quite new (only a few hours old). They must have been accidentally not signed. Skip them for the time being. Kai ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum update after fresh 5.6 install fails
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Marcel Beerli m.bee...@awid.com wrote: Another option is to exclude it on the command line yum -x libuser update /Marcel Ah, yes. One note is that adding a * ( libuser* ) is recommended because libuser-devel is also not signed. :( Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 03:29:07 PM Ian Murray wrote: My big beef has always been that the website and project name suggest one thing (i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different. [sigh] CentOS is simply a community-available rebuild of the upstream Enterprise OS; simple, and succinct (and bug-for-bug compatible). No reason to change; the name captures what it is, and has been, for a long time. This is not new. Not trying to be rude, but, you might as well stop suggesting what you know isn't going to happen. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
Tom H wrote: On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 12:06 AM, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote: On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:27:16PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote: Maybe having it said so publicly and be such a respected Linux community member may help certain people wake up and smell the coffee. Respected? I can't recall a single article of his that mentioned CentOS that wasn't disparaging. I find such one-sided and opinionated writings hard to respect. I don't think that I've ever read an article of his before but respect isn't earned by praising a distribution or criticizing another. You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a reflexion of the CentOS lists. You obviously wanted to say reflection of the persistent complainers on the CentOS lists. CentOS is pinned down with friendly fire aimed mostly at Oracle and other free riders on RHEL. Red Hat wants more money, and this is the only way they can do that. As for those asking for transparent process, my only conclusion is that they want to find out how they can recreate RHEL so they can create a fork of CentOS. And that is happening because they are not competent enough (or lack money/time) to do it on their own. Why haven't they got all information from Scientific Linux? If SL is better and faster with releases, then they should ask SL devs to give them access to their machines, or to publish their entire build system. I have not seen that happening so far. Why? Also, are you aware that RHEL 6.0 itself is very late? Info from wikipedia: - RHEL 2 - 3 took 18 months. - RHEL 3 - 4 took 19 months. - RHEL 4 - 5 took 25 months. - but RHEL 5 - 6 took whooping 44 months. - CentOS delay for 3.1 was 5 months, - CentOS delay for 4 was 1 month, - CentOS delay for 5 was 1 month, - CentOS delay for 6 is currently 5 months and counting, So if for RHEL took almost 2,5 times the amount of time to release new version (6.0), why is there so much fuss about CentOS team taking it so long to untangle the web Red Hat produced, including parallel releases of 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0, an 85 percent increase in the amount of code from the previous version, and initial delay of publishing SRPMS? I also wish CentOS 6 was released at least in the end of January, but mea culpa, it is what it is. If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these types of articles... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 01:34:54PM -0400, Tom H wrote: I don't think that I've ever read an article of his before but respect isn't earned by praising a distribution or criticizing another. I have read some of his articles in the past and I speak from the point of knowledge of his past writings; and also knowledge of his past involvement with a different linux distribution. He's apparently got an axe to grind against the CentOS project. That's fine, this is a free country and he can write and say whatever he wants. But to allude to him as a respected industry member is greatly stretching things when every article that mentions CentOS is disparaging and I can't recall any article even ending on a positive note. That type of writing, much like the constant complainers on this list that, for whatever reason, stay with CentOS when alternatives exist eventually turns into nothing more than noise. You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a reflexion of the CentOS lists. No. His conclusions are rehashed, sometimes verbatim, from this list and the same vocal and tiny minority of users; and that's one of the problems I have with his style of one-sided journalism - there are two sides to most every story and when you concentrate solely on the negative aspects you are doing your readers a grave disservice. If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these types of articles... No. These types of articles will continue to appear whether there is a communications policy or not. However having someone actually posting updates once in a while _would_ be a good thing. And preferably someone that doesn't favor one avenue (forums) over another (this list). John -- The easiest way for your children to learn about money is for you not to have any. -- Katharine Whitehorn (1928-), British journalist, writer, and columnist pgpM9MAP6WP3z.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOs 5.6 and Time Sync
On 4/13/2011 7:35 AM, Mailing List wrote: Hi, I have upgraded my Dell C151 to the latest 5.6. I have always used ntp to sync this machine and then the rest of the machines in the network would sync from it. Since the update I cannot keep the right time on the machine. This is with / without ntp. I have attempted various scenario's with no luck. I am now trying the old kernel now as I type this out. If anyone else has any links or ideas that I should check out It would be greatly appreciated. Just a quick note about my setup. I do not use any gui. As mentioned I have not had any issues with this machine and it's time until I upgrade. AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 3800+ 3gb of ram. TIA. Brian. Have you tried installing the adjtimex package? If your system clock is running reliably fast under the 5.6 kernel, maybe adjtimex can turn that reliability into reliable time sync for you? Rick ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
Is there anything else relevant to add? ___ Yeah, please can someone fix the front-page to better reflect the distribution for what it is, rather than the sales pitch that is there now. Not everyone has read about it ad nausem on this list. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 05:51:46 PM Ian Murray wrote: Is there anything else relevant to add? Yeah, please can someone fix the front-page to better reflect the distribution for what it is, rather than the sales pitch that is there now. Not everyone has read about it ad nausem on this list. Irrelevant. *plonk* ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
- Original Message From: Lamar Owen lo...@pari.edu To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org Sent: Wed, 20 April, 2011 21:32:35 Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update? On Wednesday, April 20, 2011 03:29:07 PM Ian Murray wrote: My big beef has always been that the website and project name suggest one thing (i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different. [sigh] CentOS is simply a community-available rebuild of the upstream Enterprise OS; simple, and succinct (and bug-for-bug compatible). No reason to change; the name captures what it is, and has been, for a long time. This is not new. Sounds perfect. Why does the website say something so different, then? Not trying to be rude, but, you might as well stop suggesting what you know isn't going to happen. I believe it will never, I hope I am wrong. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On 04/20/11 2:51 PM, Ian Murray wrote: Is there anything else relevant to add? ___ Yeah, please can someone fix the front-page to better reflect the distribution for what it is, rather than the sales pitch that is there now. Not everyone has read about it ad nausem on this list. you're the one going on ad nausem. seriously, enough already. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOs 5.6 and Time Sync
On 4/20/2011 5:45 PM, Rick Thomas wrote: Have you tried installing the adjtimex package? If your system clock is running reliably fast under the 5.6 kernel, maybe adjtimex can turn that reliability into reliable time sync for you? Rick No I haven't, I will look into it. Thank you for the thought, Brian smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
But to allude to him as a respected industry member is greatly stretching things when every article that mentions CentOS is disparaging and I can't recall any article even ending on a positive note. Try google: http://lwn.net/Articles/123934/ (For the record, I couldn't find any previous disparaging comments from him... I stopped at page 6) Maybe he is a hack, I have no clue. But he is a hack with a fairly big linux-focused audience that repeated a few home truths (in my opinion). I am using it to try to illustrate how the status quo is harming the project. If that isn't important to you or you don't agree, that's fine. You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a reflexion of the CentOS lists. No. His conclusions are rehashed, sometimes verbatim, from this list and the same vocal and tiny minority of users; and that's one of the problems I have with his style of one-sided journalism - there are two sides to most every story and when you concentrate solely on the negative aspects you are doing your readers a grave disservice. And those that think everything is peachy are also a tiny minority as far as we know, because I reckon 95%+ of CentOS users never post on the list. I wish people would stop stating what the *think* as *fact*. If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these types of articles... No. These types of articles will continue to appear whether there is a communications policy or not. In my opinion, what a load of clap-trap. If that was the case, then every community project irrespective of governance would get these types of articles and as far as I can tell, that just aint the case! John -- The easiest way for your children to learn about money is for you not to have any. -- Katharine Whitehorn (1928-), British journalist, writer, and columnist ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
- Original Message From: John R Pierce pie...@hogranch.com To: centos@centos.org Sent: Wed, 20 April, 2011 23:04:50 Subject: Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update? On 04/20/11 2:51 PM, Ian Murray wrote: Is there anything else relevant to add? ___ Yeah, please can someone fix the front-page to better reflect the distribution for what it is, rather than the sales pitch that is there now. Not everyone has read about it ad nausem on this list. you're the one going on ad nausem.seriously, enough already. Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 5.6 - SRPM's
On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:58:43 +0100 Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote: Also, the first batch of srpms is now on the seed machine, should start going public in about 8 - 12 hours ( this is [a-l]*.src.rpm ). The rest I'll move in first thing on Wednesday morning. Hmmm - it's 10 days on and I still can't see all of the [a-l] *.src.rpm's. I strongly suspect that something's gone wrong - or perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place - http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/ I can see a bunch of [a-l]*.src.rpm's as well as [m-z]*.src.rpm's so it looks like the --delay-updates option on rsync has triggered. But - no initscripts-8.45.33-1.el5.centos.src.rpm nor httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.src.rpm ... maybe others? Does anyone see them elsewhere? -- Bob Hepple bhep...@promptu.com ph: 07-5584-5908 Fx: 07-5575-9550 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 5.6 - SRPM's
On Apr 20, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Bob Hepple wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:58:43 +0100 Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote: Also, the first batch of srpms is now on the seed machine, should start going public in about 8 - 12 hours ( this is [a-l]*.src.rpm ). The rest I'll move in first thing on Wednesday morning. Hmmm - it's 10 days on and I still can't see all of the [a-l] *.src.rpm's. I strongly suspect that something's gone wrong - or perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place - http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/ I can see a bunch of [a-l]*.src.rpm's as well as [m-z]*.src.rpm's so it looks like the --delay-updates option on rsync has triggered. But - no initscripts-8.45.33-1.el5.centos.src.rpm nor httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.src.rpm ... maybe others? Does anyone see them elsewhere? Our mirror syncs from mirrors.kernel.org, and I've got nothing newer than Dec 14th in 5/os/SRPMS In 5/updates/SRPMS the newest initscripts I show is Nov 16 09:32 initscripts-8.45.30-3.el5.centos.src.rpm It looks like pushing SRPMS is broken somewhere... (Or possibly still not finished.) -- Don Krause smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 5.6 - SRPM's
On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:26:51 -0700 Don Krause dkra...@optivus.com wrote: On Apr 20, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Bob Hepple wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:58:43 +0100 Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote: Also, the first batch of srpms is now on the seed machine, should start going public in about 8 - 12 hours ( this is [a-l]*.src.rpm ). The rest I'll move in first thing on Wednesday morning. Hmmm - it's 10 days on and I still can't see all of the [a-l] *.src.rpm's. I strongly suspect that something's gone wrong - or perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place - http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/ I can see a bunch of [a-l]*.src.rpm's as well as [m-z]*.src.rpm's so it looks like the --delay-updates option on rsync has triggered. But - no initscripts-8.45.33-1.el5.centos.src.rpm nor httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.src.rpm ... maybe others? Does anyone see them elsewhere? Our mirror syncs from mirrors.kernel.org, and I've got nothing newer than Dec 14th in 5/os/SRPMS In 5/updates/SRPMS the newest initscripts I show is Nov 16 09:32 initscripts-8.45.30-3.el5.centos.src.rpm It looks like pushing SRPMS is broken somewhere... (Or possibly still not finished.) Don, I think that might be down to your side of things. For example, my local AUS mirrors have been up to date with http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/ for some days now: http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/ http://mirror.optus.net/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/ ... but just as devoid of initscripts and httpd!!! Cheers Bob -- Bob Hepple bhep...@promptu.com ph: 07-5584-5908 Fx: 07-5575-9550 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] 5.6 - SRPM's
On Apr 20, 2011, at 4:38 PM, Bob Hepple wrote: On Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:26:51 -0700 Don Krause dkra...@optivus.com wrote: On Apr 20, 2011, at 4:18 PM, Bob Hepple wrote: On Mon, 11 Apr 2011 11:58:43 +0100 Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote: Also, the first batch of srpms is now on the seed machine, should start going public in about 8 - 12 hours ( this is [a-l]*.src.rpm ). The rest I'll move in first thing on Wednesday morning. Hmmm - it's 10 days on and I still can't see all of the [a-l] *.src.rpm's. I strongly suspect that something's gone wrong - or perhaps I'm looking in the wrong place - http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/ I can see a bunch of [a-l]*.src.rpm's as well as [m-z]*.src.rpm's so it looks like the --delay-updates option on rsync has triggered. But - no initscripts-8.45.33-1.el5.centos.src.rpm nor httpd-2.2.3-45.el5.centos.src.rpm ... maybe others? Does anyone see them elsewhere? Our mirror syncs from mirrors.kernel.org, and I've got nothing newer than Dec 14th in 5/os/SRPMS In 5/updates/SRPMS the newest initscripts I show is Nov 16 09:32 initscripts-8.45.30-3.el5.centos.src.rpm It looks like pushing SRPMS is broken somewhere... (Or possibly still not finished.) Don, I think that might be down to your side of things. For example, my local AUS mirrors have been up to date with http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.6/os/SRPMS/ for some days now: http://mirror.aarnet.edu.au/pub/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/ http://mirror.optus.net/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/ ... but just as devoid of initscripts and httpd!!! Cheers Bob Thanks Bob, It doesn't appear to be me, as much as kernel.org. Their webpage http://mirrors.kernel.org/centos/5.6/os/SRPMS/?C=M;O=D has nothing newer than Dec 14th either.. Something must be broke (or really slow) out there. Time to switch to a new mirror I guess Take Care! -- Don Krause smime.p7s Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] rpm libuser-devel is not signed
On 21/04/11 5:26 AM, Olaf Mueller wrote: Hello, 'yum update' runs into the following error message. Package libuser-devel-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2.i386.rpm is not signed I got this too, there's two ways around it: 1) Wait until the package is signed and then update. 2) Run: yum update --nogpgcheck Regards, Ben signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:31:04PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote: Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide. How about I write you a check to just go away? John -- The truth is, when all is said and done, one does not teach a subject, one teaches a student how to learn it. Teaching may look like administering a dose, but even a dose must be worked on by the body if it is to cure. Each individual must cure his or her own ignorance. -- Jacques Barzun (30 November 1907-), French-born American scholar, historian, critic and teacher, Reasons to De-Test the Schools, New York Times, 11 October 1988 pgp8voePv1n4V.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Convert Filesystem to Ext4
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 3:08 PM, John Beranek j...@redux.org.uk wrote: That's not quite true, you can force files on a partition to be re-created using extents with something like the below: find /home -xdev -type f -print0 | xargs -0 chattr +e find /home -xdev -type d -print0 | xargs -0 chattr +e Cheers, John. chattr and lsattr shipped with CentOS 5.6 do not seem ext4 aware. Those utilities come from e2fsprogs and e4fsprogs doesn't include alternate versions. +e is an invalid parameter for chattr and lsattr doesn't show the extent attribute for any files. Ryan ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
(someone) wrote: Why does the website say something so different, then? Seriously? Are people really this retarded? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Ian Murray murra...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide. I'm trying to figure out why someone who, apparently, hates the CentOS distribution so much, spends so much time attacking it. If I detested a Linux distribution I would move on to something else. Or do you even use CentOS any more? (Serious question.) -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 9:18 AM, Brian Mathis It doesn't matter if you provide something for free, because it's not free. Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and energy into it. How so? By installing it? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 2:29 PM, Ian Murray murra...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: My big beef has always been that the website and project name suggest one thing (i.e. enterprise ready), when the reality is quiet different. I think Zonker got that one spot on. My suggest to the devs is to change the name and update the website and then there is no pretense. Name change will never happen, though, as it is a valued brand now. I bet you if you did a rebuild off of CentOS, they would make you take out all references just like RH do. It sounds to me like your big beef is that you can't run the CentOS distribution the way *you* want it run. Whether you agree or not, doesn't change the fact that CentOS *is* enterprise ready.-- and many enterprises use it. The only time there are significant delays in patches is when the CentOS team is rebuilding a point release. Sure that's far from perfect, but it's something those who use CentOS have learned to work around. Some of them use Red Hat Enterprise Linux on their critical servers. There are other options, Oracle, Red Hat or Scientific Linux. As for rebuilding, why would you want to rebuild CentOS? Why not do what CentOS does and get the sources directly from Red Hat and rebuild that? Obviously you must think there is still some value in the CentOS name. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 10:18:21AM -0400, Brian Mathis wrote: No. News reporting is about picking up and distilling the sentiment of what's going on. The article has done that. It doesn't have to be a complete factual research project with totally fair and balanced chances for everyone to have their say. If the Devs had responded, that would have been nice, but not a requirement. The only sentiment picked up on was that of a loud, minuscule and irrelevant fraction of the user base from this and the -devel mailing lists. He went with the loudest group of whiners he could find. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong. JH's responses are absolutely out of line and if I were KB I would be seriously sitting down with him to have a chat about his attitude. He doesn't seem to realize that telling people to f*ck off is not acceptable behavior, no matter who you are or what you do. It's perfectly acceptable when it's the same vocal few over and over again. Matter of fact, I commend him on the restraint he's shown so far. It's a point of fact that some people are too thick-skulled to understand any other way; tact doesn't always work - at times you need to be brutally honest and blunt. It doesn't matter if you provide something for free, because it's not free. Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and energy into it. Choosing CentOS was based on claims on the web site, and the promise of an open alternative to Redhat, not an open alternative when we get around to it, and by the way, just be happy we deem it worthy to give you anything at all. What caliber of firearm is pointed at your skull keeping you here? By the way, anyone that makes a business decision on what OS to use to support their business requirements based solely on the claims on a web page has other problems; as does the management team that went along with it. The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to everyone who has chosen to support and proselytize CentOS throughout the years. The idea that the Devs are the only ones who do any real work on the project is complete BS. It was the *users* who put all the hard work into implementing CentOS and building up the usage numbers, not JH and the CentOS project Devs. Oh please. Also, based on this post where JH throws around the numbers [1], one can only assume that the real reason behind keeping the dev process closed is to maintain the egos of those on the inside -- since all avenues of logic seem to have been exhausted. But yet... here you are. This begs the question: Why are you still here? No, really. Why? You've nothing good to say. Ever. Do you honestly think that the continue crap spewing off your fingers endears you to the CentOS team? Do you think they care? Do you think you're important to them? Let me disabuse you of something: the answer to all 3 items above is no. As difficult as it may be for you to accept the truth is you're irrelevant. As I've pointed out in the past, you, like the other whiners and complainers, are not important in the least. You're a teeny tiny fraction of the overall CentOS user base and if you were to migrate your boxes right now tonight to RHEL or SL or any other distro that takes your fancy you will not be missed. Do you think the loss of your continued crying, bitching and complaining is going to cause anyone any loss of sleep? Why don't you do yourself and everyone else a favor and just move on to some flavor of linux that you don't dislike as much as you do CentOS? John -- Never, never be afraid to do what's right, especially if the well-being of a person or animal is at stake. Society's punishments are small compared to the wounds we inflict on our soul when we look the other way. -- Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968), civil-rights leader pgpLWGFsZOr5v.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 08:29:07PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote: I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give me sufficient information to start a competing rebuild. Information needed to rebuild is, and has been for quite some time, in the archives of this and the -devel mailing lists. Johnny has posted such information. Russ has posted information. There are at least 5 other rebuilds of EL6 that I know of, and likely many more that I don't. There is no magic. While it can be argued (and I would actually be in agreement) that such information should be wikified the fact is that the information _is_ out there. John -- The machine has got to be accepted, but it is probably better to accept it rather as one accepts a drug -- that is, grudgingly and suspiciously. Like a drug, the machine is useful, dangerous, and habit-forming. The oftener one surrenders to it the tighter its grip becomes. -- George Orwell (1903-1950), novelist pgpG8YSZF6vi5.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:25:06PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote: Try google: http://lwn.net/Articles/123934/ I've read the articles; I've no need to re-read them. (For the record, I couldn't find any previous disparaging comments from him... I stopped at page 6) You didn't look very hard. Maybe he is a hack, I have no clue. But he is a hack with a fairly big linux-focused audience that repeated a few home truths (in my opinion). I am using it to try to illustrate how the status quo is harming the project. If that isn't important to you or you don't agree, that's fine. The project is fine for what I need it for. And, again, it's only a tiny fraction of the user base that has a problem with the project and the project management that are making a big stink about things. And those that think everything is peachy are also a tiny minority as far as we know, because I reckon 95%+ of CentOS users never post on the list. I wish people would stop stating what the *think* as *fact*. I've never said that there weren't issues. Matter of fact I've agreed that there are indeed communication problems that I hope will be resolved. The difference is I'm not crying about the sky falling. And do us a favor? Take your own advice. John -- Given sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. -- Woody Page, Denver sports columnist pgp049x9N1O9m.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 07:01:22PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote: On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:31:04PM +0100, Ian Murray wrote: Seriously, just skip over my posts. I am not forcing you to read them. I'll finish when I am good and ready... not when *you* decide. How about I write you a check to just go away? Is it really that easy?!? I'm going to start whinging constantly till you write me a check! ;-) --keith -- kkel...@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us pgpxEeQx5EUhO.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On 4/21/11, John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com wrote: The only sentiment picked up on was that of a loud, minuscule and irrelevant fraction of the user base from this and the -devel mailing lists. He went with the loudest group of whiners he could find. Perhaps only a small handful keep whining about the situation. However, the same idea that 95% of CentOS users never post to the ML is also applicable to the complainer population. For every complainer, there are probably 9 other who feels the same way and/or may be deciding against the project without posting a single word. Bear also in mind that those who complain the loudest are usually the same people who promote the loudest. So they will have an indirect effect on the perception and popularity of a project vs another. The downward trends for CentOS on one of the charts that the dev posted as evidence of CentOS's popularity is a possible indication of the above two possible consequences of some of the rather unprofessional responses by the some of the devs. By the way, anyone that makes a business decision on what OS to use to support their business requirements based solely on the claims on a web page has other problems; as does the management team that went along with it. They might do so considering the kind of pseudo support environment that is available. Coming across some of the comments by the devs, without having the luxury of reading what's gone in the past 6 months, would give them a rather negative impression. This is why companies, even when they know they are in the right, seldom just tell the user to STFU or GTFO, at least not in such direct terms. This begs the question: Why are you still here? No, really. Why? I think your offer of writing a cheque may had given him and others extra incentive ;) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On 04/20/2011 09:18 AM, Brian Mathis wrote: On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 6:01 AM, Ian Murray murra...@yahoo.co.uk wrote: Okay, maybe that was an assumption too far in regards to respect. Perhaps not so one-sided if he had received an email reply from the devs assuming he did indeed send one to KB. To be fair, it does seem pretty lifted from the list, which is a point of view that not everyone agrees with. He should really have sent the article to the devs and offered them a chance respond to his comments and have those worked into the article. I assume that wasn't done. No. News reporting is about picking up and distilling the sentiment of what's going on. The article has done that. It doesn't have to be a complete factual research project with totally fair and balanced chances for everyone to have their say. If the Devs had responded, that would have been nice, but not a requirement. As for the other side of the point of view, please refer to JH's response to me comment. I'll paraphrase for you: You can still take it or leave it. It doesn't matter how many times you say it, it's still wrong. JH's responses are absolutely out of line and if I were KB I would be seriously sitting down with him to have a chat about his attitude. He doesn't seem to realize that telling people to f*ck off is not acceptable behavior, no matter who you are or what you do. It doesn't matter if you provide something for free, because it's not free. Everyone who uses CentOS invests significant time and energy into it. Choosing CentOS was based on claims on the web site, and the promise of an open alternative to Redhat, not an open alternative when we get around to it, and by the way, just be happy we deem it worthy to give you anything at all. The attitudes against any user who has a question about releases significantly undermines the project and is a slap in the face to everyone who has chosen to support and proselytize CentOS throughout the years. The idea that the Devs are the only ones who do any real work on the project is complete BS. It was the *users* who put all the hard work into implementing CentOS and building up the usage numbers, not JH and the CentOS project Devs. Also, based on this post where JH throws around the numbers [1], one can only assume that the real reason behind keeping the dev process closed is to maintain the egos of those on the inside -- since all avenues of logic seem to have been exhausted. For the record, I brought KB into this project ... not the other way around. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On 04/20/2011 02:29 PM, Ian Murray wrote: I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give me sufficient information to start a competing rebuild. Why would anyone give another entity all the things required to replace them? Red Hat does not give us nearly the amount of information that we give to others. CentOS publishes everything required by the GPL ... actually much more than is required by the GPL. CentOS is not about making you be able to rebuild CentOS, it is about the CentOS Project producing and releasing a distribution and about the Community providing help for each other via the Wiki, Forums, Mailing Lists and IRC. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:19:12PM +0800, Emmanuel Noobadmin wrote: Perhaps only a small handful keep whining about the situation. However, the same idea that 95% of CentOS users never post to the ML is also applicable to the complainer population. For every complainer, there are probably 9 other who feels the same way and/or may be deciding against the project without posting a single word. I'll take that bet. I'd be curious to see some stats on downloads now that 5.6 is out; along with torrent activity. While neither are a definitive view as to how popular the disto remains they provide some insight how popular CentOS 5 remains. Bear also in mind that those who complain the loudest are usually the same people who promote the loudest. So they will have an indirect effect on the perception and popularity of a project vs another. I'll take this bet, as well. While I admit that there is an emotional aspect that comes into play when someone has indeed spent time/emotional energy on a project I will bet you real dollars that those doing the most complaining aren't in that group. The downward trends for CentOS on one of the charts that the dev posted as evidence of CentOS's popularity is a possible indication of the above two possible consequences of some of the rather unprofessional responses by the some of the devs. Possible? Sure as anything's possible. The moon could break out of orbit tonight as well. However I'm going to go with There are other factors at play that are contributing to the illustrated 'decline' of CentOS-based web servers that have nothing to do with the supposed problems that people perceive to be wrong with the CentOS distribution.. They might do so considering the kind of pseudo support environment that is available. Coming across some of the comments by the devs, without having the luxury of reading what's gone in the past 6 months, would give them a rather negative impression. This is why companies, even when they know they are in the right, seldom just tell the user to STFU or GTFO, at least not in such direct terms. Please keep in mind that CentOS, be it the project or the distribution, is not a company. It's not recruiting customers. There is no break-even point or sales quota requirements. People use it if they want. Also, another point is that the CentOS devs don't really provide the support; support, almost exclusively, is a community effort. Note that by community I include the forum moderators that have a closer relationship with the CentOS devs than the average community member. And no matter what anyone may think of the project or the developers, community support is as good or better than that provided by the majority of commercial enterprises I've dealt with in the past 30 years as a *nix admin/engineer. I think your offer of writing a cheque may had given him and others extra incentive ;) We'll see :) John -- The machine has got to be accepted, but it is probably better to accept it rather as one accepts a drug -- that is, grudgingly and suspiciously. Like a drug, the machine is useful, dangerous, and habit-forming. The oftener one surrenders to it the tighter its grip becomes. -- George Orwell (1903-1950), novelist pgpuAudOWdO7f.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, Apr 20, 2011 at 11:19 PM, Emmanuel Noobadmin centos.ad...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps only a small handful keep whining about the situation. However, the same idea that 95% of CentOS users never post to the ML is also applicable to the complainer population. For every complainer, there are probably 9 other who feels the same way and/or may be deciding against the project without posting a single word. That doesn't necessarily follow. If you look at who has been complaining, a select few names span several years -- even when there are no point releases pending, they complain. Anyone who has ever used a newsgroup knows that some people delight in disrupting the process. They're called trolls on newsgroups. When someone continually repeats the same thing over and over and over, *ad nauseum*, then I would not conclude that they speaking for nine others who are silent. Bear also in mind that those who complain the loudest are usually the same people who promote the loudest. So they will have an indirect effect on the perception and popularity of a project vs another. Doubtful. Some people have an extremely negative outlook or they have an agenda that they hope achieve by being the constantly squeaking wheel. Or, as in newsgroups, they have a need to be always stirring the pot. and this is how they stroke their egos. Whatever it is, many complainers are never satisfied, even when they get what they want. That's just their personality and it's not going to change. The downward trends for CentOS on one of the charts that the dev posted as evidence of CentOS's popularity is a possible indication of the above two possible consequences of some of the rather unprofessional responses by the some of the devs. I haven't been following the mailing list that closely lately, but when the same people constantly harp on the same subject it tends to get under your skin. I would imagine when the developers (who have had two point releases and a major release thrown at them all at one time) are already tired due to the extra work, the ungrateful and repetitious bitching from the same few complainers would tend to be extremely irritating. snip. And does anyone really think trying to nuke a project with constant, public criticism is really going to groom these whiners to be great cheerleaders when (if) they ever get their way? Sorry, but some of them have the destructive personality of gossips. They've already shown their true colors. And I'm not saying this about everyone, especially not those who've occasionally complained about a specific issue and are often airing a legitimate gripe. It's those who have been fed up with CentOS for years and are going to leave any millennium now if they don't immediately get their way. I don't think I need to mention any names. You've seen them (again and again) here and at just about any public forum they can use to harm CentOS. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On 04/20/2011 11:52 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 04/20/2011 02:29 PM, Ian Murray wrote: I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give me sufficient information to start a competing rebuild. Why would anyone give another entity all the things required to replace them? Red Hat does not give us nearly the amount of information that we give to others. CentOS publishes everything required by the GPL ... actually much more than is required by the GPL. CentOS is not about making you be able to rebuild CentOS, it is about the CentOS Project producing and releasing a distribution and about the Community providing help for each other via the Wiki, Forums, Mailing Lists and IRC. The is the description of the project on the main page: CentOS is an Enterprise-class Linux Distribution derived from sources freely provided to the public by a prominent North American Enterprise Linux vendor. CentOS conforms fully with the upstream vendors redistribution policy and aims to be 100% binary compatible. (CentOS mainly changes packages to remove upstream vendor branding and artwork.) CentOS is free. CentOS is developed by a small but growing team of core developers. In turn the core developers are supported by an active user community including system administrators, network administrators, enterprise users, managers, core Linux contributors and Linux enthusiasts from around the world. Where does that say it is the goal of CentOS to provide step by step instructions to teach other projects how to rebuild the upstream sources? What that says is the the devs build CentOS and the Community provides support How am I misreading it? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
This begs the question: Why are you still here? No, really. Why? You've nothing good to say. Ever. Do you honestly think that the continue crap spewing off your fingers endears you to the CentOS team? Do you think they care? Do you think you're important to them? Let me disabuse you of something: the answer to all 3 items above is no. As difficult as it may be for you to accept the truth is you're irrelevant. As I've pointed out in the past, you, like the other whiners and complainers, are not important in the least. You're a teeny tiny fraction of the overall CentOS user base and if you were to migrate your boxes right now tonight to RHEL or SL or any other distro that takes your fancy you will not be missed. Do you think the loss of your continued crying, bitching and complaining is going to cause anyone any loss of sleep? Why don't you do yourself and everyone else a favor and just move on to some flavor of linux that you don't dislike as much as you do CentOS? Because -- A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject. Sir Winston Churchill British politician (1874 - 1965) ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On 4/20/11 8:53 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: The only sentiment picked up on was that of a loud, minuscule and irrelevant fraction of the user base from this and the -devel mailing lists. He went with the loudest group of whiners he could find. If he had wanted to be really critical he would have quoted project members suggesting that if people needed security fixes they should have their operators build their own untested versions or pay someone to do one-off builds for them. By the way, anyone that makes a business decision on what OS to use to support their business requirements based solely on the claims on a web page has other problems; as does the management team that went along with it. Previously that decision might have been made on the basis of CentOS having a history of timely security updates. Now you can't say that for any sane definition of timely. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 5.6 and KVM failure
On Sun, 2011-04-10 at 03:47 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: On 04/09/2011 12:04 PM, compdoc wrote: A similar incident was reported during the QA. Look at the .xml file. If it says type='raw', change it to type='qcow2' and restart libvirtd. Would that fix the problem ? Akemi Thank you. After reading your message, I googled the error and found a webpage that describes a slightly different procedure than yours, but which does the same thing: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1638708 Everything is working now. :) I am going to add this to the Release Notes for 5.6 on the Wiki now. Turns out that wasn't the only problem I faced in my migration. With 2 KVM servers, both sharing a volume mounted via NFS for VMs, I migrated all VMs to the second node, upgraded the first, them moved them all back to KVM1. Instant disk corruption on all VMs. Boom. I have a second pair of KVM servers. I tested one VM with my normal migrate-them-out-of-the-way procedure, and it, too, suffered MASSIVE filesystem corruption. This was even after I'd made the qcow2 mods and restarted libvirtd. The only way I was able to not have to rebuild the remaining non-corrupted VMs was to shut them down on one node then bring them back up again. Turns out live migration doesn't work in this upgrade. (Though I'll test regular live migration tomorrow, given that all 4 KVM servers have now been upgraded.) -I ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On 4/20/11 11:52 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give me sufficient information to start a competing rebuild. Why would anyone give another entity all the things required to replace them? Why? Because nearly all the content you pack into the distribution would not exist in a form worth using if they did not permit others to repeat _and improve_ what they do. Few if any upstream projects have the resources to do closed development. Red Hat does not give us nearly the amount of information that we give to others. Can you match the resources that Red Hat has? -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Wed, 2011-04-20 at 23:25 +0100, Ian Murray wrote: But to allude to him as a respected industry member is greatly stretching things when every article that mentions CentOS is disparaging and I can't recall any article even ending on a positive note. Try google: http://lwn.net/Articles/123934/ (For the record, I couldn't find any previous disparaging comments from him... I stopped at page 6) Maybe he is a hack, I have no clue. But he is a hack with a fairly big linux-focused audience that repeated a few home truths (in my opinion). I am using it to try to illustrate how the status quo is harming the project. If that isn't important to you or you don't agree, that's fine. He doesn't seem like a hack to me either. I checked his archive and he seems to be genuine and expressed his concern about the lack of a release back in February so it's a logical extension to be even more concerned that here we are in late April and still nothing. You may agree or disagree with his conclusion but his facts are a reflexion of the CentOS lists. No. His conclusions are rehashed, sometimes verbatim, from this list and the same vocal and tiny minority of users; and that's one of the problems I have with his style of one-sided journalism - there are two sides to most every story and when you concentrate solely on the negative aspects you are doing your readers a grave disservice. And those that think everything is peachy are also a tiny minority as far as we know, because I reckon 95%+ of CentOS users never post on the list. I wish people would stop stating what the *think* as *fact*. I think many people don't want to publicly state and appear to be ungrateful. I think that the apologist point of view for is pretty much worthless because the intent is to stifle those who are genuinely concerned about the timeliness now. If someone actually wanted to get a better view of the opinions, there are open source polling tools. If CentOS had a communication policy, it could spare itself these types of articles... No. These types of articles will continue to appear whether there is a communications policy or not. In my opinion, what a load of clap-trap. If that was the case, then every community project irrespective of governance would get these types of articles and as far as I can tell, that just aint the case! It seems that unless/until the CentOS leaders agree that 3 months on point releases and 6 months on new releases are a problem then they aren't likely to try to solve it. I would agree that this type of article would exist even if there were better communications offered by CentOS governance. Speaking only for myself, I am starting to lose faith. Craig -- This message has been scanned for viruses and dangerous content by MailScanner, and is believed to be clean. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: On 4/20/11 11:52 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: I have it black and white in a private email from JH that he would never give me sufficient information to start a competing rebuild. Why would anyone give another entity all the things required to replace them? Why? Because nearly all the content you pack into the distribution would not exist in a form worth using if they did not permit others to repeat _and improve_ what they do. Few if any upstream projects have the resources to do closed development. Red Hat does not give us nearly the amount of information that we give to others. Can you match the resources that Red Hat has? What's stopping you and others from going to Red Hat and doing what those who started CentOS did? -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Centos 6 Update?
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 12:36 AM, Craig White craigwh...@azapple.com wrote: I think that the apologist point of view for is pretty much worthless because the intent is to stifle those who are genuinely concerned about the timeliness now. Yeah, genuinely concerned. And that concern is supposedly best served by bad-mouthing CentOS at every opportunity? Sorry, but I'm not buying it. -- RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
