Am Mittwoch, den 16.09.2009, 20:45 +0200 schrieb Scott Robbins:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 01:27:42PM -0400, Max Hetrick wrote:
Christoph Maser wrote:
Btw. i really consider the current nagios article on the wiki bad. Its
totally outdated and covers way to much info how to configure nagios
Am Mittwoch, den 16.09.2009, 20:36 +0200 schrieb Scott Robbins:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 06:50:41PM +0200, Christoph Maser wrote:
Done. I hope you incorporate The things Christoph Maser has mentioned
and don't just add the one line from your first mail (which will
break, when the box is
Hi all,
I know that the nagios docs suck, and actually everything around nagios.
But what does that have to do with centos? And why don't you contribute
to the nagios docs?
The nagios-wiki (http://wkiki.nagios.org) is totally orphaned also!
I personally agree on that. We have similar issues
Christoph Maser wrote:
So we should make a proper nagios documentation on the centos-wiki
because the official nagios docs suck?
No, but I don't see that it's a problem that it's on the CentOS wiki.
There are lots of guides on the wiki that aren't exactly CentOS
specific, so does that mean
The true URL: http://wiki.nagios.org
Regards: FRamonTB
--- El jue, 17/9/09, Christoph Maser c...@financial.com escribió:
De: Christoph Maser c...@financial.com
Asunto: Re: [CentOS-docs] Contribution to wiki: nagios incompatibility with
centos 5.2
Para: Mail list for wiki articles
Marcus Moeller wrote :
[...]
We have similar issues with the Spacewalk
documentation (another thread :?). It would be great to have something
like an installation guide covering the CentOS specific aspects and
links to the upstream docs.
For Spacewalk e.g., I have started to improve the
Dear Patrice.
We have similar issues with the Spacewalk
documentation (another thread :?). It would be great to have something
like an installation guide covering the CentOS specific aspects and
links to the upstream docs.
For Spacewalk e.g., I have started to improve the 'official'
On 09/17/2009 02:22 PM, Marcus Moeller wrote:
Atm. I am working on another task (documenting re-build procedure)
isnt that just a case of running revisor over the tree ?
--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522...@icq
___
CentOS-docs mailing
2009/9/17 Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org:
On 09/17/2009 02:22 PM, Marcus Moeller wrote:
Atm. I am working on another task (documenting re-build procedure)
isnt that just a case of running revisor over the tree ?
Of course some tasks could be handled with revisor, but not everything
I am
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 11:12 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
JohnS wrote:
On Tue, 2009-09-15 at 15:11 -0400, Scott Robbins wrote:
On Tue, Sep 15, 2009 at 08:51:23PM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Akemi Yagi wrote:
The only reason for me to keep maintaining the dkms packages,
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Christoph Maser wrote:
So we should make a proper nagios documentation on the
centos-wiki because the official nagios docs suck?
I've said it before, and thought I was a voice crying alone in
the wilderness -- welcome, Christoph ;)
herrold prior:
WHY are we building
Wiki Admins,
I will no longer be participating in the CentOS wiki. I've removed my
name from any of the pages that were submitted by me, and welcome others
to do so with the pages as they wish.
I'd like to be removed from the EditGroup, as well as have my account
deleted.
Username: MaxHetrick
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 7:16 AM, JohnS jse...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, 2009-09-16 at 11:12 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
We (ELRepo) haven't packaged older nvidia drivers (yet) but we can
certainly look into that if there is a demand.
---
Maybe consider doing it? I myself use a lot of older
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Scott Robbins wrote:
On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 10:26:48AM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
We at CentOS are an enterprise rebuild as the core product.
Nothing more. That is OUR trailhead
Then this should be made VERY plain on the wiki's front
page.
as noted at the onset, my
On 09/16/2009 07:13 PM, Max Hetrick wrote:
In my experience with working with Nagios, the problem that always came
up was that people didn't know where to even start because there were
too many options, and they were overwhelmed.
I totally agree. Having enough content in one place so that
On 09/17/2009 07:07 AM, Christoph Maser wrote:
So we should make a proper nagios documentation on the centos-wiki
because the official nagios docs suck?
Read my last email in reply to Max. Things are not really that black and
white. Nagios docs suck. Their developers have made it a point to go
On 09/17/2009 07:31 AM, Marcus Moeller wrote:
I personally agree on that. We have similar issues with the Spacewalk
documentation (another thread :?). It would be great to have something
like an installation guide covering the CentOS specific aspects and
links to the upstream docs.
Thats
Dear Karan.
For Spacewalk e.g., I have started to improve the 'official' upstream
docs a bit (which are already quite good), instead of re-generating
content.
Btw, there is also an effort underway to have a centos specific
spacewalk repo hosted on centos.org to make life even easier. At
Marcus Moeller wrote:
So I am a bit disappointed (but can understand) ppl. like Max who
already contributed high quality docs in the past are re-signing from
contributing to the wiki (just because one or two other guys have a
different pov). I have also suggested that docs like the CentOS
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Marcus Moeller wrote:
different pov). I have also suggested that docs like the CentOS
specific owlriver rpm howtos (http://www.owlriver.com/tips/non-root/)
could as well resist on the CentOS wiki. But it's not my decision.
I assume 'reside' for 'resist' ... Scope is one
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Max Hetrick wrote:
You have one team member stating they believe writers should
go upstream for all documentation purposes,
if you are referring to me, your projection into what I wrote
has mislead you.
-- Russ herrold
___
R P Herrold wrote:
if you are referring to me, your projection into what I wrote
has mislead you.
Well, I was kind of referring to what you said here:
If people want to write content, they NEED TO GO TO FEDORA, or
the upstream, and get patches accepted, so the changes flow
back down in
On Thu, 17 Sep 2009, Max Hetrick wrote:
R P Herrold wrote:
if you are referring to me, your projection into what I wrote
has mislead you.
Well, I was kind of referring to what you said here:
If people want to write content, they NEED TO GO TO FEDORA, or
the upstream, and get patches
23 matches
Mail list logo
