On 05/10/18 01:27, Tony Molloy wrote:
On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 21:27 +1300, Rob Kampen wrote:
On 04/10/18 05:45, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 9:19 AM Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
It would seem that the problem is with upstream-upstream's (aka
Firefox) cleaning up of items that are
On 2018-10-02, MRob wrote:
> on centos 7 I tried to install banshee from EPEL
>
> yum install banshee
>
> gotting this error:
>
> Error: Package: banshee-2.6.2-11.el7.x86_64 (epel)
> Requires: libgpod-sharp >= 0.8.2
> You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
>
On 10/4/18 4:10 PM, Sean wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I was wondering if any one has seen issues with selinux name_bind denials
> that result from having IP:PORT bindings for services to specific IP
> addresses managed on an interface under NetworkManager's control?
Is selinux denying the request or
Hello,
I was wondering if any one has seen issues with selinux name_bind denials
that result from having IP:PORT bindings for services to specific IP
addresses managed on an interface under NetworkManager's control?
I do realize that people will probably say stop using NetworkManager, and I
may,
Hi, rebecca,
rebecca coleman wrote:
>
> My goal in sending this email is to get some direction on where to start
> looking to solve my problem. Thank you all in advance for reading through
> this and providing any guidance!
>
> I'm working on moving to new servers, upgrading from CentOS 6.7 to
Hi List,
My goal in sending this email is to get some direction on where to start
looking to solve my problem. Thank you all in advance for reading through
this and providing any guidance!
I'm working on moving to new servers, upgrading from CentOS 6.7 to CentOS
7.5. In this move, we are also
Hi,
I've had problems copying files to Windows shares from my CentOS 7
machine lately. I originally got this in the desktop file manager, but
find that I can also reproduce using gvfs-copy. "cp" to the directory
mounted by gvfs works just fine, on the other hand. Also, the problem
does not
I don't know if this is your situation or not but I have found in my bonding
testing that failover can take what I consider to be an inordinate amount of
time (as in up to 50 seconds). Were you "patient" (possibly using an altered
definition of the term) to see if ping would eventually reply.
On Thu, 2018-10-04 at 21:27 +1300, Rob Kampen wrote:
> On 04/10/18 05:45, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 9:19 AM Stephen John Smoogen > om> wrote:
> >
> > > It would seem that the problem is with upstream-upstream's (aka
> > > Firefox) cleaning up of items that are not supposed to
On 03/10/2018 14:31, Larry Martell wrote:
>
> It only went smoothly because there were people like me fixing the issues ;-)
In that case perhaps I should take some of the credit for writing code
that never had a Y2K problem in the first place. ;-)
> I worked on Wall St at the time, and I got a
On 04/10/18 05:45, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Wed, Oct 3, 2018 at 9:19 AM Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
It would seem that the problem is with upstream-upstream's (aka
Firefox) cleaning up of items that are not supposed to be there after
Firefox 58
On 04/10/2018 07:44, Sean Son wrote:
Hi Sean,
[snip]
> 1) Whenever I ping any of the devices on our network, from this server, the
> traffic goes out from the management port. I do not want the traffic to go
> out of the management port. I want it to go out through the active port of
> the NIC
12 matches
Mail list logo
