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
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
--
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
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
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
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
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
Who can fix this?
Nils Breunese.
Forwarded message:
Eric Rostetter wrote:
I copied the wiki text to the website... I'm not happy with the way
it looks, so I'll try to improve it when I get time, but at least it
is up on the site now...
Can someone also edit
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
Matthew Miller wrote:
I'm not able to force anyone here to do anything. Therefore, I have to
encourage good practice entirely via carrots. This works best
when we
align with the academic year -- a release in the spring, current
through the
following summer to allow time for upgrades.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 =
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
Hi all,
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?
Nils Breunese.
--
fedora-legacy-list
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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!
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
64 matches
Mail list logo
