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
and did not mention that anybody.
Wouldn't this count:
http
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:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
- -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Everyone,
On
Matthew Nuzum wrote:
But that's not my point... if you run a web-facing server there are some
plugins for nessus that cause it to search for known-vulnerable web
applications and such. It's a good idea to run it periodically so that you
can find if you're exposed before someone else does.
You
Michal Jaegermann wrote:
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
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
Hi Jim, perhaps some of your confusion comes from the fact that rh9,
fc1, and fc2 all contain the mod_ssl package as part of the httpd
package. In the older rh 7.3, mod_ssl was separate from apache.
According to the release notes, 2 binary rpm packages were released
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
So, to me this is not hiding at all. But I would be interested to
hear if you have any ideas for implementing your suggestion of making
things easier for people to help.
Quite simply provide a one-stop spot with an up-to-date list of all bugs
being tracked by FL
Jesse Keating wrote:
I'd like to revisit the thought of pruning the updates rpms and srpms
directories to save space. This would basically sync w/ the tree as it
was at closure time, and then of course all the Legacy packages would be
added in.
Is there any of you that feel this _shouldn't_ be
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 15:57 -0400, Jim Popovitch wrote:
What exactly would be pruned? Saving space sounds like a great idea as
long as it is useless stuff we are deleting.
Updates that have been obsoleted by newer updates (from Red Hat).
Before Red Hat closes down
I agree with Jesse and David. It makes no sense to drop FC1 if there is still
user interest (a'la RH73). A lot of people jumped to FC1 when Redhat changed
their business practice (which turned out to be a very good move for them
despite mine and other objections), so I think it is in FL's
I agree with Eric's and Jesse's premise that we test and release each
identified fix rather than patching an in-process patch. It is easier to track
(as we generally leverage work done by other distros), and it is easier to QA
(as our tests only need to be done for a specific issue not various
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Sat, 2006-01-21 at 17:18 -0600, David Eisenstein wrote:
Problem is, there are no repodata subdirectories in any of the os
directories off of download.fedoralegacy.org (e.g., /fedora/3/os/i386/,
/fedora/3/os/SRPMS/).
Whoops, my bad. Fixing right now.
You might want
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 17:54 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
So, instead of adding more hoops (please, install a virtual image of
all the other distros and do verify testing etc. there), most focus
should be put on making participation easier.
I am trying to make it easier.
Axel Thimm wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2006 at 07:59:54AM -0500, Jim Popovitch wrote:
Axel Thimm wrote:
Ping!
My mirror just hit the ceiling. Why isn't something happening? It is
just adding the --delete option to rsync, or to use the list I sent a
week ago. I reported this over and over again
Danny Terweij - Net Tuning | Net wrote:
From: Rex Dieter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Where it ends? FC is not a good choice for production.
Easy: If you don't like that, don't use FC for production.
Nice advertising line.. put it on the FC website in big red letters :)
Hey! That's my line! :-)
Ralph Bearpark wrote:
So, why did this patch need to regenerate the virtusertable.db? And
if it really did have to, then wtf did it have to do it incorrectly?
I can't recall ever doing a sendmail upgrade (diff hosts, diff distro's,
manual builds, etc) that did not rebuild sendmail dbs via
David M. Shirley wrote:
It's pretty clear now that this is purely an mmode.com problem but they
seem unable to locate anything. If anyone has some insight, I'd love to
be able to tell them, Hey did you check this...?
First, Check that the IP address of your server(s) hasn't been
there.
David Shirley
http://www.webquarry.com
On Mar 30, 2006, at 12:10 AM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
First, Check that the IP address of your server(s) hasn't been
blacklisted here: http://www.completewhois.com/rbl_lookup.htm
Next, verify that your server(s) have proper DNS (A PTR) records
David Eisenstein wrote:
On Thu, 11 May 2006, Jim Popovitch wrote:
In another arena I saw a list of CVEs against Apache 1.3.7. RH73 ships
with Apache 1.3.7-9 so I thought I would query BZ and see what I could
find of these. (I am a BZ newbie when it comes to queries).
CVE-2002-1233 Apache
Michael Mansour wrote:
Although I like and highly respect the communities (both Fedora and FL) I find
these days I have little time to contribute and play with distributions -
life gets in the way :P - so my involvement with both Fedora and FL will cease
when I've migrated those last 3 machines
Sorry for the chatter, but I am running out of places to look/ask...
What does this mean, wrt a stock+FL-updated RH7.3 server (no ACPID, APM,
etc):
kernel: Uhhuh. NMI received for unknown reason 31 on CPU 0.
kernel: Dazed and confused, but trying to continue
kernel: Do you have a
This issue is no longer of any concern. The system has been disabled
and applications moved to others.
-Jim P.
Jim Popovitch wrote:
Hi Tim,
This system is using raid1 but not on the root partition, only on a few
data partitions. Additionally there is a broadcom ethernet controller.
I've
21 matches
Mail list logo
