On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 10:47 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> These issues should be resolved in the newer packages in
> updates-testing.
They're not in updates-testing yet. They're still awaiting PUBLISH votes
in bugzilla.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=186277
Marc.
signatu
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 13:43 -0500, James Kosin wrote:
Sounds like something didn't get built correctly. Was this a new
release of sendmail or a patch?
I believe my packages needed (or at least I let them build a -cf
package) at one point. My version has been working fo
On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 13:43 -0500, James Kosin wrote:
> Sounds like something didn't get built correctly. Was this a new
> release of sendmail or a patch?
> I believe my packages needed (or at least I let them build a -cf
> package) at one point. My version has been working for some time with
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 16:17 -0600, Mike Klinke wrote:
There is instead an entry in /usr/lib; "sendmail.sendmail" which
is linked to /usr/sbin/sendmail. Also the man pages no longer work
if you type; "man sendmail" You have to use "man
sendmail.sendmail".
This
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Marc Deslauriers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Curiously, sendmail actually DID get test votes for all platforms before
it got moved to official updates. No part of the QA process was
hastened.
True, for the _current_ QA process. But not for the original QA process.
I
Marc Deslauriers wrote:
On Sun, 2006-03-26 at 23:48 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
Ah, now we get down to the nitty gritty of the desire to hasten
the process of going from a Test state to a Release state. Hopefully,
those who in past have seen no need to maintain a policy of "no package
can move f
Quoting Marc Deslauriers <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Curiously, sendmail actually DID get test votes for all platforms before
it got moved to official updates. No part of the QA process was
hastened.
True, for the _current_ QA process. But not for the original QA process.
The main problem I've had
On Sun, 2006-03-26 at 22:16 -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> All I know is that in bug 186277 it says:
>
> > Comment #13 From Jesse Keating on 2006-03-23 11:58 EST [reply]
> >I did have advance notice and I was on vendor-sec. However like
> > you said this
> > was a hard hole
Quoting Mike McCarty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I think that everybody should send Jesse big thanks for preparing
I'll second that, as well.
Mike
Depsite any differences I have with the Fedora Legacy Project, I
very much appreciate all that Jesse has done for the project.
Without him there wouldn
On Sun, 2006-03-26 at 23:48 -0600, Mike McCarty wrote:
> Ah, now we get down to the nitty gritty of the desire to hasten
> the process of going from a Test state to a Release state. Hopefully,
> those who in past have seen no need to maintain a policy of "no package
> can move from Test state to Re
Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 10:24:12AM -0500, David Eisner wrote:
Eric Rostetter wrote:
This sounds like what happens when we rush the QA processes...
Other distros had advance warning about this vulnerability, and hence
more time to apply patches and do testing.
Pe
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 16:17 -0600, Mike Klinke wrote:
There is instead an entry in /usr/lib; "sendmail.sendmail" which
is linked to /usr/sbin/sendmail. Also the man pages no longer work
if you type; "man sendmail" You have t
Quoting David Eisner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Eric Rostetter wrote:
We were notified. We didn't act because it was "bad timing" for FL.
On what day were you notified?
-David
All I know is that in bug 186277 it says:
Comment #13 From Jesse Keating on 2006-03-23 11:58 EST [reply]
I di
On Sun, 2006-03-26 at 13:56 -0500, David Eisner wrote:
> On what day were you notified?
We weren't. As I said before, this was a CERT driven announcement, and
only those that have a pre-existing agreement w/ CERT got the notice
before the embargo date. Fedora Legacy has no such agreement w/ CERT
Eric Rostetter wrote:
We were notified. We didn't act because it was "bad timing" for FL.
On what day were you notified?
-David
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
Quoting Michael Mansour <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> *** ERROR: FEATURE() should be before MAILER()
>> *** ERROR: FEATURE() should be before MAILER()
>> *** ERROR: FEATURE() should be before MAILER()
Yeah, I got that on a bunch of machines. Just updated my sendmail.mc
to move the FEATURE macros up
Quoting Michal Jaegermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 10:24:12AM -0500, David Eisner wrote:
Eric Rostetter wrote:
>This sounds like what happens when we rush the QA processes...
Other distros had advance warning about this vulnerability, and hence
more time to apply patches an
Quoting David Eisner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Eric Rostetter wrote:
This sounds like what happens when we rush the QA processes...
Other distros had advance warning about this vulnerability,
So did FL technically.
and hence
more time to apply patches and do testing.
They didn't have more ti
Quoting Michael Kratz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Can you tell what was different between the old .cf and the new one?
The new cf appeared to be a 'fresh' default config file.
i.e. only bound to localhost, all my amavis and rbl stuff was missing, etc.
I don't doubt this. I just wanted to make sur
Hi Eric,
> Quoting Michal Jaegermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > I am not sure in which distro /usr/sbin/alternatives showed up
> > for the first time.
>
> It first showed up in RHL 7.3 as far as RHL goes. It originated in
> debian though...
>
> >> *** ERROR: FEATURE() should be before MAILER()
On Sat, 2006-03-25 at 10:24 -0500, David Eisner wrote:
>
> Other distros had advance warning about this vulnerability, and hence
> more time to apply patches and do testing. Is there a way Fedora Legacy
> could be added to the list of vendors that are notified in this type of
> situation?
>
>
On Saturday 25 March 2006 11:45, Gene Heskett wrote:
>On Saturday 25 March 2006 11:29, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
>>On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 11:39:33AM +0100, Danny Terweij - Net Tuning
>> |
>
>Net wrote:
>>> My sendmail on FC3 boxes also not working correctly.
>>
>>Interesting. I actually did instal
On Saturday 25 March 2006 11:29, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
>On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 11:39:33AM +0100, Danny Terweij - Net Tuning |
Net wrote:
>> My sendmail on FC3 boxes also not working correctly.
>
>Interesting. I actually did install an update on an FC3 box and
>it did not need any corrections
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 11:39:33AM +0100, Danny Terweij - Net Tuning | Net
wrote:
>
> My sendmail on FC3 boxes also not working correctly.
Interesting. I actually did install an update on an FC3 box and
it did not need any corrections after that.
> mailq was set as mailq.sendmail.
> newaliases
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 10:24:12AM -0500, David Eisner wrote:
> Eric Rostetter wrote:
> >This sounds like what happens when we rush the QA processes...
>
> Other distros had advance warning about this vulnerability, and hence
> more time to apply patches and do testing.
Personally I _hugely_ pre
Eric Rostetter wrote:
This sounds like what happens when we rush the QA processes...
Other distros had advance warning about this vulnerability, and hence
more time to apply patches and do testing. Is there a way Fedora Legacy
could be added to the list of vendors that are notified in this t
From: "Michael Kratz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> overwrote my sendmail.cf file and didn't create a .rpmnew or .rpmsave!
My sendmail on FC3 boxes also not working correctly.
mailq was set as mailq.sendmail.
newaliases was set as newaliases.sendmail
And maybe more is very wrong with this package
Eric Rostetter wrote:
Quoting Michael Kratz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I just (yum) updated sendmail on a Redhat 7.3 box, and the RPM
overwrote my sendmail.cf file and didn't create a .rpmnew or .rpmsave!
Lucky I still had my custom .mc file and it didn't overwrite that.
Can you tell what was diff
Quoting Michael Kratz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I just (yum) updated sendmail on a Redhat 7.3 box, and the RPM
overwrote my sendmail.cf file and didn't create a .rpmnew or .rpmsave!
Lucky I still had my custom .mc file and it didn't overwrite that.
Can you tell what was different between the old .
Quoting Michal Jaegermann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I am not sure in which distro /usr/sbin/alternatives showed up
for the first time.
It first showed up in RHL 7.3 as far as RHL goes. It originated in
debian though...
*** ERROR: FEATURE() should be before MAILER()
*** ERROR: FEATURE() should be
Quoting Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I had verified votes for all the platforms.
True.
I also had LOTS of people
asking when a release would come out, again and again.
Should not be relevent, especially if there is one in updates-testing.
Unfortunately
sendmail is one of those real
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 22:09 -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote:
>
> This sounds like what happens when we rush the QA processes...
>
> I've stopped trying to do QA because by the time I download the testing
> version, install it, and start testing it, and well before I can submit
> a report, the package
Quoting Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 16:17 -0600, Mike Klinke wrote:
There is instead an entry in /usr/lib; "sendmail.sendmail" which
is linked to /usr/sbin/sendmail. Also the man pages no longer work
if you type; "man sendmail" You have to use "man
sendmail.send
Jesse Keating wrote:
This sounds like the Alternatives system got confused and wasn't making
the links that it was supposed to, as stated in the spec file. Hrm.
FYI:
I just (yum) updated sendmail on a Redhat 7.3 box, and the RPM overwrote
my sendmail.cf file and didn't create a .rpmnew or
On Friday 24 March 2006 16:41, Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> This sounds like the Alternatives system got confused and wasn't
> making the links that it was supposed to, as stated in the spec
> file. Hrm.
I see three missing links on RH9 and FC1;
/usr/lib/sendmail
/usr/share/man/man8/sendmail.8.gz
On Friday 24 March 2006 16:48, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
>
> /usr/sbin/alternatives was supposed to take care of that. If you
> will do 'rpm -q --scripts sendmail' then you should see, among
> other things, something of that sort:
>
> /usr/sbin/alternatives --install /usr/sbin/sendmail mta \
>
On Sat, Mar 25, 2006 at 08:21:15AM +1000, Michael Mansour wrote:
> > On Friday 24 March 2006 12:54, David Eisner wrote:
> >
> > There is instead an entry in /usr/lib; "sendmail.sendmail" which
> > is linked to /usr/sbin/sendmail. Also the man pages no longer work
> > if you type; "man sendmai
Mike Klinke wrote:
On Friday 24 March 2006 12:54, David Eisner wrote:
Just a heads up: after installing the
sendmail-8.12.11-4.24.1.legacy package on a RH9 machine today, I
noticed /usr/lib/sendmail was gone. This will break anything
that's expecting it to be there.
In my case, symlinking /us
On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 16:17 -0600, Mike Klinke wrote:
> There is instead an entry in /usr/lib; "sendmail.sendmail" which
> is linked to /usr/sbin/sendmail. Also the man pages no longer work
> if you type; "man sendmail" You have to use "man
> sendmail.sendmail".
This sounds like the Alterna
Hi,
> On Friday 24 March 2006 12:54, David Eisner wrote:
>
> > Just a heads up: after installing the
> > sendmail-8.12.11-4.24.1.legacy package on a RH9 machine today, I
> > noticed /usr/lib/sendmail was gone. This will break anything
> > that's expecting it to be there.
> >
> > In my case, symli
On Friday 24 March 2006 12:54, David Eisner wrote:
> Just a heads up: after installing the
> sendmail-8.12.11-4.24.1.legacy package on a RH9 machine today, I
> noticed /usr/lib/sendmail was gone. This will break anything
> that's expecting it to be there.
>
> In my case, symlinking /usr/lib/sendm
Just a heads up: after installing the sendmail-8.12.11-4.24.1.legacy
package on a RH9 machine today, I noticed /usr/lib/sendmail was gone.
This will break anything that's expecting it to be there.
In my case, symlinking /usr/lib/sendmail --> /usr/sbin/sendmail fixed
the problem.
-David
Marc
42 matches
Mail list logo
