Re: [CentOS] Fwd: Cross Building Tcl using Mingw32-gcc (4.9.2)
At Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:55:20 -0400 Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com wrote: I posted this to the comp.lang.tcl newsgroup, but it might relate to a possible bug in the Mingw32 cross-build environment under CentOS 6 (or EPEL). OK, it is a CentOS 6/EPEL problem. I installed the i686-w64-mingw32 packages on a Ubuntu 12.04 VM and had no problems cross building Tcl 8.5.8. Forwarded Message: From: Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com Subject: Cross Building Tcl using Mingw32-gcc (4.9.2) Newsgroups: comp.lang.tcl Message-ID: nc-dnd1wrntsy6pinz2dnuu7-b-dn...@giganews.com Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 10:32:01 -0500 I am trying to cross-build Tcl (8.5.8) and I have encounted two problems: One I easily hacked the sources (wrapped the offending lines with #ifdefs): ./../generic/tclPosixStr.c:347:5: error: duplicate case value case EPFNOSUPPORT: return EPFNOSUPPORT; ^ ./../generic/tclPosixStr.c:290:5: error: previously used here case ENOPROTOOPT: return ENOPROTOOPT; ^ ./../generic/tclPosixStr.c: In function 'Tcl_ErrnoMsg': ./../generic/tclPosixStr.c:795:5: error: duplicate case value case EPFNOSUPPORT: return protocol family not supported; ^ ./../generic/tclPosixStr.c:738:5: error: previously used here case ENOPROTOOPT: return bad protocol option; ^ The other I am not sure how to fix: i686-w64-mingw32-gcc -c -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -Wall -I../../generic -DTCL_TOMMATH -DMP_PREC=4 -I../../libtommath -I.. -DPACKAGE_NAME=\\ -DPACKAGE_TARNAME=\\ -DPACKAGE_VERSION=\\ -DPACKAGE_STRING=\\ -DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT=\\ -DSTDC_HEADERS=1 -DHAVE_NO_SEH=1 -DHAVE_NO_LPFN_DECLS=1 -DHAVE_ALLOCA_GCC_INLINE=1 -DHAVE_CAST_TO_UNION=1 -DTCL_CFGVAL_ENCODING=\cp1252\ -DHAVE_SYS_TYPES_H=1 -DHAVE_SYS_STAT_H=1 -DHAVE_STDLIB_H=1 -DHAVE_STRING_H=1 -DHAVE_MEMORY_H=1 -DHAVE_STRINGS_H=1 -DHAVE_INTTYPES_H=1 -DHAVE_STDINT_H=1 -DHAVE_UNISTD_H=1 -DTCL_CFG_OPTIMIZED=1 -DTCL_CFG_DEBUG=1 -DBUILD_tcl ../tclWin32Dll.c -o tclWin32Dll.o ./tclWin32Dll.c:65:3: error: conflicting types for 'EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION' } EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION; ^ In file included from /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/minwindef.h:146:0, from /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/windef.h:8, from /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/windows.h:69, from ../tclWinPort.h:72, from ../../generic/tclPort.h:25, from ../../generic/tclInt.h:3946, from ../tclWinInt.h:17, from ../tclWin32Dll.c:16: /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/winnt.h:3554:43: note: previous declaration of 'EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION' was here typedef EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION; ^ Is there a solution possible? This looks like internal inconsistency with the header files that are part of the build toolchain. -- Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933 Deepwoods Software-- Custom Software Services http://www.deepsoft.com/ -- Linux Administration Services hel...@deepsoft.com -- Webhosting Services ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CENTOS not DoD approved
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 04:49:41PM +, bobby Orellano wrote: nowhere does it say that centos is approved for use in DoD. it is not on the APL, only RedHat and SuSE There's also no place that states that CentOS is a flotation device to be used in the event of a water landing. Your point? Do you think it should be? (I mean DoD approval. I'm ambivalent about using CentOS as a life preserver.) -- Jonathan Billings billi...@negate.org ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Find installed yum groups?
On 2015-04-27, Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: --SNIP-- And I guess the other piece of this would be finding individual packages that are not encompassed by the groups - or pulled in by dependencies.Is there some database-like approach to take the full list of packages, then reduce it to the minimal list of groups and top-level packages to pull the rest in? It probably will work to hand the raw list to yum but I'd like to make an understandable list in a script even if the packages had been added piecemeal in the first place as someone noticed the need for them. The command 'package-cleanup --leaves --all' (from yum-utils) will help you. Leaf packages are those which are not relied upon by other packages. -- Liam ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CENTOS not DoD approved
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote: CentOS is not approved for DOD use. In fact, CentOS is not now, nor has it ever been *certified* for anything. Certifications require people to PAY to certify a product. Specifically, EAL4 Certification, a requirement for the DOD, costs up to 2.5 million dollars .. see this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation_Assurance_Level#Impact_on_cost_and_schedule That cost would be for each main version of CentOS (2.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) .. so the cost to have all 6 previous major versions certified would be: 6 x $2.5 Million = $15 Million dollars. Since CentOS is given away for free ... I can't afford to pay 15 million dollars to have it EAL4 certified .. can anyone on this list? Certifications and security testing and assurance, along with a Service Level Agreement for fixing bugs is why people who require any of those things need to buy RHEL. Incidentally, someone has just started a thread related to DoD in the RH community discussion session entitled, A DoD version of RHEL - A money maker for RH? Maybe! : https://access.redhat.com/comment/913243 Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CENTOS not DoD approved
On 04/28/2015 06:05 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote: On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:10 PM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote: CentOS is not approved for DOD use. In fact, CentOS is not now, nor has it ever been *certified* for anything. Certifications require people to PAY to certify a product. Specifically, EAL4 Certification, a requirement for the DOD, costs up to 2.5 million dollars .. see this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation_Assurance_Level#Impact_on_cost_and_schedule That cost would be for each main version of CentOS (2.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) .. so the cost to have all 6 previous major versions certified would be: 6 x $2.5 Million = $15 Million dollars. Since CentOS is given away for free ... I can't afford to pay 15 million dollars to have it EAL4 certified .. can anyone on this list? Certifications and security testing and assurance, along with a Service Level Agreement for fixing bugs is why people who require any of those things need to buy RHEL. Incidentally, someone has just started a thread related to DoD in the RH community discussion session entitled, A DoD version of RHEL - A money maker for RH? Maybe! : https://access.redhat.com/comment/913243 There have been similar requests in the past. At one point someone on forge.mil was working on a rebuild which met STIG requirements, but there were all sorts of issues with that. While I'm not in sales, I feel safe in speculating that RH's sales folks work rather hard to make sure the DOD as a whole stays happy. Jason and Johnny are both right, because the DOD is a rather large entity with a stupidly complex array of regulations. What works in one command doesn't always fly in another even within a branch, let alone jumping between branches. TL;DR. Answer varies wildly on approval because the DOD is a GIANT organization with multiple levels of interwoven regulations, networks, and varied systems. Article is a bit dated, but I don't imagine the situation has improved since I stopped doing Defense consulting. http://www.wired.com/2010/10/read-em-all-pentagons-193-mind-numbing-cyber-security-regs/ -- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CENTOS not DoD approved
-Original Message- From: Johnny Hughes Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 18:10 On 04/28/2015 02:30 PM, John R Pierce wrote: On 4/28/2015 9:49 AM, bobby Orellano wrote: nowhere does it say that centos is approved for use in DoD. it is not on the APL, only RedHat and SuSE DoD approval requires spending lots of money jumping through arbitrary hoops. Do you wish to pay for this? skimming the requirements, it also requires extensive documentation of said 'Product'. Do you wish to write this? I have. (well not EAL4, but I have ATOs with Centos 6) CentOS is not approved for DOD use. In fact, CentOS is not now, nor has it ever been *certified* for anything. Certifications require people to PAY to certify a product. Specifically, EAL4 Certification, a requirement for the DOD, costs up to 2.5 million dollars .. see this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation_Assurance_Level#Impact_on_cost_and_schedule To clarify, you do not need to be EAL4 Certified to be used at DoD, you need approval from your DAA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Designated_Approving_Authority). And your systems will need an ATO (https://ia.signal.army.mil/docs/DIACAPdefinitions.pdf). -Jason -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - - - Jason Pyeron PD Inc. http://www.pdinc.us - - Principal Consultant 10 West 24th Street #100- - +1 (443) 269-1555 x333Baltimore, Maryland 21218 - - - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- This message is copyright PD Inc, subject to license 20080407P00. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Emacs issue in CentOS 7
Sometimes when I save a file in emacs, it thinks that the buffer is still dirty. If I use C-x C-w to write the file, I get an overwrite warning but the buffer always goes clean. Perhaps this is related to the file atime? My /home is btrfs with relatime. I always thought emacs was smarter than that, for example I run emacs on files mounted noatime on CentOS 6 without any issues. A bit of searching the interwebs did not provide any clues. Anyone? -- greg ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS-docs] Fwd: Wiki Contribution - YUM Tips and Tricks
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:46 PM, Akemi Yagi amy...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Mike - st257 silvertip...@gmail.com wrote: Hi CentOS-Docs Team! I got distracted and didn't re-read the contribute to the wiki instructions before sending off a message to this list (I'm subscribed to Docs now for sure!). So my initial message hit the bit bucket 'cause I wasn't subscribed (d'oh!). http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2015-April/thread.html You'll find a copy of my original message below. Give me a shout back when your group gets a chance. Thanks, - Mike -- Forwarded message -- From: SilverTip257 silvertip...@gmail.com Date: Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:02 PM Subject: Wiki Contribution - YUM Tips and Tricks To: centos-docs@centos.org Cc: Silver Tip silvertip...@gmail.com Hi CentOS-Docs Team! Per http://wiki.centos.org/Contribute, I'm sending you all this message. I would like to add information to http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/YumAndRPM wiki page detailing the existence/usage of yum-plugin-changelog. I plan on reorganizing bullet point #4 into subsections for RPM and YUM. And within the point #4 subsection for YUM, I will add the additional content I wrote up. You can find a copy of my post on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/yum-changelog-red-hat-enterprise-centos-fedora-linuxes-michael-bear --- Hi Mike, Just noticed this message has not been responded for a while... What is your wiki name (in the FirstnameLastname format)? The wiki name I created is MichaelBear. Akemi ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs -- ---~~.~~--- Mike // SilverTip257 // ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
Re: [CentOS] Folding At Home OT
On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 09:17:24PM -0400, Mark LaPierre wrote: On 04/27/15 19:24, Fred Smith wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 06:51:31PM -0400, Mark LaPierre wrote: On 04/22/15 21:05, Mark LaPierre wrote: Can someone recommend a good video card to use with CentOS 6.6 that has a GPU, or two, or more, that will work with the Folding At Home project. I built a killer machine primarily for contributing to the FAH effort but the video card, NVIDIA Corporation G94 [GeForce 9600 GT], I had on hand is not getting any assignments. I'm using the proprietary NVIDIA driver. I've got a pcie 16X socket to plug it into. The underwelming response to my question leaves me wondering: Am I to gather that there are no CentOS FAH users here? or Am I to understand that none of the CentOS FAH users have a GPU that works with FAH? Yes, I'm a Centos Folder. I'm one of 3 or 4 currently active on Team Centos However, I've been unable to get GPU folding working, so I just dedicate all six cores to it. You may want to ask your original question on the forums at the FAH site, also. Fred Hey Fred, Thanks for the tip. I googled the FAH Hardware Forum. They recommend the NVIDIA 970 or 960 as their first choice. True. but it should work on Fermi chipsets or later, and it doesn't for me. I may well have a configuration problem, but I drew the line at butchering my system configuration to find out, this is my personal workstation, at home, and I don't wanna break it. (it tries, and tries, and tries to fold but takes some error or other, backs off, tries again, and again, and again.) -- Fred Smith -- fre...@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us - For the word of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Hebrews 4:12 (niv) -- ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Thread moderation and warning: [ Real sh? Or other...]
This thread has spiraled out of control and will be dealt with. I will again speak with people privately. Some are repeat offenders and may have their contributions to the mailing list moderated. Please keep to the topic posted by the original author, and keep the list technical in nature. -- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:56 AM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: There was no court case, but VERITAS published a modifed version of gtar where additional code was added by binary only libraries from VERITAS. The FSF did never try to discuss this is public even though everybody did know about the existence. As long as the FSF does not try to sue VERITAS, we are safe - regardless what intentional nonsense you can read on the FSF webpages. I just remembered a counterpoint to this. Back in the Windows 3.0 days when windows had no tcp networking of its own, I put together a DOS binary built from gnutar and the wattcp stack so you could back up a windows or dos box to a unix system via rsh.And when I tried to give it away I was contacted and told that I couldn't distribute it because even though wattcp was distributed in source, it had other conflicts with the GPL. As a side effect of getting it to build on a If you had the wattcp stack in a separate library and if you did make the needed changes for integration in the gtar source, this was fully legal. The source code was separate files, but the binary 'work as a whole' had to be one. I don't think DOS even had a concept of loading binary libraries separate from the main executable. And the binary obviously is controlled by the copyright on the source. So while I don't like it, I can see the point that it does not meet the GPL requirement any more than it would if it were linked to a commercial library that another user would have to purchase. And there's a reasonable chance they could make an equivalent case even where shared libraries can be used, since the intent is the same. I know that the FSF frequently tries to ask people to do things that are not on a legal base. They however know that they cannot go on trial with this... Yes, so, the only way to help keep others from being harmed by this is to dual-license code so they can't possibly make such a claim. It doesn't happen with perl because Larry Wall understood that long ago. Or, if you are so sure of your legal footing, distribute something that they will challenge yourself and win the case that will set the precedent for the rest of us. But I'd guess dual-licensing would be easier and cheaper. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS-docs] Fwd: Wiki Contribution - YUM Tips and Tricks
On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 2:03 PM, Mike - st257 silvertip...@gmail.com wrote: Hi CentOS-Docs Team! I got distracted and didn't re-read the contribute to the wiki instructions before sending off a message to this list (I'm subscribed to Docs now for sure!). So my initial message hit the bit bucket 'cause I wasn't subscribed (d'oh!). http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-docs/2015-April/thread.html You'll find a copy of my original message below. Give me a shout back when your group gets a chance. Thanks, - Mike -- Forwarded message -- From: SilverTip257 silvertip...@gmail.com Date: Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 6:02 PM Subject: Wiki Contribution - YUM Tips and Tricks To: centos-docs@centos.org Cc: Silver Tip silvertip...@gmail.com Hi CentOS-Docs Team! Per http://wiki.centos.org/Contribute, I'm sending you all this message. I would like to add information to http://wiki.centos.org/TipsAndTricks/YumAndRPM wiki page detailing the existence/usage of yum-plugin-changelog. I plan on reorganizing bullet point #4 into subsections for RPM and YUM. And within the point #4 subsection for YUM, I will add the additional content I wrote up. You can find a copy of my post on LinkedIn - https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/yum-changelog-red-hat-enterprise-centos-fedora-linuxes-michael-bear --- Hi Mike, Just noticed this message has not been responded for a while... What is your wiki name (in the FirstnameLastname format)? Akemi ___ CentOS-docs mailing list CentOS-docs@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-docs
[CentOS-announce] CESA-2015:0895 Important CentOS 7 389-ds-base Security Update
CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2015:0895 Important
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-0895.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
x86_64:
0b695f877ea66c6ba7cb15d35f743d2cdb7d26b3c2ad7da7bf5ef716e7dd7a17
389-ds-base-1.3.3.1-16.el7_1.x86_64.rpm
eaed7a4bf2c0822c4fee1690b818d9bb5184c3e417e6473a663d060c01c83a5d
389-ds-base-devel-1.3.3.1-16.el7_1.x86_64.rpm
5dd1ceb2c16799fd72ee1d9d79b934bdff6294dbe7e3dc605393701d6dd0ffa1
389-ds-base-libs-1.3.3.1-16.el7_1.x86_64.rpm
Source:
a5c1801f6621b7d79263c1df4d28afd00ff3ec2f6abc0f2faea373bcfcf70eb3
389-ds-base-1.3.3.1-16.el7_1.src.rpm
--
Johnny Hughes
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: hughesjr, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEEA-2015:0913 CentOS 7 tzdata Enhancement Update
CentOS Errata and Enhancement Advisory 2015:0913
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2015-0913.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
x86_64:
9926c46800be11c474b10719b9935229019201c195e4debb0da4bfab5ff5ec8e
tzdata-2015d-1.el7.noarch.rpm
95551f69c3f204b9a7c279698a69b93075f59d82866f7e929b11d8ab60a1fcff
tzdata-java-2015d-1.el7.noarch.rpm
Source:
c733876d95f1e111fe2cb11a0628b09a10d82f539e299ef2358f11c8d868d3cf
tzdata-2015d-1.el7.src.rpm
--
Johnny Hughes
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: hughesjr, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEEA-2015:0913 CentOS 5 tzdata Enhancement Update
CentOS Errata and Enhancement Advisory 2015:0913
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2015-0913.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
i386:
8387fba89796124258e17bcea37cc9aa891f272170df2d4ed52b993d9e4eecce
tzdata-2015d-1.el5.i386.rpm
cab6bde88543bd51b4ba52e7a9fa77e4183cc5657ae7e36f1db3f1d205270af6
tzdata-java-2015d-1.el5.i386.rpm
x86_64:
13531800faae15e1fe2b4421ebafe34ad9900d0de0dba928b27aa41b32c2e05e
tzdata-2015d-1.el5.x86_64.rpm
849a0357c2d8ed582ad308776007df85bff2f9b08e407e60de0cc53a5487dadd
tzdata-java-2015d-1.el5.x86_64.rpm
Source:
71176448e8dce2b5fb872615cdc49be8854bba5c648b6a2156e500a2ec501f48
tzdata-2015d-1.el5.src.rpm
--
Johnny Hughes
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: hughesjr, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
[CentOS-announce] CEEA-2015:0913 CentOS 6 tzdata Enhancement Update
CentOS Errata and Enhancement Advisory 2015:0913
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2015-0913.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
i386:
17d079889c081ec38565a95ed34c0d5063b643d97d79da7f421ee423d324f547
tzdata-2015d-1.el6.noarch.rpm
29c5ce7a9f8b50743ee0d1d665525a2110eb6d6cc9a6e86289614d1b6b34fa34
tzdata-java-2015d-1.el6.noarch.rpm
x86_64:
17d079889c081ec38565a95ed34c0d5063b643d97d79da7f421ee423d324f547
tzdata-2015d-1.el6.noarch.rpm
29c5ce7a9f8b50743ee0d1d665525a2110eb6d6cc9a6e86289614d1b6b34fa34
tzdata-java-2015d-1.el6.noarch.rpm
Source:
36b196f2a6dd2f589917ae18efc38dab3b36849075569f1d0406533add310161
tzdata-2015d-1.el6.src.rpm
--
Johnny Hughes
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: hughesjr, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
___
CentOS-announce mailing list
CentOS-announce@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
Re: [CentOS] CENTOS not DoD approved
On 04/28/2015 02:30 PM, John R Pierce wrote: On 4/28/2015 9:49 AM, bobby Orellano wrote: nowhere does it say that centos is approved for use in DoD. it is not on the APL, only RedHat and SuSE DoD approval requires spending lots of money jumping through arbitrary hoops. Do you wish to pay for this? skimming the requirements, it also requires extensive documentation of said 'Product'. Do you wish to write this? CentOS is not approved for DOD use. In fact, CentOS is not now, nor has it ever been *certified* for anything. Certifications require people to PAY to certify a product. Specifically, EAL4 Certification, a requirement for the DOD, costs up to 2.5 million dollars .. see this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation_Assurance_Level#Impact_on_cost_and_schedule That cost would be for each main version of CentOS (2.1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7) .. so the cost to have all 6 previous major versions certified would be: 6 x $2.5 Million = $15 Million dollars. Since CentOS is given away for free ... I can't afford to pay 15 million dollars to have it EAL4 certified .. can anyone on this list? Certifications and security testing and assurance, along with a Service Level Agreement for fixing bugs is why people who require any of those things need to buy RHEL. Thanks, Johnny Hughes signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CENTOS not DoD approved
-Original Message- From: bobby Orellano Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2015 12:50 nowhere does it say that centos is approved for use in DoD. Nowhere is a very large place, and I can say that is incorrect. it is not on the APL, only RedHat and SuSE If you would like assistance in approving CentOS for your use please provide more details. If you cannot provide details on this list, please send me an signed (and encrypted if needed) mail from your official email address. CentOS is in very wide use at DoD. v/r, Jason Pyeron -- -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- - - - Jason Pyeron PD Inc. http://www.pdinc.us - - Principal Consultant 10 West 24th Street #100- - +1 (443) 269-1555 x333Baltimore, Maryland 21218 - - - -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- This message is copyright PD Inc, subject to license 20080407P00. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
Gordon Messmer gordon.mess...@gmail.com wrote: On 04/27/2015 12:28 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: Up to now, nobody could explain me how a mixture of GPL and BSD can be legal as this would require (when following the GPL) to relicense the BSD code under GPL in order to make the whole be under GPL. The GPL doesn't require that you relicense any non-GPL parts of the whole. It requires that the whole be licensed ... at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License You missread the GPL. Ask a lawyer for help. The GPL demands (in case you ship binaries and only in this case) no more than to put the GPL work under GPL and to make anything, needed to re-create the binary, to be made available under a license that allows redistribution. See e.g. the book about the GPL from the lawyers of Harald Welte. http://www.oreilly.de/german/freebooks/gplger/pdf/025-168.pdf See page 85 (PDF page 60) see the lower half of the paragraph numbered 23. In other words, if you can legally combine BSD code with GPL code, you can do with GPL and CDDL as well. No, you can't. Section 6 of the GPL states that You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. CDDL however, does contain additional restrictions. I recommend you not to repeat false claims from uninformed people. If you did read the CDDL, you did of course know that the CDDL places work limits at file limits and that the CDDL does not try to impose any restriction on sources that are not in a file marked as CDDLd. So the CDDL of course does create any restriction on a GPLd work. On the other side, the GPL does create restrictions on other sources, but it just requires other sources (if needed to recreate the shipped binary) to be shipped together with the GPLd work. The GPL of course does not impose any further restrictions on _other_ sources under a different license. Given the fact that the official cdrtools source tarball includes everything to recreate the binary, everything is legal unless you make unlawful changes to the original source. So calm down, read the GPL and the CDDL by your own - repeat this - until you fully understand both licenses. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/' ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: There was no court case, but VERITAS published a modifed version of gtar where additional code was added by binary only libraries from VERITAS. The FSF did never try to discuss this is public even though everybody did know about the existence. As long as the FSF does not try to sue VERITAS, we are safe - regardless what intentional nonsense you can read on the FSF webpages. I just remembered a counterpoint to this. Back in the Windows 3.0 days when windows had no tcp networking of its own, I put together a DOS binary built from gnutar and the wattcp stack so you could back up a windows or dos box to a unix system via rsh.And when I tried to give it away I was contacted and told that I couldn't distribute it because even though wattcp was distributed in source, it had other conflicts with the GPL. As a side effect of getting it to build on a If you had the wattcp stack in a separate library and if you did make the needed changes for integration in the gtar source, this was fully legal. I know that the FSF frequently tries to ask people to do things that are not on a legal base. They however know that they cannot go on trial with this... Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/' ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: No, you posted some ranting misconceptions about why you don't see a need for it. But if you actually believed any of that yourself, then you would see there was no harm in adding a dual license to make it clear to everyone else. It clearly has not hurt the popularity of perl or BSD code to become GPL-compatible, nor has it forced anyone to use that code only in GPL-compatible ways. Cdrtools are fully legal as they strictly follow all claims from the related licenses. What problem do you have with fully legal code? The problem is that it can't be used as a component of a larger work if any other components are GPL-covered. As you know very well. You know very well that you are writing a false claim here. Cdrtools is fully legal and can be rightfully redistributed in source or binary form. This has been verified by three independent teams of lawyers. If you have wishes that go bejond legality, I cannot help you. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/' ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Prevent network setup from changing the hostname
On 04/26/2015 08:28 PM, Peter Larsen wrote: Strange - you may have a dhcp server that accepts host names from the clients - which of course would fit your use case. Just realize that not all dhcp servers are setup to be that lenient when it comes to preserving the host name picked by a client. I can see in Wireshark that the client is not requesting any hostname in the DHCP Request and is ignoring the hostname that is returned in the DHCP ACK in favor of the one specified in /etc/sysconfig/network as long as the latter is _not_ localhost.localdomain. -- Bob Nichols NOSPAM is really part of my email address. Do NOT delete it. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts
Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote: If you did read the CDDL, you did of course know that the CDDL places work limits at file limits and that the CDDL does not try to impose any restriction on sources that are not in a file marked as CDDLd. So the CDDL of course does _not_ create any restriction on a GPLd work. ^ Typo correction. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/' ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CENTOS not DoD approved
On 4/28/2015 9:49 AM, bobby Orellano wrote: nowhere does it say that centos is approved for use in DoD. it is not on the APL, only RedHat and SuSE DoD approval requires spending lots of money jumping through arbitrary hoops. Do you wish to pay for this? skimming the requirements, it also requires extensive documentation of said 'Product'. Do you wish to write this? -- john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CENTOS not DoD approved
nowhere does it say that centos is approved for use in DoD. it is not on the APL, only RedHat and SuSE So what? If that is so important to you, you can go and buy a RedHat license. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] CENTOS not DoD approved
nowhere does it say that centos is approved for use in DoD. it is not on the APL, only RedHat and SuSE ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
