nigel henry wrote:
Hi Mike. I can't say thers been a lot for FC2 lately. The last ones I had were
on Mon 18th July. Mozilla-nspr, Mozilla-nss, Mozilla, curl. curl-devel. And
prior to that on the 13th July. A load of open ssh stuff, and ImageMagic.
Nigel.
Thanks. Looks like I just don't have
Lamar Milligan wrote:
Not farmed as such, but it was being abused. A Windows user received
a copy of the virus-of-the-week and was kind enough to share his good
fortune not only with you, but probably everyone else they ever knew.
The sarcasm is a little bit harsh. If this is what happened,
Mike McCarty wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
I did a yum update today, and pulled mozilla
[snip]
Now, when I select Edit-Preferences-Advanced, the selection screen
on the right is blank.
And forgot to mention that I double-clicked on, for example,
Scripts Plug-ins, or any other element
Mike McCarty wrote:
I did a yum update today, and pulled mozilla
$ grep 09/15/05 yum.log
09/15/05 18:06:08 Updated: cups 1:1.1.20-11.11.2.legacy.i386
09/15/05 18:06:08 Updated: cups-libs 1:1.1.20-11.11.2.legacy.i386
09/15/05 18:06:08 Updated: zlib-devel 1.2.1.2-0.fc2.2.legacy.i386
09/15/05 18
Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Tue, Sep 20, 2005 at 10:59:59AM -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
OOPS!
$ 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
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Arg, sent with wrong From: address, so here it is again, since the moderator
probably won't get to it for a while...
- Forwarded message -
Subject: Re: releasing updates-testing packages without VERIFY votes
To: fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com
Quoting Pekka
Jason Lim wrote:
To tell the truth, to me at least, to support legacy systems I only really
care about critical security updates that could remotely compromise the
system (not even theoretical stuff is of interest). Even local compromise is
not THAT important to me... but in my view, a critical
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. Who wants to go
back to the bug entry to check for sure if an update actually got
Josep L. Guallar-Esteve wrote:
On Wednesday 28 September 2005 11:21, James Kosin wrote:
I'm not knocking RedHat, Fedora or Fedora-Legacy this is a good
point. But, some of us need more than just patches to get us by.
I know, If you really want the latest, why not update to FC4... The
problem
Pekka Savola wrote:
On Fri, 16 Dec 2005, Mike McCarty wrote:
Whether or not there is user base for FC1 is irrelevant.
Of course it's relevant. If nobody used or wanted FC1, it
wouldn't be relevant. I suppose you mean that there being
people who use it is insufficient to motivate you
seth vidal wrote:
On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 11:46 -0500, Lawrence 'The Dreamer' Chen wrote:
Well, my previous employer probably wants RH7.3 to go on forever now.
I had made all the important servers RH7.3 -- 2 NIS servers, NFS server and CVS
server. The NIS servers were 7.2, but I upgraded them
James Kosin wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:11 -0500, James Kosin wrote:
My version takes care of the mod_ssl issue he already disabled. FC1
doesn't have a fix or if so it hasn't gone through QA yet.
Do you have a CVE
Mike McCarty wrote:
Gene Heskett wrote:
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 14:20, Mike Klinke wrote:
On Tuesday 24 January 2006 13:08, Mike McCarty wrote:
I'm a little shocked at this, frankly. I Googled around, and
found mentions of the Slapper going back to 2002. Why is it that
this exploit
David Eisenstein wrote:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2006, David Houlder wrote:
Hi...
Am I right in thinking that this...
http://www.kde.org/info/security/advisory-20060119-1.txt
...currently affects FC3?
Thanks
You are correct. Thanks for bringing it up. A bug report has already
[snip]
Am
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 02:31 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Ok then, it seems to me that there is no longer any distinction
between the released repository, and the test repository.
So, please send out an e-mail three days before the first
timed release so I can pull a last
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 12:54 -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote:
[snip]
I don't think so. And in any case, I was refering to the suggestion on
this list that we don't do QA to move to updates-testing, which would
by-pass this whole issue you try to bring up.
Well I won't
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Then the Legacy Project has removed my ability not to subscribe
to testing.
Seems to be a misunderstanding here. There are separate repositories for
testing and general legacy updates. Yes?
AIUI, there will be objects put into testing
Jesse Keating wrote:
Our hope is that if this proposal scares some people, it will scare them
into finding ways to help out the project so that little to no packages
escape updates-testing w/out some QA done on it.
It doesn't frighten me at all, but it does discourage me from using
the
Eric Rostetter wrote:
[snip]
Proposal one does nothing but shorten the time period for pushing an
update-testing package that doesn't have enough QA postings.
Proposal two does nothing but make it possible to push packages through the
entire system with NO QA AT ALL being done on them.
Thank
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 15:09 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
I have been apalled at what generally passes as QA in the
Linux Community generally, and FC specifically. Since I
barely tolerate what exists now, it is difficult to contemplate
someone considering even more laxity
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Then the Legacy Project has removed my ability not to subscribe
to testing.
No, the Legacy Project has _proposed_ to that, at least in your opinion.
It was followed by something like unless we get a lot of objection so
please
Marc Deslauriers wrote:
On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 14:44 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Since Legacy is no longer in my yum configuration, it's no longer
an issue for me, good or bad. I don't wish to subscribe to testing.
Since testing and release have been merged, I have unsubscribed
from release
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Yes, my indictment earlier was for *all* distributions of Linux.
But Legacy has gone further than I can follow along, that's all.
We are merely discussing a proposal so legacy process hasnt gone further
That is not my understanding.
at all. You also state that
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
Yes, my indictment earlier was for *all* distributions of Linux.
But Legacy has gone further than I can follow along, that's all.
We are merely discussing a proposal so legacy process hasnt gone further
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
This is not a discussion about personal opinions on QA policies within
I haven't presumed to dictate the content of your messages, or state
what your intended topic was. Please grant me the same privilege.
Or are you acting as a moderator?
Mike
--
Danny Terweij - Net Tuning | Net wrote:
From: Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Can someone provide a new version of X-Chat in legacy updates fc3 repo?
Probably not. legacy updates is for security and critical bug fixes
only.
Hmm that sucks.
That's the mission. You *did* read the mission
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit Internet) wrote:
[snip]
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
Oh, idle curiosity. Why
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 16:17 -0600, Mike Klinke wrote:
There is instead an entry in /usr/lib; sendmail.sendmail which
is linked to /usr/sbin/sendmail. Also the man pages no longer work
if you type; man sendmail You have to use
Michal Jaegermann wrote:
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.
Marc Deslauriers wrote:
On Sun, 2006-03-26 at 23:48 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Ah, now we get down to the nitty gritty of the desire to hasten
the process of going from a Test state to a Release state. Hopefully,
those who in past have seen no need to maintain a policy of no package
can move
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Marc Deslauriers [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Curiously, sendmail actually DID get test votes for all platforms before
it got moved to official updates. No part of the QA process was
hastened.
True, for the _current_ QA process. But not for the original QA process.
I
Josep L. Guallar-Esteve wrote:
On Tuesday 04 April 2006 22:07, NARS wrote:
I think FC2 is still used by many people, I would suggest you consider
supporting FC2 for some more time if possible.
Hi NARS,
I believe the problem is caused by lack of enough manpower. Maybe, if you can
round up
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Mike McCarty [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
I have volunteered some time for test if
I will assume you mean the second part of QA, the verify step.
Well, perhaps I used the word test in a technical sense.
In my background, test means verification of proper operation
Tres Seaver wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
[snip]
Honestly, I feel that supporting FC1 for so long was a mistake. It set a
precedence that I really don't want to continue. Legacy picked a timeline
[snip]
Dropping the releases which get
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Apr 10, 2006, at 12:29 AM, Mike McCarty wrote:
If things get to the point where I feel I *must* replace my load,
I'm switching to Debian.
Mike
Mike, I thought you had already stopped using Legacy. If so, I'm not
sure how this affects you.
I'm referring to your
taharka wrote:
Howdy,
On Wed, 2006-04-12 at 13:36 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
Jeff Sheltren wrote:
On Apr 10, 2006, at 12:29 AM, Mike McCarty wrote:
If things get to the point where I feel I *must* replace my load,
I'm switching to Debian.
Mike
Mike, I thought you had already stopped
Erik Forsberg wrote:
[snip]
Now, if I still need to have some RHL7.3 machines running, are there
any commercial alternatives available to fedora legacy for security
updates? I haven't any, but perhaps my Google luck is not good enough?
You might ask over on CentOS. But beware: The social
Gene Heskett wrote:
I can't help but agree that its too short. 3 or 6 would be much more
realistic from the users viewpoint, who has his setup all fine tuned and
doesn't want to go thru that on an annual basis. There are other things
to life you know.
Yeah, like repairing vintage tube
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 05:56:42PM -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
We can't and shouldn't announce anything on core/extra's behalf, we
just need to say that the current model is being reorganized and while
doing so distributions X, Y, Z have effectively fallen out
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
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
Mike McCarty wrote:
Migrating them to what? That's my question.
CentOS 4. Why do you ask?
Nils Breunese.
You seem to think this is a foregone conclusion.
Well, I'm not moving to CentOS. I find the bickering and overbearing
attitude of the moderator
41 matches
Mail list logo
