On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 00:05 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Tuesday 20 December 2005 16:40, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 12:22 -0800, Josh Bressers wrote:
> >> http://fetchmail.berlios.de/fetchmail-SA-2005-03.txt
> >>
> >> Just a DoS, nothing to cause a panic before the holiday :)
On Tuesday 20 December 2005 16:40, Jesse Keating wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 12:22 -0800, Josh Bressers wrote:
>> http://fetchmail.berlios.de/fetchmail-SA-2005-03.txt
>>
>> Just a DoS, nothing to cause a panic before the holiday :)
>
>>From investigation and chatting w/ RH, seems only FC2 is affe
On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 12:22 -0800, Josh Bressers wrote:
> http://fetchmail.berlios.de/fetchmail-SA-2005-03.txt
>
> Just a DoS, nothing to cause a panic before the holiday :)
From investigation and chatting w/ RH, seems only FC2 is affected by
this (and FC3 but RH is fixing FC3). They recommend w
seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 14:11 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
John Dalbec wrote:
Mach/apt is no longer supported
Mach/yum doesn't work unless yum is at least the FC3 version
Speaking of rh73... I've been trying to get mock/rh73 working (hosted on
an rhel4 box), but have gotten stu
On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 14:11 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> John Dalbec wrote:
> > Mach/apt is no longer supported
> > Mach/yum doesn't work unless yum is at least the FC3 version
>
> Speaking of rh73... I've been trying to get mock/rh73 working (hosted on
> an rhel4 box), but have gotten stuck(*). A
John Dalbec wrote:
Mach/apt is no longer supported
Mach/yum doesn't work unless yum is at least the FC3 version
Speaking of rh73... I've been trying to get mock/rh73 working (hosted on
an rhel4 box), but have gotten stuck(*). Anyone have any luck with it?
(*) chroot /var/lib/mock/redhat-7.3
On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 12:59 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Not with rh73's version of rpm. Epoch-less packages are the equivalent
> of Epoch -1 (ie, Epoch: 0 trumps a lack of Epoch).
>
Ah, my bad. I glazed over the whole epoch thing, going with 'dont add
if not there, don't bump if there'
--
Je
Jesse Keating wrote:
When no epoch is present, 0 is assumed. Adding epoch 0 shouldn't break
anything. Please try this and test within a chroot?
Not with rh73's version of rpm. Epoch-less packages are the equivalent
of Epoch -1 (ie, Epoch: 0 trumps a lack of Epoch).
-- Rex
--
fedora-lega
John Dalbec wrote:
Mach/apt is no longer supported
Mach/yum doesn't work unless yum is at least the FC3 version
RHL 7.3 libpng-devel is uninstallable using FC3 RPM because FC3 RPM
expects versioned dependencies to include the epoch.
I don't know whether adding the epoch to the versioned dependen
On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 13:32 -0500, John Dalbec wrote:
> Mach/apt is no longer supported
> Mach/yum doesn't work unless yum is at least the FC3 version
> RHL 7.3 libpng-devel is uninstallable using FC3 RPM because FC3 RPM expects
> versioned dependencies to include the epoch.
> I don't know whether
Mach/apt is no longer supported
Mach/yum doesn't work unless yum is at least the FC3 version
RHL 7.3 libpng-devel is uninstallable using FC3 RPM because FC3 RPM expects
versioned dependencies to include the epoch.
I don't know whether adding the epoch to the versioned dependency would break
RHL
Everyone,
Apache has this patch for 1.3 and 2.0 breanches of apache to fix
CVE-2005-3352
http://issues.apache.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37874
I've just applied the patch to my version. I'm guessing that since they
applied a patch to both branches this is definately a problem for all
leg
On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 12:54 -0500, John Dalbec wrote:
> I'm pleased to see that someone has run createrepo in
> http://download.fedoralegacy.org/redhat/7.3/updates/i386. Could that same
> person please run createrepo in
> http://download.fedoralegacy.org/redhat/7.3/os/i386?
> Thanks,
> John
Ha
I'm pleased to see that someone has run createrepo in
http://download.fedoralegacy.org/redhat/7.3/updates/i386. Could that same
person please run createrepo in http://download.fedoralegacy.org/redhat/7.3/os/i386?
Thanks,
John
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com
htt
Everyone,
Not sure if this interests anyone. I reported and the libtool group
responded with a patch for the mktemp file patch supplied by redhat.
The group did say it was an open security / DOS (denial of service) problem.
Also, sorry about my email not being signed... Our network went from
w
15 matches
Mail list logo
