Re: Fedora Legacy shutting down
Jesse Keating wrote: On Tuesday 02 January 2007 11:06, Eric Rostetter wrote: Fixed on www.fedoralegacy.org, but not on download.fedoralegacy.org. Can someone please change these? They're both very small changes, but I think it's best not to confuse people now. Jesse will have to do download.fedoralegacy.org. The plan for download.fedoralegacy.org is to point it at the document describing the project status with a pointer to the last known mirror list. This way repos will break, people will go to the URL to see whats up, notice the project closure, and reconfigure for one of the mirrors if they still need updates, and make informed decisions regarding their system's future. So download.fedoralegacy.org is down now, but there is no document there describing the project status. Of course people should be looking at www.fedoralegacy.org after trying download.fedoralegacy.org, but can a page a like still be put up? Also I'd like to know if there's a list of mirrors that will continue to be available for a while. If not I'd like to know how I can rsync all packages created by the Fedora Legacy Project without also rsyncing the packages that are still available at download.fedora.redhat.com. Most packages have legacy in their filename, but I believe some do not. Can anyone shed some more light on this? I'd like to have the Fedora Legacy archive available because sometimes I have start managing an old Fedora box and I like to be able to at least get the latest legacy fixes on them directly as planning a migration takes a little time. Thanks, Nils Breunese. PGP.sig Description: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: RHEL subset of which FC ?
P. Martinez wrote: Hi, is it true when i say, FC3 == RHEL4 ? No, but you can say RHEL4 was based on FC3. RHEL5 will be based on FC6. But you can't really say they are the same thing at all. Nils Breunese. PGP.sig Description: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: where? security updates for FC4
Florin Andrei wrote: Now that the Legacy project is shutting down, the biggest problem becomes the security updates. FL never provided anything else than security updates. I have an FC4 server that I plan to keep running until CentOS 5 comes out, but I also have to apply security patches to this machine meanwhile. What would be the best source of security updates for FC4 short-term? SRPMs from FC5 or FC6, recompiled? But then there might be some dependency issues that might get ugly. SRPMs from RHEL or CentOS? Which version would be closest to FC4? Again, I expect some dependency issues here. Of course, one can always download the upstream tarballs and generate packages, but somehow I suspect this to be the most difficult method. Any other suggestions? You could upgrade to FC5 and later upgrade to CentOS 5? Nils Breunese. PGP.sig Description: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: where? security updates for FC4
Karanbir Singh wrote: Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote: You could upgrade to FC5 and later upgrade to CentOS 5? Will most likely not work as expected : FC5 updates are going to out strip the E-V-R for similar packages in EL5. And there is the issue of orphan packages that in turn might be required based on installed role. And that won't happen when he stays at FC4 and then upgrades to CentOS when it comes out? I have to say I don't exactly understand what you're saying there though. I guess that if Florin wants a nice clean CentOS 5 system it might better to reinstall. Nils Breunese. PGP.sig Description: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: where? security updates for FC4
Karanbir Singh wrote: FC5 installed and then updated with all released packages will contain packages that will by the time CentOS-5 is out there, already be newer than whats included in CentOS-5. Which will create problems since those packages will then not get yum updated to whats in the centos-5 repo's. I thought CentOS 5 was going to be based on FC6 and that therefore it would be (kind of) possible to upgrade from FC5 to CentOS 5, but I guess I'm wrong then. Nils Breunese. PGP.sig Description: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Fedora Legacy shutting down
Axel Thimm wrote: On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 11:29:28PM -0500, seth vidal wrote: On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 20:54 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: On Monday 01 January 2007 20:42, Jesse Keating wrote: It wouldn't take space Correction, wouldn't take huge amounts of space. It's 63GB in total. I count about 10GB. The difference is probably the fedora/redhat non-legacy updates from *.redhat.com, but in any case if someone wants to archive FL's work he needs just 10GB. The legacy and non-legacy updates are not in separate directories on download.fedoralegacy.org. Is there an easy way to just download (rsync?) the legacy updates? The non-legacy base and updates packages are still available at download.fedora.redhat.com. Or does anyone know of a download.fedoralegacy.org mirror that won't shutdown after download.fedoralegacy.org goes away? Nils Breunese. PGP.sig Description: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Fedora Legacy shutting down
seth vidal wrote: seems to work for me if you use: rsync -avH download.fedoralegacy.org::legacy legacy Works me for me too now. Nils Breunese. PGP.sig Description: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Legacy wiki -- statement?
Mike McCarty wrote: Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote: I was just thinking out loud really. I don't expect it is possible to revive the Legacy Project at this point, but was just thinking that maybe trying to get companies that build on Fedora (not just Fedora Legacy) to supply resources might be a good idea. I don't know if this already being done, but as I said: I was just thinking out loud. I think you did a great job, Jesse, too bad it has to end like this. Now, let me get started on migrating those last servers running legacy versions of Fedora Core... Migrating them to what? That's my question. CentOS 4. Why do you ask? Nils Breunese. PGP.sig Description: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Legacy wiki -- statement?
Roozbeh Pournader wrote: Well, apparently some hosting companies, like 11, are still offering their customers Fedora Core 4. http://tinyurl.com/y4q3j3 http://tinyurl.com/y7pj9r I guess we should try to make things more obvious, or we may be jeopardizing several servers on the Internet... 11 offer servers with the Plesk Control Panel. Until like two weeks ago Plesk was only supported on FC1-FC4. They recently added FC5 support, but I guess Fedora is just moving too fast for something like Plesk. Yes, you're reading that right: Plesk is still supported on FC1. They don't tell you that FC1 itself has been EOL for some time now. Note that Plesk is not particularly unique in this... Nils Breunese. PGP.sig Description: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Legacy wiki -- statement?
Jeff Sheltren wrote: On Dec 12, 2006, at 5:32 AM, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: Well, apparently some hosting companies, like 11, are still offering their customers Fedora Core 4. http://tinyurl.com/y4q3j3 http://tinyurl.com/y7pj9r I guess we should try to make things more obvious, or we may be jeopardizing several servers on the Internet... Roozbeh I Roozbeh, do you mean more obvious than what is currently on the wiki? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy Is this info going out to fedora-announce and the like? A lot of people that need to know this might not be visiting the wiki that often... Nils Breunese. PGP.sig Description: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Legacy wiki -- statement?
Jesse Keating wrote: On Tuesday 12 December 2006 07:49, Roozbeh Pournader wrote: Most of the dedicated hosting sites that offer Fedora don't mention a version on the front page, but I tried diving a little, and it seems that most of them may still be offering 3 and 4. I found one 5, but still no 6. For a list of major hosting companies offering Linux solutions, I used NetCraft's statistics, see: http://uptime.netcraft.com/perf/reports/performance/Hosters? tn=november_200 6 If any of these hosting firms or softwares like plesk would put up some resources to keep legacy going, we might not have had to shut the doors. Unfortunately its all take take take and no give. I agree and we could just end it at that and say we don't care everybody and their dog is running unpatched systems. But has anyone ever tried contacting these big companies and explaining the situation to maybe get some resources for the Legacy Project from them? Or does that sound too much like begging to people here? Companies like Dell just approach the Infrastructure Team and say Hey, we could give you guys a couple of our servers, where would you like us to send them? I guess it doesn't work like that for others, but they might just want to cooperate. Or they might just not care that their customers run unpatched systems. Since they also offer support on their software I guess that helping Legacy out might just benefit them too. Nils Breunese. PGP.sig Description: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: nails in coffins? Re: Openssl updates
Axel Thimm wrote: If some statement from legacy is needed about FC3/FC4 before that decision is made (which IMHO is needed), how about something along a heading of Fedora Legacy is ending its current support model working towards direct involvement in maintenance of upcoming Fedora releases in FL's spirit of extending lifetimes of Fedora releases. Within this anticipated release model there will be no distinction between FL and other entities. We don't pre-announce anything that hasn't been decided on, but still show where FL is heading to. It's better than simply hanging a closed sign upfront the website. :) But FC3/4 admins reading this statement might think their versions are still supported somehow. At least I don't see 'FC3 and FC4 are effectively EOL right now' between the lines and I think people should know plans have changed and they aren't getting any updates anymore. I think it's sad Fedora Legacy seems to be ending a little prematurely, but I totally understand that the people that were carrying this dying beast have decided to just put it down and let it be. Unfortunately I will have to be migrating our last Fedora servers over to CentOS even sooner now... Thanks for all the work guys, Nils Breunese. PGP.sig Description: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: nails in coffins? Re: Openssl updates
Rex Dieter wrote: Unfortunately I will have to be migrating our last Fedora servers over to CentOS even sooner now... I take it, then, that extending Fedora's (supported) life-cycle to 13+ mos isn't sufficient for your needs? Not for that couple of FC3 machines my clients have running. Or am I misunderstanding the 13 months of support somehow? FC3 was released on November 8 2004. Also, FC4 (I don't have any FC4 machines) was released on June 13 2005, so I guess that is also EOL effectively. Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: nails in coffins? Re: Openssl updates
Op 30-nov-2006, om 17:11 heeft Matthew Miller het volgende geschreven: On Thu, Nov 30, 2006 at 04:40:55PM +0100, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote: Not for that couple of FC3 machines my clients have running. Or am I misunderstanding the 13 months of support somehow? FC3 was released on November 8 2004. Also, FC4 (I don't have any FC4 machines) was released on June 13 2005, so I guess that is also EOL effectively. In terms of have their been a meaningful number of updates for real security problems, they are EOL *now* -- just sans announcement. I know, but not everybody knows. If FL is going to make an official statement I'd vote for telling it like it is. Giving the whole thing a positive spin (by saying Legacy is merging with Core) is fine with me, but I suggest we do tell people FC3 and FC4 are EOL as of *now* (unlike what some people may be thinking). Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
Matthew Miller wrote: On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:40:57PM -0500, Nils Breunese wrote: Every system needs an admin. I don't think it's realistic to not run 'yum update' for a year and expect everything to be fine. If you'd If there's no updates available, it doesn't matter how often they run yum update. That's why every system needs an admin (and not a nightly yum cron job). A real admin will know or notice there are no updates available and take appropriate action. Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
[SPAM] LOW * Re: Important information regarding the merger of core and extras, and what this means to Legacy
Bill Perrotta wrote: That is fine where can i download an iso of centos? If it is similar enough to do all labs for rhel3 rhce that is my only concern. Come on, Google is your friend. Go to http://www.centos.org/ and take it from there. CentOS 3 is exactly the same as RHEL 3, except for the branding. Nils. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
[SPAM] HIGH * Re: RHEL3: Problem going from RH 2.4.20 to Linus 2.4.33
David Douthitt wrote: I compiled a version of Linus' kernel 2.4.33 for CentOS 3 (RHEL 3) and found that several programs started failing with core dumps or lockups. It seems to center on two different things: the clone() call, and some kind of file locking call that isn't supported (fuserlock?) The clone() call resulted in core dumps; the other resulted in programs receiving an unexpected not implemented result and entering an endless loop waiting for a positive result. Any tips? I'd like to keep the kernel current CentOS 3 is still maintained, so why not just use yum to get the latest CentOS 3 kernel? Or do you specifically need features from the latest 2.4 kernel version? And most importantly: why are you posting this to the Fedora Legacy list? CentOS has forums, mailinglists, etc. Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Sorry for confusion -- Re: Some supporting ideas regarding fedora legacy project when FC6 is out today
Robinson Tiemuqinke wrote: Currently FC just scares aways small business users to Debian/Gentoo because the former have so short a lifespan. Without real business users play in these FC test-beds RHEL will die away shortly. Why do you think they will move to Debian or Gentoo? And why Debian or Gentoo? I really don't see the logic. If they like the Red Hat-way of running Linux they'll almost certainly prefer CentOS or RHEL if they like Fedora but want a longer life cycle. Nils Breunese. PGP.sig Description: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: [Fwd: Problem in Upgradation Mysql 3.23 in Fedora 2]
David Eisenstein wrote: I am cc'ing in the Fedora-Legacy-List just in case someone on it may have some answers for you. I did a quick search on rpm.pbone.net (a nice RPM package search engine) for mysql and it returned only mysql-3.23.58-x. You said you downloaded mysql-server-4.1.11-2.i386, mysql- devel-4.1.11-2.i386, mysqlclient10-3.23.58-6.i386. First of all, you probably don't want to try to install mysqlclient version 3.23.58 if you're trying to install mysql-server mysql-devel 4.1.11. You should install the same version of mysqlclient as you are installing of the server and devel packages. Where did you download those from? Pawan, you might wish to subscribe to fedora-legacy-list. You might also try subscribing to fedora-list and ask the same question(s) there. To subscribe to these, you can go to these two URL's: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list. Google is your friend, Pawan: Try querying [mysql 4 fedora core 2] there. The first hit I got on that query what this: Installing MySQL 4.1 on Fedora Core 2... at http://www.tummy.com/journals/entries/ scott_20041117_131449. Also found this looking around, entitled Upgrading MySQL version 3 to 4 RedHat / Fedora, http://fedoranews.org/contributors/tony_smith/mysql/ which may help you even more. DISCLAIMER: I've never tried either of these. Hope this helped. -David ps: If anyone on fedora-legacy-list has any hints or suggestions, please share, and do a cc: to Pawan, as he's not (yet) subscribed to the list. Thanks. -dde I'm using the Atomic Rocket Turtle repository (http:// www.atomicrocketturtle.com/) and that gets you MySQL 4.1.21 at the moment and provides a mysql-compat package for 3.23.x. Works just fine for me and is also available for Fedora Core 2. But, FC2 is EOL, so I'd look into an upgrade for that FC2 box. Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Odd problem with sha1sums
Gene Heskett wrote: Actually I'm not really sure running sha1sum on the device should give the same sum as running it on the iso file. I believe the standard procedure is to run sha1sum on the iso after you've downloaded it and then check the outcome. Did you do that? Yes. And did the sha1sum of your download match the sha1sum published? Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Now that fc2 is retired, is there any valid yum repos?
Gene Heskett wrote: Plz see subject. I'd like to clean up my yum repo list as it appears some of the repos have disappeared. Are there any new ones for truely legacy stuff? I don't believe so. Fedora Core 2 is dead, you'll have to upgrade to a newer Fedora Core version (or migrate to something like CentOS if need a longer life cycle than Fedora's). Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: apache 2.2.3 on FC3 - repo?
Dave Stevens wrote: I'd like to update my apache httpd version from the current 2.0.53 to the most recent 2.2.3. I assume it is available in some repo but I don't know where. Ideas? The major repo's don't have it, as far as I know. Do you need 2.2 features? I guess you best upgrade to FC5 then or compile it yourself. Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: repos?
Dave Stevens wrote: I am new to this list. Will someone please point me to a FAQ? and especially to info about repos for use with my FC3? Just check the website: http://www.fedoralegacy.org/docs/yum-fc3.php Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: repos?
Dave Stevens wrote: I've done that, followed instructions (as far as I can see) and run yum update after a lot of checking of various sorts the last few lines of output are as follows... -- Processing Dependency: libavcodec.so.51 for package: vlc -- Processing Dependency: k3b = 0:0.12.4a for package: k3b-ffmpeg -- Processing Dependency: mplayer = 1.0pre7 for package: mplayer- codecs -- Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Missing Dependency: libicui18n.so.26 is needed by package mono-core Error: Missing Dependency: libpostproc.so.51.0.0 is needed by package vlc Error: Missing Dependency: libavformat.so.50 is needed by package vlc Error: Missing Dependency: libicudata.so.26 is needed by package mono-core Error: Missing Dependency: mplayer = 1.0pre7 is needed by package mplayer-codec s-extra Error: Missing Dependency: mplayer = 1.0-0.lvn.0.33.pre7try2.3 is needed by pack age mplayer-gui Error: Missing Dependency: libk3b.so.1 is needed by package k3b-ffmpeg Error: Missing Dependency: libicuuc.so.26 is needed by package mono- core Error: Missing Dependency: libavutil.so.49 is needed by package vlc Error: Missing Dependency: mplayer = 1.0pre7 is needed by package mplayer-codec s Error: Missing Dependency: k3b = 0:0.12.4a is needed by package k3b- ffmpeg Error: Missing Dependency: libk3b.so.1 is needed by package k3b-lame Error: Missing Dependency: mplayer = 1.0-0.lvn.0.33.pre7try2.3 is needed by pack age mplayer-mencoder Error: Missing Dependency: k3b = 0:0.12.4a is needed by package k3b- lame Error: Missing Dependency: libavcodec.so.51 is needed by package vlc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# Does anyone care to offer suggestions as to where to go from here? Can I exclude the problem packages from the update? Seems like you have (had?) a third party repository (livna I guess?) in your configuration that's causing these dependency problems. Of course you can always exclude packages, but I'd check my repository config. Looks like a desktop system to me though, so I'd just upgrade to FC5 instead. Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
FC1/2 EOL? FC4 legacy?
Hello list, I was just wondering what the status of the EOL of FC1 and FC2 is and whether FC4 has already entered FL. On the website there's the announcement that the EOL will be on July 26. Has support indeed been suspended by that day? The website still mentions FC1-3 being supported and there is no mention of FC4. What's happening? Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: FL repositories down?
Seth Vidal wrote: On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 14:47 +0200, Nils Breunese wrote: My servers are currently unable to run yum update because the Fedora Legacy repositories seem unavailable. I also can't get to http:// download.fedoralegacy.org/fedora/3 in my browser. Is this known downtime or is the problem on my end? this should be fixed, now. It is, thanks. Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: All rpm Commands Hang Indefinitely (RH 9)
Tim Evans wrote: I've just found FedoraLegacy; this is great. I have a batch of RH 9 systems that badly need updating, and have already started working with 'yum' to get them done. Remember Fedora Legacy will EOL RH9 by the end of this year. Nils Breunese. PGP.sig Description: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Squirrelmail 1.4.7 security fixes
Hello, I see squirrelmail 1.4.7 fixes several security issues (see http:// www.squirrelmail.org/changelog.php), but I couldn't find any bugs related to these in bugzilla. I'm not a bugzilla wizard however, so I didn't open any, I might just be blind. Can anyone tell me if these issues affect current installations and should bug reports be opened? Nils Breunese. PGP.sig Description: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Announcing End of Life times (Fedora Core 1, 2, Red Hat Linux 7.3, 9)
Jesse Keating wrote: With Fedora Core 6 Test 2 set to be released July 26th, it is time we announce the End of Life of our various Legacy supported releases. snip Shouldn't this info be on the website as well? The EOLs are three days away, but I have only seen this info pop up here on this mailinglist. I guess a notice via fedora-announce would be nice as well as probably more FC1/FC2 users subscribe to that list than this one. Maybe this is something for Fedora News as well? Nils Breunese. -- 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
Jeff Sheltren wrote: I agree with this - let's do away with RHL and FC1/FC2 support once we take on FC4. Jesse has already given many good reasons for doing so, so I won't repeat them here again :) Although I agree RHL and FC1/2 support should probably stop, this might be a big problem for companies running virtual servers (things like Virtuozzo), because I think almost all of them are running FC2. I have one dedicated box running FC2, but I'm already planning on migrating that one to CentOS 4. How much time will there be between the announcement of EOL and the actual end of support? People might want to have some time to plan migrations. Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: fedora Core2 updates
Chris Olds wrote: I'm new to the list, I have some webservers running Fedora Core2, i'm using yum to manage updates. I've run into a dependency snafu, does anyone have a suggestion for satisfying this lib dependency? Resolving dependencies Unable to satisfy dependencies Package glibc-dummy-fedora-core-2 needs glibc-common = 2.3.3-27.1, this is not available. I'm pretty sure you're running a virtual server and this is glibc- dummy-fedora-core-2 is a package your provider put in. I usually just exclude glibc\* when installing yum on these virtual servers (put exclude=glibc\* in the updates section of your yum configuration). Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: RKHUNTER reporting on my system
Max Pyziur wrote: I have an FC2 system which rkhunter reports some suspicious files. In particular, during the MD5 hash scan, it reports /bin/dmesg /bin/kill /bin/login /bin/mount /usr/bin/kill I run FC2 and have a similar issue. I've run rkhunter --update many times in the hopes of updating the installed database to resolve this problem. Is there a way of updating the the FC2-related rkhunter database in order to resolve this? I experience the same (for the same files). I tried installing an older version of util-linux and everything was fine again. I updated util-linux again and it didn't recognize these files again. So I wouldn't be to worried. If rkhunter doesn't recognize certain files you're supposed to report this on the rkhunter website. I reported this issue twice already, but apparently no one has looked into this. It also doesn't like the fact that root can log in, and that SSHv1 is permitted to run. Rightly so. Do not allow these things or change /etc/rkhunter.conf to not let it warn you about these things. Nils. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: RKHUNTER reporting on my system
kles koe wrote: why don't you just ask the author of rkhunter to update the hashes for these packges? i think i did once and it was fixed within a few days. I said I already reported this issue twice, but so far I haven't received any reaction and the latest version of the hashes still doesn't recognize these Fedora Legacy versions of those files. Nils. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: sendmail update left me in a fix
Peter J. Holzer wrote: BTW, is there somewhere a complete up-to-date description of the spec file? The file above is just a what's new since some unspecified release file, and RPM to the max is now over 5 years old. See the documentation section on the frontpage of http://www.rpm.org/ Nils. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: FC3 (j)whois on .eu fails
David Rees wrote: On 4/10/06, Danny Terweij - Net Tuning | Net [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have : jwhois-3.2.2-6.FC3.1 And whois on .eu fails (falling back to default whois server). When i add in jwhois.conf the following line : \\.eu$ = whois.eu; Then it works. Time for an jwhois package update? Not a security related issue, so not going to happen in Fedora Legacy. The tzdata update wan't a security issue either. I reckon this is an issue at least somewhat like the tzdata issue. Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: FC3 (j)whois on .eu fails
Jesse Keating wrote: On Mon, 2006-04-10 at 23:59 +0200, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit Internet) wrote: The tzdata update wan't a security issue either. I reckon this is an issue at least somewhat like the tzdata issue. Time being correct is something of a security issue, at a stretch. Isn't being able to use whois for all TLDs too (at a stretch)? Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Question about yum.conf for fc2
Jeff Sheltren wrote: On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:37 AM, Gene Heskett wrote: Yum is rather continuously erroring out on fedora extras, both branches recently. Do I need to edit that line and send it someplace else now? Gene, as far as I know Fedora Extras has only ever been FC3 and up. What URL(s) are you referring to? Maybe he's talking about the fedora.us days? Nils. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: BT RANT, Was Re: Question about yum.conf for fc2
Gene Heskett wrote:
What the hecks the matter with you folks? Take Take Take, but never
give back in kind. I just raised the speed limit to about 90% of my
bandwidth, but thats still not enough to feed other hungry torrents.
So if you have it, give it back. Fire up that client and share!
When I was downloading FC5 there were like 50 seeds and over 80
peers. And that was before the official release!
Oh well, I never used those .isos anyway, just upgraded by installing
FC5's fedora-release package and running yum update ('only' 1.3 GB of
updates, instead of burning 5 CD's).
Nils.
--
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?
James Kosin wrote: 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. I upgraded my workstation from FC1 all the way to FC5 last monday every time a new release came out without a lot of problems (I think all my problems would've been non-existent if I had waited until the 3rd party repo's I use also built their stuff for FC5). It is nice that you learned about building rpms and that your machine just works. But apart from the driver for your card it really shouldn't be a problem for you to upgrade, right? Upgrading generally doesn't destroy your setup, so it shouldn't take weeks to be up and running again. Maybe a day. Of course, YMMV. I just think it would be interesting (for Fedora Legacy) to have some sort of idea of why people are running legacy versions of Red Hat and Fedora, so FL knows 'who they are doing it for'. My guess is that it's mostly people that have used Fedora Core for live servers that they don't want to upgrade (people that maybe should've gotten another distro, in my opinion) and there's people like James Kosin that won't upgrade because of things like driver/kernel issues. Now, I'm just on this list because I have a couple of FC2 and FC3 servers (yes, they shouldn't be running FC, but I didn't install them) and I want to keep myself updated on the status of the project that keeps those boxes safe on the internet. The minute FL is no longer able to deliver patched versions fast enough I will have my servers reinstalled with something like CentOS. And I'll just keep updating my workstation to the latest and greatest Fedora every release. :o) Nils. -- 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?
Mike McCarty wrote: just think it would be interesting (for Fedora Legacy) to have some sort of idea of why people are running legacy versions of Red Hat and Fedora, so FL knows 'who they are doing it for'. My guess is that it's Oh, idle curiosity. Why would the people at FL be interested in any particular user's motivation? Not any particular user's motivation, but the main motivations would be interesting I think. Well, I don't know if the FL developers care, but personally I think it would be interesting. Nils. -- 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?
Nigel Henry wrote: On Tuesday 21 March 2006 23:34, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit Internet) wrote: Why don't you update to a newer Fedora Core release? Hi Nils. Personally I take offense at someone telling me to get a better distro. I see this a lot on forums. Someone asking a question to solve a problem, and some idiot replying back with, upgrade why don't you upgrade. 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. Incidentally there are still folks out there using MS DOS, and Win95, even though that is no longer supported. They are happy with it, and I hope have sufficient 3rd party security in place, but it's their choice, and no one should be forcing them to change. Nobody is forcing them or FC1/FC2 users to change their OS. I'm only a home user, so perhaps am not so concerned as someone using FC1, FC2 in the corporate environment, but am sure that there are a certain number of Linux IT guys and gals out there who are quite capable of sorting out security fixes for FC1, and 2 if and when they are dropped by Fedora Legacy. Sure. But why don't they step in and join Fedora Legacy now? If there would a lot of community involvement maybe FL could support releases longer. Nils. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: docbook format Q
Op 20-mrt-2006, om 4:53 heeft Gene Heskett het volgende geschreven: I just installed kleansweep from the tarball, but have found that its docs are in a compressed docbook format. I asked once before how does one go about viewing such files, and was chide for not reading the fine manual. Well, thats fine, but as far as I know, there isn't a manpage for docbook. My /usr/bin does contain a no doubt usefull collection of docbook2whatever file formaters but not a recognizable reader in the image of the simple 'man filename'. So how does one go about actually viewing a *.docbook file? Docbook (as I understand it, I've never used it) is not a viewable format. It's a format from which you can generate viewable formats (HTML, PDF, txt, etc.). You'd have to dig around to find the right command to convert a docbook file into the format of your choice. Or maybe ask the kleansweep people why they don't ship viewable documentation. Or maybe they can tell you what to do. Nils Breunese. P.S. This is probably not the right list for this question. -- 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?
Gene Heskett wrote: On Monday 20 March 2006 14:01, Donald Maner wrote: With the release of FC5, I figured I'd start the discussion to gauge the amount of support for keeping FC2 updates going. As specified in the FAQ, Fedora Legacy will pick it up and maintain it for two additional Fedora Core release cycles. I believe FC1 still has the following to warrant continued work, what about FC2? We're still out here, so count me in. I have one production server that's still on FC2. If FL would stop releasing updates for FC2 I will have it reinstalled with a newer OS (probably CentOS). Alas, as it's my only FC2 machine I can't help with QA. Nils. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Discussion of content, security Re: FC3 yum instructions
David Eisenstein wrote: STEP 2 AND STEP 1.4 I am wondering ... it seems to me that we included code in the RPM legacy-yumconf-3-4.fc3.noarch.rpm that includes and automatically installs the Fedora Legacy GPG key when this RPM package is installed. Can someone confirm or deny that? If so, then Step 2: Configure yum for Fedora Legacy already takes care of the work that Step 1.4 asks the user to do. HOWEVER, as the legacy-yumconf RPM file itself is signed by the Fedora Legacy key, the rpm -Uvh step in step 2 would be downloading and installing the legacy-yumconf package without the benefit of the Legacy GPG key to check to make sure it is not tampered with. So it seems to me that Step 1.4 isn't necessarily a duplication of effort, as it verifies that the legacy-yumconf package installed in Step 2 is signed with the key installed in Step 1.4. It seems a little more secure to go ahead and let users *do* step 1.4, and if they're lazy and don't want to do it, it gets done for them anyway. SO, is my interpretation correct? Do we need to ask the user still to do Step 1.4 if Step 2 takes care of it? Considering the warning the user may get in Step 2 if Legacy's key isn't already installed -- (warning: legacy-yumconf-3-4.fc3.noarch.rpm: V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 731002fa) -- would that be confusing enough to warrant keeping Step 1.4 there and asking the user to do it? If we removed Step 1.4, would we introduce some kind of risk to the user -- say, if a Fedora Legacy downloading site or mirror were to be compromised by some attacker, who might put in his/her own legacy-yumconf package and install a gpg key of his/her choice? Would it be possible to get legacy-yumconf signed with the regulat (non-legacy) FC3 key? Nils. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Announces
Danny Terweij wrote: At the legacy announce list i see only package update messages for Legacy Test. At the fedora announce list i only see for some time now only FC4 updated packages. Where do i see (mailing list) a list of the legacy FC3 new/updated announces? A mixed one is okay too with FC1/2/3 and up. You will see announces when they become available. A lot of packages still need QA and are therefor still in testing. If you could help doing QA (http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy/QATesting) they might be released sooner. :o) Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Announces
Danny Terweij wrote: So where are the announces of : Update: mozilla.i386 37:1.7.12-1.3.3.legacy - legacy-updates Update: mozilla-nspr.i386 37:1.7.12-1.3.3.legacy - legacy-updates Update: mozilla-nss.i386 37:1.7.12-1.3.3.legacy - legacy-updates ?. Those and some others i did get today and dont see it on any anounce list i am subscribed to. I did get those announces... As i see a lot FC4/5 talk on the many lists i am subscribed to. I guess FC123 talk go on this list right? Correct. Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Announces
Danny Terweij wrote: From: Nils Breunese (Lemonbit Internet) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Did you add your own .repo file to /etc/yum.repos.d/ or did you add the info to /etc/yum.conf? Or did you download the rpm that installs the repo file? I add them manual as .repo at yum.repos.d Add this to your .repo file: [updates-testing] name=Fedora Core $releasever - $basearch - Updates Testing baseurl=http://download.fedoralegacy.org/fedora/$releasever/updates- testing/$basearch gpgcheck=1 enabled=1 (Actually, you can just copy paste the info for updates en replace updates with updates-testing in the baseurl and change the name to your liking.) By the way, if you have Legacy Updates enabled in your yum config you don't need the normal Fedora updates channel anymore. All updates that were released before the transfer to Legacy are included in the Legacy version of the updates channel. I must say, the most active repo with fast and good updates is repo atrpms. But if you enable atrpms repo on FC3 system that is a fresh installation or a running some time box.. you see so much fro atrpm that you think.. holy moly i get a new Linux install :) That's why I've pretty much always avoided using ATrpms. But if you like it, that's great for you. Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Fedora Legacy Test Update Notification: kernel (fc3)
Henry Hartley wrote: On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 7:58 PM Marc Deslauriers said: Name: kernel Versions: fc3: kernel-2.6.12-2.3.legacy_FC3 Summary : The Linux kernel (the core of the Linux operating system). Please pardon my ignorance. Uname says I'm running 2.6.12-1.1372_FC3, which seems quite a bit older than this announced kernel. Yum appears to have have installed four newer kernels but I haven't rebooted in over six months so they aren't being used. In any case, I thought I should update to this one and reboot. But when I run yum update kernel it tells me I have nothing to update. My yum repo files seem to be correct, as I've gotten openssh, httpd, and mod_ssl updates recently. Am I missing something? The kernel update just hit updates-testing, but hasn't been released yet into the updates channel. I think you may have yum configured to only use the updates channel, not updates-testing? Nils -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Fedora Legacy Test Update Notification: kernel (fc3)
Henry Hartley wrote: On Wed, Feb 22, 2006 10:17 AM Nils Breunese said: Henry Hartley wrote: Uname says I'm running 2.6.12-1.1372_FC3, which seems quite a bit older than this announced kernel. Yum appears to have have installed four newer kernels but I haven't rebooted in over six months so they aren't being used. In any case, I thought I should update to this one and reboot. But when I run yum update kernel it tells me I have nothing to update. My yum repo files seem to be correct, as I've gotten openssh, httpd, and mod_ssl updates recently. The kernel update just hit updates-testing, but hasn't been released yet into the updates channel. I think you may have yum configured to only use the updates channel, not updates-testing? Yes, that seems to be the problem. I have base, updates, and utils but not testing. Is it recommended that I have testing or am I safer with what I have? I don't think there is a problem reallu. If you're prepared to do QA on a test machine (see http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy/ QATesting) you will need to enable the testing repository. Enabling the updates-testing channel on a production system is not recommended. Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: An imap server?
Gene Heskett wrote: What yum install 'name' should I use for name to install an imap mail server on a RH7.3 box? I'm going to try and move the spam filtering off my desktop machine. yum install imap Nils. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: KMail and its UI freezes while fetching/sorting mail
Gene Heskett wrote: This has about worn me out, to the extent that I'm looking for another email agent that can fetch from the local /var/spool/mail/user spoolfile fetchmail uses, run it thru SA, and deposit it for reading in the /root/Mail directory 100% compatible with the kmail way of doing things. Thunderbird can't, sylpheed can't that I can figure out. Are there any other email agents with as friendly a gui as kmail but do all the housekeeping 100% in the background? I know evolution uses spamassassin to filter spam. Thunderbird has its own spam filter system, so if you don't really need SA specifically you could use that. I don't know how these clients work with local spoolfiles though. Alternatively, is there a way to make fetchmail do the SA invocation, leaving the sorting to kmail? That would help considerably. Maybe use procmail? Nils. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Is FC3 now on Fedora Legacy?
Nigel Henry wrote: Hi Jesse. I'm only using Yum on one of my FC1 installs. Are the the FC3 security updates also available with apt, as most of my installs are already using apt for planetccrma stuff, and it's more convenient to just add the URL to the apt sources.list. Nigel. You might want to consider switching to yum. Planet CCRMA is also available through yum and apt for rpm is just a sinking ship really. Nils. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Obtaining the Latest ISOs for RH 7.3
Eric Wood wrote: I may be dreaming but is there some up-to-date RH 7.3 iso's that already incorporate most of the package updates? Are do I have to do a three-step process of: 1) installing the stock 7.3 2) update all rpms RedHat published 3) configure yum and update all the Legacy updates. -or- Does a mirrored updates directory, (ie, http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/ pub/fedoralegacy/redhat/7.3/updates/) contain *all* 7.3 updates for the stock 7.3 cd's? 1) installing the stock 7.3 2) configure yum and update all the Legacy updates (which include all RH updates). If this is true, I don't think this fact is stressed enough on the download page (http://fedoralegacy.org/download/). Yes, the Legacy updates directory contains both types of updates. You can tell from the package names, the legacy ones have the word legacy included. Nils. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Latest contrib perl
Michael Mansour wrote: I'm trying to apply the latest contrib perl from: http://www.fedoralegacy.org/contrib/perl/ namely: perl-5.8.3-19.2.legacy.i386.rpm perl-suidperl-5.8.3-19.2.legacy.i386.rpm but I get the following result: # rpm -Uvh perl-suidperl-5.8.3-19.2.legacy.i386.rpm perl-5.8.3-19.2.legacy.i386.rpm warning: perl-suidperl-5.8.3-19.2.legacy.i386.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 5740edab error: Failed dependencies: libdb-4.2.so is needed by perl-5.8.3-19.2.legacy.i386 Where can I get libdb-4.2.so from? When I check via yum whatprovides, I can find everything except 4.2. I have db4-4.2.52-3.1 installed on a FC2 box. # rpm -ql db4 | grep libdb-4.2 /lib/libdb-4.2.so /lib/tls/libdb-4.2.so /usr/lib/libdb-4.2.so /usr/lib/tls/libdb-4.2.so Nils. PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Need discussion, Re: Latest contrib perl
Michael Mansour wrote: The perl versions I'm currently using on FC1 are from that directory: # rpm -q perl perl-suidperl perl-5.8.3-18.1.legacy perl-suidperl-5.8.3-18.1.legacy I built these versions for FC1; however, they are actually older than the -17.3.legacy versions. I didn't realize at the time that FC2 already had a -18 version. You should install the -17.3.legacy versions for the latest FC1 update. RPM will require that you give it the --oldpackage option because of the version numbering. I guess we could bump the epoch but it would really be preferable if we could avoid that. John Where do I pickup the -17.3.legacy versions from? looking here: http://www.fedoralegacy.org/contrib/perl/ I only see the perl-5.8.3-17.3.legacy.src.rpm file, but I need both the perl binary rpm and the perl-suidperl binary rpm. You can build both binary rpms from that source rpm. Nils. PGP.sig Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Upcoming transition of FC3
Jim Popovitch wrote: Nils Breunese (Lemonbit Internet) wrote: Why would anyone who has updates enabled not want legacy updates to be enabled? From my perspective, I want to know *who* the updates are coming from. In the case of Redhat updates, I know that there are ISO-9001 procedures and policies in place as well as corporate oversight and more importantly corporate responsibility (from a legal point of view). From FL you generally (if not universally) get good updates, however do you really really know what was in that last ssh update that you got? While I am not so paranoid to automatically suspect everything I download, I am paranoid enough to try and understand the origin of what I download. So... 1) what server should be used as the default update server for out-of-the-box updates? 2) what policies, purview, scrutiny should that/those server operators be put under and who will take responsibility for enforcing this? 3) what legal disclaimers, and by what means, will alert newbies that they are no longer getting official Redhat updates? Currently all three of the above issues are addressed individually by users who manually configure their systems. This action is so user intensive (visit website, cut-copy-paste yum.conf, download and install yum, etc) that it isolates FL from legal responsibility. All FL has to do to protect itself is not intentionally post malicious code or instructions. Those are all really valid points and I totally agree. Still I have this nagging feeling that a lot of end users will totally not notice their OS is no longer receiving updates and that something like Fedora Legacy is available. You might say they're just to ignorant to care about, but I don't know... Maybe pup will solve this problem, but that may or may not be in FC5. A lot of current users might be left out in the cold without them even knowing. Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Another security problem..
Matthew Nuzum wrote: I've not looked into it, but it would be nice if there was some *simple* to maintain script that would detect these types of probes and automatically add the IP to hosts.deny and etc. I found DenyHosts [1] which is a Python script you can run in daemon mode (or a cronjob) that scans your ssh logs and adds hosts that are trying to break in to /etc/hosts.deny and optionally passes the IP addresses to some simple plugins (could be used to add iptables rules for blocking those hosts). I tried it and I think it's nice. It's available from Fedora Extras. Another script I've found is Daemon Shield [2], but I haven't tried it yet. Adds iptables rules for probing hosts. Any comments? Does anyone know of better scripts? Nils Breunese. [1] http://denyhosts.sourceforge.net/ [2] http://daemonshield.sourceforge.net/ -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Another security problem..
G. Roderick Singleton wrote: Another script I've found is Daemon Shield [2], but I haven't tried it yet. Adds iptables rules for probing hosts. Any comments? Does anyone know of better scripts? Deamonshield works like a charm. If you check the forums there is a patch to make it work under RH7.3 provided you have python24 installed. I don't believe it's available via yum, right? Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Another security problem..
G. Roderick Singleton wrote: Deamonshield works like a charm. If you check the forums there is a patch to make it work under RH7.3 provided you have python24 installed. I don't believe it's available via yum, right? Python24 is. Don't know about daemonshield as I did it from source and haven't a clue how to make a spec file for it. I meant daemonshield. I'm running some FC 2, 3 and 4 servers, but I haven't found a repository carrying daemonshield yet. Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Which is the last stable kernel for FC2?
Thomas wrote: About yum, I usually use it to upgrade some programs, but I'm not very confidence to do it with the kernel. I've got the memory problems with a production server. Isn't it too risky? Isn't what too risky? If you have problems with the current kernel, I guess you don't want to continue running your current kernel, so you might want to try the latest one. Or you could go and search Bugzilla for your problem and maybe see if it's been fixed. By the way, by default when yum installs a new kernel it doesn't remove your existing kernels, so if the new one isn't working for you you can always go back to your last working kernel. Nils. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Which is the last stable kernel for FC2?
Thomas wrote: Using Fedora Core 2 '2.6.9-1.667', I'm suffering memory problems: --- Oct 16 21:03:10 www kernel: oom-killer: gfp_mask=0x1d2 --- Which is the last stable kernel for FC2 in order to check if this isn't a non-fixed bug? 2.6.10-1.771_FC2 is available from http://download.fedoralegacy.org/ fedora/2/updates/i386/ Why not setup yum to check for updates? Nils Breunese. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
