-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, 2018-07-05 at 06:16 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 07/03/2018 09:04 AM, Sean wrote:
> >
>
> OK guys .. Firefox 60 is going to take some time .. likely more for
> CentOS-6 than CentOS-7.
>
> They both (C6 and C7 versions) require many no
Am 05.07.2018 um 17:27 schrieb Gianluca Cecchi:
Hello,
I'm planning migration of current two clusters based on CentOS 6.x with
Cman/Rgmanager going to CentOS 7.x and Corosync/Pacemaker.
As the clusters and their services are on the same subnet, and there no
particular security concerns different
On 2018-07-05 11:27 AM, Gianluca Cecchi wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm planning migration of current two clusters based on CentOS 6.x with
> Cman/Rgmanager going to CentOS 7.x and Corosync/Pacemaker.
>
> As the clusters and their services are on the same subnet, and there no
> particular security concerns
Hello,
I'm planning migration of current two clusters based on CentOS 6.x with
Cman/Rgmanager going to CentOS 7.x and Corosync/Pacemaker.
As the clusters and their services are on the same subnet, and there no
particular security concerns differentiating them, I'm also evaluating the
option to tra
Please review the thread: [CentOS] Firefox 60.0.1.0 ESR Progress?
On 5 July 2018 at 10:18, Paul E. Virgo wrote:
>
> Just checking to see if we're either getting a Firefox 52.9 or Firefox 60.x
> for CentOS 6 to address the latest security fix.
>
> --
> Paul E Virgo
> Sr. System Administrator
> Cod
Just checking to see if we're either getting a Firefox 52.9 or Firefox
60.x for CentOS 6 to address the latest security fix.
--
Paul E Virgo
Sr. System Administrator
Code 610.2
SESDA III - DAAC/DISC
Goddard Space Flight Ctr/NASA
Greenbelt, MD
Greenbelt, MD 20771
(301) 614-5751
__
hi guys,
shellinabox, do you use it?
I in pretty vanilla setup get selinux denials and cannot login.
Selinux says:
#= unconfined_service_t ==
# The file '/usr/bin/bash' is mislabeled on your system.
# Fix with $ restorecon -R -v /usr/bin/bash
allow unconfined_s
I just spent a while trying to debug some weird slowdown issues, and I thought
I’d let the mailing list know in case it helps anyone else, or someone has a
cleaner solution (or better ways of debugging the real issue).
Just by way of context, we have a cluster using Infiniband and CentOS 6 (up t
Mr. Hughes,
Thank very much for the update! That's the kind of info I was looking
for, if an ETA isn't reasonable to ask for. I can report a summary of
your note to my upstream authorities. I support both SL7 and C7
workstations, but had not yet seen the update on the sl-devel list.
I apprecia
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 08:18:08AM -0400, Jonathan Billings wrote:
> The /var/run symlink to /run is part of the 'filesystem' package, and
> has existed as a symlink since 7.0.1406 was released:
>
> $ rpmls -l
> http://vault.centos.org/7.0.1406/os/x86_64/Packages/filesystem-3.2-18.el7.x86_64.rpm
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 02:25:58PM +0200, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
> I've never seen "rpmls". Is it an actual command, or your personal
> alias? I would have done:
Sorry, rpmls is part of the rpmdevtools package. It's the equivalent
to running:
rpm -q --qf="[%-11{filemodes:perms} %-8{fileusername}
On Thu, 5 Jul 2018, Anand Buddhdev wrote:
I would have done:
rpm -qlvp
http://vault.centos.org/7.0.1406/os/x86_64/Packages/filesystem-3.2-18.el7.x86_64.rpm
|grep /var/run
And you would have seen that it does provide it?
jh
___
CentOS mailing list
On 05/07/2018 14:18, Jonathan Billings wrote:
> The /var/run symlink to /run is part of the 'filesystem' package, and
> has existed as a symlink since 7.0.1406 was released:
>
> $ rpmls -l
> http://vault.centos.org/7.0.1406/os/x86_64/Packages/filesystem-3.2-18.el7.x86_64.rpm
> |grep /var/run
>
On Thu, Jul 05, 2018 at 11:26:28AM +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> After a manual fix I have that, too. Point is that for historic
> hosts this symlink doesn't exist. The upgrade fails due to dbus
> becoming unavailable. And the next reboot fails, too, because
> the symlink is not created automatical
On 07/05/2018 06:13 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 07/04/2018 06:35 PM, m...@tdiehl.org wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Phil Wyett wrote:
>>>
>>> On Wed, 2018-07-04 at 16:06 -0400, m...@tdiehl.org wrote:
Hi,
Where can I find the srpm for
centos-release-6-10.el6.centos.12.3.x86_64?
On 07/04/2018 06:35 PM, m...@tdiehl.org wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Jul 2018, Phil Wyett wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, 2018-07-04 at 16:06 -0400, m...@tdiehl.org wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Where can I find the srpm for
>>> centos-release-6-10.el6.centos.12.3.x86_64?
>>>
>>> I looked in vault and it is not there.
>>>
>>
On 07/03/2018 09:04 AM, Sean wrote:
> Thanks for the idea, I'm not in a hurry and don't have a desire to
> hand-jam upstream versions of firefox onto desktops. I just need to
> track progress on the patch release and report an ETA to our cyber
> security team.
>
> I just figured CentOS had a fanc
After a manual fix I have that, too. Point is that for historic
hosts this symlink doesn't exist. The upgrade fails due to dbus
becoming unavailable. And the next reboot fails, too, because
the symlink is not created automatically.
Can you confirm this?
Regards
Harri
___
18 matches
Mail list logo
