On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 11:11:29AM +0100, P. Martinez wrote:
Am 18.01.2007 um 02:19 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen:
If you are looking at one could attempt an upgrade from to then it
would be that
RHL-7.0, RHL-7.1, RHL-7.2 might be upgraded to RHEL-2.1
RHL-7.3, RHL-8, RHL-9 might be
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 04:44:56PM -0800, Florin Andrei wrote:
Michal Jaegermann wrote:
Version of what?
RHEL or CentOS.
Since they are really the same, you know. ;-)
What you are interested in differs only by identifier strings
in release parts. CentOS on purpose _precisely_ tracks RHEL
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 03:04:48AM +, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
At release time, FC5 would have older packages than FC6 at release time,
but FC5 has since seen updates etc. Eg.
fc5 release firefox : firefox-1.5.0.1-9
fc5 latest firefox :
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:30:27AM -0600, Kirk Pickering wrote:
Has anyone on this list tried the following method?
http://www.makuchaku.info/blog/how-to-upgrade-from-fc4-to-fc5-via-yum
You can do that but how easy/straightforward that be depends very
much on what you got installed on a
On Wed, Nov 08, 2006 at 02:34:30PM -0500, Christopher Aillon wrote:
David Eisenstein wrote:
I favor SeaMonkey as a Mozilla replacement, as it covers all
vulnerabilities in packages that dynamically link to the shared libraries.
But perhaps there are other ideas.
I see no reason that it
On Sat, Oct 21, 2006 at 04:29:15AM -0500, David Eisenstein wrote:
* Other bugs needing some attention:
...
- openssh (bug 208727). Originally opened to deal with FC3, FC4, RHL
7.3
RHL 9 releases.
A comment #2, put there by David Eisenstein, :-) in bug 208727 mentions
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 01:19:08PM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
My email archive alone goes back
into 1998 here. Yes, there are backups, and I do them rather religiously
at the feet of a gal named amanda, but it would still be a weeks work to
get stuff back to the Just Works(TM) state here
On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 09:19:48AM -0300, Martin Marques wrote:
I have a FC4 web server installed and got this mailman report:
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/19831/discuss
Is it to worry?
Probably. See also http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2006-0600.html
FC4 is using mailman-2.1.5-35
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 10:48:32PM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 22:50 -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
If you have already installed
both (multilib situation) then you have to do both updates in
one transaction.
The i686 package is already installed (although I
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 08:16:09PM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 13:13 -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
Is there any bugzilla report for that?
I don't know.
All right.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208744
M.
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
On Sat, Sep 30, 2006 at 08:16:09PM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
Actually, I was able to rebuild the src.rpm from that location on a FC4
system, but I had issues when trying to install the binary due to
conflicts between 32 bit and 64 bit OpenSSL packages (it's an AMD64
machine).
You cannot
With the current updates I replaced older packages with
ftp://ftp.harddata.com/pub/Legacy_srpms/seamonkey-1.0.5-0.4.fc4.0.mj.src.rpm
ftp://ftp.harddata.com/pub/Legacy_srpms/firefox-1.5.0.7-1.fc4.0.mj.src.rpm
which I used to recompile browser for FC4 systems. These packages
likely fit older
Source rpm for FC4 version of ImageMagick with recent security
patches added is available at
ftp://ftp.harddata.com/pub/Legacy_srpms/ImageMagick-6.2.2.0-3.fc4.2.1.mj.src.rpm
This was a simple case as patches, extracted from FC5 updates, were
for 6.2.2 in the first place. :-)
Michal
--
For those interested in further checking, maybe cleanup and
development there are available
ftp://ftp.harddata.com/pub/Legacy_srpms/seamonkey-1.0.4-0.4.2.fc4.0.mj.src.rpm
ftp://ftp.harddata.com/pub/Legacy_srpms/firefox-1.5.0.6-2.fc4.0.mj.src.rpm
This is replace mozilla as in RHEL model
On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 02:29:03PM -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote:
Depends on what transparent means. If you want to be transparent in the
sense of not breaking people's working machines, then no, you should
backport.
When people intimately familiar with a given code, because they
authored
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 10:24:12AM -0500, David Eisner wrote:
Eric Rostetter wrote:
This sounds like what happens when we rush the QA processes...
Other distros had advance warning about this vulnerability, and hence
more time to apply patches and do testing.
Personally I _hugely_ prefer
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 06:54:03PM +, A E Lawrence wrote:
Synopsis: Updated kdelibs packages fix security issues
Advisory ID: FLSA:178606
download.fedoralegacy.org/fedora/3/updates/x86_64/kdelibs-3.4.2-1.fc3.1.legacy.x86_64.rpm
Trying to update (yum) the kdelibs and
On Wed, Mar 22, 2006 at 10:29:27AM -0800, Kenneth Porter wrote:
For those of us accepting mail from outside on pre-FC4 Fedora, are any
updates in the pipe to address this?
I should add that in sendmail.org annoucement,
http://lwn.net/Articles/176595/, there is the following:
However, note
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 08:51:05PM -0500, Paul wrote:
Anyhow, I have verified the latest squirrelmail 1.4.5-1 fixes this bug.
The latest one is squirrelmail-1.4.6-1. Well, for FC4 but it will
recompile anyway and it is fixing security issues. Is the above a typo?
Michal
--
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 09:51:25PM -0500, Paul wrote:
On Fri, March 3, 2006 9:21 pm, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Fri, Mar 03, 2006 at 08:51:05PM -0500, Paul wrote:
Anyhow, I have verified the latest squirrelmail 1.4.5-1 fixes this bug.
The latest one is squirrelmail-1.4.6-1. Well
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 07:58:41PM -0500, Marc Deslauriers wrote:
-
Fedora Legacy Test Update Notification
FEDORALEGACY-2006-176751
fedora/3/updates-testing/i386/gpdf-2.8.2-7.2.1.legacy.i386.rpm
At least this package is
On Wed, Nov 30, 2005 at 12:09:09PM -0500, John Dalbec wrote:
(gdb) backtrace
#0 0x409ba612 in zif_imap_fetch_overview () from /usr/lib/php4/imap.so
#1 0x67696c61 in ?? ()
Cannot access memory at address 0x62656420
0x62656420 actually spells deb (little endian) and 0x67696c61
is alig.
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 02:12:45PM -0500, Josep L. Guallar-Esteve wrote:
On Wednesday 09 November 2005 14:02, Matthew Nuzum wrote:
Which worm is this that you're guarding against? I haven't heard of a new
worm yet.
http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/14088/info
..
If I understand
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
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
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 05:04:27PM -0500, James Kosin wrote:
They also address CVE-2005-3353, CVE-2005-3388, CVE-2005-3389 and
CVE-2005-3390...
do we need to concern ourselves with these?
Do you plan to wait until attacks will show up?
Michal
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 10:01:08AM -0400, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Wednesday 26 October 2005 08:47, seth vidal wrote:
when yum updates kernels it does not remove the older kernels. So
there's no danger in yum installing the kernel for you.
-sv
Yes Seth, but it does tend to scrap the
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 11:26:41AM -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote:
That said, I'd still vote for shipping it disabled...
With what I have seen in the field I would rather have that
enabled. People who care about such things can disable that easily
enough. The problem is with those who expect
On Mon, Oct 24, 2005 at 06:26:03PM -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
I've got a few questions about this release of mod_ssl.
1) why is it bundled w/ httpd v2.0 and not a separate bug?
Actually it exists a separate bug report:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=168420
but it was
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 11:49:14AM -0400, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
By the way, where to store the GPG key on FC3? I think /etc/pki
wasn't brought around until FC4, so I am thinking that /usr/share/doc/
fedora-legacy/ would be a good place for it.
If you want to store keys on a disk then I do
On Fri, Oct 21, 2005 at 12:26:34PM -0400, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Oct 21, 2005, at 12:08 PM, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
Of course an URL to the key could be also in http://... , or some
other protocol, form. You need to retrieve it only once and rpm
from FC3 will import it.
Yeah
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 10:36:46AM -0700, Benjamin Smith wrote:
On Friday 23 September 2005 10:03, William Stockall wrote:
I concur with Mr. McCarty. If untested updates are moved in with the
tested updates then NONE of the updates can be trusted.
...
What if a repo is set up just for
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 10:23:00AM -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Michal Jaegermann wrote:
It is hard to imagine that somebody
quietly fixed such hole in Python packages for Red Hat distributions
and did not mention that anybody.
Wouldn't this count:
http://rhn.redhat.com/errata
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 03:15:15PM -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 10:23:00AM -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Michal Jaegermann wrote:
It is hard to imagine that somebody
quietly fixed such hole in Python packages for Red Hat distributions
On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 09:15:23AM -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Anyone know if this impacts FL?
[ a description of Pyton problems from Debian advisory skipped ]
Most likely this is the case. It is hard to imagine that somebody
quietly fixed such hole in Python packages for Red Hat distributions
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 11:11:21AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
$ rpm -V mozilla
missing/usr/lib/mozilla-1.7.10/chrome/overlayinfo/browser
missing/usr/lib/mozilla-1.7.10/chrome/overlayinfo/browser/content
missing/usr/lib/mozilla-1.7.10/chrome/overlayinfo/browser/skin
missing
36 matches
Mail list logo
