ok, disabling smrsh and adding back mailer(procmail) to config.mc fixed
my problem. Seems that I couldn't set the folder permissions and
ownership properly for smrsh to work. I would skip smrsh for the
meantime after I got all the features installed (libmiler, sasl, auth, ...)
now, how could
still couldn't get sasl working...
root@server: mail /etc/rc.d/init.d/mta start
Starting Mail Transfer Agent: sendmailWarning: Option: AuthMechanisms
requires SASL support (-DSASL)
Warning: Option: AuthOptions requires SASL support (-DSASL)
this is the site.config.m4
root@server: Site pwd
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Merges with all the regular suspects - Al's partitioning, Andrew on VM,
USB, networking, sparc, net drivers. And Ingo has been working on fixing
up the inevitable details in the thread signal stuff, as well as updating
the smp-scalable timer code.
RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93.
http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest glibc is 2.2.5.
RedHat 7.3 shipped with glibc-2.2.5.
Should I care that RedHat is shipping a non-standard glibc (if that's
what they're doing)?
Regards,
Tim
Original Message
Subject: Red Hat Linux 8.0 now available on Red Hat Network
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 06:45:31 -0400
From: Red Hat Network [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Red Hat Linux 8.0 is now available. Get priority access to the Red Hat
Linux 8.0 upgrade by
Well it wouldn't be the first time RH has done something like this (think
7.0 and the gcc fiasco). Is there any info anywhere on what this 2.2.93
really is?
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Tim Wunder wrote:
RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93.
http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Lee wrote:
Original Message
Subject: Red Hat Linux 8.0 now available on Red Hat Network
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 06:45:31 -0400
From: Red Hat Network [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Red Hat Linux 8.0 is now available. Get priority access to the
Tim Wunder wrote:
RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93.
http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest glibc is 2.2.5.
RedHat 7.3 shipped with glibc-2.2.5.
Should I care that RedHat is shipping a non-standard glibc (if that's
what they're doing)?
Regards,
Tim
Believe they
On Tuesday 01 October 2002 10:52 am, you wrote:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Lee wrote:
Original Message
Subject: Red Hat Linux 8.0 now available on Red Hat Network
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 06:45:31 -0400
From: Red Hat Network [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Red Hat
Because people working in a data center rarely have the time to be
fighting for space on anonymous ftp servers just to keep their systems up
to date. If you've got 250 Redhat based servers, $60 is pocket change to
keep them all up to date in a timely fashion. No one, is forcing you to
pay $60
I don't know if this will get through as I've already un-subbed.
I un-subbed from the list as I am extremely busy with a bunch of other
stuff at this time. I am not running any version of Linux right now and
probably won't be in the near future.
I would like to say that I have enjoyed being
How is this an about server sales following a good desktop? This one is
more like RH being the dominant server Linux now wanting to take on
Mandrake, et. al. on the desktop. Just what Ransome Love was trying to do,
except that the economy and his own public relations ineptitude got in the
Other than it's a snapshot of the development version, currently at
2.2.94, beats me. I cannot find what it will become when it's released.
2.3.0? 2.4.0? Anybody know?
I would've thought that the development version of glibc would be 2.3.x,
isn't that the way the gnu folks do things?
The
On Tue, 2002-10-01 at 11:25, Stuart Biggerstaff wrote:
How is this an about server sales following a good desktop? This one is
more like RH being the dominant server Linux now wanting to take on
Mandrake, et. al. on the desktop. Just what Ransome Love was trying to do,
except that the
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Lee wrote:
Tim Wunder wrote:
RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93.
http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest glibc is 2.2.5.
RedHat 7.3 shipped with glibc-2.2.5.
Should I care that RedHat is shipping a non-standard glibc (if that's
what they're
Some of you may remember that my updating glibc to 2.2.4, then 2.2.5, on
my Caldera eWorkstation 3.1 system has caused me a little grief. Most
centering around an error involving an undefined reference to atexit
when compiling and/or configuring source code.
Well, while reading up on WTF
binutils-2.11.90 seems to work just fine for me.
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Tim Wunder wrote:
Some of you may remember that my updating glibc to 2.2.4, then 2.2.5, on
my Caldera eWorkstation 3.1 system has caused me a little grief. Most
centering around an error involving an undefined reference to
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
m.w.chang spewed electrons into the ether that resembled:
I just wanted to have the auth via pam (and later openldap) option
working. do I still need the sasl?
I don't know.. i never looked into it
as for MILTER, if you added the line to
Well, according to:
ftp://ftp.uni-kl.de/pub/linux/redhat/redhat/8.0/en/os/i386/RedHat/RPMS/
If you scroll down you will see gcc-3.2 and glibc 2.2.93. I hope that they
didn't use a devel snapshot of glibc. I don't use RH and I'm not on any of
the RH mailing lists. Anybody hear anything about
On Tuesday 01 October 2002 11:25 am, you wrote:
How is this an about server sales following a good desktop? This one is
more like RH being the dominant server Linux now wanting to take on
Mandrake, et. al. on the desktop. Just what Ransome Love was trying to do,
except that the economy and
Here are details :
http://rpmfind.net/linux/redhat/8.0/en/os/i386/RELEASE-NOTES
Patrick
--- Tim Wunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] a écrit :
RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93.
http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest
glibc is 2.2.5.
RedHat 7.3 shipped with glibc-2.2.5.
Should
On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 11:54:36 -0400 Tim Wunder [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Some of you may remember that my updating glibc to 2.2.4, then 2.2.5,
---snip---
Based on the FAQ's answer of Investigate why the linker does not pick
up libc_nonshared.a..., I'm thinking now that binutils may be the
Especially notable are these two:
The following packages have been deprecated and will be removed in a
future release of Red Hat Linux:
o LPRng (although it remains the default print spooler for this
release)
o lilo
o sndconfig
o RPM will also suggest package(s) that
Zoki News wrote:
*** Freekin' hell! There are FIVE CD's for the new RH!! I am sure it is not
going to install on a 150Mb partition like RH 5.0 did...
RH-5 was a long long time ago. And some of us would prefer to forget
that RH5 ever existed :)
Anyhoo, i'm sure that at least of the CD's, if
OK, so RedHat has done with glibc in 8.0 essentially what they did with gcc in
7.0. That is, taken a chunk of the development version and making a RedHat
release of it.
From the release notes:
o The GNU C Library (glibc) has been updated to version 2.3 code base
and includes the
I can't say that i'm overly surprised. Redhat's .0 releases have always
been notoriously buggy unstable.
Tim Wunder wrote:
OK, so RedHat has done with glibc in 8.0 essentially what they did with gcc in
7.0. That is, taken a chunk of the development version and making a RedHat
release of
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Net Llama! wrote:
Zoki News wrote:
*** Freekin' hell! There are FIVE CD's for the new RH!! I am sure it is not
going to install on a 150Mb partition like RH 5.0 did...
RH-5 was a long long time ago. And some of us would prefer to forget
that RH5 ever existed :)
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 10:32:59AM -0400, Tim Wunder wrote:
RedHat 8.0 apparently comes with glibc-2.2.93.
http://www.gnu.org/software/glibc says the latest glibc is 2.2.5.
RedHat 7.3 shipped with glibc-2.2.5.
Should I care that RedHat is shipping a non-standard glibc (if that's
what
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 11:24:43AM -0400, Tim Wunder wrote:
Other than it's a snapshot of the development version, currently at
2.2.94, beats me. I cannot find what it will become when it's released.
2.3.0? 2.4.0? Anybody know?
Just guessing, 2.3.n, as 2.2.5 2.2.94 2.3.0.
I would've
Seen on LKML from hizzoner Linus hisself:
And a small reminder that we're now officially in the last month of
features, and since I'm going to be away basically the last week of
October, so I actually personally consider Oct 20th to be the drop-date,
..
So, we'll have a new kernel RSN. For some
On Tuesday 01 October 2002 08:19 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
snip
Should you care? I don't know. Remember GCC 2.96? Or, how 'bout good
ole glibc 2.0.7? Better question: what does Red Hat 8.0 have than you
just have to have? Better still: can you build it yourself without
upgrading the rest
On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 02:03, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seen on LKML from hizzoner Linus hisself:
And a small reminder that we're now officially in the last month of
features, and since I'm going to be away basically the last week of
October, so I actually personally consider Oct 20th to be
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 09:26:18PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, following up my own post. Whatever.
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 10:12:56PM -0300, Federico Voges wrote:
I haven't been following the 2.5 development. Can someone give me (or
point me to) a list of the new
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 06:03:33PM -0700, Net Llama! wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seen on LKML from hizzoner Linus hisself:
And a small reminder that we're now officially in the last month of
features, and since I'm going to be away basically the last week of
October, so I actually
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 10:12:56PM -0300, Federico Voges wrote:
I haven't been following the 2.5 development. Can someone give me (or
point me to) a list of the new features/differences between 2.4 2.5??
http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.5/ChangeLog-2.5.40
BTW, can I install a 2.5
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 18:03:33 -0700, Net Llama! wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Seen on LKML from hizzoner Linus hisself:
And a small reminder that we're now officially in the last month of
features, and since I'm going to be away basically the
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 21:39:45 -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 09:26:18PM -0400, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yeah, following up my own post. Whatever.
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 10:12:56PM -0300, Federico Voges wrote:
I
so it would *not* be another drastic change like that from 2.2 - 2.4?
great...save some money... :)
BTW, can I install a 2.5 on COL 3.1.1 or do I need to upgrade other
packages as well??
Beats me. You *should* be able to.
--
Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux we trust.
Money for what? Sure its going to be a significant change. The
architecture is different, it has new features, different bugs.
m.w.chang wrote:
so it would *not* be another drastic change like that from 2.2 - 2.4?
great...save some money... :)
BTW, can I install a 2.5 on COL 3.1.1 or do
are you merely following the steps in the linux-sxs sites?
let me walk your steps again to be sure. still using glibc-2.2.1 that
came with WS 3.1. so I am a good rat.
some (not most or all) of the linux-sxs articles made certain
assumptions that's not applicable to amateurs like me. just the
did you try your luck in http://freshmeat.net?
search for document convert or microsoft word html
Joel Hammer wrote:
Is there a command line tool to convert a word document to html?
Thanks,
Joel
--
Swiftly. Silently. Invisibly. .~. In Linux we trust.
/
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 11:55:33PM -0400, Joel Hammer wrote:
I should add, I am converting word documents to html, then using html2ps to
get the postscript, and finally ps2pdf to get nice looking pdf documents
with a table of contents, thumbnails, and bookmarks. It is really not too
hard, once
Joel Hammer wrote:
Is there a command line tool to convert a word document to html?
Thanks,
Joel
This will do it:
http://software.linux.com/projects/word2x/?topic=332,396,335
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Thanks for the pointer.
I found a nice program, wv, which seems perfect for my needs.
It is amazing what you can do with linux and opensource software.
Joel
On Wed, Oct 02, 2002 at 11:12:12AM +0800, m.w.chang wrote:
did you try your luck in http://freshmeat.net?
search for document convert or
Thanks for the tip.
I already got wv from sourceforge, and it works fine, so I am not going
to dull my palm with the entertainment of each new hatched, unfledged
courage. (Eat your heart out, Barbara!)
Joel
On Tue, Oct 01, 2002 at 06:35:47PM -0400, Marvin Dickens wrote:
Joel Hammer wrote:
I don't know about suSE, but doesn't Mandrake do the same thing? Seems to me
RH has borrowed a page from them.
IM
On Tuesday 01 October 2002 07:48 am, you wrote:
Original Message
Subject: Red Hat Linux 8.0 now available on Red Hat Network
Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 06:45:31
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002 20:30:42 -0400 (EDT)
Gerry Doris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 1 Oct 2002, Net Llama! wrote:
Zoki News wrote:
*** Freekin' hell! There are FIVE CD's for the new RH!! I am sure it is not
going to install on a 150Mb partition like RH 5.0 did...
RH-5 was a long
Do, I haven't. Since wv seems to work fine on the command line, I think my
search is over for now.
Thanks.
Joel
Have you looked at antiword?
Bill
--
___
Linux-users mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe/Suspend/Etc -
I bought the WS 3.1 to avoid the huge upgrade gap from COL 2.4 (kernel
2.2.). ... ok, we got gentoo and linux-from-scratch now, but I am not
ready for them.
Net Llama! wrote:
Money for what? Sure its going to be a significant change. The
architecture is different, it has new features,
On Tue, 01 Oct 2002 17:08:28 -0700
Net Llama! [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can't say that i'm overly surprised. Redhat's .0 releases have always
been notoriously buggy unstable.
I've found 8.0 to be neither buggy nor unstable in most aspects. Previous
releases of Red Hat, Mandrake, and
On Wed, 2002-10-02 at 00:17, Joel Hammer wrote:
Thanks for the tip.
I already got wv from sourceforge, and it works fine,
The entire wvXxxx library is a hoot! It's an easy compile and
it performs as advertised. It does: html, latex, ps, dvi, pdf,
mime and text. I've added this one to my
*** Freekin' hell! There are FIVE CD's for the new RH!! I am sure it is not
going to install on a 150Mb partition like RH 5.0 did...
Jim, thanks for the url.
Zoran.
- Original Message -
From: Jim Conner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 8:58 PM
52 matches
Mail list logo
