/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386 Package
area
http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src
Package source area
GCC Update
- --
Not as close as I'd like it to be. I got past one problem and another
problem has shown up. Now in building c++flint
James Kosin
a member; what can I do to help with things? Or what do I
need to do?
My account is JamesKosin ...
Thanks,
James Kosin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFC6R
ideally take another path.
I'd like to help; but, have only limited free time on my busy
schedule. I'm trying to get a GCC update setup and working. only
problem is now I think there are package problems... Compiling
completes correctly now.
James Kosin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG
kernel you can boot from and try
carefully.
Good Luck,
James Kosin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.0 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFC8jLkkNLDmnu1kSkRApnoAJ0SCEWiLl2cuHt3IUfHMLPGd1mtcACePq60
upRSVzrrZhWUKEzhW+sjWnQ=
=zFkJ
believe where kept from the old gcc
version. One patch was already applied and one did not agree with the
new changes.
I fixed my problems building the package. The last thing was
documentation being replaced.
Thanks,
James Kosin
REMEBER, my updates are NOT SUPPORTED BY REDHAT or FEDORA CORE.
If you
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Hi Again,
-
-
JAMES' Unofficial Unsupported by RedHat, Redhat Fedora Core, and
Redhat Fedora Legacy Groups!
~Any support for my packages, will only
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Gilbert Sebenste wrote:
| On Fri, 9 Sep 2005, HaJo Schatz wrote:
|
| James, I truly appreciate your efforts to get latest versions of
| critical packages out.
|
| However,
| [...]
|
| SpamAssassin 3.0.4
| --
|
| [...]
|
| I'd
!
==
Thanks
James Kosin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDKxWIkNLDmnu1kSkRA66bAJ9tpyEz3Zb5lHqk+fQYGlavHFUA/gCaA79z
xIwabr8Y/r9X8kEiLw0hNfM=
=8hMt
-END PGP
.src.rpm
New BINARY RPM
- --
http://support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/i386/spamassassin-3.1.0-1.fc1.i386.rpm
I caught this on Friday; but, couldn't get a patch done quick enough
to get it out then.
Sorry again,
James Kosin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG
/fedora-core/beta/i386/perl-Net-DNS-0.45-3.fc1.i386.rpm
Sorry again,
James Kosin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDMBzTkNLDmnu1kSkRAzkxAJ9UPwzc/kh1JE7GdgkfgJCCNpDxTwCeIQ92
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
David Eisenstein wrote:
|On Tue, 27 Sep 2005, James Kosin wrote:
|
|This may be easier than writing a long detailed email all the time.
|Everyone can get / see updates via my newly created web-page at
|~http://support.intcomgrp.com/~jkosin
to binutils
http://beta.support.intcomgrp.com/mirror/fedora-core/beta/src/binutils-2.16.1-1.fc1.src.rpm
I'm also willing to make changes / patches to the versions I have if
there are any problems.
Thanks,
James Kosin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
James Kosin wrote:
Ok,
I would like to know how to submit a package for FC1 to be
updated... Of course, not through the normal means of patching the
existing version; but, a new build.
In particualar, the gcc package I've built for 3.3.6
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Rex Dieter wrote:
James Kosin wrote:
I would like to know how to submit a package for FC1 to be updated...
Of course, not through the normal means of patching the existing
version; but, a new build.
In particualar, the gcc package I've
adding people, but I see that it just isn't going to happen.
David, I had tagged you as one I was going to invite.
I will be making private invitations to join the build team over the
next week or so.
I'm willing to help with building as well.
Let me know.
James Kosin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE
if they do have a
PHP document configuring some of these administrative tasks open on
the internet.
Thanks,
James Kosin
- - --
- - --
James Kosin
International Communications Group, Inc.
230 Pickett's Line
Newport News, VA 23603-1366
- - - United States of America -
Phone: 1(757)947-1030 ext
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Jim Popovitch wrote:
Another? Heck, that's old stuff from quite some time (Internet
time) ago. If I had a nickel for every invalid file access
attempt. ;-)
-Jim P.
James Kosin wrote:
--snip--
I'm not all that worried about invalid
system... Then import the fedora-legacy keys.
Or maybe someone could resign all the packages with the fedora-legacy key.
James Kosin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDcLBIkNLDmnu1kSkRAwDcAJoC86
to be fixed if we are
vulnerable.
James Kosin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDcmfnkNLDmnu1kSkRA39pAKCABlO6P3J7EVRAG6oefeclrPDEEwCeI2w0
U65qbkAwaJhCVlc+nNLt3ao=
=11iK
-END PGP SIGNATURE
packages
don't have.
Ok, FC1 already has the patch for CAN-2005-1921
All be need to do is add the patch for RHSA-2005:748-05
I'll have to compare the patches to be sure.
James Kosin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 04:19:35PM -0500, James Kosin wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 11:22:28AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
Does look like we need to patch this. RHEL issued an update,
Do you mean that one from
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: RIPEMD160
Michal Jaegermann wrote:
On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 04:19:35PM -0500, James Kosin wrote:
SNIP
We could base our build for FC1 from the patches in FC3... If and
only if, we are allowed to update some packages inside to newer
versions. FC3
.legacy
openssl-0.9.7a-33.13.legacy
Are there any updates FL can do to any of the packages to fix/block slapper
from an FC1 machine?
Michael.
Michael,
Try my version of httpd here:
http://support.intcomgrp.com/~jkosin
It has been effective against the worm so far.
James Kosin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
James, what is in your package that we haven't included in our Apache?
I was under the assumption that we had fixed all the CVEs related to the
slapper worm and that our users were safe. If this isn't the case, we
have a
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2006-01-23 at 17:11 -0500, James Kosin wrote:
My version takes care of the mod_ssl issue he already disabled. FC1
doesn't have a fix or if so it hasn't gone through QA yet.
Do you have a CVE for the ssl issue? I'd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Mike McCarty wrote:
--snip--
$ ps -A | grep pache
$ ps -A | grep ssl
doesn't show anything, so Apache isn't running, and I guess
SSL isn't either.
Mike
Mike,
ps -A | grep httpd /* Apache is only the name of the server
for FC1. I
could also always start with the kernel, if that is OK. I've gotten
very good with my own package and it seems to be simpler than say perl
or many of the more complex builds.
Thanks,
James Kosin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Legacy/QATesting.
OK,
It is a little buried in the clutter. I've seen this page many times,
but never really dig-ed into it.
I'm printing this stuff out for further review.
Thanks,
James
description.
Even something like follow these steps or procedures
James Kosin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFD8i+7kNLDmnu1kSkRAu6zAJ4874rS9Xfly2zdxapfWJecy7ObuQCffu8j
7Kz9ON76BJye21LktA4fJtk=
=qJij
-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
go
on and on about this point.
Just my 2-cents,
James Kosin
--
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
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
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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tom Yates wrote:
On Mon, 15 May 2006, James Kosin wrote:
I agree with Jesse here; but, I would like to add that the
packages should be tested on the released platform by someone and
not just released in this case. SendMail was a recent blunder
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Ok,
Normally, I'm very patient. But, this just rubs me the wrong way.
Have we lost sight of our purpose? This is Fedora Legacy, which
supports older unsupported versions past their 6-month window with
Fedora group. I think the support if too
fight the powers that
be and I have advanced notice, which gives me time to prepare.
- -James Kosin
Long time FC1 user, and proud supporter of RedHat / Fedora.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Adam Gibson wrote:
Anyone know if this is being worked on?
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CVE-2006-1173
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing list
fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Bo Lynch wrote:
Just read about the end of life of FC1 and FC2 on the fedoralegacy page. I
understand that there will be no more bug fixes for these OS's, but does
that mean that there will bo no more security fixes as well?
Yes, it means NO MORE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
On Monday 14 August 2006 16:06, Eric Rostetter wrote:
This page needs to be updated to reflect FC1 and FC2 being retired...
Whoops! Thanks for catching that. (I added the FC4 too)
Jesse,
I believe RH9 was retired many
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Tim Thome wrote:
David,
Sounds like a good thing entering it into Bugzilla, however, if
there is not a priority within Red Hat to fix it, the bug will sit
there and rot... Might be a good time to split the bugzilla between
active devlopment and
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Dave Stevens wrote:
a confession of inadequacy is more of a preliminary than an answer
Dave
Sorry, to butt in
Maybe, what we need to do is have a re-organization of the idea of
FedoraLegacy instead of trying to overtax anyone. Or chase
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
See my blog regarding the future of Legacy as a project. Please remember
these are just proposals and not final solutions. A wiki page will follow
soon.
http://jkeating.livejournal.com/#entry_34659
I hope this doesn't
42 matches
Mail list logo
