Documentation question at fedoralegacy.org
At the Fedora Legacy website, I see the following statement in the Fedora Core 3 paragraph. Fedora Core 3 on the x86_64 architecture is not available at this point. Users and interested community members can participate in the discussions on Fedora Legacy List https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list. But looking at the download site, it /looks/ as though the x86_64 rpms are there. (Not so for core 2). Does the site need this updated? Matt Temple -- = Matthew TempleTel:617/632-2597 Director, Research Computing Fax:617/582-7820 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 44 Binney Street, LG300/300 http://research.dfci.harvard.edu Boston, MA 02115 Choice is the Choice! -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Documentation question at fedoralegacy.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Matt Temple wrote: But looking at the download site, it /looks/ as though the x86_64 rpms are there. (Not so for core 2). Does the site need this updated? Matt, Good point; but, they may be holding off updating this fact until we see the workload involved with this. Since x86_64 stuff adds a layer of complexity to the issue. - -James -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFECJpskNLDmnu1kSkRAlY5AJ9tS3sbBCDER/fruOiCXuptgEdnmwCcCn2Z T2oqX0v8n9zvrrQ5SiCeXeA= =X3cN -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- Scanned by ClamAV - http://www.clamav.net -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Documentation question at fedoralegacy.org
James Kosin wrote: Matt Temple wrote: But looking at the download site, it /looks/ as though the x86_64 rpms are there. (Not so for core 2). Does the site need this updated? Matt, Good point; but, they may be holding off updating this fact until we see the workload involved with this. Since x86_64 stuff adds a layer of complexity to the issue. -James I'm not sure I understand. The x86_64 rpms are already in the download area for core 3. They're really there. Matt -- = Matthew TempleTel:617/632-2597 Director, Research Computing Fax:617/582-7820 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute [EMAIL PROTECTED] 44 Binney Street, LG300/300 http://research.dfci.harvard.edu Boston, MA 02115 Choice is the Choice! -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Latest squirrelmail for Fedora Core 1, 2, 3
http://www.squirrelmail.org/download.php Just thought I'd let you all know if you don't already. I run Core 1 and I've been having a problem with squirrelmail chopping the last attachment when doing multiple attachments after one of the recent php updates. Anyhow, I have verified the latest squirrelmail 1.4.5-1 fixes this bug. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Latest squirrelmail for Fedora Core 1, 2, 3
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 -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Rebuild exisitng errata for x86_64?
So with the new build software that we're having good success with we can produce x86_64 packages (and with future hardware donations ppc packages too). We've been spinning all FC3 updates with x86_64 packages, but the question remains, do we want to rebuild all previously released errata for x86_64, for releases that have x86_64 (FC1,2,3). This could be a lot of work, and I'm concerned about the difference in build systems. Releasing x86_64 versions of packages built with a different build system than that which produced the i386 versions just doesn't sit well with me. Then again, neither does rebuilding EVERY errata on the new build system and re-releasing all the packages. So I guess the bottom line question is, is there a significant amount of users in the community that need these older FC's updates built for x86_64, would be willing to do some basic QA on them, and would be willing to accept packages built on a different build system? Or should we just continue from this point forward with just FC3+ supporting x86_64? (and set policy for if/when we get support for ppc packages) I welcome your input. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Rebuild exisitng errata for x86_64?
Jesse Keating wrote: So with the new build software that we're having good success with we can produce x86_64 packages (and with future hardware donations ppc packages too). We've been spinning all FC3 updates with x86_64 packages, but the question remains, do we want to rebuild all previously released errata for x86_64, for releases that have x86_64 (FC1,2,3). This could be a lot of work, and I'm concerned about the difference in build systems. Releasing x86_64 versions of packages built with a different build system than that which produced the i386 versions just doesn't sit well with me. Then again, neither does rebuilding EVERY errata on the new build system and re-releasing all the packages. So I guess the bottom line question is, is there a significant amount of users in the community that need these older FC's updates built for x86_64, would be willing to do some basic QA on them, and would be willing to accept packages built on a different build system? Or should we just continue from this point forward with just FC3+ supporting x86_64? (and set policy for if/when we get support for ppc packages) I welcome your input. So perhaps an obvious question is could Red Hat internal build systems used by Fedora Core or the ones used for Fedora Extras be spared a few cycles for Fedora legacy on x86_64/PPC or do you want to keep the infrastructure independent?. If we are waiting for the community to donate time, money or resources to the project we need to list what exactly is required for them to participate. While the QA procedures for example are documented, the requirement for a PPC system is not. The website needs a highlighted list of such documentation. -- Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Rebuild exisitng errata for x86_64?
Jesse Keating wrote: On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 10:06 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: So perhaps an obvious question is could Red Hat internal build systems used by Fedora Core or the ones used for Fedora Extras be spared a few cycles for Fedora legacy on x86_64/PPC or do you want to keep the infrastructure independent?. If we are waiting for the community to donate time, money or resources to the project we need to list what exactly is required for them to participate. While the QA procedures for example are documented, the requirement for a PPC system is not. The website needs a highlighted list of such documentation. When I brought up the thought of using the Extras build system for doing Legacy updates, it was turned down and requested that we use our own infrastructure. Honestly I don't remember the reasons behind this, but I think a lot of it was we're still carrying around content for RHL. Thats strange. How does RHL content affect the ability of Fedora Legacy to use Fedora Extras buildsystems?. I didnt see any public discussion happening on this and we definitely need the details spelled out more precisely. As far as money/resources, this is actually something I'm looking to Red Hat for. Red Hat wants the Fedora project to continue to grow, and Legacy is part of that project. I'm waiting for after FC5 is released so that we have some cycles for other project tasks, such as getting a copy of the CVS trees for our use and a few other things. At that time I'd like to talk to them about some infrastructure, or revisit the idea of using Extras infrastructure for Legacy building and publishing. I think we need to start sharing all the infrastructure more commonly within the various sub projects. Fedora directory server for example is using their own wiki for some odd reason (http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Main_Page). The infrastructure pieces can be part of Red Hat or external to it but if there is already something available for Fedora Core or Extras, we need to take advantage of that. I dont understand the reluctance in doing this. -- Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Rebuild exisitng errata for x86_64?
On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 10:26 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Thats strange. How does RHL content affect the ability of Fedora Legacy to use Fedora Extras buildsystems?. I didnt see any public discussion happening on this and we definitely need the details spelled out more precisely. Again, I'm not quite sure what it was. I just don't remember. I think it was discussed during a Fedora board meeting. I could ask the board if they remembered or if minutes were taken. So I just talked w/ one of the board members and the main reasons were resource contention and clear separation. So while we'd need our own equipment and space, there isn't many reasons why we couldn't be hosted right along side the Extras systems. Again, this just needs to be discussed. We've been working fairly well with just one system to do all our builds, and that system is in no way suitable to be colocated with the Extras equipment. However with me moving away from the place that has donated hosting up until now, it makes more sense to get systems located in a place that others can manage it. As far as money/resources, this is actually something I'm looking to Red Hat for. Red Hat wants the Fedora project to continue to grow, and Legacy is part of that project. I'm waiting for after FC5 is released so that we have some cycles for other project tasks, such as getting a copy of the CVS trees for our use and a few other things. At that time I'd like to talk to them about some infrastructure, or revisit the idea of using Extras infrastructure for Legacy building and publishing. I think we need to start sharing all the infrastructure more commonly within the various sub projects. Fedora directory server for example is using their own wiki for some odd reason (http://directory.fedora.redhat.com/wiki/Main_Page). The infrastructure pieces can be part of Red Hat or external to it but if there is already something available for Fedora Core or Extras, we need to take advantage of that. I dont understand the reluctance in doing this. So as far as Legacy goes, we're using the Fedora wiki, we're considering collapsing all of our website into the Wiki, we're moving to use the same software as Extras, moving to get our repo data in Core directly, send announcements via fedora-announce, etc... If our systems are in the same place as Extras systems, and Fedora Sysadmins have access to them as well, and we share of the publish space, is that not integration? I don't think we need to shove other projects onto the same systems that do Extras builds. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Rebuild exisitng errata for x86_64?
Jesse Keating wrote: On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 10:26 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Thats strange. How does RHL content affect the ability of Fedora Legacy to use Fedora Extras buildsystems?. I didnt see any public discussion happening on this and we definitely need the details spelled out more precisely. Again, I'm not quite sure what it was. I just don't remember. I think it was discussed during a Fedora board meeting. I could ask the board if they remembered or if minutes were taken. Ya. It would be good to see an yes or no along with the details so that we understand better where the bottle neck is if any. So as far as Legacy goes, we're using the Fedora wiki, we're considering collapsing all of our website into the Wiki, we're moving to use the same software as Extras, moving to get our repo data in Core directly, send announcements via fedora-announce, etc... If our systems are in the same place as Extras systems, and Fedora Sysadmins have access to them as well, and we share of the publish space, is that not integration? I don't think we need to shove other projects onto the same systems that do Extras builds. The way I see it, Fedora Extras and Core already have access to PPC systems and Legacy is meanwhile waiting for hardware donations. If we share the infrastructure and we are well integrated, that shouldnt be happening. This is not about shoving anything but tapping into the resources available till we can separate it more in the future if thats desirable. -- Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Rebuild exisitng errata for x86_64?
On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 10:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: The way I see it, Fedora Extras and Core already have access to PPC systems and Legacy is meanwhile waiting for hardware donations. If we share the infrastructure and we are well integrated, that shouldnt be happening. This is not about shoving anything but tapping into the resources available till we can separate it more in the future if thats desirable. This 'donation' could come from Red Hat, much like the Extras systems came from Red Hat. The thing is we want separation now, so rather than get settled into a system and then move out later, we'd rather do it right to begin with. Some of the resources can be shared, such as a repo of all the Fedora packages to pull from on a high speed link. So think of it as adding a couple more systems into the existing infrastructure and just tagging them for use by Legacy. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
RE: Rebuild exisitng errata for x86_64?
-Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jesse Keating Sent: Friday, March 03, 2006 10:21 PM To: fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com Subject: Rebuild exisitng errata for x86_64? So I guess the bottom line question is, is there a significant amount of users in the community that need these older FC's updates built for x86_64, would be willing to do some basic QA on them, and would be willing to accept packages built on a different build system? I'll do QA for FC3 x86_64, and as soon as I can get an Opteron or Xeon that can do 64 bit virtual machines, I'll do fc1 and fc2. Don't know when that will be, so all I will commit to is FC3 x86_64. -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Rebuild exisitng errata for x86_64?
Jesse Keating wrote: On Sat, 2006-03-04 at 10:51 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: The way I see it, Fedora Extras and Core already have access to PPC systems and Legacy is meanwhile waiting for hardware donations. If we share the infrastructure and we are well integrated, that shouldnt be happening. This is not about shoving anything but tapping into the resources available till we can separate it more in the future if thats desirable. This 'donation' could come from Red Hat, much like the Extras systems came from Red Hat. The thing is we want separation now, so rather than get settled into a system and then move out later, we'd rather do it right to begin with. Some of the resources can be shared, such as a repo of all the Fedora packages to pull from on a high speed link. So think of it as adding a couple more systems into the existing infrastructure and just tagging them for use by Legacy. I dont think legacy is going to be using the build system as much as core and extras. It might be better to use a common pool of build systems separated by access time or build cycles rather than a physical allocation of individual build systems. In other words, does the current model of separation serve any real purpose other than being theoretically more clean? -- Rahul -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Latest squirrelmail for Fedora Core 1, 2, 3
On Friday 03 March 2006 20:51, 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, for FC4 but it will recompile anyway and it is fixing security issues. Is the above a typo? No typo. I assume 1.4.5-1 fixes security bugs in 1.4.5 for Core 1,2,3. Now, this is for legacy. This is a Legacy list and Core 4 is not yet legacy. ;- FC3's current release ( August 2005 or so ) is: squirrelmail-1.4.6-0.cvs20050812.1.fc3 You may want to check to see if you missed and update along the way. Regards, Mike Klinke -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Documentation question at fedoralegacy.org
Hello Everybody, If it is any help, I've been rebuilding all fedora legacy patches for FC2 in a production environment since Fedora Legacy took over maintenance of FC2. All legacy source RPMS have built without issues and the updates have been running flawlessly. If there is some way I can help to get the status changed for FC2 x86_64 patches to okay just let me know. Phil Hale Systems Programmer II Linux Systems Administrator Computer Services Texas AM University-Corpus Christi On Fri, 2006-03-03 at 16:13 -0500, Matt Temple wrote: James Kosin wrote: Matt Temple wrote: I'm not sure I understand. The x86_64 rpms are already in the download area for core 3. They're really there. Thanks. Let me see if anyone using this machine has significant objections. They might well, though. Matt Matt, I'm not saying they are not there. Like Jesse just posted, they are evaluating the build system and they have not officially announced support for the x86_64 platform until a consensus can be made on weather support will be continued. If you have a x86_64 system and want to test the builds that are there and say yea or no on the packages then go right ahead. But, until we are sure they don't break anything we can't officially say yes to this. -James -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Latest squirrelmail for Fedora Core 1, 2, 3
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, for FC4 but it will recompile anyway and it is fixing security issues. Is the above a typo? No typo. I assume 1.4.5-1 fixes security bugs in 1.4.5 for Core 1,2,3. No, it does not. This is from a changelog: * Wed Mar 01 2006 David Woodhouse [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.4.6-1 - Upgrade to 1.4.6 proper for CVE-2006-0377 CVE-2006-0195 CVE-2006-0188 Note 2006. New security problems were revealed in the meantime. Now, this is for legacy. Does not help unless you backport security fixes and I am not even going to try with PHP. Michal -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Re: Rebuild exisitng errata for x86_64?
Quoting Jesse Keating [EMAIL PROTECTED]: packages, but the question remains, do we want to rebuild all previously released errata for x86_64, for releases that have x86_64 (FC1,2,3). Yes, if possible, but this is something to be done in the background, at lower priority, as time permits. In any case, I think we should _at least_ release all FC3 packages for x86_64. In other words, we shouldn't release new FC3 x86_64 without releasing also the older FC3 x86_64, for consistency. This could be a lot of work, and I'm concerned about the difference in build systems. Releasing x86_64 versions of packages built with a different build system than that which produced the i386 versions just doesn't sit well with me. Then again, neither does rebuilding EVERY errata on the new build system and re-releasing all the packages. Understandable. I'll let you and others who know more about this decide. That is why I said yes, if possible above rather than yes. So I guess the bottom line question is, is there a significant amount of users in the community that need these older FC's updates built for x86_64, would be willing to do some basic QA on them, and would be willing to accept packages built on a different build system? I am only interested in FC3 myself... Sorry. Or should we just continue from this point forward with just FC3+ supporting x86_64? (and set policy for if/when we get support for ppc packages) I'll let those who know more about the build system issues decide. I welcome your input. -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Go Longhorns! -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
