[CentOS] CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 110, Issue 8
Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to
centos-annou...@centos.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
centos-announce-requ...@centos.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
centos-announce-ow...@centos.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than Re: Contents of CentOS-announce digest...
Today's Topics:
1. CESA-2014:0406 Critical CentOS 6 java-1.7.0-openjdk Update
(Johnny Hughes)
2. CESA-2014:0408 Important CentOS 6 java-1.6.0-openjdk Update
(Johnny Hughes)
3. CESA-2014:0408 Important CentOS 5 java-1.6.0-openjdk Update
(Johnny Hughes)
4. CESA-2014:0407 Important CentOS 5 java-1.7.0-openjdk Update
(Johnny Hughes)
--
Message: 1
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:14:43 +
From: Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org
Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2014:0406 Critical CentOS 6
java-1.7.0-openjdk Update
To: centos-annou...@centos.org
Message-ID: 20140416131443.ga21...@n04.lon1.karan.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2014:0406 Critical
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2014-0406.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
i386:
d50ec1c824cd6a189842b97d9870c7bb4f66252530d0adf2f7e279bd852183b6
java-1.7.0-openjdk-1.7.0.55-2.4.7.1.el6_5.i686.rpm
ad80828534a58359b2e7b77b9bc0460e3575a064f77273f67f955a291d4d923e
java-1.7.0-openjdk-demo-1.7.0.55-2.4.7.1.el6_5.i686.rpm
6bc573252eb5988fb9cb995a3df5d741240d4e347d4e09791b4afa2495ee4c39
java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel-1.7.0.55-2.4.7.1.el6_5.i686.rpm
cd069dbd3bcd087d10da73295a98fff700e13777227992bc32b70af473c9dec1
java-1.7.0-openjdk-javadoc-1.7.0.55-2.4.7.1.el6_5.noarch.rpm
b182e2624bc258a8c9ee8d03aad76d1f3cd69ddce49ab9a6cbb7da2ba61ad5c9
java-1.7.0-openjdk-src-1.7.0.55-2.4.7.1.el6_5.i686.rpm
x86_64:
5201bce8d3b62b62fb3f7df28d247d1084b59bd051fed16d82351746f9daee83
java-1.7.0-openjdk-1.7.0.55-2.4.7.1.el6_5.x86_64.rpm
a62f3f5ebfd36eed3cb52dbd6797897f12bd099e8d9560733368ff2093053a0b
java-1.7.0-openjdk-demo-1.7.0.55-2.4.7.1.el6_5.x86_64.rpm
69106d55248c0975e99013aa8d27e0da755e0846a2ec605134bae70c5b26577e
java-1.7.0-openjdk-devel-1.7.0.55-2.4.7.1.el6_5.x86_64.rpm
cd069dbd3bcd087d10da73295a98fff700e13777227992bc32b70af473c9dec1
java-1.7.0-openjdk-javadoc-1.7.0.55-2.4.7.1.el6_5.noarch.rpm
7467a247f82b14666451f815511f22ee1a6e369cacbe07200455993a65e8033e
java-1.7.0-openjdk-src-1.7.0.55-2.4.7.1.el6_5.x86_64.rpm
Source:
3ad14bc01031e23caf4f6f083c142ddb4c8bc1b46c4b88b81de013a4925f6cdd
java-1.7.0-openjdk-1.7.0.55-2.4.7.1.el6_5.src.rpm
--
Johnny Hughes
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: hughesjr, #cen...@irc.freenode.net
--
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2014 13:16:06 +
From: Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org
Subject: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2014:0408 Important CentOS 6
java-1.6.0-openjdk Update
To: centos-annou...@centos.org
Message-ID: 20140416131606.ga22...@n04.lon1.karan.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2014:0408 Important
Upstream details at : https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2014-0408.html
The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename )
i386:
cf83b4f3d3eb471fd97a93a94d83eafe2b2cfb9e69616623496b09dafb953a1e
java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-5.1.13.3.el6_5.i686.rpm
51f0661f697b9d8da5c07efc9dfcdbabe6bc649fd626af78e757dc430d872e7a
java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo-1.6.0.0-5.1.13.3.el6_5.i686.rpm
b6b06ba8c7b21a9ab08bbc8d592f2dc9d11c4a7d87a31ce0c464f4da49cc74cc
java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel-1.6.0.0-5.1.13.3.el6_5.i686.rpm
1dedabf2e1f97ed1e01e444ee93d70bf1b2fa5521de3937b33d179379d4c
java-1.6.0-openjdk-javadoc-1.6.0.0-5.1.13.3.el6_5.i686.rpm
4a4b64021978468dc9aa38367eeea4542d936cdc99086aca8c25a6ecf562c995
java-1.6.0-openjdk-src-1.6.0.0-5.1.13.3.el6_5.i686.rpm
x86_64:
4383f083a11fa38906c6cf451ba5ca91188d8dcc39726f2a569184c2a0638ab8
java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-5.1.13.3.el6_5.x86_64.rpm
5090af1cfb179c3024861a8951255a03f183ace336d7d7e9cfcaf59aca448d09
java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo-1.6.0.0-5.1.13.3.el6_5.x86_64.rpm
77ed0fe1307a2e384f3811d34b64d6977e77bded06e66ffd6c64a04d1602
java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel-1.6.0.0-5.1.13.3.el6_5.x86_64.rpm
0d281625b3ab5b979d90daca716431c3394a959a5b9541fb448f0d0be0d1974b
java-1.6.0-openjdk-javadoc-1.6.0.0-5.1.13.3.el6_5.x86_64.rpm
50df52a63126988ee2a50293e4b6addf733a2bdb8c88a7ffdbddc84b7e162ceb
java-1.6.0-openjdk-src-1.6.0.0-5.1.13.3.el6_5.x86_64.rpm
Source:
d71ed5724a04b204cac5b374bf63bacc765f2ada8a00fb0ce3c77ae3af4a38d7
java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-5.1.13.3.el6_5.src.rpm
--
Johnny Hughes
CentOS
[CentOS] semi-OT:R and rkhunter
The latest version of rkhunter is complaining about suspicious file types in /dev/shm. Thing is, they're being created on the fly by R, and then seem to be a random name (5d1f...), and I have zero expectation that R will only create shm files beginning with those characters. For those running rkhunter, if you've run into something like this, how have you handled it - told rkhunter to ignore /dev/shm, or lived with the regular complaints in the logs, or...? I note that of the three files created by R, one ends in _counter, and another starts with sem.(same long random name as the other files)_counter_mutex. The third has neither prefix nor postfix. mark and googling on rkhunter R language keeps getting me repos, since both R and rkhunter are under the letter r mark brought to you by Arrrghh ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] package conflict with libmodplug in rpmforge and epel
On 04/16/2014 07:27 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: I will take that a step further. Do not use repoforge / rpmforge at all. There are still major issues with updates from that repo. As in what updates?. Where do you get packages for multimedia, especially MP3, from? -- Chris ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] package conflict with libmodplug in rpmforge and epel
On 04/17/2014 09:10 AM, Chris wrote: On 04/16/2014 07:27 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: I will take that a step further. Do not use repoforge / rpmforge at all. There are still major issues with updates from that repo. As in what updates?. Where do you get packages for multimedia, especially MP3, from? Among the repos listed on http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories I've been using LinuxTECH.NET for MP3, vlc, and related packages with success. Between EPEL and LinuxTECH.NET, I've been able to replace most of what I formerly used rpmforge for. -Greg ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] package conflict with libmodplug in rpmforge and epel
On 04/17/2014 06:41 PM, Greg Bailey wrote: Among the repos listed on http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories I've been using LinuxTECH.NET for MP3, vlc, and related packages with success. Between EPEL and LinuxTECH.NET, I've been able to replace most of what I formerly used rpmforge for. Thank you. For the time being, I'll use rpmforge, but if there are any further conflicts, I'll also switch to linuxtech.net. -- Chris ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] package conflict with libmodplug in rpmforge and epel
Chris wrote: On 04/17/2014 06:41 PM, Greg Bailey wrote: Among the repos listed on http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories I've been using LinuxTECH.NET for MP3, vlc, and related packages with success. Between EPEL and LinuxTECH.NET, I've been able to replace most of what I formerly used rpmforge for. Thank you. For the time being, I'll use rpmforge, but if there are any further conflicts, I'll also switch to linuxtech.net. I believe I'm mentioned this before, but we use epel and rpmfusion (free and non-free). I have zero problems playing mpegs, avi (we use mplayer to view our surveillance .avis), and oh, right, I'm listening to streaming media via firefox at the moment, but later it'll be folkalley.com via mplayer. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 mount of ntfs formatted usb stick fails
On 04/16/2014 11:05 PM, Rob Kampen wrote: when I tried dd if=/dev/sdf of=somefile count=100 i get: somefile: x86 boot sector, Microsoft Windows XP MBR, Serial 0xc3072e18; partition 1: ID=0x7, starthead 0, startsector 8064, 15626368 sectors, code offset 0xc0 still not much wiser I'm afraid. My understanding of the MBR is rough, certainly insufficient to debug this. the frustration is that windoze is quite happy to mount and read it just fine. It appears that someone took an _image_ of a full 8GB partitioned device with a standard DOS MBR and stuffed that into _one_partition_ of this USB stick. You should be able to access it in Linux by running (as root): kpartx -a -v /dev/sdf1 That should respond with add map sdf1p1 ..., and you can then mount device /dev/mapper/sdf1p1. You should run kpartx -d /dev/sdf1 to delete that mapping before removing the device. BTW, the file command will look inside block devices if you use the -s (--special-files) flag. It doesn't do that by default because reading some types of special files can have unexpected effects. You can also use the -k (--keep-going) flag to get more information than the first match. file -s -k /dev/sdf1 -- Bob Nichols NOSPAM is really part of my email address. Do NOT delete it. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 mount of ntfs formatted usb stick fails
On 04/17/2014 12:26 PM, Robert Nichols wrote: On 04/16/2014 11:05 PM, Rob Kampen wrote: when I tried dd if=/dev/sdf of=somefile count=100 i get: somefile: x86 boot sector, Microsoft Windows XP MBR, Serial 0xc3072e18; partition 1: ID=0x7, starthead 0, startsector 8064, 15626368 sectors, code offset 0xc0 still not much wiser I'm afraid. My understanding of the MBR is rough, certainly insufficient to debug this. the frustration is that windoze is quite happy to mount and read it just fine. It appears that someone took an _image_ of a full 8GB partitioned device with a standard DOS MBR and stuffed that into _one_partition_ of this USB stick. You should be able to access it in Linux by running (as root): kpartx -a -v /dev/sdf1 That should respond with add map sdf1p1 ..., and you can then mount device /dev/mapper/sdf1p1. You should run kpartx -d /dev/sdf1 to delete that mapping before removing the device. BTW, the file command will look inside block devices if you use the -s (--special-files) flag. It doesn't do that by default because reading some types of special files can have unexpected effects. You can also use the -k (--keep-going) flag to get more information than the first match. file -s -k /dev/sdf1 OUCH!! Forget most of that. I misread your dd command as reading from /dev/sdf1 instead of /dev/sdf, since the former was what you had been asked to do. The comment about the file command still applies, though. What does the file command have to say about /dev/sdf1 (or a copy of the beginning sectors thereof)? -- Bob Nichols NOSPAM is really part of my email address. Do NOT delete it. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] package conflict with libmodplug in rpmforge and in rpmforge and epel
On 04/16/2014 05:33 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: And no, do *NOT* use epel and repoforge - they very frequently have conflicts, due to prerequisites of packaging. Does the use of yum priorities take care of this concern? Thanks, Ken ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] package conflict with libmodplug in rpmforge and epel
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Greg Bailey gbai...@lxpro.com wrote: Among the repos listed on http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories I've been using LinuxTECH.NET for MP3, vlc, and related packages with success. Between EPEL and LinuxTECH.NET, I've been able to replace most of what I formerly used rpmforge for. The maintainer of LinuxTECH has been active in the CentOS (megatux) and the SL (tux99) community. I also use Nux's repo. But I recommend against mixing the two repos. You should decide which one fits your need better. Akemi ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] package conflict with libmodplug in rpmforge and in rpmforge and epel
cen...@kcburns.com wrote: On 04/16/2014 05:33 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: And no, do *NOT* use epel and repoforge - they very frequently have conflicts, due to prerequisites of packaging. Does the use of yum priorities take care of this concern? No. The problem is the way the packages are built into .rpms. I've seen yum give up on stuff in the standard repos, because the manpages from a i386 package conflicted with the manpages from a package, sometimes the *same* package... but that was the x86_64 version. The rules for the rpm install can specify (or not) whether to allow for this... but both epel and rpmfusion have packages compatible with the base, and seem to do pretty well with each other, while rpmforge doesn't consider them. The upshot is that a package will want, for example, a specific library that you *have*... but it was installed in package x.y.6, while the one from repoforge is expecting it to have come from *their* package q.j.6. The result is that it fails to install. Is that any clearer? mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] cannot kickstart centos 6 on Dell Blade error cannot find c0t0
I have an intermittent problem with my Dell blades, out of 80 blades 69 of them kickstarted Centos 6 fine using PXE The other 11, I get a c0t0 not found error (indicating it is not finding the local disk on the blade). I can remote mount the iso image and do a basic install of centos on these blades, but when I go to do a pxe boot it gives me that error again. I have googled the issue and come up empty handed. Dell told us to install centos 6 minimal ISO then pxe install the server. This has been unsuccessful. I get the local ISO to install but the pxe fails again. Since the kickstart file defines the disk as sda1 I am supposing that it is really a hardware problem. But I am told by coworkers who handed it off to me that it is a known issue with centos and Dell blades. These are two internal disks on the blade. Any suggestions? -- Dan ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] package conflict with libmodplug in rpmforge and in rpmforge and epel
On 04/17/2014 07:50 PM, cen...@kcburns.com wrote: On 04/16/2014 05:33 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: And no, do *NOT* use epel and repoforge - they very frequently have conflicts, due to prerequisites of packaging. Does the use of yum priorities take care of this concern? it helps a lot, if you set up all your repos with appropriate priorities right at the beginning. Or you can later on add a repo with a lower priority (so, higher priority= value). But even so, yum-priorities is not a magic bullet and there will be issues occasionally. And some choices will have to be made, by you the user. There's no getting around that. In those cases priorities will usually tell you that there is a conflict, and you then make your decision and implement it (eg with excludes). Mark's scenario falls into that category: libfoo v1.1 is installed from your high priority (HP) repo, but you want bar from the lower priority (LP) repo and bar requires libfoo v1.2, which is in the LP repo and mutually incompatible with v1.1. Then if you really want to install bar, you'll have to exclude libfoo from the HP repo. That may prevent future package installs from HP, if they require the specific v1.1 version of libfoo. repoforge/rpmforge/Dag has been a fantastic resource for ages, but today it's pretty much dead in the water despite some good people trying to step in to help keep it afloat. Many thanks to Dag and others for those many years of hard work, but I think it's time to move on. Now I only use it as a last-resort repo for stuff I can't find anywhere else (disabled by default and low priority). ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cannot kickstart centos 6 on Dell Blade error cannot find c0t0
Dan Hyatt wrote: I have an intermittent problem with my Dell blades, out of 80 blades 69 of them kickstarted Centos 6 fine using PXE The other 11, I get a c0t0 not found error (indicating it is not finding the local disk on the blade). snip Since the kickstart file defines the disk as sda1 I am supposing that it is really a hardware problem. snip Nahhh... First, I suspect that those 11 blades are a slightly different model - newer, or whatever. When we first got some Dell R720s was when we ran into CentOS calling the NIC em1 instead of eth0, while *other* R-series servers we got the same time were still eth0. I'm afraid you're going to have to put conditionals into the ks, or maybe, the way we do, write a CGI that creates one on the fly, to tell it to look for those drives under those names. *shrug* We did just that in our CGI, and chose CentOS 6, 64 bit, R720 for them. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] package conflict with libmodplug in rpmforge and in rpmforge and epel
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: MVNCH repoforge/rpmforge/Dag has been a fantastic resource for ages, but today it's pretty much dead in the water despite some good people trying to step in to help keep it afloat. Many thanks to Dag and others for those many years of hard work, but I think it's time to move on. Seconded - *much* thanks to Dag for those years. mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] package conflict with libmodplug in rpmforge and in rpmforge and epel
On 17.04.2014 21:35, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: MVNCH repoforge/rpmforge/Dag has been a fantastic resource for ages, but today it's pretty much dead in the water despite some good people trying to step in to help keep it afloat. Many thanks to Dag and others for those many years of hard work, but I think it's time to move on. Seconded - *much* thanks to Dag for those years. +100! Dag's repo has been great, especially before EPEL was born... It made EL usable for many more people. -- Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology! Nux! www.nux.ro ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] yum - package version database
When I query for installed package on the system, I get following result: # yum list installed openssl Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, tsflags, verify, versionlock Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile Installed Packages openssl.x86_64 1.0.1e-16.el6_5.4 @updates/$releasever When I try to install already installed package (just playing with yum), I get following result: # yum install openssl Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, tsflags, verify, versionlock Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile Setting up Install Process Package matching openssl-1.0.0-27.el6_4.2.x86_64 already installed. Checking for update. Nothing to do Note, the version reported in both commands is different. Are they referring to different rpmdb state? Appreciate any information on this discrepancy. - thanks, N ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum - package version database
neubyr wrote: When I query for installed package on the system, I get following result: # yum list installed openssl Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, tsflags, verify, versionlock Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile Installed Packages openssl.x86_64 1.0.1e-16.el6_5.4 @updates/$releasever When I try to install already installed package (just playing with yum), I get following result: # yum install openssl Package matching openssl-1.0.0-27.el6_4.2.x86_64 already installed. Checking for update. Nothing to do snip Dumb thought: what do you get with rpm -qa | grep -i openssl mark ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum - package version database
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:18 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: neubyr wrote: When I query for installed package on the system, I get following result: # yum list installed openssl Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, tsflags, verify, versionlock Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile Installed Packages openssl.x86_64 1.0.1e-16.el6_5.4 @updates/$releasever When I try to install already installed package (just playing with yum), I get following result: # yum install openssl Package matching openssl-1.0.0-27.el6_4.2.x86_64 already installed. Checking for update. Nothing to do snip Dumb thought: what do you get with rpm -qa | grep -i openssl rpm installed query reports same as yum installed: # rpm -qa | grep -i openssl openssl-1.0.1e-16.el6_5.4.x86_64 -N ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum - package version database
On 04/17/2014 11:14 PM, neubyr wrote: When I query for installed package on the system, I get following result: # yum list installed openssl Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, tsflags, verify, versionlock Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile Installed Packages openssl.x86_64 1.0.1e-16.el6_5.4 @updates/$releasever When I try to install already installed package (just playing with yum), I get following result: # yum install openssl Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, tsflags, verify, versionlock Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile Setting up Install Process Package matching openssl-1.0.0-27.el6_4.2.x86_64 already installed. Checking for update. Nothing to do Note, the version reported in both commands is different. Are they referring to different rpmdb state? Appreciate any information on this discrepancy. mis-configured yum repos? 1.0.0-27.el6_4.2 is an old version from 6.4 I think. Maybe you have 6.4 hard-coded in your repo file? yum install should say: Package openssl-1.0.1e-16.el6_5.7.x86_64 already installed and latest version BTW your installed version is not up to date and I think it's a heartbleed-affected version... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum - package version database
On 04/17/2014 11:46 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: On 04/17/2014 11:14 PM, neubyr wrote: When I query for installed package on the system, I get following result: # yum list installed openssl Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, tsflags, verify, versionlock Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile Installed Packages openssl.x86_64 1.0.1e-16.el6_5.4 @updates/$releasever When I try to install already installed package (just playing with yum), I get following result: # yum install openssl Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, tsflags, verify, versionlock Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile Setting up Install Process Package matching openssl-1.0.0-27.el6_4.2.x86_64 already installed. Checking for update. Nothing to do Note, the version reported in both commands is different. Are they referring to different rpmdb state? Appreciate any information on this discrepancy. mis-configured yum repos? 1.0.0-27.el6_4.2 is an old version from 6.4 I think. Maybe you have 6.4 hard-coded in your repo file? yum install should say: Package openssl-1.0.1e-16.el6_5.7.x86_64 already installed and latest version BTW your installed version is not up to date and I think it's a heartbleed-affected version... heartbleed-affected version came only AFTER 6.5 came out, 6.4 was/is safe. That was stated in Red Hat release. -- Ljubomir Ljubojevic (Love is in the Air) PL Computers Serbia, Europe StarOS, Mikrotik and CentOS/RHEL/Linux consultant ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum - package version database
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 2:46 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg nicolas.thierry-m...@imag.fr wrote: On 04/17/2014 11:14 PM, neubyr wrote: When I query for installed package on the system, I get following result: # yum list installed openssl Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, tsflags, verify, versionlock Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile Installed Packages openssl.x86_64 1.0.1e-16.el6_5.4 @updates/$releasever When I try to install already installed package (just playing with yum), I get following result: # yum install openssl Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, tsflags, verify, versionlock Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile Setting up Install Process Package matching openssl-1.0.0-27.el6_4.2.x86_64 already installed. Checking for update. Nothing to do Note, the version reported in both commands is different. Are they referring to different rpmdb state? Appreciate any information on this discrepancy. mis-configured yum repos? 1.0.0-27.el6_4.2 is an old version from 6.4 I think. Maybe you have 6.4 hard-coded in your repo file? yum install should say: Package openssl-1.0.1e-16.el6_5.7.x86_64 already installed and latest version BTW your installed version is not up to date and I think it's a heartbleed-affected version... Thanks Nicolas! It was misconfigured repo. Local repository mirror wasn't setup properly (default changed from 6.5 to 6.4!!) and hence it resulted in some conflicts. -N ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] package conflict with libmodplug in rpmforge and in rpmforge and epel
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: repoforge/rpmforge/Dag has been a fantastic resource for ages, but today it's pretty much dead in the water despite some good people trying to step in to help keep it afloat. Many thanks to Dag and others for those many years of hard work, but I think it's time to move on. On Thu, 2014-04-17 at 16:35 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: Seconded - *much* thanks to Dag for those years. Absolutely. That's why I sent Dag a Christmas card (by post) expressing my appreciation. He has performed an invaluable service to many, many thousands of Centos users (OK, sys admins if you prefer). -- Paul. England, EU. Our systems are exclusively Centos. No Micro$oft Windoze here. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] yum - package version database
On 04/17/2014 11:56 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: On 04/17/2014 11:46 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote: On 04/17/2014 11:14 PM, neubyr wrote: When I query for installed package on the system, I get following result: # yum list installed openssl Loaded plugins: fastestmirror, tsflags, verify, versionlock Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile Installed Packages openssl.x86_64 1.0.1e-16.el6_5.4 @updates/$releasever snip BTW your installed version is not up to date and I think it's a heartbleed-affected version... heartbleed-affected version came only AFTER 6.5 came out, 6.4 was/is safe. That was stated in Red Hat release. his installed version is/was 1.0.1e-16.el6_5.4 ... ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 mount of ntfs formatted usb stick fails
On 04/18/2014 05:32 AM, Robert Nichols wrote: On 04/17/2014 12:26 PM, Robert Nichols wrote: On 04/16/2014 11:05 PM, Rob Kampen wrote: when I tried dd if=/dev/sdf of=somefile count=100 i get: somefile: x86 boot sector, Microsoft Windows XP MBR, Serial 0xc3072e18; partition 1: ID=0x7, starthead 0, startsector 8064, 15626368 sectors, code offset 0xc0 still not much wiser I'm afraid. My understanding of the MBR is rough, certainly insufficient to debug this. the frustration is that windoze is quite happy to mount and read it just fine. It appears that someone took an _image_ of a full 8GB partitioned device with a standard DOS MBR and stuffed that into _one_partition_ of this USB stick. You should be able to access it in Linux by running (as root): kpartx -a -v /dev/sdf1 That should respond with add map sdf1p1 ..., and you can then mount device /dev/mapper/sdf1p1. You should run kpartx -d /dev/sdf1 to delete that mapping before removing the device. BTW, the file command will look inside block devices if you use the -s (--special-files) flag. It doesn't do that by default because reading some types of special files can have unexpected effects. You can also use the -k (--keep-going) flag to get more information than the first match. file -s -k /dev/sdf1 OUCH!! Forget most of that. I misread your dd command as reading from /dev/sdf1 instead of /dev/sdf, since the former was what you had been asked to do. The comment about the file command still applies, though. What does the file command have to say about /dev/sdf1 (or a copy of the beginning sectors thereof)? # dd if=/dev/sdf1 of=somefile count=100 100+0 records in 100+0 records out 51200 bytes (51 kB) copied, 0.0408561 s, 1.3 MB/s file -s somefile somefile: x86 boot sector, code offset 0x76 file -s -k somefile somefile: x86 boot sector, code offset 0x76 # file -s -k /dev/sdf1 /dev/sdf1: x86 boot sector, code offset 0x76 seems like the partition /dev/sdf1 contains an x86 boot sector - so what do I mount?? where is the data? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] cannot kickstart centos 6 on Dell Blade error cannot find c0t0
On Thu, Apr 17, 2014 at 4:04 PM, Dan Hyatt dhy...@dsgmail.wustl.edu wrote: I have an intermittent problem with my Dell blades, out of 80 blades 69 of them kickstarted Centos 6 fine using PXE The other 11, I get a c0t0 not found error (indicating it is not finding the local disk on the blade). I can remote mount the iso image and do a basic install of centos on these blades, but when I go to do a pxe boot it gives me that error again. I have googled the issue and come up empty handed. Dell told us to install centos 6 minimal ISO then pxe install the server. This has been unsuccessful. I get the local ISO to install but the pxe fails again. Since the kickstart file defines the disk as sda1 I am supposing that it is really a hardware problem. But I am told by coworkers who handed it off to me that it is a known issue with centos and Dell blades. These are two internal disks on the blade. Any suggestions? install working blade from .iso install non-working blade from .iso diff anaconda-ks.cfg.working ananconda-ks.cfg.non-working ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
