From jeremyp at pobox.com Thu Nov 6 17:13:30 2003 From: jeremyp at pobox.com (Jeremy Portzer) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 12:13:30 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.2 In-Reply-To: <1068135540.1455.19.camel@opus> References: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <40109.208.248.32.211.1068134719.squirrel@www.mymail.maildaddy.com> <1068135540.1455.19.camel@opus> Message-ID: <1068138810.3107.41.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 11:19, seth vidal wrote: > > 2. fedora-legacy-list Mailing list, for subscriptions and archive: > > https://lists.dulug > > https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list/ > Shouldn't that be: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/Fedora-legacy-list/ ? Aren't we moving to the RH list? (And why the capital F on Fedora in this list but none of the others? Ugh.) --Jeremy -- /---------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Jeremy Portzer jeremyp at pobox.com trilug.org/~jeremy | | GPG Fingerprint: 712D 77C7 AB2D 2130 989F E135 6F9F F7BC CC1A 7B92 | \---------------------------------------------------------------------/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jkeating at j2solutions.net Thu Nov 6 17:33:05 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:33:05 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.2 In-Reply-To: <1068138810.3107.41.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> References: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <1068135540.1455.19.camel@opus> <1068138810.3107.41.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> Message-ID: <200311060933.05427.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Thursday 06 November 2003 09:13, Jeremy Portzer wrote: > Shouldn't that be: > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/Fedora-legacy-list/ ? > Aren't we moving to the RH list? > > (And why the capital F on Fedora in this list but none of the others? > Ugh.) Probably a typo. the URL with a lowercase f loads, and this email will prove that sending to a lower case f will work as well. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From jeremyp at pobox.com Thu Nov 6 18:04:10 2003 From: jeremyp at pobox.com (Jeremy Portzer) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 13:04:10 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.2 In-Reply-To: <200311060933.05427.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <1068135540.1455.19.camel@opus> <1068138810.3107.41.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> <200311060933.05427.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <1068141849.3107.46.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 12:33, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 06 November 2003 09:13, Jeremy Portzer wrote: > > Shouldn't that be: > > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/Fedora-legacy-list/ ? > > Aren't we moving to the RH list? > > > > (And why the capital F on Fedora in this list but none of the others? > > Ugh.) > > Probably a typo. the URL with a lowercase f loads, and this email will > prove that sending to a lower case f will work as well. You're right, I knew that sending mail was case insensitive, but didn't realize that mailman was also for the URL. The only place it really seems to show is on the "list of lists" page at http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo , where some of the Fedora lists are captitalized and others aren't, with no standardization. No big deal though. --Jeremy -- /---------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Jeremy Portzer jeremyp at pobox.com trilug.org/~jeremy | | GPG Fingerprint: 712D 77C7 AB2D 2130 989F E135 6F9F F7BC CC1A 7B92 | \---------------------------------------------------------------------/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From notting at redhat.com Thu Nov 6 19:00:04 2003 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:00:04 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.2 In-Reply-To: <1068138810.3107.41.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us>; from jeremyp@pobox.com on Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:13:30PM -0500 References: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <40109.208.248.32.211.1068134719.squirrel@www.mymail.maildaddy.com> <1068135540.1455.19.camel@opus> <1068138810.3107.41.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> Message-ID: <20031106140004.C28226@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Jeremy Portzer (jeremyp at pobox.com) said: > (And why the capital F on Fedora in this list but none of the others? > Ugh.) Use lowercase, it works. Bill From skvidal at phy.duke.edu Thu Nov 6 19:21:30 2003 From: skvidal at phy.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: 06 Nov 2003 14:21:30 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.2 In-Reply-To: <20031106140004.C28226@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <40109.208.248.32.211.1068134719.squirrel@www.mymail.maildaddy.com> <1068135540.1455.19.camel@opus> <1068138810.3107.41.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> <20031106140004.C28226@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1068146490.1453.57.camel@opus> On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 14:00, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Jeremy Portzer (jeremyp at pobox.com) said: > > (And why the capital F on Fedora in this list but none of the others? > > Ugh.) > > Use lowercase, it works. Bill, Do you want the subscriber list for the @dulug list dumped to you? I can do that in 30s. Then put in a forward from here to there and kill the @dulug list. -sv From notting at redhat.com Thu Nov 6 19:24:15 2003 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:24:15 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.2 In-Reply-To: <1068146490.1453.57.camel@opus>; from skvidal@phy.duke.edu on Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:21:30PM -0500 References: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <40109.208.248.32.211.1068134719.squirrel@www.mymail.maildaddy.com> <1068135540.1455.19.camel@opus> <1068138810.3107.41.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> <20031106140004.C28226@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1068146490.1453.57.camel@opus> Message-ID: <20031106142415.H28226@devserv.devel.redhat.com> seth vidal (skvidal at phy.duke.edu) said: > On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 14:00, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Jeremy Portzer (jeremyp at pobox.com) said: > > > (And why the capital F on Fedora in this list but none of the others? > > > Ugh.) > > > > Use lowercase, it works. > > Bill, > Do you want the subscriber list for the @dulug list dumped to you? > > I can do that in 30s. Then put in a forward from here to there and kill > the @dulug list. Sure. Don't know how I'd import the archive, though. Bill From lowen at pari.edu Sat Nov 1 22:10:26 2003 From: lowen at pari.edu (Lamar Owen) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 17:10:26 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Force rpm upgrade? In-Reply-To: <5456.128.171.123.60.1067635521.squirrel@togami.com> References: <3FA21C55.20101@togami.com> <3FA2C496.27E511B0@gmx.de> <5456.128.171.123.60.1067635521.squirrel@togami.com> Message-ID: <200311011710.26824.lowen@pari.edu> On Friday 31 October 2003 04:25 pm, Warren Togami wrote: > > Lucas Albers wrote: > >> No change in rpm. > > Agreed. I see the benefit of upgrading rpm, but I also fear some of the > > side effects. > is my personal opinion that RH8 especially is UNUSUABLE without a rpm > upgrade, and it is almost entirely unfounded fear to not leave RH's > released version that prevents the benefits of the stable upgrade. The precedent has already been set. Red Hat itself required an RPM upgrade awhile back to get errata for RH 6.2 (at the least). They released newer rpm packages for all the then supported versions, and required that rpm be upgraded first, since the actual rpm structure changed, and the errata rpms were going to be built with the new version. So rather than having to support rpm 3.0.5, they forced the upgrade to 4 (I don't remember the exact versions right off). I've had to do this before on low-end sparc boxen (the last Red Hat for sparc was 6.2). Getting a fresh 6.2 install fully updated was quite an undertaking the last time I did it. At least on sparc. (although I am still running a Red Hat 5.2+updates installation at another site in production due to some strange binary-only software). -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu From seyman at wanadoo.fr Sat Nov 1 23:49:38 2003 From: seyman at wanadoo.fr (Emmanuel Seyman) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 00:49:38 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Force rpm upgrade? In-Reply-To: <200311011710.26824.lowen@pari.edu> References: <3FA21C55.20101@togami.com> <3FA2C496.27E511B0@gmx.de> <5456.128.171.123.60.1067635521.squirrel@togami.com> <200311011710.26824.lowen@pari.edu> Message-ID: <20031101234938.GA6592@orient.maison> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 05:10:26PM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote: > > The precedent has already been set. Red Hat itself required an RPM upgrade > awhile back to get errata for RH 6.2 (at the least). They released newer rpm > packages for all the then supported versions, and required that rpm be > upgraded first, since the actual rpm structure changed, and the errata rpms > were going to be built with the new version. So rather than having to > support rpm 3.0.5, they forced the upgrade to 4 (I don't remember the exact > versions right off). I've had to do this before on low-end sparc boxen (the > last Red Hat for sparc was 6.2). Getting a fresh 6.2 install fully updated > was quite an undertaking the last time I did it. At least on sparc. At one point, RH released rpm 4.0.2-6x for RHL 6.2, so as to have rpm 4.x on all supported versions (previous version was 3.x). All following errata required having performed the rpm upgrade. Caused some bitching from people who had special procedures for upgrades (one person had the idea of rebuilding all errata on his own box to make it rpmv3 compatible) and RH had to issue errata for something (ucd-snmp?) because it depended on rpmlib, which the update broke. I'm afraid I don't remember updating a fresh 6.2 install to be particularly difficult, either on i386 or sparc: install db3 (required by rpmv4) upgrade the rpm-related rpms rebuild the rpm database apply all other updates Emmanuel From jcw at wilsonet.com Sun Nov 2 07:09:01 2003 From: jcw at wilsonet.com (Jarod C.Wilson) Date: Sat, 1 Nov 2003 23:09:01 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Force rpm upgrade? In-Reply-To: <5456.128.171.123.60.1067635521.squirrel@togami.com> References: <3FA21C55.20101@togami.com><20031031112930.GD12411@puariko.nirvana><20031031115151.GB21974@puariko.nirvana><3129.153.90.196.197.1067621066.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu> <3FA2C496.27E511B0@gmx.de> <5456.128.171.123.60.1067635521.squirrel@togami.com> Message-ID: <6FB0E2B6-0D03-11D8-B52C-00039342B962@wilsonet.com> On Oct 31, 2003, at 1:25 PM, Warren Togami wrote: >> Lucas Albers wrote: >>> >>> Honestly, I think we all only care about one thing. >>> Erratta for our release. >>> The minumum amount of change necessary to keep using our systems. >>> No change in rpm. The very smallest security updates required to keep >>> our systems non exploitable. >> >> Agreed. I see the benefit of upgrading rpm, but I also fear some of >> the >> side effects. >> -1 > > Please do not warn of side effects without giving concrete examples. > We > (the fedora.us team) have been grappling with these issues for more > than a > year now, and we are fully aware of the consequences of upgrading rpm. > It > is my personal opinion that RH8 especially is UNUSUABLE without a rpm > upgrade, and it is almost entirely unfounded fear to not leave RH's > released version that prevents the benefits of the stable upgrade. > However if you have concrete examples of where this causes a great > failure, please make it known. I have one, but I'm still in favor of forcing everyone to rpm 4.2. I upgraded to rpm 4.2 (from Axel's site) on a RHL7.3 box here, which forced me to remove ucd-snmp and ethereal, because ucd-snmp has a dep on librpm404, and ethereal depends on ucd-snmp. To get around this, Axel created a librpm404-compat package, which after I installed, I was able to reinstall ucd-snmp and ethereal, so there are ways around it, and that's the only problem I've had with upgrading a Red Hat Linux 7.3 system to rpm 4.2. -- Jarod C. Wilson, RHCE jcw at wilsonet.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: PGP.sig Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 186 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From warren at togami.com Sun Nov 2 09:45:09 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Sat, 01 Nov 2003 23:45:09 -1000 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Force rpm upgrade? In-Reply-To: <6FB0E2B6-0D03-11D8-B52C-00039342B962@wilsonet.com> References: <3FA21C55.20101@togami.com> <20031031112930.GD12411@puariko.nirvana> <20031031115151.GB21974@puariko.nirvana> <3129.153.90.196.197.1067621066.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu> <3FA2C496.27E511B0@gmx.de> <5456.128.171.123.60.1067635521.squirrel@togami.com> <6FB0E2B6-0D03-11D8-B52C-00039342B962@wilsonet.com> Message-ID: <1067766309.14617.41.camel@laptop> On Sat, 2003-11-01 at 21:09, Jarod C.Wilson wrote: > > I have one, but I'm still in favor of forcing everyone to rpm 4.2. I > upgraded to rpm 4.2 (from Axel's site) on a RHL7.3 box here, which > forced me to remove ucd-snmp and ethereal, because ucd-snmp has a dep > on librpm404, and ethereal depends on ucd-snmp. To get around this, > Axel created a librpm404-compat package, which after I installed, I was > able to reinstall ucd-snmp and ethereal, so there are ways around it, > and that's the only problem I've had with upgrading a Red Hat Linux 7.3 > system to rpm 4.2. jbj's official rpm.org upgrade has compat packages for 404 too. I suspect that is where Axel got it from. Warren From Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de Sun Nov 2 10:29:24 2003 From: Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de (Axel Thimm) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:29:24 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Force rpm upgrade? In-Reply-To: <1067766309.14617.41.camel@laptop> References: <3FA21C55.20101@togami.com> <20031031112930.GD12411@puariko.nirvana> <20031031115151.GB21974@puariko.nirvana> <3129.153.90.196.197.1067621066.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu> <3FA2C496.27E511B0@gmx.de> <5456.128.171.123.60.1067635521.squirrel@togami.com> <6FB0E2B6-0D03-11D8-B52C-00039342B962@wilsonet.com> <1067766309.14617.41.camel@laptop> Message-ID: <20031102102924.GD28736@puariko.nirvana> On Sat, Nov 01, 2003 at 11:45:09PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > On Sat, 2003-11-01 at 21:09, Jarod C.Wilson wrote: > > > > I have one, but I'm still in favor of forcing everyone to rpm 4.2. I > > upgraded to rpm 4.2 (from Axel's site) on a RHL7.3 box here, which > > forced me to remove ucd-snmp and ethereal, because ucd-snmp has a dep > > on librpm404, and ethereal depends on ucd-snmp. To get around this, > > Axel created a librpm404-compat package, which after I installed, I was > > able to reinstall ucd-snmp and ethereal, so there are ways around it, > > and that's the only problem I've had with upgrading a Red Hat Linux 7.3 > > system to rpm 4.2. > > jbj's official rpm.org upgrade has compat packages for 404 too. I > suspect that is where Axel got it from. There are no compat packages for 7x at rpm.org. I am providing 4.0.5 compatibility packages for RH73 solely as a quick fix for satisfying ucd-snmp's dependencies. I think that is the only RH73 package depending on rpm, so I will simply rebuild it against rpm 4.2. and drop the compatibility libs. -- Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de Sun Nov 2 10:31:10 2003 From: Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de (Axel Thimm) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:31:10 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Force rpm upgrade? In-Reply-To: <20031031151619.GA8225@ip68-4-255-84.oc.oc.cox.net> References: <3FA21C55.20101@togami.com> <20031031151619.GA8225@ip68-4-255-84.oc.oc.cox.net> Message-ID: <20031102103110.GE28736@puariko.nirvana> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 07:16:19AM -0800, Barry K. Nathan wrote: > On Thu, Oct 30, 2003 at 10:24:53PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > > RH9 -> rpm-4.2.1 > > Uh, what about epoch promotion? Imagine this scenario: Yes, that's a valid point. I hope 4.2.1 can be switched to use epoch promotion again, but maybe the code has been ripped out. Without epoch promotion rpm 4.2.1 is like a bomb on RH <= 9. -- Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de Sun Nov 2 10:45:36 2003 From: Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de (Axel Thimm) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:45:36 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] rpm 4.2, apt 0.5.5cnc6, yum 2.0.4 for all RH platforms >= 7.3 Message-ID: <20031102104536.GF28736@puariko.nirvana> You can test the above for RH7.3, RH8.0, RH9 and FC1 from http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/rpm/ http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/apt/ http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/yum/ http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/atrpms/ (rpm 4.2 provided only for RH <= 9, as FC1 carries 4.2.1) Some dependencies may arise to other packages available on atrpms (elfutils comes to mind), depending on the distribution. Don't use production machines, and be aware of the everlasting rpm lock bug [1]. Feedback is welcome (I have had success reports from all versions, but reports for RH7.3 are scarce). If these are confirmed to really work well, especially rpm and yum would benefit from the version consolidation (and hopefully result to proper RH errata for rpm). The elder RH releases would benefit from better support thus. [1] http://www.rpm.org/hintskinks/repairdb/ In case of any trouble try rm -f /var/lib/rpm/__* LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 rpm --rebuilddb I'd suggest to run it after before/upgrading anyway. -- Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From admin at cs.montana.edu Sun Nov 2 18:04:26 2003 From: admin at cs.montana.edu (Lucas Albers) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:04:26 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Force rpm upgrade? In-Reply-To: <6FB0E2B6-0D03-11D8-B52C-00039342B962@wilsonet.com> References: <3FA21C55.20101@togami.com><20031031112930.GD12411@puariko.nirvana><20031031115151.GB21974@puariko.nirvana><3129.153.90.196.197.1067621066.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu><3FA2C496.27E511B0@gmx.de><5456.128.171.123.60.1067635521.squirrel@togami.com> <6FB0E2B6-0D03-11D8-B52C-00039342B962@wilsonet.com> Message-ID: <1093.64.25.134.175.1067796266.squirrel@web1.cs.montana.edu> Someone mentioned epoch promotion as prerequisite to rpm upgrades to 4.2. Ok I'll bite, what is epoch promotion? The general consensus from the dev maintainers is that maintaining support for rh73 rpm makes is more difficult to compile packages? Upgrading to 4.2 fixes rpm locking issues, and makes it easier for maintainers to maintain packages? Upgrades are multistep because, compat libraries need to be installed on 7x machines? Did I pretty much cover all the issues? I'm staying with my original statement, modified: "If it works I'm not touching it until erratta forces me to change it, I hate beeper calls at 4:00 AM....Conservative with a capital C." I suppose I can see the reasons for the change. I appreciate the effort peole make in supporting obsolete rh releases, so in the end the maintainers can make whatever rpm choice they believe is the best one. --Luke From admin at cs.montana.edu Sun Nov 2 18:04:35 2003 From: admin at cs.montana.edu (Lucas Albers) Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 11:04:35 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Force rpm upgrade? In-Reply-To: <6FB0E2B6-0D03-11D8-B52C-00039342B962@wilsonet.com> References: <3FA21C55.20101@togami.com><20031031112930.GD12411@puariko.nirvana><20031031115151.GB21974@puariko.nirvana><3129.153.90.196.197.1067621066.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu><3FA2C496.27E511B0@gmx.de><5456.128.171.123.60.1067635521.squirrel@togami.com> <6FB0E2B6-0D03-11D8-B52C-00039342B962@wilsonet.com> Message-ID: <1096.64.25.134.175.1067796275.squirrel@web1.cs.montana.edu> > On Oct 31, 2003, at 1:25 PM, Warren Togami wrote: > >>> Lucas Albers wrote: >>>> >>>> Honestly, I think we all only care about one thing. >>>> Erratta for our release. >>>> The minumum amount of change necessary to keep using our systems. >>>> No change in rpm. The very smallest security updates required to keep >>>> our systems non exploitable. >>> >>> Agreed. I see the benefit of upgrading rpm, but I also fear some of >>> the >>> side effects. >>> -1 >> >> Please do not warn of side effects without giving concrete examples. >> We >> (the fedora.us team) have been grappling with these issues for more >> than a >> year now, and we are fully aware of the consequences of upgrading rpm. >> It >> is my personal opinion that RH8 especially is UNUSUABLE without a rpm >> upgrade, and it is almost entirely unfounded fear to not leave RH's >> released version that prevents the benefits of the stable upgrade. >> However if you have concrete examples of where this causes a great >> failure, please make it known. > > I have one, but I'm still in favor of forcing everyone to rpm 4.2. I > upgraded to rpm 4.2 (from Axel's site) on a RHL7.3 box here, which > forced me to remove ucd-snmp and ethereal, because ucd-snmp has a dep > on librpm404, and ethereal depends on ucd-snmp. To get around this, > Axel created a librpm404-compat package, which after I installed, I was > able to reinstall ucd-snmp and ethereal, so there are ways around it, > and that's the only problem I've had with upgrading a Red Hat Linux 7.3 > system to rpm 4.2. > > -- > Jarod C. Wilson, RHCE > jcw at wilsonet.com > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-legacy-list mailing list > Fedora-legacy-list at lists.dulug.duke.edu > https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list > From warren at togami.com Sun Nov 2 20:00:28 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Sun, 02 Nov 2003 10:00:28 -1000 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] rpm 4.2, apt 0.5.5cnc6, yum 2.0.4 for all RH platforms >= 7.3 In-Reply-To: <20031102104536.GF28736@puariko.nirvana> References: <20031102104536.GF28736@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: <1067803228.14617.52.camel@laptop> On Sun, 2003-11-02 at 00:45, Axel Thimm wrote: > You can test the above for RH7.3, RH8.0, RH9 and FC1 from > > http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/rpm/ > http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/apt/ > http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/yum/ > http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/atrpms/ > > (rpm 4.2 provided only for RH <= 9, as FC1 carries 4.2.1) > > Some dependencies may arise to other packages available on atrpms > (elfutils comes to mind), depending on the distribution. > > Don't use production machines, and be aware of the everlasting rpm > lock bug [1]. Specifically what versions of RH have you seen the everlasting lock bug? What procedure would cause it? I ran into this too many months ago, but recently haven't been able to reproduce it. jbj still insists to this day that we're all crazy and this bug didn't exist. Ok, he didn't really say that, but that's similar to what he would say. =) warren From shugal at gmx.de Mon Nov 3 00:12:46 2003 From: shugal at gmx.de (Martin Stricker) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 01:12:46 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Force rpm upgrade? References: <3FA21C55.20101@togami.com><20031031112930.GD12411@puariko.nirvana><20031031115151.GB21974@puariko.nirvana><3129.153.90.196.197.1067621066.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu> <3FA2C496.27E511B0@gmx.de> <5456.128.171.123.60.1067635521.squirrel@togami.com> Message-ID: <3FA59D7E.7701201C@gmx.de> Sorry for the delay, I've been quite busy this weekend. Warren Togami wrote: > Martin Stricker wrote: > > Agreed. I see the benefit of upgrading rpm, but I also fear some of > > the side effects. > > -1 > > Please do not warn of side effects without giving concrete examples. > We (the fedora.us team) have been grappling with these issues for > more than a year now, and we are fully aware of the consequences of > upgrading rpm. It is my personal opinion that RH8 especially is > UNUSUABLE without a rpm upgrade, and it is almost entirely unfounded > fear to not leave RH's released version that prevents the benefits of > the stable upgrade. However if you have concrete examples of where > this causes a great failure, please make it known. I remember when Red Hat required me to upgrade rpm on RHL6.2 - it broke some software (I don't know which from memory), and my selfmade install CDs with all the updates did no longer work. I'm not sure if I just did something wrong, but it definitely happened right after the RPM upgrade. I don't want to run into such things again. Generally I do not like updating a piece of software just to increase it's version number or to get some feature (unless I *really* need that feature). I need to validate any software change on my servers, and I don't like that process... Remember some "ancient" computer wisdom: Never touch a running system, and don't fix it if it ain't broken! What benefits would I have from a rpm upgrade on RHL7.3, and why would I need them? > Also, are you aware that rpm.org has released 'official' updates to > rpm which fixes the huge problems on RH8 and RH9? I don't care much about RHL8.0 and RHL9, because some testing showed that I better stay with RHL7.3 for the servers at work, and I always use the sames OS on my home box (makes things easier). So if rpm is broken for RHL8.0 and RHL9, fix it, but as long as rpm on RHL7.3 isn't broken, don't touch it! This, of course, is just my personal opinion. If you decide to go for an rpm upgrade, I don't have much of a choice... ;-) Best regards, Martin Stricker -- Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/ Linux Migration Project: http://www.linux-migration.org/ Red Hat Linux 9 for low memory: http://www.rule-project.org/ Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/ From Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de Mon Nov 3 07:37:30 2003 From: Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 08:37:30 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: rpm 4.2, apt 0.5.5cnc6, yum 2.0.4 for all RH platforms >= 7.3 In-Reply-To: <1067803228.14617.52.camel@laptop> References: <20031102104536.GF28736@puariko.nirvana> <1067803228.14617.52.camel@laptop> Message-ID: <20031103073730.GB16336@puariko.nirvana> On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 10:00:28AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > On Sun, 2003-11-02 at 00:45, Axel Thimm wrote: > > You can test the above for RH7.3, RH8.0, RH9 and FC1 from > > > > http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/rpm/ > > http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/apt/ > > http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/yum/ > > http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/atrpms/ > > > > (rpm 4.2 provided only for RH <= 9, as FC1 carries 4.2.1) > > > > Some dependencies may arise to other packages available on atrpms > > (elfutils comes to mind), depending on the distribution. > > > > Don't use production machines, and be aware of the everlasting rpm > > lock bug [1]. > > Specifically what versions of RH have you seen the everlasting lock > bug? Any, otherwise it would not be `everlasting', would it ;) (O.K., any above 4.0.x) > What procedure would cause it? I ran into this too many months > ago, but recently haven't been able to reproduce it. jbj still insists > to this day that we're all crazy and this bug didn't exist. Then stress test your environment with a couple of while true; do rpm -qa > /dev/null; done And then issue rpm -Uhv or rpm -e in another terminal.. Or simply jump to bugzilla.redhat.com, and check the severn/FC1 test product for some more recent lockup reports. -- Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ms-nospam-0306 at arcor.de Mon Nov 3 10:28:38 2003 From: ms-nospam-0306 at arcor.de (Michael Schwendt) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 11:28:38 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] rpm 4.2, apt 0.5.5cnc6, yum 2.0.4 for all RH platforms >= 7.3 In-Reply-To: <1067803228.14617.52.camel@laptop> References: <20031102104536.GF28736@puariko.nirvana> <1067803228.14617.52.camel@laptop> Message-ID: <20031103112838.325e5f3e.ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de> On Sun, 02 Nov 2003 10:00:28 -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > > Don't use production machines, and be aware of the everlasting rpm > > lock bug [1]. > > Specifically what versions of RH have you seen the everlasting lock > bug? What procedure would cause it? I ran into this too many months > ago, but recently haven't been able to reproduce it. jbj still insists > to this day that we're all crazy and this bug didn't exist. > > Ok, he didn't really say that, but that's similar to what he would say. > =) As of Red Hat Linux 8.0 (and that includes Fedora Core 1) I have serious problems with $ su - # rpm -qa | xargs -n 1 -t rpm -V &> rpm-Va.txt # less rpm-Va.txt -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chuckw at quantumlinux.com Mon Nov 3 18:39:07 2003 From: chuckw at quantumlinux.com (Chuck Wolber) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 10:39:07 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] System In-Reply-To: <200310241438.52797.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: > Lastly, we'll need a Bugzilla system. Probably our own to start with, > maybe merged down the road with Fedora's. I'd like to use Red Hat's > pgsql'd version of bugzilla, but it's woefully lacking in documentation. > Anybody got any experience with that? We've set up bugzilla before, but not the RedHat pgsql'd version. I'm tempted to set it up at bugzilla.quantumlinux.com (doesn't exist just yet). Any objections? > I'd like to launch our server and start handing out builder logins on > it, and start getting some of the kinks worked out with test packages by > the end of November. That way we should be ready for December when 7.3 > goes done. Excellent. Other than setting up and admin'ing bugzilla, is there anything else we can do? -Chuck -- Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology * Education | -=^ Ad Astra Per Aspera ^=- * Integration | http://www.quantumlinux.com * Support | chuckw at quantumlinux.com A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text? From warren at togami.com Tue Nov 4 04:27:16 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 18:27:16 -1000 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: rpm 4.2, apt 0.5.5cnc6, yum 2.0.4 for all RH platforms >= 7.3 In-Reply-To: <20031103073730.GB16336@puariko.nirvana> References: <20031102104536.GF28736@puariko.nirvana> <1067803228.14617.52.camel@laptop> <20031103073730.GB16336@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: <1067920036.4422.1.camel@laptop> On Sun, 2003-11-02 at 21:37, Axel Thimm wrote: > > Specifically what versions of RH have you seen the everlasting lock > > bug? > > Any, otherwise it would not be `everlasting', would it ;) > (O.K., any above 4.0.x) > > > What procedure would cause it? I ran into this too many months > > ago, but recently haven't been able to reproduce it. jbj still insists > > to this day that we're all crazy and this bug didn't exist. > > Then stress test your environment with a couple of > > while true; do rpm -qa > /dev/null; done > > And then issue rpm -Uhv or rpm -e in another terminal.. > > Or simply jump to bugzilla.redhat.com, and check the severn/FC1 test > product for some more recent lockup reports. Oh, this is a completely different bug. The problem I was running into were the locks completely broken iff NPTL and upgrading to rpm-4.2-1 under earlier RH9 kernels. A reboot or rm -rf /var/lib/rpm/__* seemed to fix the problem, until you upgrade or downgrade rpm. This problem seems to have gone away completely without explanation. Warren From tanner at real-time.com Tue Nov 4 04:54:19 2003 From: tanner at real-time.com (Bob Tanner) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 22:54:19 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] System In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200311032254.19424@join.TCLUG.at.www.mn-linux.org> On Monday 03 November 2003 12:39 pm, Chuck Wolber wrote: > We've set up bugzilla before, but not the RedHat pgsql'd version. I'm > tempted to set it up at bugzilla.quantumlinux.com (doesn't exist just > yet). Any objections? Cart before the horse? > Excellent. Other than setting up and admin'ing bugzilla, is there anything > else we can do? How about a cvs tree to start putting stuff? How about a policy on how the cvs tree will be maintained, ie rh73 branch, rh80 branch, rh9 branch or 1 .spec with %ifdef's to build them all? Taking a queue from the debian people, what's are social contract? -- Bob Tanner | Phone : (952)943-8700 http://www.mn-linux.org, Minnesota, Linux | Fax : (952)943-8500 Key fingerprint = AB15 0BDF BCDE 4369 5B42 1973 7CF1 A709 2CC1 B288 From chuckw at quantumlinux.com Tue Nov 4 05:17:03 2003 From: chuckw at quantumlinux.com (Chuck Wolber) Date: Mon, 3 Nov 2003 21:17:03 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] System In-Reply-To: <200311032254.19424@join.TCLUG.at.www.mn-linux.org> Message-ID: > > We've set up bugzilla before, but not the RedHat pgsql'd version. I'm > > tempted to set it up at bugzilla.quantumlinux.com (doesn't exist just > > yet). Any objections? > > Cart before the horse? How do you figure? -Chuck -- Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology * Education | -=^ Ad Astra Per Aspera ^=- * Integration | http://www.quantumlinux.com * Support | chuckw at quantumlinux.com A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text? From Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de Tue Nov 4 08:08:13 2003 From: Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de (Axel Thimm) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 09:08:13 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: rpm 4.2, apt 0.5.5cnc6, yum 2.0.4 for all RH platforms >= 7.3 In-Reply-To: <1067920036.4422.1.camel@laptop> References: <20031102104536.GF28736@puariko.nirvana> <1067803228.14617.52.camel@laptop> <20031103073730.GB16336@puariko.nirvana> <1067920036.4422.1.camel@laptop> Message-ID: <20031104080813.GC8523@puariko.nirvana> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 06:27:16PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > On Sun, 2003-11-02 at 21:37, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > Specifically what versions of RH have you seen the everlasting lock > > > bug? > > > > Any, otherwise it would not be `everlasting', would it ;) > > (O.K., any above 4.0.x) > > > > > What procedure would cause it? I ran into this too many months > > > ago, but recently haven't been able to reproduce it. jbj still insists > > > to this day that we're all crazy and this bug didn't exist. > > > > Then stress test your environment with a couple of > > > > while true; do rpm -qa > /dev/null; done > > > > And then issue rpm -Uhv or rpm -e in another terminal.. > > > > Or simply jump to bugzilla.redhat.com, and check the severn/FC1 test > > product for some more recent lockup reports. > > Oh, this is a completely different bug. The problem I was running into > were the locks completely broken iff NPTL and upgrading to rpm-4.2-1 > under earlier RH9 kernels. A reboot or rm -rf /var/lib/rpm/__* seemed > to fix the problem, until you upgrade or downgrade rpm. > > This problem seems to have gone away completely without explanation. Jeff removed O_DIRECT a few weeks after releasing the first 4.2-1, but didn't bump the release up (e.g. used the same EVR on rpm.org). Caused a lot of tears ... -- Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From warren at togami.com Tue Nov 4 08:33:03 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 22:33:03 -1000 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: rpm 4.2, apt 0.5.5cnc6, yum 2.0.4 for all RH platforms >= 7.3 In-Reply-To: <20031104080813.GC8523@puariko.nirvana> References: <20031102104536.GF28736@puariko.nirvana> <1067803228.14617.52.camel@laptop> <20031103073730.GB16336@puariko.nirvana> <1067920036.4422.1.camel@laptop> <20031104080813.GC8523@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: <1067934783.11320.22.camel@laptop> On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 22:08, Axel Thimm wrote: > > Jeff removed O_DIRECT a few weeks after releasing the first 4.2-1, but > didn't bump the release up (e.g. used the same EVR on rpm.org). > > Caused a lot of tears ... I am quite certain it was a different issue than O_DIRECT... but not that it matters anymore. Warren From warren at togami.com Tue Nov 4 08:50:50 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Mon, 03 Nov 2003 22:50:50 -1000 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] System In-Reply-To: <200311032254.19424@join.TCLUG.at.www.mn-linux.org> References: <200311032254.19424@join.TCLUG.at.www.mn-linux.org> Message-ID: <1067935849.11320.41.camel@laptop> On Mon, 2003-11-03 at 18:54, Bob Tanner wrote: > Taking a queue from the debian people, what's are social contract? > I don't think it is worth our time to define something like a social contract at this point. Right now we should define exactly what the Fedora Legacy project will do in terms of engineering. Most of the businesses involved with Fedora Legacy seem ONLY interested in security patches to existing distributions and NOT add-ons, am I right? With far fewer developers on Legacy than Fedora Core/Extras, I highly doubt we would have the necessary manpower to do proper QA of pet-project add-ons unless they happen to be VERY popular. Look at fedora.us QA queue for an example of why this wont work. Far too many packages are interesting ONLY TO THE PACKAGER. fedora.us and I believe Legacy should REFUSE to publish anything that has not been thoroughly checked by more than one trusted person. This is especially important for Legacy because far fewer people would be doing quality assurance and real world testing. Now assuming the Legacy developers accept this scope of "perhaps 95% updates, maybe 5% add-ons if they are VERY popular" it seems silly to think of a social contract for a project with such small and narrow scope. I am however interested in discussing a social contract for the larger Fedora Core/Extras project. I would perhaps be nuke flamed for my iconoclastic views regarding market realism, Open Source and COOPERATION with non-free [1]. Please start the thread in f-d-l if you really want to begin that discussion. I just hope this doesn't cause me to be excommunicated. Warren [1] I am really getting off topic.... but I consider this kind of distribution to be GOOD... if Macromedia seizes to neglect us. http://macromedia.mplug.org From kevin at oceania.net Tue Nov 4 22:00:39 2003 From: kevin at oceania.net (Kevin Waterson) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:00:39 +1100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] System In-Reply-To: <1067935849.11320.41.camel@laptop> References: <200311032254.19424@join.TCLUG.at.www.mn-linux.org> <1067935849.11320.41.camel@laptop> Message-ID: <20031105090039.7f949883.kevin@oceania.net> This one time, at band camp, Warren Togami wrote: > Most of the businesses involved with Fedora Legacy seem ONLY interested > in security patches to existing distributions and NOT add-ons, am I > right? I think this is so. I think anyone wanting add-ons at this time in the game would do well to update RHEL where there is more support available. kevin -- ______ (_____ \ _____) ) ____ ____ ____ ____ | ____/ / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \____) \_||_| \____) \____) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia From villegas at math.gatech.edu Tue Nov 4 15:03:41 2003 From: villegas at math.gatech.edu (Carlos Villegas) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 10:03:41 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] System In-Reply-To: <200311032254.19424@join.TCLUG.at.www.mn-linux.org> References: <200311032254.19424@join.TCLUG.at.www.mn-linux.org> Message-ID: <20031104150341.GC27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 10:54:19PM -0600, Bob Tanner wrote: > How about a cvs tree to start putting stuff? > > How about a policy on how the cvs tree will be maintained, ie rh73 branch, > rh80 branch, rh9 branch or 1 .spec with %ifdef's to build them all? > > Taking a queue from the debian people, what's are social contract? I've actually been wondering how are we going to handle the digital signatures, or better said, how are we going to establish the trust since probably most of the "erratas" will be security ones. I think that has has to be the first step (or among the first). I also wonder what will be the "end of life" policy. This might have been discussed before, I think I read somewhere 1 year after Fedora, but I'm not sure (I think that is reasonable). I'm new to the list and discussion, but I'm ready to help. Bring it on. Carlos From admin at cs.montana.edu Tue Nov 4 18:33:34 2003 From: admin at cs.montana.edu (Lucas Albers) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 11:33:34 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] System In-Reply-To: <20031105090039.7f949883.kevin@oceania.net> References: <200311032254.19424@join.TCLUG.at.www.mn-linux.org><1067935849.11320.41.camel@laptop> <20031105090039.7f949883.kevin@oceania.net> Message-ID: <1175.153.90.196.197.1067970814.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu> Yup. I have systems that work, and I just need security erratta. New systems are going to be running newer redhat or fedora, I'm not interesetd in installing new instances of redhat 7.3, only supporting my existing ones. Like the man said, we just want to keep critical systems working, while we determine how to upgrade them. --Luke > This one time, at band camp, Warren Togami wrote: > > >> Most of the businesses involved with Fedora Legacy seem ONLY interested >> in security patches to existing distributions and NOT add-ons, am I >> right? > > I think this is so. I think anyone wanting add-ons at this time in the > game > would do well to update RHEL where there is more support available. > > kevin > > -- > ______ > (_____ \ > _____) ) ____ ____ ____ ____ > | ____/ / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) > | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / > |_| \____) \_||_| \____) \____) > Kevin Waterson > Port Macquarie, Australia > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-legacy-list mailing list > Fedora-legacy-list at lists.dulug.duke.edu > https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list > From bladilo at is.rice.edu Tue Nov 4 19:47:17 2003 From: bladilo at is.rice.edu (Franco Bladilo) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 13:47:17 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] System In-Reply-To: <1175.153.90.196.197.1067970814.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu> References: <200311032254.19424@join.TCLUG.at.www.mn-linux.org><1067935849.11320.41.camel@laptop> <20031105090039.7f949883.kevin@oceania.net> <1175.153.90.196.197.1067970814.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu> Message-ID: <3FA80245.1060407@is.rice.edu> same thing here, all I need is security errata to support older rh (7.2 / 9) systems while we migrate them to rhel or fedora (we haven't decided yet) Does anybody knows if it's legally possible to rebuild RHEL from the SRPMS provided by RH on their ftp site and then distribute this new binary version. Lucas Albers wrote: >Yup. >I have systems that work, and I just need security erratta. >New systems are going to be running newer redhat or fedora, I'm not >interesetd in installing new instances of redhat 7.3, only supporting my >existing ones. >Like the man said, we just want to keep critical systems working, while we >determine how to upgrade them. >--Luke > > > >>This one time, at band camp, Warren Togami wrote: >> >> >> >> >>>Most of the businesses involved with Fedora Legacy seem ONLY interested >>>in security patches to existing distributions and NOT add-ons, am I >>>right? >>> >>> >>I think this is so. I think anyone wanting add-ons at this time in the >>game >>would do well to update RHEL where there is more support available. >> >>kevin >> >>-- >> ______ >>(_____ \ >> _____) ) ____ ____ ____ ____ >>| ____/ / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) >>| | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / >>|_| \____) \_||_| \____) \____) >>Kevin Waterson >>Port Macquarie, Australia >>_______________________________________________ >>Fedora-legacy-list mailing list >>Fedora-legacy-list at lists.dulug.duke.edu >>https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list >> >> >> > >_______________________________________________ >Fedora-legacy-list mailing list >Fedora-legacy-list at lists.dulug.duke.edu >https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list > >. > > > -- Franco Bladilo Linux Cluster Administrator Distributed Systems and LAN Management Rice University bladilo at rice.edu -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bianco at jlab.org Tue Nov 4 20:39:34 2003 From: bianco at jlab.org (David J. Bianco) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 15:39:34 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: System Message-ID: <3FA80E86.9070801@jlab.org> Warren Togami wrote: > Most of the businesses involved with Fedora Legacy seem ONLY interested > in security patches to existing distributions and NOT add-ons, am I > right? That's an emphatic YES from me. The Legacy Project won't have the manpower to go around adding in new features to old distros. Security patches will take enough work as it is, I think. I would further suggest our policy include two additional clarifications: * If we must fix bugs which are not security-related, fix the high priority items that cause work stoppage, data loss, etc. Don't fix unimportant bugs (simple cosmetic items, rarely used features, etc). Let those be fixed in newer Fedora releases. * Don't add new features no matter how popular they are, unless they are necessary to resolve security or high-priority functionality bugs. My idea is that once things are handed over to the Legacy Project, they should be considered more or less "frozen". It's not that I want to lock out Legacy users from newer features, it's just that I believe these releases should be looked upon as "stable" and not mucked with unnecessarily. I doubt the Project will have a lot of extra QA resources, so we'd need to concentrate them where they can do the most good for the least effort. David -- David J. Bianco, GSEC GCUX GCIH Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility GPG Fingerprint: 516A B80D AAB3 1617 A340 227A 723B BFBE B395 33BA The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and not those of SURA/Jefferson Lab or the US DOE. From jkeating at j2solutions.net Tue Nov 4 20:58:34 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 12:58:34 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: System In-Reply-To: <3FA80E86.9070801@jlab.org> References: <3FA80E86.9070801@jlab.org> Message-ID: <200311041258.38980.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Tuesday 04 November 2003 12:39, David J. Bianco wrote: > That's an emphatic YES from me. The Legacy Project won't have the > manpower to go around adding in new features to old distros. > Security patches will take enough work as it is, I think. > > I would further suggest our policy include two additional > clarifications: > > * If we must fix bugs which are not security-related, fix the high > priority items that cause work stoppage, data loss, etc. Don't fix > unimportant bugs (simple cosmetic items, rarely used features, etc). > Let those be fixed in newer Fedora releases. > * Don't add new features no matter how popular they are, unless > they are necessary to resolve security or high-priority functionality > bugs. > > My idea is that once things are handed over to the Legacy Project, > they should be considered more or less "frozen". It's not that I > want to lock out Legacy users from newer features, it's just that I > believe these releases should be looked upon as "stable" and not > mucked with unnecessarily. I doubt the Project will have a lot of > extra QA resources, so we'd need to concentrate them where they can > do the most good for the least effort. I concur completely, and will add these to the Wiki. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From heinlein at cse.ogi.edu Tue Nov 4 21:03:32 2003 From: heinlein at cse.ogi.edu (Paul Heinlein) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 13:03:32 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: System In-Reply-To: <3FA80E86.9070801@jlab.org> References: <3FA80E86.9070801@jlab.org> Message-ID: On Tue, 4 Nov 2003, David J. Bianco wrote: > My idea is that once things are handed over to the Legacy Project, > they should be considered more or less "frozen". It's not that I > want to lock out Legacy users from newer features, it's just that I > believe these releases should be looked upon as "stable" and not > mucked with unnecessarily. Well said. --Paul Heinlein From bianco at jlab.org Tue Nov 4 21:13:12 2003 From: bianco at jlab.org (David J. Bianco) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:13:12 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Trust Issues (was: Re: System) Message-ID: <3FA81668.3080502@jlab.org> Warren Togami wrote: > fedora.us and I believe Legacy should REFUSE to publish anything that > has not been thoroughly checked by more than one trusted person. This > is especially important for Legacy because far fewer people would be > doing quality assurance and real world testing. Another emphatic YES from me. If we expect people to trust us for security patches, we must provide them with some assurance that a) the fix works, and b) it does not contain malicious code. Neither of these determinations should be left up to a single person, and CERTAINLY not to the person who submits the patch. I imagine the other Fedora developers are planning to address this problem, since they also have to distribute code supplied by their semi-anonymous developer community. Does anyone know how they plan to handle things? David -- David J. Bianco, GSEC GCUX GCIH Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility GPG Fingerprint: 516A B80D AAB3 1617 A340 227A 723B BFBE B395 33BA The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and not those of SURA/Jefferson Lab or the US DOE. From admin at cs.montana.edu Tue Nov 4 21:31:40 2003 From: admin at cs.montana.edu (Lucas Albers) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 14:31:40 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: System In-Reply-To: <3FA80E86.9070801@jlab.org> References: <3FA80E86.9070801@jlab.org> Message-ID: <1691.153.90.196.197.1067981500.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu> > Warren Togami wrote: > I would further suggest our policy include two additional clarifications: > > * If we must fix bugs which are not security-related, fix the high > priority > items that cause work stoppage, data loss, etc. Don't fix > unimportant > bugs (simple cosmetic items, rarely used features, etc). Let those > be > fixed in newer Fedora releases. > * Don't add new features no matter how popular they are, unless they > are > necessary to resolve security or high-priority functionality bugs. > Add my voice to the herd, you pulled that thought out of my head. Exactly what I am thinking. If it's a bug and no one encounters it, who cares. Like my alpha with 2.4.9 kernel, been up for 70 days so I am not touching it. And my fault on the reboot...certainly not a crash. Yes Yes Yes. Just keeps working, not changing anything unless it's an exploit, or kernel/service crash. --Luke From admin at cs.montana.edu Tue Nov 4 21:33:29 2003 From: admin at cs.montana.edu (Lucas Albers) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 14:33:29 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] System In-Reply-To: <3FA80245.1060407@is.rice.edu> References: <200311032254.19424@join.TCLUG.at.www.mn-linux.org><1067935849.11320.41.camel@laptop> <20031105090039.7f949883.kevin@oceania.net><1175.153.90.196.197.1067970814.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu> <3FA80245.1060407@is.rice.edu> Message-ID: <1702.153.90.196.197.1067981609.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu> This lists talks about that, read the archive. rhel-rebuild-l at uibk.ac.at In summary, not trivial, but doable. --Luke > same thing here, all I need is security errata to support older rh (7.2 > / 9) systems while we migrate them to > rhel or fedora (we haven't decided yet) > Does anybody knows if it's legally possible to rebuild RHEL from the > SRPMS provided by RH on their ftp site and > then distribute this new binary version. > > > Lucas Albers wrote: From ingo at auroralinux.org Tue Nov 4 22:43:22 2003 From: ingo at auroralinux.org (Ingo T. Storm) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 23:43:22 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] System References: <200311032254.19424@join.TCLUG.at.www.mn-linux.org><1067935849.11320.41.camel@laptop><20031105090039.7f949883.kevin@oceania.net> <1175.153.90.196.197.1067970814.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu> Message-ID: <00ab01c3a325$2df56440$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> Hello, I am new to the list and new to the project's approach, so please forgive any stupid remarks or questions - just point me to TFM or correct me. I am not too sensitive;-) I have browsed the list archive in order not to duplicate anything and now I'd like to share my few cents: - project goal and scope: As most others I have a bunch of RH7.2 and RH7.3 systems I'd like to keep alive and secure at least for a while. To add some spice: besides a bunch of ia32 boxes of which most will be converted to RHEL ES/WS/PW, I have sparc and alpha boxes that need errata, too. The sparc machines are running Aurora (http://auroralinux.org) which is based on Red Hat Linux 7.3. The alpha machines (Ruffian, Avanti, Miata) run RH7.2AXP. Bottom line: _I run servers. I want security updates to core services. No new drivers, new kernel features, no desktop functionality whatsoever._ - I agree with most "initial notes" compiled on http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy, esp. David J. Bianco's post. - package maintainership: I share the view that there won't be that many packages that need errata. A quick scan over the last 6 months of errata to RH7.3 revealed: little over 1 weekly erratum that touches the kernel, core OS functionality (e.g. fileutils, unzip) or crucial network services (squid, openssh, apache). So it's no use assigning maintainers to the 800+ SRPMS RH7.3 is built of. I'd rather have pairs or triples of people with certain dutys and/or skills so that vacations or job burdens don't let a high profile exploit be unnoticed by the project for too long. Two/three people should be on vendor-sec. In addition two/three people should monitor mailing lists of each "functionality group" like e.g. "apache/php/mysql/postgresql", "openssl/openssh", "core utilities", "kernel/netfilter". If and ONLY if you have too many volunteers, add mozilla, evolution, xfree86, gnome, kde... The potential backporters need not be identical with the monitors. I'd rather favor that all the "backporters" maintain a personal wiki page with their skills/experiences, "last job done", current and expected spare time, so that the "monitors" have a pool to chose from. QA and possibly porting to my two extra arches would be the third stage. This does not mean that monitors should not be backporters and that I don't expect that certain people will always be asked first when a certain package needs fixing. As far as the "monitoring" is concerned: This is the area I know the least about, since it was just dead easy for Aurora. Using Red Hat's experience and processes should be the smartest possible move. - my possible contribution: I honestly can't code to save my life. But as an errata builder for Aurora I know how to build RPMS, sneak in the odd patch and identify problems. So I can do some of the boring work and thus save some valuable time of the folks that should spend their time hacking away instead of maintaining a stupid %changelog. Additionally I will try and port ia32 patches to the sparc and alpha architectures (and maybe get some people into the boat who can do that a lot better). - my most important question: has any thought been given yet to include sparc and alpha at all? I hope I did not bore you too much. Ingo From xose at wanadoo.es Tue Nov 4 23:03:06 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 00:03:06 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] System References: <200311032254.19424@join.TCLUG.at.www.mn-linux.org><1067935849.11320.41.camel@laptop><20031105090039.7f949883.kevin@oceania.net> <1175.153.90.196.197.1067970814.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu> <00ab01c3a325$2df56440$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> Message-ID: <3FA8302A.5070302@wanadoo.es> Ingo T. Storm wrote: > openssh, apache). So it's no use assigning maintainers to the 800+ SRPMS > RH7.3 is built of. I'd rather have pairs or triples of people with certain > dutys and/or skills so that vacations or job burdens don't let a high > profile exploit be unnoticed by the project for too long. Two/three people > should be on vendor-sec. In addition two/three people should monitor mailing > lists of each "functionality group" like e.g. "apache/php/mysql/postgresql", > "openssl/openssh", "core utilities", "kernel/netfilter". If and ONLY if you > have too many volunteers, add mozilla, evolution, xfree86, gnome, kde... The > potential backporters need not be identical with the monitors. I'd rather Well, Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1 is a mix of RHL 7.x, 7.2 as base + some updates from 7.3 _except the kernel_. So we can get lot of feedback and work done from Red Hat erratas announcements[1][2] and erratas updates[2]. [1] http://redhat.com/apps/support/errata/ [2] http://redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/enterprise-watch-list [3] http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/updates/enterprise/ -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From xose at wanadoo.es Wed Nov 5 02:09:25 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 03:09:25 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <20031104201719.B14091@crank.slack.net> <1067995617.593.30.camel@earth.xades.com> <200311041738.00442.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> Jesse Keating wrote: this comes from fedora-test-list at redhat.com > Think of it as a 1-2-3-out method. > > Nov: FC 1 is released. > May: FC 2 is released. > Jul: RH drops FC 1 support, Legacy picks it up. > Nov: FC 3 is released > Jan: RH drops FC 2 support, Legacy picks it up, release FC1 becomes > deprecated. > May: FC 4 is released > Jul: RH drops FC 3 support, Legacy picks it up. > Jul~Aug: Legacy drops support for FC1 > > lather, rinse, repeat. > > RHL 7.3 and 9 are special cases, and will continue to be supported by > Legacy for as long as there is community interest in said errata. I see a lot of people bad informed about Red Hat EOL and Fedora Legacy. It would be necessary to prepare an 'official announce' about Legacy Project to send out there(fedora list, lwn, linux today, ml, ....). aims of the project, how to help, expected distributions lifetime ... -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From warren at togami.com Wed Nov 5 02:50:13 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:50:13 -1000 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Trust Issues (was: Re: System) In-Reply-To: <3FA81668.3080502@jlab.org> References: <3FA81668.3080502@jlab.org> Message-ID: <1068000612.11320.82.camel@laptop> On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 11:13, David J. Bianco wrote: > Another emphatic YES from me. If we expect people to trust us for security > patches, we must provide them with some assurance that a) the fix works, and > b) it does not contain malicious code. Neither of these determinations > should be left up to a single person, and CERTAINLY not to the person who > submits the patch. > > I imagine the other Fedora developers are planning to address this problem, > since they also have to distribute code supplied by their semi-anonymous > developer community. Does anyone know how they plan to handle things? > > David fedora.redhat.com has indicated earlier that there will be a formal developer sign-up process where you need to sign legal forms and provide proof of identification. In addition to this I hope we will have something similar to fedora.us current ultra-paranoid use of GPG, signing developer keys only after they have proven their cluefulness and trustworthiness over the period of many months of submitting good packages, and providing good QA feedback for other packagers. Warren From warren at togami.com Wed Nov 5 02:53:36 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Tue, 04 Nov 2003 16:53:36 -1000 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <20031104201719.B14091@crank.slack.net> <1067995617.593.30.camel@earth.xades.com> <200311041738.00442.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> Message-ID: <1068000815.11320.85.camel@laptop> On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 16:09, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > I see a lot of people bad informed about Red Hat EOL and Fedora Legacy. > It would be necessary to prepare an 'official announce' about Legacy Project > to send out there(fedora list, lwn, linux today, ml, ....). aims of > the project, how to help, expected distributions lifetime ... Good idea. Would someone like to write the first draft for a press release? We can then argue over the presentation and details contained within that draft. (Make sure you make the subject "Draft ....") Warren From barryn at pobox.com Wed Nov 5 05:13:49 2003 From: barryn at pobox.com (Barry K. Nathan) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 21:13:49 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] (maybe OT) Why both aptify and yummify? (was Re: System) In-Reply-To: <200310242056.31349.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <200310241438.52797.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <200310242022.15986.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <1067053294.9397.70.camel@binkley> <200310242056.31349.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <20031105051349.GC8225@ip68-4-255-84.oc.oc.cox.net> On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 08:56:27PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Friday 24 October 2003 20:41, seth vidal uttered: > > do both. > > please. > > With the explaination you've given me on IRC, it makes sense to do them both. > I was hoping to avoid the nightmares of maintaining an apt repot, but *shrug* > (: Is this (that is, why you should aptify as well as yummify) explained anywhere in writing? I'm having trouble finding an explanation elsewhere... -Barry K. Nathan From skvidal at phy.duke.edu Wed Nov 5 05:34:37 2003 From: skvidal at phy.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 00:34:37 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] (maybe OT) Why both aptify and yummify? (was Re: System) In-Reply-To: <20031105051349.GC8225@ip68-4-255-84.oc.oc.cox.net> References: <200310241438.52797.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <200310242022.15986.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <1067053294.9397.70.camel@binkley> <200310242056.31349.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <20031105051349.GC8225@ip68-4-255-84.oc.oc.cox.net> Message-ID: <1068010477.1309.134.camel@binkley> On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 00:13, Barry K. Nathan wrote: > On Fri, Oct 24, 2003 at 08:56:27PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Friday 24 October 2003 20:41, seth vidal uttered: > > > do both. > > > please. > > > > With the explaination you've given me on IRC, it makes sense to do them both. > > I was hoping to avoid the nightmares of maintaining an apt repot, but *shrug* > > (: > > Is this (that is, why you should aptify as well as yummify) explained > anywhere in writing? I'm having trouble finding an explanation > elsewhere... There is much work going on to make it so you can generate the metadata of a repository of packages only once, in one format and both yum and apt (among other tools) will be able to use that repository. I hope we can have the format available for mid Fedora Core 2 devel cycle. -sv From jeremyp at pobox.com Wed Nov 5 13:30:11 2003 From: jeremyp at pobox.com (Jeremy Portzer) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 08:30:11 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] System In-Reply-To: <00ab01c3a325$2df56440$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> References: <200311032254.19424@join.TCLUG.at.www.mn-linux.org> <1067935849.11320.41.camel@laptop> <20031105090039.7f949883.kevin@oceania.net> <1175.153.90.196.197.1067970814.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu> <00ab01c3a325$2df56440$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> Message-ID: <1068039011.24282.8.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 17:43, Ingo T. Storm wrote: > - package maintainership: I share the view that there won't be that many > packages that need errata. A quick scan over the last 6 months of errata to > RH7.3 revealed: little over 1 weekly erratum that touches the kernel, core > OS functionality (e.g. fileutils, unzip) or crucial network services (squid, > openssh, apache). So it's no use assigning maintainers to the 800+ SRPMS > RH7.3 is built of. I'd rather have pairs or triples of people with certain > dutys and/or skills so that vacations or job burdens don't let a high > profile exploit be unnoticed by the project for too long. Two/three people > should be on vendor-sec. In addition two/three people should monitor mailing > lists of each "functionality group" like e.g. "apache/php/mysql/postgresql", > "openssl/openssh", "core utilities", "kernel/netfilter". If and ONLY if you > have too many volunteers, add mozilla, evolution, xfree86, gnome, kde... The > potential backporters need not be identical with the monitors. I'd rather > favor that all the "backporters" maintain a personal wiki page with their > skills/experiences, "last job done", current and expected spare time, so > that the "monitors" have a pool to chose from. > Another thing to keep in mind -- in many cases, the backport work will already be done by Red Hat, for Red Hat Enterprise Linux 2.1. So in many cases it will just be QA'ing that package (retrieved from the SRPM archive) on 7.3. (RHEL 2.1 is based on 7.2 and has most of the same features as 7.3.) --Jeremy -- /---------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Jeremy Portzer jeremyp at pobox.com trilug.org/~jeremy | | GPG Fingerprint: 712D 77C7 AB2D 2130 989F E135 6F9F F7BC CC1A 7B92 | \---------------------------------------------------------------------/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From eric.rostetter at physics.utexas.edu Wed Nov 5 04:12:35 2003 From: eric.rostetter at physics.utexas.edu (Eric Rostetter) Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 22:12:35 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <20031104201719.B14091@crank.slack.net> <1067995617.593.30.camel@earth.xades.com> <200311041738.00442.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> Message-ID: <20031104221235.cw4pw4csg400k04g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Quoting Xose Vazquez Perez : > > RHL 7.3 and 9 are special cases, and will continue to be supported by > > Legacy for as long as there is community interest in said errata. Which is the key! > I see a lot of people bad informed about Red Hat EOL and Fedora Legacy. Yes, because RH/Fedora/Fedora Legacy didn't get the info out in a timely matter to the Red Hat customers. Once I found out about Fedora and Fedora Legacy from the Dell PowerEdge Server Linux mailing list, I joined the Fedora Legacy mailing list. But I should have found out from RH, not from the Dell mailing list community. Now I know what is going on. But I also know therefor that Fedora Legacy is behind schedule, and not expected to make the December deadline for the 7.3 support. > It would be necessary to prepare an 'official announce' about Legacy Project > to send out there(fedora list, lwn, linux today, ml, ....). aims of > the project, how to help, expected distributions lifetime ... Yes. But since the Fedora and Fedora Legacy software does not yet exist, it only inspires hope, and doesn't provide a solution yet. And sending it to fedora list is not the best idea. If I'm on the fedora list, I probably know about it already. Send it to the Red Hat lists, not the fedora lists. Send it to the RH related lists, to reach those not on the Red Hat lists. And put info on the Red Hat web site pointing to the Fedora and Fedora Legacy web sites. We're RH customers. We go to www.redhat.com for info. The info/links need to be there. Many of us are on Red Hat's public mailing list. They should be providing this information, or at least pointers to it. -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Why get even? Get odd! From skvidal at phy.duke.edu Wed Nov 5 15:35:04 2003 From: skvidal at phy.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 15:35:04 -0000 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <20031104221235.cw4pw4csg400k04g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <20031104201719.B14091@crank.slack.net> <1067995617.593.30.camel@earth.xades.com> <200311041738.00442.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> <20031104221235.cw4pw4csg400k04g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Message-ID: <1068046639.30152.9.camel@opus> > Yes. But since the Fedora and Fedora Legacy software does not yet exist, > it only inspires hope, and doesn't provide a solution yet. And sending > it to fedora list is not the best idea. If I'm on the fedora list, I > probably know about it already. Send it to the Red Hat lists, not the > fedora lists. Send it to the RH related lists, to reach those not on > the Red Hat lists. And put info on the Red Hat web site pointing to > the Fedora and Fedora Legacy web sites. > > We're RH customers. We go to www.redhat.com for info. The info/links > need to be there. Many of us are on Red Hat's public mailing list. They > should be providing this information, or at least pointers to it. Red hat doesn't have any interest to do that afaict. They want to sell RHEL - why drive people to something else? -sv From jeremyp at pobox.com Wed Nov 5 15:41:22 2003 From: jeremyp at pobox.com (Jeremy Portzer) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 10:41:22 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <1068046639.30152.9.camel@opus> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <20031104201719.B14091@crank.slack.net> <1067995617.593.30.camel@earth.xades.com> <200311041738.00442.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> <20031104221235.cw4pw4csg400k04g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> <1068046639.30152.9.camel@opus> Message-ID: <1068046881.24282.45.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 10:37, seth vidal wrote: > > Yes. But since the Fedora and Fedora Legacy software does not yet exist, > > it only inspires hope, and doesn't provide a solution yet. And sending > > it to fedora list is not the best idea. If I'm on the fedora list, I > > probably know about it already. Send it to the Red Hat lists, not the > > fedora lists. Send it to the RH related lists, to reach those not on > > the Red Hat lists. And put info on the Red Hat web site pointing to > > the Fedora and Fedora Legacy web sites. > > > > We're RH customers. We go to www.redhat.com for info. The info/links > > need to be there. Many of us are on Red Hat's public mailing list. They > > should be providing this information, or at least pointers to it. > > Red hat doesn't have any interest to do that afaict. They want to sell > RHEL - why drive people to something else? But Red Hat did announce and conceive of Fedora Legacy. But I guess you're saying they didn't conceive of the extended support for 7.3 and 9, as they figure that 7.3 and 9 server users should migrate to RHEL? --Jeremy -- /---------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Jeremy Portzer jeremyp at pobox.com trilug.org/~jeremy | | GPG Fingerprint: 712D 77C7 AB2D 2130 989F E135 6F9F F7BC CC1A 7B92 | \---------------------------------------------------------------------/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From warren at togami.com Wed Nov 5 15:44:22 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 05:44:22 -1000 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <20031104221235.cw4pw4csg400k04g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <20031104201719.B14091@crank.slack.net> <1067995617.593.30.camel@earth.xades.com> <200311041738.00442.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> <20031104221235.cw4pw4csg400k04g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Message-ID: <1068047061.13574.66.camel@laptop> On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 18:12, Eric Rostetter wrote: > going on. But I also know therefor that Fedora Legacy is behind schedule, > and not expected to make the December deadline for the 7.3 support. Who said so? We are on track for December opening of Fedora Legacy for needed distributions. Warren From skvidal at phy.duke.edu Wed Nov 5 15:43:44 2003 From: skvidal at phy.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 15:43:44 -0000 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <1068046881.24282.45.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <20031104201719.B14091@crank.slack.net> <1067995617.593.30.camel@earth.xades.com> <200311041738.00442.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> <20031104221235.cw4pw4csg400k04g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> <1068046639.30152.9.camel@opus> <1068046881.24282.45.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> Message-ID: <1068047158.30152.11.camel@opus> > But Red Hat did announce and conceive of Fedora Legacy. > But I guess you're saying they didn't conceive of the extended support > for 7.3 and 9, as they figure that 7.3 and 9 server users should migrate > to RHEL? Well, sorta. Fedora Legacy is something that was included in the 'not RHLP' proposal but red hat wants nothing officially to do with it. They won't carry the files and won't touch it. -sv From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Nov 5 16:51:00 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 08:51:00 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <1068046881.24282.45.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <1068046639.30152.9.camel@opus> <1068046881.24282.45.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> Message-ID: <200311050851.01851.jkeating@j2solutions.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 05 November 2003 07:41, Jeremy Portzer wrote: > But Red Hat did announce and conceive of Fedora Legacy. > But I guess you're saying they didn't conceive of the extended support > for 7.3 and 9, as they figure that 7.3 and 9 server users should migrate > to RHEL? Actually Red Hat didn't conceive of Legacy. I've been told that Warren Togami (of Fedora.us fame) had the idea somewhat formed and floated it to Red Hat during migration talks, and it wound up on the web page. I saw it and was interested in it, and found out that there really wasn't anything defined for it, and Warren gave me free reign to pick up the ball and run with it. Now we have Legacy with a more clearly defined goal set. Red Hat has been just a bit busy lately, and they haven't put any man hours into updating the fedora.redhat.com website with a more clear definition of what Legacy is. I'll be asking for that shortly. I had hoped to have a full blown website up prior to this, so that they could link to it, instead of or Wiki. And no, when Warren first brought up the idea, the support for 7.3 and 9 were not discussed. Red Hat did not know that this was a goal at first, but they do now. They are helping us as much as they can so that we can launch our server by the end of this month, and launch services in December when 7.3 goes EOL. Warren, please correct me if I'm wrong at all. - -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (http://geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/qSp04v2HLvE71NURAr3dAKC6KDKgsOIHZQ3OqM58h2cY4FlXaACdEF8V 3tLVg7z+DnRWWwhtsoN7M+8= =+ulQ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rostetter at mail.utexas.edu Wed Nov 5 15:57:19 2003 From: rostetter at mail.utexas.edu (Eric Rostetter) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:57:19 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <1068046639.30152.9.camel@opus> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <20031104201719.B14091@crank.slack.net> <1067995617.593.30.camel@earth.xades.com> <200311041738.00442.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> <20031104221235.cw4pw4csg400k04g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> <1068046639.30152.9.camel@opus> Message-ID: <20031105095719.8teyf448g8gk408g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Quoting seth vidal : > > We're RH customers. We go to www.redhat.com for info. The info/links > > need to be there. Many of us are on Red Hat's public mailing list. They > > should be providing this information, or at least pointers to it. > > Red hat doesn't have any interest to do that afaict. They want to sell > RHEL - why drive people to something else? Everytime I talk to them they are pushing Fedora. So they don't seem to see this the same way. On the mailing lists I am on, Red Hat employees are very much pushing Fedora. The problem is, I had to ask 3 times just to find the info I needed to find out about Fedora. So they are pushing Fedora, but not providing the info needed while pushing it. BTW, the www.redhat.com web site has really improved in the last couple of weeks as far as getting the info out... Better late than never. > -sv Eric From skvidal at phy.duke.edu Wed Nov 5 15:58:30 2003 From: skvidal at phy.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 15:58:30 -0000 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <20031105095719.8teyf448g8gk408g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <20031104201719.B14091@crank.slack.net> <1067995617.593.30.camel@earth.xades.com> <200311041738.00442.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> <20031104221235.cw4pw4csg400k04g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> <1068046639.30152.9.camel@opus> <20031105095719.8teyf448g8gk408g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Message-ID: <1068048044.30152.20.camel@opus> > Everytime I talk to them they are pushing Fedora. So they don't seem to > see this the same way. On the mailing lists I am on, Red Hat employees > are very much pushing Fedora. I think this is the corporate multiple personality disorder that Bruce Perens talks about. The devel people I've talked to are interested in fedora. The sales people are downplaying it pretty heavily. -sv From rostetter at mail.utexas.edu Wed Nov 5 16:03:01 2003 From: rostetter at mail.utexas.edu (Eric Rostetter) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:03:01 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <1068047061.13574.66.camel@laptop> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <20031104201719.B14091@crank.slack.net> <1067995617.593.30.camel@earth.xades.com> <200311041738.00442.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> <20031104221235.cw4pw4csg400k04g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> <1068047061.13574.66.camel@laptop> Message-ID: <20031105100301.znd0xs084gcog084@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Quoting Warren Togami : > On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 18:12, Eric Rostetter wrote: > > going on. But I also know therefor that Fedora Legacy is behind schedule, > > and not expected to make the December deadline for the 7.3 support. > > Who said so? We are on track for December opening of Fedora Legacy for > needed distributions. > > Warren Okay, I take it back. I was refering to such messages as: https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/pipermail/fedora-legacy-list/2003-October/000070.html which make it sound like things won't be ready in time, until the end were he says that things will probably be ready in time despite all the problems listed before that... Sorry for the mistake. My memory recorded the first 3 paragraphs and forgot the 4th... Eric From rostetter at mail.utexas.edu Wed Nov 5 16:09:55 2003 From: rostetter at mail.utexas.edu (Eric Rostetter) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 10:09:55 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <20031105095719.8teyf448g8gk408g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <20031104201719.B14091@crank.slack.net> <1067995617.593.30.camel@earth.xades.com> <200311041738.00442.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> <20031104221235.cw4pw4csg400k04g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> <1068046639.30152.9.camel@opus> <20031105095719.8teyf448g8gk408g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Message-ID: <20031105100955.83pi28o08kgwck04@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Quoting Eric Rostetter : > Everytime I talk to them they are pushing Fedora. So they don't seem to > see this the same way. On the mailing lists I am on, Red Hat employees > are very much pushing Fedora. Sorry, everything I say there for "Fedora" also applies to "Fedora Legacy". Didn't mean to focus on Fedora instead of Fedora Legacy... Too early in the morning I guess... Eric From warren at togami.com Wed Nov 5 16:11:37 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 06:11:37 -1000 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <200311050851.01851.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <1068046639.30152.9.camel@opus> <1068046881.24282.45.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> <200311050851.01851.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <1068048697.13574.69.camel@laptop> On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 06:51, Jesse Keating wrote: > And no, when Warren first brought up the idea, the support for 7.3 and 9 > were not discussed. Red Hat did not know that this was a goal at first, > but they do now. They are helping us as much as they can so that we can > launch our server by the end of this month, and launch services in > December when 7.3 goes EOL. Only a slight correction, older distributions were originally going to be *eventually* supported in the original fedora.us if the developers appeared. Legacy was the logical extension from fedora.us, and my original Legacy proposal actually didn't even think about FC since it was more than a year away. I was thinking of the older RH distributions first since it would be more immediate. Warren From warren at togami.com Wed Nov 5 16:17:50 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 06:17:50 -1000 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <1068048044.30152.20.camel@opus> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <20031104201719.B14091@crank.slack.net> <1067995617.593.30.camel@earth.xades.com> <200311041738.00442.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> <20031104221235.cw4pw4csg400k04g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> <1068046639.30152.9.camel@opus> <20031105095719.8teyf448g8gk408g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> <1068048044.30152.20.camel@opus> Message-ID: <1068049070.13574.76.camel@laptop> On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 06:00, seth vidal wrote: > > Everytime I talk to them they are pushing Fedora. So they don't seem to > > see this the same way. On the mailing lists I am on, Red Hat employees > > are very much pushing Fedora. > > I think this is the corporate multiple personality disorder that Bruce > Perens talks about. The devel people I've talked to are interested in > fedora. The sales people are downplaying it pretty heavily. The marketing folks are really trying to make sure that Fedora doesn't cut into possible Enterprise sales, while the engineers are more concerned about the technology moving forward. I personally am concerned that this has led to the widespread confusion that pervades the vast majority of communities out there. An official press release from the Fedora Legacy team firmly stating our goals and a roadmap would help to ease this situation. I suspect the press release would only need to say something like, "Fedora Legacy is an independent entity and not officially sanctioned by Red Hat, Inc." Then list all the current business/University sponsors and perhaps influential developers who wish to be listed. (On this topic I might have got another business sponsor onboard, stay tuned.) Launching the Legacy tree would be a relatively easy matter of populating a tree for replication, putting together the website for documentation. Then Bugzilla and the actual development can proceed. Package quantity WILL NOT BE HIGH so we can afford to put up infrastructure piece-by-piece rather than needing everything in place immediately. Warren From xose at wanadoo.es Wed Nov 5 16:35:28 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 17:35:28 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <20031104201719.B14091@crank.slack.net> <1067995617.593.30.camel@earth.xades.com> <200311041738.00442.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> <20031104221235.cw4pw4csg400k04g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> <1068046639.30152.9.camel@opus> <1068046881.24282.45.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> <1068047158.30152.11.camel@opus> Message-ID: <3FA926D0.5080700@wanadoo.es> seth vidal wrote: > Well, sorta. Fedora Legacy is something that was included in the 'not > RHLP' proposal but red hat wants nothing officially to do with it. They > won't carry the files and won't touch it. I would not be so sure about this: from http://fedora.redhat.com/participate/terminology.html --end-- Fedora Legacy "Fedora Legacy" refers to package fixes submitted for old versions of core packages or old releases of Fedora Core by people on an adhoc basis. Packages in Fedora Legacy are controlled by their respective package maintainers and are subject to the acceptable use policies of the project. Packages in Fedora Legacy can be maintained by anyone who agrees to the project's policies and procedures. The steering committee can be asked to provide guidance, but has no power to remove legacy packages or material within legacy packages. However, legal issues or not following project guidelines may cause packages to lose their "Fedora Legacy" status. Packages in Fedora Legacy must be built entirely from software meeting the open source guidelines and must be signed with the package's key rather than the Fedora key. RHN will not carry Fedora Legacy content. Red Hat will provide CVS repositories, ftp and minimal web services, and possibly other facilities needed by the Fedora Legacy packages. --end-- -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From dac at cafaro.net Wed Nov 5 16:44:00 2003 From: dac at cafaro.net (David A. Cafaro) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 16:44:00 -0000 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Hello Looking for information Message-ID: <1068050734.3882.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hello All, I just found out about the Fedora Legacy Project today and am very curious. As we use RedHat at our school for everything from Clusters, and Servers to Desktops, the recent change in RedHat's structure has caused some concerns. In looking at our options I found this group. I was wondering if there was some central area (website) listing goals and plans for this project pretty clearly. I'm still reading through the list archives, but was hoping there was something a little less fluid than a list archive to bring up to the linux groups here in the area and at work. Depending on at what point your group is at, I may be interested in supplying some helping hands, as well as resources. Thank you for any information. Cheers, David -- David A. Cafaro, RHCE, CCNA dac(at)cafaro.net Systems Analyst, Georgetown University, DC Co-Chair CALUG (Columbia Area Linux Users Group), MD From warren at togami.com Wed Nov 5 17:01:02 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 07:01:02 -1000 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <1068047061.13574.66.camel@laptop> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <20031104201719.B14091@crank.slack.net> <1067995617.593.30.camel@earth.xades.com> <200311041738.00442.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> <20031104221235.cw4pw4csg400k04g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> <1068047061.13574.66.camel@laptop> Message-ID: <1068051661.13574.91.camel@laptop> On Wed, 2003-11-05 at 05:44, Warren Togami wrote: > On Tue, 2003-11-04 at 18:12, Eric Rostetter wrote: > > going on. But I also know therefor that Fedora Legacy is behind schedule, > > and not expected to make the December deadline for the 7.3 support. > > Who said so? We are on track for December opening of Fedora Legacy for > needed distributions. > > Warren I must state a correction, we are on track ASSUMING everyone continues to push forward progress on all fronts of this project. Please post and discuss drafts for the much needed press release today as our next step in this process. Warren From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Nov 5 17:00:19 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:00:19 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <1068049070.13574.76.camel@laptop> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <1068048044.30152.20.camel@opus> <1068049070.13574.76.camel@laptop> Message-ID: <200311050900.23550.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 05 November 2003 08:17, Warren Togami wrote: > Launching the Legacy tree would be a relatively easy matter of > populating a tree for replication, putting together the website for > documentation. Then Bugzilla and the actual development can proceed. > Package quantity WILL NOT BE HIGH so we can afford to put up > infrastructure piece-by-piece rather than needing everything in place > immediately. Agreed. I'll push to get the server up ASAP. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Nov 5 17:02:27 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 09:02:27 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Hello Looking for information In-Reply-To: <1068050734.3882.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1068050734.3882.32.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200311050902.27823.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 05 November 2003 08:45, David A. Cafaro wrote: > I was wondering if there was some central area (website) listing > goals and plans for this project pretty clearly. I'm still reading > through the list archives, but was hoping there was something a > little less fluid than a list archive to bring up to the linux groups > here in the area and at work. To start with we have a wiki: http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy We're planning a launch with all kinds of info soon. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From villegas at math.gatech.edu Wed Nov 5 19:05:14 2003 From: villegas at math.gatech.edu (Carlos Villegas) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 14:05:14 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <1068051661.13574.91.camel@laptop> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <20031104201719.B14091@crank.slack.net> <1067995617.593.30.camel@earth.xades.com> <200311041738.00442.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> <20031104221235.cw4pw4csg400k04g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> <1068047061.13574.66.camel@laptop> <1068051661.13574.91.camel@laptop> Message-ID: <20031105190514.GJ27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 07:01:02AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > I must state a correction, we are on track ASSUMING everyone continues > to push forward progress on all fronts of this project. Please post and > discuss drafts for the much needed press release today as our next step > in this process. Is anyone already drafting this press release? There has been no reply to this on the mailing list. If not I can start doing something, but it would be very primitive, since I've only been on the mailing list for a couple of weeks, mainly as an "observer", and have not joined the irc channels or used the wiki. If no one else is doing it or I don't get a reply to this, I'll start working on it but you have been warned, that it will probably require a lot of work... Carlos PS: I saw some reference to needed servers, what in particular is needed, we might be able to provide some of the required services. From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Nov 5 19:13:10 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:13:10 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <20031105190514.GJ27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <1068051661.13574.91.camel@laptop> <20031105190514.GJ27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <200311051113.14748.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 05 November 2003 11:05, Carlos Villegas wrote: > PS: I saw some reference to needed servers, what in particular is > needed, we might be able to provide some of the required services. We'll mostly be in need of mirrors. Pogo Linux has offered us a dual opteron server for building and seeding the server, as well as rackspace/bandwidth at their colo to house it. We'll need plenty of mirrors so that we don't abuse their generosity in the bandwidth department. Unfortunately we don't have an official mirror structure or sign up thing. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Nov 5 19:19:30 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 11:19:30 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] FC has been released. Message-ID: <200311051119.31068.jkeating@j2solutions.net> In case anybody has missed it: http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/core/1/i386/iso/ torrent at http://torrent.dulug.duke.edu -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From whooperhsd3 at earthlink.net Wed Nov 5 21:20:59 2003 From: whooperhsd3 at earthlink.net (William Hooper) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 16:20:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Fedora-legacy-list at Red Hat? Message-ID: <3302.12.29.16.103.1068067259.squirrel@12.29.16.103> Is the @redhat.com list new? Are there plans to migrate/merge this list and the @redhat.com one? -- William Hooper From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Nov 5 21:22:34 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 13:22:34 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Fedora-legacy-list at Red Hat? In-Reply-To: <3302.12.29.16.103.1068067259.squirrel@12.29.16.103> References: <3302.12.29.16.103.1068067259.squirrel@12.29.16.103> Message-ID: <200311051322.39434.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 05 November 2003 13:20, William Hooper wrote: > Is the @redhat.com list new? Are there plans to migrate/merge this > list and the @redhat.com one? What @redhat.com list? -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Nov 5 21:26:08 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 13:26:08 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Fedora-legacy-list at Red Hat? In-Reply-To: <3302.12.29.16.103.1068067259.squirrel@12.29.16.103> References: <3302.12.29.16.103.1068067259.squirrel@12.29.16.103> Message-ID: <200311051326.08845.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 05 November 2003 13:20, William Hooper wrote: > Is the @redhat.com list new? Are there plans to migrate/merge this > list and the @redhat.com one? Oh drat. RH created a list when they found out they were allowed to host it. I'll be working with them to get things migrated over. Please continue discussion here for now. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From ingo at auroralinux.org Wed Nov 5 20:11:08 2003 From: ingo at auroralinux.org (Ingo T. Storm) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 21:11:08 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com><1068051661.13574.91.camel@laptop><20031105190514.GJ27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> <200311051113.14748.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <008a01c3a3e8$5483a680$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> >We'll mostly be in need of mirrors. I can offer a mirror in Germany - fast during daytime, limited at night. Who's starting a "mirrors" page in the wiki? Maybe a separate mailing list for mirror admins? Ingo From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Nov 5 22:03:08 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 14:03:08 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <008a01c3a3e8$5483a680$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <200311051113.14748.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <008a01c3a3e8$5483a680$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> Message-ID: <200311051403.09059.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 05 November 2003 12:11, Ingo T. Storm wrote: > Who's starting a "mirrors" page in the wiki? Maybe a separate mailing > list for mirror admins? I think the traffic will be light enough to continue using the same list. I'll pop up a mirror offer section. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From erik at cpsc.ucalgary.ca Wed Nov 5 22:40:36 2003 From: erik at cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Erik Williamson) Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 15:40:36 -0700 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <200311051403.09059.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <200311051113.14748.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <008a01c3a3e8$5483a680$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> <200311051403.09059.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <3FA97C64.3020304@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> Count me in as well: have disk + bandwidth, willing to party. Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 05 November 2003 12:11, Ingo T. Storm wrote: > >>Who's starting a "mirrors" page in the wiki? Maybe a separate mailing >>list for mirror admins? > > > I think the traffic will be light enough to continue using the same > list. I'll pop up a mirror offer section. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > Fedora-legacy-list mailing list > Fedora-legacy-list at lists.dulug.duke.edu > https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list -- e r i k w i l l i a m s o n erik at cpsc.ucalgary.ca system admin . department of computer science . university of calgary From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Nov 5 22:43:13 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 14:43:13 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <3FA97C64.3020304@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <200311051403.09059.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FA97C64.3020304@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> Message-ID: <200311051443.13939.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 05 November 2003 14:40, Erik Williamson wrote: > Count me in as well: have disk + bandwidth, willing to party. Could you please add your information to the wiki? When we get things settled in, and we're ready to start tapping mirrors, I'd like to have a contact list (; -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From villegas at math.gatech.edu Wed Nov 5 23:31:57 2003 From: villegas at math.gatech.edu (Carlos Villegas) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 18:31:57 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <20031105190514.GJ27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <20031104201719.B14091@crank.slack.net> <1067995617.593.30.camel@earth.xades.com> <200311041738.00442.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FA85BD5.3030304@wanadoo.es> <20031104221235.cw4pw4csg400k04g@mail.ph.utexas.edu> <1068047061.13574.66.camel@laptop> <1068051661.13574.91.camel@laptop> <20031105190514.GJ27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <20031105233157.GM27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:05:14PM -0500, Carlos Villegas wrote: > Is anyone already drafting this press release? There has been no > reply to this on the mailing list. If not I can start doing something, > but it would be very primitive, since I've only been on the mailing list > for a couple of weeks, mainly as an "observer", and have not joined the > irc channels or used the wiki. If no one else is doing it or I don't get > a reply to this, I'll start working on it but you have been warned, that > it will probably require a lot of work... I did warn you... It's meant as a starting point only. The discussion is now open. ______________________ start of DRAFT _____________________________ Press Release DRAFT: Who: The Fedora Legacy Team, made out of volunteers. What: The Fedora Legacy Proyect is an ongoing effort led and maintained by volunteers, which aims to provide security and critical bugfix errata for older versions of Red Hat Linux (RHL) and Fedora Core releases (FC) after their official End of Life, thereby allowing a longer effective life of those releases, closer to the lifes that most IT departments are used to having with the RHL versions that are currently in use. The proyect is still gathering volunteers and resources, as well as drafting the policies and security requirements, other press releases will be published as the proyect progresses. With current resources and volunteers it seems possible to start providing erratas since January for RHL 7.3 and RHL 8.0 when these releases will reach their End of Life by Red Hat Inc. How: Groups of maintainers will produce the errata for their packages, these errata will undergo some classification and QA to be then released. Digital signatures will ensure the integrity of the process. Errata will only be created to fix security problems as well as serious bugs, no features will be introduced on the Erratas, unless they are required for the future management of erratas on that release. Where: Information on the proyect is currently available from the following places: 1. http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy 2. fedora-legacy-list Mailing list, for subscriptions and archive: https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list 3. #fedora-legacy on irc.freenode.net When: Now. Feel free to join in. __ Fedora Legacy is an independent entity and not officially sanctioned by Red Hat, Inc. ______________________ end of DRAFT _____________________________ Carlos From villegas at math.gatech.edu Wed Nov 5 23:36:17 2003 From: villegas at math.gatech.edu (Carlos Villegas) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 18:36:17 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release (again) Message-ID: <20031105233617.GN27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> Hi, I hope you don't mind the double posting, but I forgot to change the subject on the first email, and some people might not read it... Carlos ----- Forwarded message from Carlos Villegas ----- On Wed, Nov 05, 2003 at 02:05:14PM -0500, Carlos Villegas wrote: > Is anyone already drafting this press release? There has been no > reply to this on the mailing list. If not I can start doing something, > but it would be very primitive, since I've only been on the mailing list > for a couple of weeks, mainly as an "observer", and have not joined the > irc channels or used the wiki. If no one else is doing it or I don't get > a reply to this, I'll start working on it but you have been warned, that > it will probably require a lot of work... I did warn you... It's meant as a starting point only. The discussion is now open. ______________________ start of DRAFT _____________________________ Press Release DRAFT: Who: The Fedora Legacy Team, made out of volunteers. What: The Fedora Legacy Proyect is an ongoing effort led and maintained by volunteers, which aims to provide security and critical bugfix errata for older versions of Red Hat Linux (RHL) and Fedora Core releases (FC) after their official End of Life, thereby allowing a longer effective life of those releases, closer to the lifes that most IT departments are used to having with the RHL versions that are currently in use. The proyect is still gathering volunteers and resources, as well as drafting the policies and security requirements, other press releases will be published as the proyect progresses. With current resources and volunteers it seems possible to start providing erratas since January for RHL 7.3 and RHL 8.0 when these releases will reach their End of Life by Red Hat Inc. How: Groups of maintainers will produce the errata for their packages, these errata will undergo some classification and QA to be then released. Digital signatures will ensure the integrity of the process. Errata will only be created to fix security problems as well as serious bugs, no features will be introduced on the Erratas, unless they are required for the future management of erratas on that release. Where: Information on the proyect is currently available from the following places: 1. http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy 2. fedora-legacy-list Mailing list, for subscriptions and archive: https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list 3. #fedora-legacy on irc.freenode.net When: Now. Feel free to join in. __ Fedora Legacy is an independent entity and not officially sanctioned by Red Hat, Inc. ______________________ end of DRAFT _____________________________ Carlos _______________________________________________ Fedora-legacy-list mailing list Fedora-legacy-list at lists.dulug.duke.edu https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list ----- End forwarded message ----- From shugal at gmx.de Wed Nov 5 23:40:17 2003 From: shugal at gmx.de (Martin Stricker) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 00:40:17 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: System References: <3FA80E86.9070801@jlab.org> Message-ID: <3FA98A61.AFCFC745@gmx.de> "David J. Bianco" wrote: > My idea is that once things are handed over to the Legacy Project, > they should be considered more or less "frozen". It's not that I > want to lock out Legacy users from newer features, it's just that I > believe these releases should be looked upon as "stable" and not > mucked with unnecessarily. I agree wholeheartedly! If it doesn't need to be fixed, don't touch it. If I really need additional software or new features, that's my problem, and I'll deal with it. But the "official" updates should be kept to the absolutely necessary minium - I need to validate every change to the systems. Best regards, Martin Stricker -- Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/ Linux Migration Project: http://www.linux-migration.org/ Red Hat Linux 9 for low memory: http://www.rule-project.org/ Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/ From admin at cs.montana.edu Wed Nov 5 23:37:14 2003 From: admin at cs.montana.edu (Lucas Albers) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 16:37:14 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <200311051443.13939.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com><200311051403.09059.jkeating@j2solutions.net><3FA97C64.3020304@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> <200311051443.13939.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <2612.153.90.196.197.1068075434.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> I am also willing to party, have disk + bandwidth. Don't know where to put my info in the wiki. I looked. > On Wednesday 05 November 2003 14:40, Erik Williamson wrote: >> Count me in as well: have disk + bandwidth, willing to party. > > Could you please add your information to the wiki? When we get things > settled in, and we're ready to start tapping mirrors, I'd like to have > a contact list (; > > -- > Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) > Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) > Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) > GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) > > Was I helpful? Let others know: > http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating_______________________________________________ > Fedora-legacy-list mailing list > Fedora-legacy-list at lists.dulug.duke.edu > https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list > From admin at cs.montana.edu Wed Nov 5 23:40:44 2003 From: admin at cs.montana.edu (Lucas Albers) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 16:40:44 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release (again) In-Reply-To: <20031105233617.GN27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> References: <20031105233617.GN27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> Draft revision 1.1 Fixed project mispellings,errat misspelling, updated lifes to lifecycle. ______________________ start of DRAFT _____________________________ Press Release DRAFT: Who: The Fedora Legacy Team, made out of volunteers. What: The Fedora Legacy Project is an ongoing effort led and maintained by volunteers, which aims to provide security and critical bug fix errata for older versions of Red Hat Linux (RHL) and Fedora Core releases (FC) after their official End of Life, thereby allowing a longer effective life of those releases, closer to the lifecycle that most IT departments are used to having with the RHL versions that are currently in use. The project is still gathering volunteers and resources, as well as drafting the policies and security requirements, other press releases will be published as the project progresses. With current resources and volunteers it seems possible to start providing errata?s since January for RHL 7.3 and RHL 8.0 when these releases will reach their End of Life by Red Hat Inc. How: Groups of maintainers will produce the errata for their packages, these errata will undergo some classification and QA to be then released. Digital signatures will ensure the integrity of the process. Errata will only be created to fix security problems as well as serious bugs; no features will be introduced on the Errata?s, unless they are required for the future management of errata?s on that release. Where: Information on the project is currently available from the following places: 1. http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy 2. fedora-legacy-list Mailing list, for subscriptions and archive: https://lists.dulug From jkeating at j2solutions.net Thu Nov 6 01:04:32 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 17:04:32 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <2612.153.90.196.197.1068075434.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> References: <1067871461.3fa66ce5e1bb2@webmail.3web.com> <200311051443.13939.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <2612.153.90.196.197.1068075434.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> Message-ID: <200311051704.32746.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 05 November 2003 15:37, Lucas Albers wrote: > I am also willing to party, have disk + bandwidth. > Don't know where to put my info in the wiki. > I looked. Down at the bottom there is a "Mirror Sign Ups" section. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From chuckw at quantumlinux.com Thu Nov 6 06:20:19 2003 From: chuckw at quantumlinux.com (Chuck Wolber) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 22:20:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] System In-Reply-To: <3FA80245.1060407@is.rice.edu> Message-ID: > same thing here, all I need is security errata to support older rh (7.2 > / 9) systems while we migrate them to rhel or fedora (we haven't decided > yet) Does anybody knows if it's legally possible to rebuild RHEL from > the SRPMS provided by RH on their ftp site and then distribute this new > binary version. Yes it's legal with a few caveats, such as removing Red Hat's copyrighted material (images etc). I'd recommend checking out: http://caosity.org/ -Chuck -- Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology * Education | -=^ Ad Astra Per Aspera ^=- * Integration | http://www.quantumlinux.com * Support | chuckw at quantumlinux.com A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text? -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ Fedora-legacy-list mailing list Fedora-legacy-list at lists.dulug.duke.edu https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list From kevin at oceania.net Thu Nov 6 17:43:51 2003 From: kevin at oceania.net (Kevin Waterson) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 04:43:51 +1100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] System In-Reply-To: References: <3FA80245.1060407@is.rice.edu> Message-ID: <20031107044351.15919654.kevin@oceania.net> This one time, at band camp, Chuck Wolber wrote: > > > > same thing here, all I need is security errata to support older rh (7.2 > > / 9) systems while we migrate them to rhel or fedora (we haven't decided > > yet) Does anybody knows if it's legally possible to rebuild RHEL from > > the SRPMS provided by RH on their ftp site and then distribute this new > > binary version. >Yes it's legal with a few caveats, such as removing Red Hat's copyrighted > material (images etc). I'd recommend checking out: http://caosity.org I did this with an in-house version of 6.2, it worked quite well. It was a bit intensive removing all the redhat stuff, but once done, was trivial to maintain Kind regards Kevin -- ______ (_____ \ _____) ) ____ ____ ____ ____ | ____/ / _ ) / _ | / ___) / _ ) | | ( (/ / ( ( | |( (___ ( (/ / |_| \____) \_||_| \____) \____) Kevin Waterson Port Macquarie, Australia From chuckw at quantumlinux.com Thu Nov 6 06:43:42 2003 From: chuckw at quantumlinux.com (Chuck Wolber) Date: Wed, 5 Nov 2003 22:43:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: System In-Reply-To: <3FA80E86.9070801@jlab.org> Message-ID: > My idea is that once things are handed over to the Legacy Project, they > should be considered more or less "frozen". It's not that I want to > lock out Legacy users from newer features, it's just that I believe > these releases should be looked upon as "stable" and not mucked with > unnecessarily. I doubt the Project will have a lot of extra QA > resources, so we'd need to concentrate them where they can do the most > good for the least effort. I would echo that sentiment, both from a resources and stability point of view. I think we're asking for trouble if we expect that it's "not a big deal" to add a feature here and there. -Chuck -- Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology * Education | -=^ Ad Astra Per Aspera ^=- * Integration | http://www.quantumlinux.com * Support | chuckw at quantumlinux.com A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text? From ms-nospam-0306 at arcor.de Thu Nov 6 08:37:35 2003 From: ms-nospam-0306 at arcor.de (Michael Schwendt) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:37:35 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release (again) In-Reply-To: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> References: <20031105233617.GN27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> Message-ID: <20031106093735.195fd165.ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de> On Wed, 5 Nov 2003 16:40:44 -0700 (MST), Lucas Albers wrote: > Draft revision 1.1 > Fixed project mispellings,errat misspelling, updated lifes to lifecycle. "Errata" is the plural of "erratum". > errata?s since January for RHL 7.3 and RHL 8.0 when these releases > serious bugs; no features will be introduced on the Errata?s, unless -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From m.stolte at datadevil.demon.nl Thu Nov 6 09:05:27 2003 From: m.stolte at datadevil.demon.nl (m.stolte at datadevil.demon.nl) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:05:27 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release (again) In-Reply-To: <20031105233617.GN27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> References: <20031105233617.GN27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <1068109527.226513f928fd8@datadevil.demon.nl> Quoting Carlos Villegas : The proyect should be 'the project' Maarten > The Fedora Legacy Proyect is an ongoing effort led and maintained by > volunteers, which aims to provide security and critical bugfix errata From fedora-legacy at rcprince.com Thu Nov 6 16:05:19 2003 From: fedora-legacy at rcprince.com (Rob Prince) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 11:05:19 -0500 (EST) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.2 In-Reply-To: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> References: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> Message-ID: <40109.208.248.32.211.1068134719.squirrel@www.mymail.maildaddy.com> Draft revision 1.2 Fixed some grammar, changed some sentence structure. ______________________ start of DRAFT _____________________________ Press Release DRAFT: Who: The Fedora Legacy Team, made out of volunteers. What: The Fedora Legacy Project is an ongoing effort led and maintained by volunteers, which aims to provide security and critical bug fix errata for older versions of Red Hat Linux (RHL) and Fedora Core releases (FC), after their official End of Life. This allows a longer effective life for those releases, and is closer to the lifecycle that most IT departments have with the RHL versions that they currently use. The project is still gathering volunteers and resources, as well as drafting policies and security requirements. Other press releases will be published as the project progresses. With current resources and volunteers it seems possible to start providing errata?s starting January 2004 for RHL 7.3 and RHL 8.0, just as these releases reach their End of Life by Red Hat Inc. How: Groups of maintainers will produce the errata for their packages; these errata will undergo some classification and QA before being released. Digital signatures will ensure the integrity of the process. Errata will only be created to fix security problems as well as serious bugs; no features will be introduced on the Errata?s, unless they are required for the future management of errata?s on that release. Where: Information on the project is currently available from the following places: 1. http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy 2. fedora-legacy-list Mailing list, for subscriptions and archive: https://lists.dulug When: Now. Feel free to join in. __ Fedora Legacy is an independent entity and not officially sanctioned by Red Hat, Inc. From skvidal at phy.duke.edu Thu Nov 6 16:16:46 2003 From: skvidal at phy.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 16:16:46 -0000 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.2 In-Reply-To: <40109.208.248.32.211.1068134719.squirrel@www.mymail.maildaddy.com> References: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <40109.208.248.32.211.1068134719.squirrel@www.mymail.maildaddy.com> Message-ID: <1068135540.1455.19.camel@opus> > 2. fedora-legacy-list Mailing list, for subscriptions and archive: > https://lists.dulug https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list/ -sv From xose at wanadoo.es Thu Nov 6 16:34:41 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 17:34:41 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.2 References: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <40109.208.248.32.211.1068134719.squirrel@www.mymail.maildaddy.com> Message-ID: <3FAA7821.4010104@wanadoo.es> Rob Prince wrote: > ______________________ start of DRAFT _____________________________ > > Press Release DRAFT: > > Who: > > The Fedora Legacy Team, made out of volunteers. > > What: > > The Fedora Legacy Project is an ongoing effort led and maintained by > volunteers, which aims to provide security and critical bug fix errata > for older versions of Red Hat Linux (RHL) and Fedora Core releases (FC), ^^ better - 'Fedora Core (FC) releases' > after their official End of Life. This allows a longer effective > life for those releases, and is closer to the lifecycle that most IT > departments have with the RHL versions that they currently use. ^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ better - 'hope to get of an Server Oriented Operating System' > > The project is still gathering volunteers and resources, as well as > drafting policies and security requirements. Other press > releases will be published as the project progresses. With current > resources and volunteers it seems possible to start providing > errata?s starting January 2004 for RHL 7.3 and RHL 8.0, just as these ^^ ^^^^^^^ it's clearer '_1_ January 2004', EOL of RHL 7.x and 8.0 is 31 Dec 2003. is RHL 8.0 for sure ? > releases reach their End of Life by Red Hat Inc. ^^ > > How: > > Groups of maintainers will produce the errata for their packages; > these errata will undergo some classification and QA before being > released. Digital signatures will ensure the integrity of the > process. > > Errata will only be created to fix security problems as well as > serious bugs; no features will be introduced on the Errata?s, unless ^^^ better 'no _new_ features, or _packages_,' > they are required for the future management of errata?s on that > release. > > Where: > > Information on the project is currently available from the following > places: > > 1. http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy > 2. fedora-legacy-list Mailing list, for subscriptions and archive: > https://lists.dulug ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ too short, correct is https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list > When: > > Now. Feel free to join in. > > __ > Fedora Legacy is an independent entity and not officially sanctioned > by Red Hat, Inc. > > _______________________________________________ Red Hat guys have created -> http://redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -thanks- -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From admin at cs.montana.edu Thu Nov 6 16:54:06 2003 From: admin at cs.montana.edu (Lucas Albers) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:54:06 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.2 In-Reply-To: <40109.208.248.32.211.1068134719.squirrel@www.mymail.maildaddy.com> References: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <40109.208.248.32.211.1068134719.squirrel@www.mymail.maildaddy.com> Message-ID: <4240.64.25.134.2.1068137646.squirrel@web1.cs.montana.edu> If you are going to provide updates to the draft. Repost the whole draft, and increment the version number. Cause if you do it inline someone still has to edit it back into place, which does not save much time. The best english editing person should volunteer as the editor. --Luke > Draft revision 1.2 > Fixed some grammar, changed some sentence structure. > From jeremyp at pobox.com Thu Nov 6 17:13:30 2003 From: jeremyp at pobox.com (Jeremy Portzer) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 12:13:30 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.2 In-Reply-To: <1068135540.1455.19.camel@opus> References: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <40109.208.248.32.211.1068134719.squirrel@www.mymail.maildaddy.com> <1068135540.1455.19.camel@opus> Message-ID: <1068138810.3107.41.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 11:19, seth vidal wrote: > > 2. fedora-legacy-list Mailing list, for subscriptions and archive: > > https://lists.dulug > > https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list/ > Shouldn't that be: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/Fedora-legacy-list/ ? Aren't we moving to the RH list? (And why the capital F on Fedora in this list but none of the others? Ugh.) --Jeremy -- /---------------------------------------------------------------------\ | Jeremy Portzer jeremyp at pobox.com trilug.org/~jeremy | | GPG Fingerprint: 712D 77C7 AB2D 2130 989F E135 6F9F F7BC CC1A 7B92 | \---------------------------------------------------------------------/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jkeating at j2solutions.net Thu Nov 6 17:19:04 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 09:19:04 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.2 In-Reply-To: <1068138810.3107.41.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> References: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <1068135540.1455.19.camel@opus> <1068138810.3107.41.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> Message-ID: <200311060919.04634.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Thursday 06 November 2003 09:13, Jeremy Portzer wrote: > Shouldn't that be: > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/Fedora-legacy-list/ ? > Aren't we moving to the RH list? > > (And why the capital F on Fedora in this list but none of the others? > Ugh.) Notting and I will be working to merge the two lists together. It was thown up quite rapidly and may have to be moved to a lower case. Let conversation continue on this list for now please. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From notting at redhat.com Thu Nov 6 19:00:04 2003 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:00:04 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.2 In-Reply-To: <1068138810.3107.41.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us>; from jeremyp@pobox.com on Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 12:13:30PM -0500 References: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <40109.208.248.32.211.1068134719.squirrel@www.mymail.maildaddy.com> <1068135540.1455.19.camel@opus> <1068138810.3107.41.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> Message-ID: <20031106140004.C28226@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Jeremy Portzer (jeremyp at pobox.com) said: > (And why the capital F on Fedora in this list but none of the others? > Ugh.) Use lowercase, it works. Bill From skvidal at phy.duke.edu Thu Nov 6 19:19:13 2003 From: skvidal at phy.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 19:19:13 -0000 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.2 In-Reply-To: <20031106140004.C28226@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <40109.208.248.32.211.1068134719.squirrel@www.mymail.maildaddy.com> <1068135540.1455.19.camel@opus> <1068138810.3107.41.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> <20031106140004.C28226@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1068146490.1453.57.camel@opus> On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 14:00, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Jeremy Portzer (jeremyp at pobox.com) said: > > (And why the capital F on Fedora in this list but none of the others? > > Ugh.) > > Use lowercase, it works. Bill, Do you want the subscriber list for the @dulug list dumped to you? I can do that in 30s. Then put in a forward from here to there and kill the @dulug list. -sv From notting at redhat.com Thu Nov 6 19:24:15 2003 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:24:15 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.2 In-Reply-To: <1068146490.1453.57.camel@opus>; from skvidal@phy.duke.edu on Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 02:21:30PM -0500 References: <2685.153.90.196.197.1068075644.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <40109.208.248.32.211.1068134719.squirrel@www.mymail.maildaddy.com> <1068135540.1455.19.camel@opus> <1068138810.3107.41.camel@jeremy.dtcc.cc.nc.us> <20031106140004.C28226@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1068146490.1453.57.camel@opus> Message-ID: <20031106142415.H28226@devserv.devel.redhat.com> seth vidal (skvidal at phy.duke.edu) said: > On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 14:00, Bill Nottingham wrote: > > Jeremy Portzer (jeremyp at pobox.com) said: > > > (And why the capital F on Fedora in this list but none of the others? > > > Ugh.) > > > > Use lowercase, it works. > > Bill, > Do you want the subscriber list for the @dulug list dumped to you? > > I can do that in 30s. Then put in a forward from here to there and kill > the @dulug list. Sure. Don't know how I'd import the archive, though. Bill From villegas at math.gatech.edu Thu Nov 6 22:03:55 2003 From: villegas at math.gatech.edu (Carlos Villegas) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:03:55 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.3 In-Reply-To: <53616.208.248.32.211.1068149130.squirrel@www.mymail.maildaddy.com> References: <4240.64.25.134.2.1068137646.squirrel@web1.cs.montana.edu> <53616.208.248.32.211.1068149130.squirrel@www.mymail.maildaddy.com> Message-ID: <20031106220355.GS27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> Draft revision 1.4 Removed a couple of non ascii characters, and the "s"es on errata\222s, since someone mentioned that errata is plural (as I also thought). ______________________ start of DRAFT _____________________________ Press Release DRAFT: Who: The Fedora Legacy Team, made out of volunteers. What: The Fedora Legacy Project is an ongoing effort led and maintained by volunteers, which aims to provide security and critical bug fix errata for older versions of Red Hat Linux (RHL) and Fedora Core (FC) releases, after their official End of Life. This allows a longer effective life for those releases, and is closer to the lifecycle that most IT departments hope to get out of a Server Oriented Operating System. The project is still gathering volunteers and resources, as well as drafting policies and security requirements. Other press releases will be published as the project progresses. With current resources and volunteers it seems possible to start providing errata starting the First (1st) of January 2004 for RHL 7.3 (and RHL 8.0?), just as these releases reach their End of Life by Red Hat Inc. How: Groups of maintainers will produce the errata for their packages; these errata will undergo some classification and QA before being released. Digital signatures will ensure the integrity of the process. Errata will only be created to fix security problems as well as serious bugs; no new features or packages will be introduced on the Errata, unless they are required for the future management of errata on that release. Where: Information on the project is currently available from the following places: 1. http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy 2. fedora-legacy-list Mailing list, for subscriptions and archive: https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list/ or http://redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list/ When: Now. Feel free to join in. __ Fedora Legacy is an independent entity and not officially sanctioned by Red Hat, Inc. ________________________ end of DRAFT _______________________ Also I just saw the link to theregister that was posted here, I think someone needs to learn the meaning of draft :) Carlos From Craig.Miskell at agresearch.co.nz Thu Nov 6 22:10:09 2003 From: Craig.Miskell at agresearch.co.nz (Miskell, Craig) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:10:09 +1300 Subject: RH8.0 support Message-ID: Hi all, First up - thanks for this project. It's a potential lifeline in the midst of an otherwise quite disruptive period. I'm not sure how much I'll be able to help, but if there's ever an opportunity, I'll definitely try. Down to business - there's been mention on this list and in the draft press release about support for RH8.0. Sometimes it seems definite, sometimes not. Does anyone have any strong word on that? We're kind of stuck on 8.0 for a lot of our servers, based on it being "officially supported" by our hardware vendor (HP), and to get the right version of glibc etc to support certain software we're running ;-). But if I can't find updates for it somewhere, then I'm going to have to either look at RHEL (not likely as it would be expensive - we've got, or will have shortly, ~50 boxes running linux) or else go the whole hog, ignore support issues, and use debian. Unfortunately, I've only got 2 months to decide and not much longer to implement, if I'm going to keep my boxes reasonably secure. Any indicators of the likelihood of support for 8.0 would be great, Thanks Craig Miskell, Technical Support, AgResearch Invermay 03 489-9279 "I'd beat my head against a wall but brain damage is the first step to an MCSE, and I'm not that far gone yet." -random ======================================================================= Attention: The information contained in this message and/or attachments from AgResearch Limited is intended only for the persons or entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipients is prohibited by AgResearch Limited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. ======================================================================= From jkeating at j2solutions.net Thu Nov 6 22:18:40 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:18:40 -0800 Subject: RH8.0 support In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200311061418.40860.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Thursday 06 November 2003 14:10, Miskell, Craig wrote: > First up - thanks for this project. It's a potential > lifeline in the midst of an otherwise quite disruptive period. I'm > not sure how much I'll be able to help, but if there's ever an > opportunity, I'll definitely try. > > Down to business - there's been mention on this list and in the draft > press release about support for RH8.0. Sometimes it seems definite, > sometimes not. Does anyone have any strong word on that? We're kind > of stuck on 8.0 for a lot of our servers, based on it being > "officially supported" by our hardware vendor (HP), and to get the > right version of glibc etc to support certain software we're running > ;-). But if I can't find updates for it somewhere, then I'm going to > have to either look at RHEL (not likely as it would be expensive - > we've got, or will have shortly, ~50 boxes running linux) or else go > the whole hog, ignore support issues, and use debian. Unfortunately, > I've only got 2 months to decide and not much longer to implement, if > I'm going to keep my boxes reasonably secure. > > Any indicators of the likelihood of support for 8.0 would be great, Initial thoughts were to _not_ support 8.0. There was very little interest in the community to continue using it, and to continue supporting it. That said, I suppose we can re-open discussions on the merits of continued support of 8.0. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu Thu Nov 6 22:26:26 2003 From: sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu (Jeff Sheltren) Date: 06 Nov 2003 14:26:26 -0800 Subject: List subject Message-ID: <1068157584.3625.90.camel@derelict> Hi, could whomever is running this list please consider adding a tag to the subject line of messages? ie. [fedora-legacy-list] as was added on the lists.dulug.duke.edu list... I personally find it very helpful when skimming through my messages. Thanks! -Jeff From xose at wanadoo.es Thu Nov 6 22:26:09 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:26:09 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.3 References: <4240.64.25.134.2.1068137646.squirrel@web1.cs.montana.edu> <53616.208.248.32.211.1068149130.squirrel@www.mymail.maildaddy.com> <20031106220355.GS27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <3FAACA81.9000503@wanadoo.es> Carlos Villegas wrote: > The project is still gathering volunteers and resources, as well as > drafting policies and security requirements. Other press > releases will be published as the project progresses. With current > resources and volunteers it seems possible to start providing > errata starting the First (1st) of January 2004. >> for RHL 7.3 (and RHL >> 8.0?), just as these releases reach their End of Life by Red Hat Inc. I would delete this from the draft. Because it is not clear what releases are going to be maintained. maybe this is the next *big* question. -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From chuckw at quantumlinux.com Thu Nov 6 22:28:41 2003 From: chuckw at quantumlinux.com (Chuck Wolber) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:28:41 -0800 (PST) Subject: List subject In-Reply-To: <1068157584.3625.90.camel@derelict> Message-ID: > Hi, could whomever is running this list please consider adding a tag to > the subject line of messages? ie. [fedora-legacy-list] as was added on > the lists.dulug.duke.edu list... > > I personally find it very helpful when skimming through my messages. Even knowing the drawbacks of that, I vote for it too... -Chuck -- Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology * Education | -=^ Ad Astra Per Aspera ^=- * Integration | http://www.quantumlinux.com * Support | chuckw at quantumlinux.com A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text? From Craig.Miskell at agresearch.co.nz Thu Nov 6 22:31:27 2003 From: Craig.Miskell at agresearch.co.nz (Miskell, Craig) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:31:27 +1300 Subject: RH8.0 support Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: Jesse Keating [mailto:jkeating at j2solutions.net] > Sent: Friday, 7 November 2003 11:19 a.m. > To: fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com > Subject: Re: RH8.0 support > > > Any indicators of the likelihood of support for 8.0 would be great, > > Initial thoughts were to _not_ support 8.0. There was very little > interest in the community to continue using it, and to continue > supporting it. That said, I suppose we can re-open > discussions on the > merits of continued support of 8.0. Well, count me as interested, at least for now. I'm going to chase HP on their plans for which distro/version/edition they're intending on supporting in the future, so my interest may wane if both: 1) it looks like nobody else is interested and it would be a pain to do 2) HP say they'll support 9.0 or FC and I can then use Legacy to push the lifecycle to 18-20 months or longer. Thanks, Craig Miskell, Technical Support, AgResearch Invermay 03 489-9279 "So, you'll put down your suit, and I'll put down my tie, and we'll sell each other hardware like civilised people." --Roger Burton West (November 2000) ======================================================================= Attention: The information contained in this message and/or attachments from AgResearch Limited is intended only for the persons or entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipients is prohibited by AgResearch Limited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. ======================================================================= From chuckw at quantumlinux.com Thu Nov 6 22:34:39 2003 From: chuckw at quantumlinux.com (Chuck Wolber) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 14:34:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.3 In-Reply-To: <3FAACA81.9000503@wanadoo.es> Message-ID: > >> 8.0?), just as these releases reach their End of Life by Red Hat > >> Inc. > > I would delete this from the draft. Because it is not clear what > releases are going to be maintained. > > maybe this is the next *big* question. I think we've already decided that we're supporting RedHat 7.3 and 9. -Chuck -- Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology * Education | -=^ Ad Astra Per Aspera ^=- * Integration | http://www.quantumlinux.com * Support | chuckw at quantumlinux.com A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text? From peter.peltonen at iki.fi Thu Nov 6 22:44:23 2003 From: peter.peltonen at iki.fi (Peter Peltonen) Date: 07 Nov 2003 00:44:23 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.3 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1068158662.2636.21.camel@bahama> On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 00:34, Chuck Wolber wrote: > I think we've already decided that we're supporting RedHat 7.3 and 9. Why not RH 7.2? If the 7.3 updates are going to be ported from AS which is based on 7.2, it should be trivial to provide updates for 7.2 also...? I would guess that there are a few people out there running 7.2 as Oracle has certified it for their 9i. -- Peter Peltonen -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From zen23003 at zen.co.uk Thu Nov 6 22:52:46 2003 From: zen23003 at zen.co.uk (Paul) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 22:52:46 -0000 Subject: RH8.0 support References: Message-ID: <036b01c3a4b8$b25bbc40$0100000a@lan> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Miskell, Craig" To: Sent: 06 November 2003 22:31 Subject: RE: RH8.0 support > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Jesse Keating [mailto:jkeating at j2solutions.net] > > Sent: Friday, 7 November 2003 11:19 a.m. > > To: fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com > > Subject: Re: RH8.0 support > > > > Initial thoughts were to _not_ support 8.0. > Well, count me as interested, at least for now. I'm going to chase HP Me too, but it's not looking promising. I'd appreciate a rapid and definite decision on whether RH8 will be supported so that I know whether I'll need to change distribution. From skvidal at phy.duke.edu Thu Nov 6 22:53:40 2003 From: skvidal at phy.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: 06 Nov 2003 17:53:40 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.3 In-Reply-To: <1068158662.2636.21.camel@bahama> References: <1068158662.2636.21.camel@bahama> Message-ID: <1068159220.3306.8.camel@opus> > Why not RH 7.2? If the 7.3 updates are going to be ported from AS which > is based on 7.2, it should be trivial to provide updates for 7.2 > also...? > > I would guess that there are a few people out there running 7.2 as > Oracle has certified it for their 9i. I think a lot of it is up to the people doing the building of packages. For example, I only care about 7.3 and 9, therefore they are the places I'm most likely to contribute on. -sv From xose at wanadoo.es Thu Nov 6 22:53:27 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 23:53:27 +0100 Subject: RH8.0 support References: <200311061418.40860.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <3FAAD0E7.9030108@wanadoo.es> Jesse Keating wrote: > Initial thoughts were to _not_ support 8.0. There was very little > interest in the community to continue using it, and to continue > supporting it. That said, I suppose we can re-open discussions on the > merits of continued support of 8.0. IMO, 8.0 was not a very good distribution. Generally people uses 9 or 7.3. But 7.1/7.2 were *latest* RHL distributions with a _lot_ certifications to run Oracle, BEA Weblogic, .... But which of them are going to be supported depends of people interest. -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From xose at wanadoo.es Thu Nov 6 23:04:32 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:04:32 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.3 References: <1068158662.2636.21.camel@bahama> Message-ID: <3FAAD380.4010605@wanadoo.es> Peter Peltonen wrote: > Why not RH 7.2? If the 7.3 updates are going to be ported from AS which > is based on 7.2, it should be trivial to provide updates for 7.2 > also...? but, who are going to do the job? This is a *volunteer project* > I would guess that there are a few people out there running 7.2 as > Oracle has certified it for their 9i. it was 7.1 x86 OS Oracle Database ================================== =============== Red Hat Enterprise Linux 3 9.2 Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS/ES 2.1 9.2 Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS/ES 2.1 9.0.1 Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS/ES 2.1 8.1.7 (8i) Red Hat 7.1 9.0.1 Red Hat 7.1 8.1.7 (8i) Red Hat 7.0 8.1.7 (8i) Red Hat 6.2EE 8.1.7 (8i) Red Hat 6.2 8.1.7 (8i) -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From shugal at gmx.de Thu Nov 6 23:06:43 2003 From: shugal at gmx.de (Martin Stricker) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:06:43 +0100 Subject: List subject References: Message-ID: <3FAAD403.D1DC11F2@gmx.de> Chuck Wolber wrote: > > > Hi, could whomever is running this list please consider adding a > > tag to the subject line of messages? ie. [fedora-legacy-list] as > > was added on the lists.dulug.duke.edu list... > > > > I personally find it very helpful when skimming through my > > messages. > > Even knowing the drawbacks of that, I vote for it too... +1 here as well. Best regards, Martin Stricker -- Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/ Linux Migration Project: http://www.linux-migration.org/ Red Hat Linux 9 for low memory: http://www.rule-project.org/ Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/ From jkeating at j2solutions.net Thu Nov 6 23:09:30 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:09:30 -0800 Subject: Set up a vote on the wiki for supported releases? Message-ID: <200311061509.30509.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Is anybody opposed to putting up a "vote" on the Wiki for what releases people are interested in ? Of course, we can't stop people from bumping up the number by 5 or something, but come on, can we get some honesty and do a vote? -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From villegas at math.gatech.edu Thu Nov 6 23:30:51 2003 From: villegas at math.gatech.edu (Carlos Villegas) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 18:30:51 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Supported versions In-Reply-To: <3FAAD380.4010605@wanadoo.es> References: <1068158662.2636.21.camel@bahama> <3FAAD380.4010605@wanadoo.es> Message-ID: <20031106233051.GU27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 12:04:32AM +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > Peter Peltonen wrote: > > > Why not RH 7.2? If the 7.3 updates are going to be ported from AS which > > is based on 7.2, it should be trivial to provide updates for 7.2 > > also...? > > but, who are going to do the job? This is a *volunteer project* This gave me an idea, clearly we are all interested on different versions, I believe the easiest way to determine which versions will be supported is something along this lines: Create a "register" of volunteers for each version, this can be in the wiki or elsewhere, in which someone can go and say I'm willing to volunteer time/machines/QA/all for x,y and z versions. This can be easily counted, and then on each version the interested parties can be counted, and thus the feasability is seen immediately, rather than by arguments as which version is "certified" by this or that company. So far: - Seth mentioned his intentions in 7.3 and 9 - I mention my intentions in 9 for "all" (creating errata, compiling them and QA of others' errata) This should be trivial to do with a webform and PHP or perl and some simple db, I could make it, in case the wiki is not useful for this. Carlos From villegas at math.gatech.edu Thu Nov 6 23:33:10 2003 From: villegas at math.gatech.edu (Carlos Villegas) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 18:33:10 -0500 Subject: Set up a vote on the wiki for supported releases? In-Reply-To: <200311061509.30509.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <200311061509.30509.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <20031106233310.GV27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:09:30PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: Content-Description: signed data > Is anybody opposed to putting up a "vote" on the Wiki for what releases > people are interested in ? Of course, we can't stop people from > bumping up the number by 5 or something, but come on, can we get some > honesty and do a vote? Agreed, I just sent an email proposing the same :), but I think the votes should be counted as "willing to volunteer" and not "interested in someone else supporting it", since there is no good if 20 people are interested in support for 7.1 but no one is interested in doing the stuff... Carlos From rostetter at mail.utexas.edu Thu Nov 6 23:38:18 2003 From: rostetter at mail.utexas.edu (Eric Rostetter) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:38:18 -0600 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.3 In-Reply-To: <1068159220.3306.8.camel@opus> References: <1068158662.2636.21.camel@bahama> <1068159220.3306.8.camel@opus> Message-ID: <20031106173818.692os0g04gsc40ok@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Quoting seth vidal : > I think a lot of it is up to the people doing the building of packages. I don't think it is required that we support 8.0. I'm happy with 7.3 and 9. But I don't object to supporting 8.0. I do have a single 8.0 server, so it wouldn't hurt me ;) I could also help if needed to support 8.0 if it was decided to do so and we needed someone to support it. > For example, I only care about 7.3 and 9, therefore they are the places > I'm most likely to contribute on. Ditto here. With the exception of one machine, I only run 7.x and 9. And I'd really like to get that 8.0 machine upgraded in the end of December... So it isn't a big deal to me... But I do have a lot more 7.x and 9 machines, so that is a big deal to me... > -sv Eric From xose at wanadoo.es Thu Nov 6 23:50:40 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 00:50:40 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Supported versions References: <1068158662.2636.21.camel@bahama> <3FAAD380.4010605@wanadoo.es> <20031106233051.GU27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <3FAADE50.4070907@wanadoo.es> Carlos Villegas wrote: > This gave me an idea, clearly we are all interested on different versions, > I believe the easiest way to determine which versions will be supported > is something along this lines: > > Create a "register" of volunteers for each version, this can be in the > wiki or elsewhere, in which someone can go and say I'm willing to volunteer > time/machines/QA/all for x,y and z versions. This can be easily counted, > and then on each version the interested parties can be counted, and > thus the feasability is seen immediately, rather than by arguments as > which version is "certified" by this or that company. it's better to finalize the DRAFT, send it out there, wait 3-4 days and ask it again -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From xose at wanadoo.es Fri Nov 7 00:13:59 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 01:13:59 +0100 Subject: notice about FL on ml web page Message-ID: <3FAAE3C7.7020607@wanadoo.es> would list_adm mind to place a little notice about Fedora Legacy on http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list page ? any thing like: "cut&paste pieces of DRAFT .... Fedora Legacy is an independent entity and not officially sanctioned by Red Hat, Inc" -thanks- -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From jkeating at j2solutions.net Fri Nov 7 00:22:05 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 16:22:05 -0800 Subject: notice about FL on ml web page In-Reply-To: <3FAAE3C7.7020607@wanadoo.es> References: <3FAAE3C7.7020607@wanadoo.es> Message-ID: <200311061622.05808.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Thursday 06 November 2003 16:13, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > would list_adm mind to place a little notice about Fedora Legacy > on http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list page ? > > any thing like: > "cut&paste pieces of DRAFT .... Fedora Legacy is an independent > entity and not officially sanctioned by Red Hat, Inc" That page isn't really for such information. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From xose at wanadoo.es Fri Nov 7 00:32:12 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 01:32:12 +0100 Subject: notice about FL on ml web page References: <3FAAE3C7.7020607@wanadoo.es> <200311061622.05808.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <3FAAE80C.1030306@wanadoo.es> Jesse Keating wrote: >>any thing like: >>"cut&paste pieces of DRAFT .... Fedora Legacy is an independent >>entity and not officially sanctioned by Red Hat, Inc" > > > That page isn't really for such information. I would not like that people thinks: http://redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list ^^^^^^^^^^ ooohhh!!!! So, it must be officially supported. It was only to avoid that -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From ingo at auroralinux.org Fri Nov 7 09:42:46 2003 From: ingo at auroralinux.org (Ingo T. Storm) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:42:46 +0100 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.3 References: <1068158662.2636.21.camel@bahama> Message-ID: <011c01c3a513$7fb4e8b0$be041dac@ingotee2> >Why not RH 7.2? I'd vote for trying to do 7.2 and 7.3, too. Of course this is entirely egoistic, since it touches my two problem kids: rh7.2axp and Aurora SPARC Linux. Ingo From xose at wanadoo.es Fri Nov 7 12:49:20 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 13:49:20 +0100 Subject: list of EOL RHL distributions or based Message-ID: <3FAB94D0.2000209@wanadoo.es> hi, I was searching RH distributions, or based on, with a very near EOL. And there is a handful: RHL 9 for x86 RHL 8.0 for x86 RHL 7.3 for x86 RHL 7.2 for x86 RHL 7.2 for Alpha RHL 7.2 for IA64 RHL 7.2 for s390 RHL 7.1 for x86 RHL 7.1 for s390x RHL 7.1 for iSeries RHL 7.1 for pSeries Aurora SPARC Linux based on RHL 7.3 SCore 5.4.0 based on RHL 7.3 Mips mini-port based on RHL 7.3 ThinkBlue/64 7.1a based on RHL 7.1 Yellow Dog 3.0 based on RHL ?? Scyld 28 Cz5 based on RHL ?? maybe this people could be interested in FL and it would be interesting to send FL announcement,SPAAAM ;-), to its mailing list. -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de Fri Nov 7 16:47:17 2003 From: Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de (Axel Thimm) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 17:47:17 +0100 Subject: fedora-legacy agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? (was: Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 1) In-Reply-To: <1068204440.12684.29.camel@laptop> References: <3FA229D3.4000104@togami.com> <3FA2722D.6090504@togami.com> <20031031180006.1b3cad50.ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de> <1067622953.20763.164.camel@bobcat.mine.nu> <1068204440.12684.29.camel@laptop> Message-ID: <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 01:27:20AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > This however does not matter, since it has been agreed upon on > fedora-legacy list that ALL distributions supported by Fedora Legacy > will force an upgrade of rpm as a requirement for users to begin using > those repositories. When was this agreed upon? While I personally support this scheme, I was under the impression that there were more people against enforcing rpm upgrades for minimally changes (e.g. fedora-legacy should only provide security related errata). Especially because RH itself did not issue errata for rpm despite the known problems. In fact, Warren, I believe we were the only two supporting rpm upgrades, so unless we are the only left subscribers of fedora-legacy, it is not yet an agreement of the whole list. ;) -- Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jkeating at j2solutions.net Fri Nov 7 16:59:51 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 08:59:51 -0800 Subject: fedora-legacy agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? (was: Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 1) In-Reply-To: <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> References: <3FA229D3.4000104@togami.com> <1068204440.12684.29.camel@laptop> <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: <200311070859.55886.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Friday 07 November 2003 08:47, Axel Thimm wrote: > While I personally support this scheme, I was under the impression > that there were more people against enforcing rpm upgrades for > minimally changes (e.g. fedora-legacy should only provide security > related errata). Especially because RH itself did not issue errata > for rpm despite the known problems. > > In fact, Warren, I believe we were the only two supporting rpm > upgrades, so unless we are the only left subscribers of > fedora-legacy, it is not yet an agreement of the whole list. ;) I personally agreed to it, until somebody showed me clear evidence that it could/would break something. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From johannes at erdfelt.com Fri Nov 7 17:18:17 2003 From: johannes at erdfelt.com (Johannes Erdfelt) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:18:17 -0500 Subject: fedora-legacy agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? (was: Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 1) In-Reply-To: <200311070859.55886.jkeating@j2solutions.net>; from jkeating@j2solutions.net on Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 08:59:51AM -0800 References: <3FA229D3.4000104@togami.com> <1068204440.12684.29.camel@laptop> <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> <200311070859.55886.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <20031107121817.A8615@sventech.com> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003, Jesse Keating wrote: Content-Description: signed data > On Friday 07 November 2003 08:47, Axel Thimm wrote: > > While I personally support this scheme, I was under the impression > > that there were more people against enforcing rpm upgrades for > > minimally changes (e.g. fedora-legacy should only provide security > > related errata). Especially because RH itself did not issue errata > > for rpm despite the known problems. > > > > In fact, Warren, I believe we were the only two supporting rpm > > upgrades, so unless we are the only left subscribers of > > fedora-legacy, it is not yet an agreement of the whole list. ;) > > I personally agreed to it, until somebody showed me clear evidence that > it could/would break something. Is there clear evidence that it would fix something? It seems to me that the question shouldn't be "what does it break?", it should be "what does it fix?". I haven't followed the discussion closely and I think I joined the list in the middle of the discussion, but I imagine that those in favor of an RPM upgrade have a specific set of bugs in mind. Perhaps for a specific version of Red Hat. Were those listed previously on the list? JE From herrold at owlriver.com Fri Nov 7 17:20:49 2003 From: herrold at owlriver.com (R P Herrold) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:20:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: fedora-legacy agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? (was: Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 1) In-Reply-To: <200311070859.55886.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <3FA229D3.4000104@togami.com> <1068204440.12684.29.camel@laptop> <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> <200311070859.55886.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Jesse Keating wrote: > > In fact, Warren, I believe we were the only two supporting rpm > > upgrades, so unless we are the only left subscribers of > > fedora-legacy, it is not yet an agreement of the whole list. ;) > > I personally agreed to it, until somebody showed me clear evidence that > it could/would break something. Jesse, hmmm, this is a troubling statement. May I have details here, or a pointer to a Bugzilla item with reproduceable case demonstrating such a modality, so I may add it to my testing? Thank you. -- Russ Herrold From villegas at math.gatech.edu Fri Nov 7 17:43:13 2003 From: villegas at math.gatech.edu (Carlos Villegas) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:43:13 -0500 Subject: fedora-legacy agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? (was: Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 1) In-Reply-To: <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> References: <3FA229D3.4000104@togami.com> <3FA2722D.6090504@togami.com> <20031031180006.1b3cad50.ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de> <1067622953.20763.164.camel@bobcat.mine.nu> <1068204440.12684.29.camel@laptop> <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: <20031107174313.GZ27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 05:47:17PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > When was this agreed upon? > > While I personally support this scheme, I was under the impression > that there were more people against enforcing rpm upgrades for > minimally changes (e.g. fedora-legacy should only provide security > related errata). Especially because RH itself did not issue errata for > rpm despite the known problems. > > In fact, Warren, I believe we were the only two supporting rpm > upgrades, so unless we are the only left subscribers of fedora-legacy, > it is not yet an agreement of the whole list. ;) I have no strong opinion on this. I am ignorant of the exact details of the rpm format differences that have to do with these versions. However I'm not sure if there are people interested in supporting versions which they don't actually use, if that's the case the "format incompatibilities" among different versions become mute, since the rpms would be built using the native rpm for each version by the parties interested in supporting those versions. I don't really see a need for changing rpm, and I agree that it would be "nice" to do it, but I'm not sure if it is worth it/needed. So I ask (mostly out of interest in gaining more understanding of this): What are those differences, and why would we prefer a newer version? Carlos From rostetter at mail.utexas.edu Fri Nov 7 18:04:27 2003 From: rostetter at mail.utexas.edu (Eric Rostetter) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:04:27 -0600 Subject: fedora-legacy agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? (was: Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 1) In-Reply-To: <20031107121817.A8615@sventech.com> References: <3FA229D3.4000104@togami.com> <1068204440.12684.29.camel@laptop> <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> <200311070859.55886.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <20031107121817.A8615@sventech.com> Message-ID: <20031107120427.5yx8g48084k8ggwc@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Quoting Johannes Erdfelt : > I haven't followed the discussion closely and I think I joined the list > in the middle of the discussion, but I imagine that those in favor of > an RPM upgrade have a specific set of bugs in mind. Perhaps for a > specific version of Red Hat. Were those listed previously on the list? There are specific bugs in RH8/9 which would be fixed. But the other thing is it would make it much easier to maintain RPMS if we all used the same RPM versions. So basically this is, IMHO, a "make it easier to maintain RPMS" for the developer than a "fix bugs the user will see" kind of thing. Obviously, in the end, both are important. > JE From rostetter at mail.utexas.edu Fri Nov 7 17:53:49 2003 From: rostetter at mail.utexas.edu (Eric Rostetter) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 11:53:49 -0600 Subject: fedora-legacy agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? (was: Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 1) In-Reply-To: <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> References: <3FA229D3.4000104@togami.com> <3FA2722D.6090504@togami.com> <20031031180006.1b3cad50.ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de> <1067622953.20763.164.camel@bobcat.mine.nu> <1068204440.12684.29.camel@laptop> <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: <20031107115349.95q5cogc0c4sk4k4@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Quoting Axel Thimm : > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 01:27:20AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > > This however does not matter, since it has been agreed upon on > > fedora-legacy list that ALL distributions supported by Fedora Legacy > > will force an upgrade of rpm as a requirement for users to begin using > > those repositories. > > When was this agreed upon? I don't know if i was agreed to, but it seemed that the majority were not against it. > In fact, Warren, I believe we were the only two supporting rpm > upgrades, so unless we are the only left subscribers of fedora-legacy, > it is not yet an agreement of the whole list. ;) There were more than just you two. And since I didn't vote before, I'll add a late vote for requiring the RPM upgrades... > -- > Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de Eric From xose at wanadoo.es Fri Nov 7 23:11:48 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 00:11:48 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: Re: fedora-legacy agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? (was: Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 1)] Message-ID: <3FAC26B4.5050404@wanadoo.es> this is a best place for this thread -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: fedora-legacy agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? (was: Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 1) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:20:02 -0800 From: Jesse Keating Reply-To: fedora-devel-list at redhat.com Organization: j2Solutions To: fedora-devel-list at redhat.com References: <3FA229D3.4000104 at togami.com> <20031107164717.GD27327 at puariko.nirvana> On Friday 07 November 2003 12:06, Mike A. Harris wrote: > Make it 3 then... I support Warren's suggestion. Perhaps others > will speak up too if it is something up for democratic vote. If > it's not up for democratic vote, hail Warren! Well, I think right now I'd have the final say, but I do differ to warren on a lot of issues. I'd have to dig up some old email, but there were some locking bugs and upgrade version issues that we wanted to solve with a single rpm version set across all the supported Legacy distros. Fedora.us has done a lot of research on it so I've been told, and they haven't found any reason to not fix these nasty bugs. So I'm going to be a bit totalitarian for a moment, and unless somebody can show me a really good reason to _not_ fix RPM across these release, then rpm will be upgraded. Note, this is not an upgrade just to upgrade, we're fixing bugs here. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating ---end-- -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: file:///tmp/nsmail.tmp Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 190 bytes Desc: not available URL: From xose at wanadoo.es Fri Nov 7 02:36:27 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 03:36:27 +0100 Subject: list of EOL RHL distributions or based Message-ID: <3FAB052B.4000509@wanadoo.es> hi, I was searching RH distributions, or based on, with a very near EOL. And there is a handful: RHL 9 for x86 RHL 8.0 for x86 RHL 7.3 for x86 RHL 7.2 for x86 RHL 7.2 for Alpha RHL 7.2 for IA64 RHL 7.2 for s390 RHL 7.1 for x86 RHL 7.1 for s390x RHL 7.1 for iSeries RHL 7.1 for pSeries Aurora SPARC Linux based on RHL 7.3 SCore 5.4.0 based on RHL 7.3 Mips mini-port based on RHL 7.3 ThinkBlue/64 7.1a based on RHL 7.1 Yellow Dog 3.0 based on RHL ?? Scyld 28 Cz5 based on RHL ?? maybe this people could be interested in FL and it would be interesting to send FL announcement,SPAAAM ;-), to its mailing list. -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From villegas at math.gatech.edu Fri Nov 7 15:14:00 2003 From: villegas at math.gatech.edu (Carlos Villegas) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:14:00 -0500 Subject: [villegas@math.gatech.edu: Re: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.3] Message-ID: <20031107151400.GW27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> Draft revision 1.5 (and I propose final, or we'll never finish this...) Removed specific version numbers from it. ______________________ start of DRAFT _____________________________ Press Release DRAFT: Who: The Fedora Legacy Team, made out of volunteers. What: The Fedora Legacy Project is an ongoing effort led and maintained by volunteers, which aims to provide security and critical bug fix errata for older versions of Red Hat Linux (RHL) and Fedora Core (FC) releases, after their official End of Life. This allows a longer effective life for those releases, and is closer to the lifecycle that most IT departments hope to get out of a Server Oriented Operating System. The project is still gathering volunteers and resources, as well as drafting policies and security requirements. Other press releases will be published as the project progresses. With current resources and volunteers it seems possible to start providing errata starting the First (1st) of January 2004 for some RHL versions, just as these releases reach their End of Life by Red Hat Inc. How: Groups of maintainers will produce the errata for their packages; these errata will undergo some classification and QA before being released. Digital signatures will ensure the integrity of the process. Errata will only be created to fix security problems as well as serious bugs; no new features or packages will be introduced on the Errata, unless they are required for the future management of errata on that release. Where: Information on the project is currently available from the following places: 1. http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy 2. fedora-legacy-list Mailing list, for subscriptions and archive: https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list/ or http://redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list/ When: Now. Feel free to join in. __ Fedora Legacy is an independent entity and not officially sanctioned by Red Hat, Inc. ________________________ end of DRAFT _______________________ Carlos From jkeating at j2solutions.net Sat Nov 8 00:09:31 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 16:09:31 -0800 Subject: [villegas@math.gatech.edu: Re: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.3] In-Reply-To: <20031107151400.GW27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> References: <20031107151400.GW27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <200311071609.31687.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Friday 07 November 2003 07:14, Carlos Villegas wrote: > Draft revision 1.5 (and I propose final, or we'll never finish > this...) 1.6... the old dulug listserv link is an alias to RH's listserv. No need to list them twice. This is a pretty good start. My company has offered to take our draft and submit it to our PR firm, for them to gloss it up and make sure it gets to the right news agencies and whatnot. If anybody has an objection to this (final version will be put up for review on the list prior to submission) please speak up soon. Draft should be submitted to our agency on Monday. ______________________ start of DRAFT _____________________________ Press Release DRAFT: Who: The Fedora Legacy Team, made out of volunteers. What: The Fedora Legacy Project is an ongoing effort led and maintained by volunteers, which aims to provide security and critical bug fix errata for older versions of Red Hat Linux* (RHL) and Fedora Core (FC) releases, after their official End of Life. This allows a longer effective life for those releases, and is closer to the lifecycle that most IT departments hope to get out of a Server Oriented Operating System. The project is still gathering volunteers and resources, as well as drafting policies and security requirements. Other press releases will be published as the project progresses. With current resources and volunteers it seems possible to start providing errata starting the First (1st) of January 2004 for some RHL versions, just as these releases reach their End of Life by Red Hat Inc. How: Groups of maintainers will produce the errata for their packages; these errata will undergo some classification and QA before being released. Digital signatures will ensure the integrity of the process. Errata will only be created to fix security problems as well as serious bugs; no new features or packages will be introduced on the Errata, unless they are required for the future management of errata on that release. Where: Information on the project is currently available from the following places: 1. http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy 2. fedora-legacy-list Mailing list, for subscriptions and archive: http://redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list/ When: Now. Feel free to join in. __ Fedora Legacy is an independent entity and not officially sanctioned by Red Hat, Inc. * Red Hat Linux is a licensed trademark of Red Hat Inc. ________________________ end of DRAFT _______________________ -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From xose at wanadoo.es Sat Nov 8 00:16:33 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 01:16:33 +0100 Subject: DRAFT 1.5 References: <20031107151400.GW27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <3FAC35E1.7020401@wanadoo.es> Carlos Villegas wrote: > https://lists.dulug.duke.edu/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list/ delete it. > or > > http://redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list/ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ now this list is the official place. list at lists.dulug.duke.edu is only a pointer to redhat list -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From shugal at gmx.de Sat Nov 8 00:21:53 2003 From: shugal at gmx.de (Martin Stricker) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 01:21:53 +0100 Subject: [Fwd: Re: fedora-legacy agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? (was: Warren'sPackage Naming Proposal - Revision 1)] References: <3FAC26B4.5050404@wanadoo.es> Message-ID: <3FAC3721.9A54CCBC@gmx.de> Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > > this is a best place for this thread > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: fedora-legacy agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? (was: Warren's Package Naming Proposal - Revision 1) > Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 12:20:02 -0800 > From: Jesse Keating > Reply-To: fedora-devel-list at redhat.com Not nice to discuss this outside of fedora-legacy list... Thanks to let us know, Xose! > So I'm going to be a bit totalitarian for a moment, and unless > somebody can show me a really good reason to _not_ fix RPM across > these release, then rpm will be upgraded. I've seen several possible problems being mentioned on fedora-test-list. I didn't test it myself, so I don't know if any of them are true. If you really insist on this upgrade, please do test it on all versions! > Note, this is not an upgrade just to upgrade, we're fixing bugs here. This may be true on 8.0 and 9 - I don't use them, so do what you want on them. But as far as I can see the rpm of 7.3 works nicely, so there is no need to upgrade. Does it really help *that much* to maintain packages to risk breakage? I doubt it, but then I never had to build rpms for more than one version. What would be the benefit of upgrading rpm on 7.3? From the current discussion I don't see any. Best regards, Martin Stricker -- Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/ Linux Migration Project: http://www.linux-migration.org/ Red Hat Linux 9 for low memory: http://www.rule-project.org/ Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/ From warren at togami.com Fri Nov 7 06:26:22 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Thu, 06 Nov 2003 20:26:22 -1000 Subject: Set up a vote on the wiki for supported releases? In-Reply-To: <200311061509.30509.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <200311061509.30509.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <1068186382.30673.1.camel@laptop> On Thu, 2003-11-06 at 13:09, Jesse Keating wrote: > Is anybody opposed to putting up a "vote" on the Wiki for what releases > people are interested in ? Of course, we can't stop people from > bumping up the number by 5 or something, but come on, can we get some > honesty and do a vote? Wiki is really not a good idea for voting. This mailing list, a Bugzilla report or anything else with permanent and un-editable records would be ideal. But then there is the question of who should be eligible for voting... and how many people who vote would end up just leeching and not contributing. Warren From xose at wanadoo.es Sat Nov 8 00:39:18 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 01:39:18 +0100 Subject: DRAFT 1.6 errata References: <20031107151400.GW27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> <200311071609.31687.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <3FAC3B36.8050809@wanadoo.es> Jesse Keating wrote: > What: > > The Fedora Legacy Project is an ongoing effort led and maintained by > volunteers, which aims to provide security and critical bug fix errata > for older versions of Red Hat Linux* (RHL) and Fedora Core (FC) ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ "Fedora" is a TM of RH > The project is still gathering volunteers and resources, as well as > drafting policies and security requirements. Other press > releases will be published as the project progresses. With current ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this better to the end. > * Red Hat Linux is a licensed trademark of Red Hat Inc. ^^^^^^^^ :-?? is this correct ? better: "Fedora" and "Red Hat" are registered trademarks of Red Hat, Inc. "Linux" is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From jkeating at j2solutions.net Fri Nov 7 01:03:13 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 17:03:13 -0800 Subject: notice about FL on ml web page In-Reply-To: <3FAAE80C.1030306@wanadoo.es> References: <3FAAE3C7.7020607@wanadoo.es> <200311061622.05808.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FAAE80C.1030306@wanadoo.es> Message-ID: <200311061703.18350.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Thursday 06 November 2003 16:32, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > http://redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list > ^^^^^^^^^^ ooohhh!!!! > So, it must be officially supported. > > It was only to avoid that *shrug* people seem to figure that out on the alpha list and the amd64 list, and the sparc-list, and the.... I really think this is a non-issue. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From xose at wanadoo.es Sat Nov 8 01:03:42 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 02:03:42 +0100 Subject: rpm or not rpm, that's the question References: <3FAC26B4.5050404@wanadoo.es> <3FAC3721.9A54CCBC@gmx.de> Message-ID: <3FAC40EE.9020900@wanadoo.es> Martin Stricker wrote: > This may be true on 8.0 and 9 - I don't use them, so do what you want on > them. But as far as I can see the rpm of 7.3 works nicely, so there is > no need to upgrade. Does it really help *that much* to maintain packages > to risk breakage? I doubt it, but then I never had to build rpms for > more than one version. > > What would be the benefit of upgrading rpm on 7.3? From the current > discussion I don't see any. to be sure and to end with this uncertainty : Can any guy ask it in the rpm ml ? or to rpm package maintainer jbj at redhat.com (Jeff Johnson) -thanks- -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From stray at stray.ch Fri Nov 7 06:51:25 2003 From: stray at stray.ch (Martin Kunz) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 07:51:25 +0100 (CET) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <200311051113.14748.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: Hello there On Wed, 5 Nov 2003, Jesse Keating wrote: > We'll mostly be in need of mirrors. Pogo Linux has offered us a dual > opteron server for building and seeding the server, as well as > rackspace/bandwidth at their colo to house it. We'll need plenty of > mirrors so that we don't abuse their generosity in the bandwidth > department. Just out of curiosity.. what would be the requirements, bandwidth and storage wise, to act reasonably as a mirror? Me and some of my clients will have a much easier life and sleep a lot better for every additional month that the community can keep the older releases alive, so we'd like to help out if we can! martin 'stray' kunz =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= martin 'stray' kunz stray at stray.ch kommunikation & gestaltung http://stray.ch stadthausstrasse 77 voice +41 52 213 01 31 8400 winterthur fax +41 52 213 01 18 switzerland mobile +41 79 430 39 98 =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= From jkeating at j2solutions.net Sat Nov 8 01:47:15 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 17:47:15 -0800 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200311071747.19582.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Thursday 06 November 2003 22:51, Martin Kunz wrote: > Just out of curiosity.. what would be the requirements, bandwidth and > storage wise, to act reasonably as a mirror? > > Me and some of my clients will have a much easier life and sleep a > lot better for every additional month that the community can keep the > older releases alive, so we'd like to help out if we can! Not much initially. Probably outbound speeds of a T1 or better, capable of handling or throttling so that the usage doesn't swamp your normal services. Storage in the 5gigs area (very soft number, It may take us QUITE a while to hit 5gigs of updates). Perhaps some people who run mirrors for Red Hat currently can speak to the usage they see for just updates. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From villegas at math.gatech.edu Fri Nov 7 15:17:43 2003 From: villegas at math.gatech.edu (Carlos Villegas) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 10:17:43 -0500 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Supported versions In-Reply-To: <3FAADE50.4070907@wanadoo.es> References: <1068158662.2636.21.camel@bahama> <3FAAD380.4010605@wanadoo.es> <20031106233051.GU27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> <3FAADE50.4070907@wanadoo.es> Message-ID: <20031107151743.GX27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 12:50:40AM +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > Carlos Villegas wrote: > > This gave me an idea, clearly we are all interested on different versions, > > I believe the easiest way to determine which versions will be supported > > is something along this lines: > > > > Create a "register" of volunteers for each version, this can be in the > > wiki or elsewhere, in which someone can go and say I'm willing to volunteer > > time/machines/QA/all for x,y and z versions. This can be easily counted, > > and then on each version the interested parties can be counted, and > > thus the feasability is seen immediately, rather than by arguments as > > which version is "certified" by this or that company. > > it's better to finalize the DRAFT, send it out there, wait 3-4 days and ask it > again I agree, I just sent a new revision, which hopefully will be the last and can be officialy published outside of this list. I think that either Warren Togami or Jesse Keating or both should have the final say on if it is final or not. Carlos From ewwhite at mac.com Sat Nov 8 02:58:53 2003 From: ewwhite at mac.com (Edmund White) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 20:58:53 -0600 (CST) Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... Message-ID: I'm the systems engineer for a software company whose product is bundled with Redhat Linux and HP Proliant servers. The recent Redhat changes are bad news for our product. For the past few years, we've migrated former AIX, SCO and HP-UX customers to HP/Compaq servers with appropriate versions of Redhat (7.x, 8) and our software on top. Luckily, the software is easily portable and can run unmodified on any unix variant. Redhat 7.2, 7.3 and 8.0 have proven to be the best match for our software/hardware solution. The hardcore Compaq/HP Proliant server hardware support (for ML370's and ML570's) is there. HP's agents add temperature, SCSI/array and environment monitoring to the Redhat setup. The OSes are stable. We use(d) up2date to keep on top of security patches (openssh, openssl and sendmail are my only concerns). It was nice because we could give the customer a real Redhat box with media and manuals (not that they used it... but it's nice to have the packaging). As a vendor/reseller, we paid for the boxed media and of course, the Redhat Network subscriptions. Now, I have 100+ Linux servers around the country, and a stream of new customers. I've frozen new deployments at Redhat 8.0 because Redhat 9 was a bit unstable for us and didn't allow me to use the HP/Compaq-specific hardware agents/drivers. So, we've everything from 7.0 through 8.0 in the field. Over the past few months, Redhat dropped up2date support and patches for Redhat 7.0. I feel guilty installing 8.0 on new boxes because I know support for it will be dropped at the end of the year. By Dec. 31, all of my systems will be "unsupported." This looks awful because we're starting to get more corporate customers, and I've receiving calls from their CTO's like, "wait, we want to make sure you'll be installing a SUPPORTED version of Linux if we buy your application." Grrr.... I don't wish to buy into Redhat's Enterprise Linux because I don't understand what I'm paying for. *I'm* the Redhat support. I just need something that will receive patches and support for more than one year. The 5 year lifespan of the Enterprise versions is nice, but I've NEVER called Redhat for support. I don't plan to. I also build the kernels for each of the servers. I use vanilla kernel.org 2.4.21 source with additional XFS patches. We sell 2, 4 and 8-way Proliant servers. Am I missing out on anything from the "optimized" Redhat Advanced Server kernels? I downloaded the RHEL 3.0 kernel and looked at the 200+ patches they make to the plain 2.4.21 source. Other than the hyperthreading patch, none of the enhancements will make that much of a difference in my company's application. Would using my stable kernel setup with RHEL negate the purpose of using that OS? Patching XFS on TOP of their already heavily-modified kernel is close to impossible. I think it's confusing because we initially chose Redhat for the accountability aspect of having a corporation behind the distro. Now, I'm not sure who they're targeting. I would imagine that most firms that select Redhat Advanced server and are willing to pay the price (>$1000/license) would have a staff talented enough to support it. So why the mandatory support costs from Redhat? It's a bad move because 7.2, 7.3 and 8.0 are great matches for our hardware. HP's support for RHAS 2.1 is even a bit spotty (old kernel, etc.), so HP concentrated in supporting 8.0. I'm afraid to recommend RHEL 3.0 for these critical servers because the userbase is going to be tiny, and we'll essentially be flushing-out bugs..... in production. That's not a good situation.... * Sidenote: After looking at Redhat's Enterprise kernel's default .config, I'm surprised that they still enable HAM radio, PCMCIA, ISDN and other rarely-used (at least in the US) functions by default. I mean, I choose to compile my own kernels.... but I'm pretty sure that their target market for RHEL won't bother. Odd. Either way, since these servers are humming along without incident, I don't have much motivation to reinstall and move to an untested (by my application's need) RHEL. Having continued support for RedHat 8 would be very useful for those in my situation. I know this project is in its infacy, but I think that 7.2-9.0 are must-support distributions. Please advise. -- Edmund William White http://www.djedwhite.com ewwhite at mac.com From dac at cafaro.net Sat Nov 8 03:38:25 2003 From: dac at cafaro.net (David A. Cafaro) Date: 07 Nov 2003 22:38:25 -0500 Subject: Possible Mirrors (was Re: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora) In-Reply-To: <200311071747.19582.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <200311071747.19582.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <1068262705.2857.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Just to add to the possible mirrors, I'm trying to arrange a server to provide a mirror for the project at my work as well. I don't know if this is a guarantee, waiting on the higher ups to decided (policy thing, I only control the technical stuff). Regardless I'm going to find some way to help out (even if It mean finding my old rusty C/C++ skills). -David On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 20:47, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 06 November 2003 22:51, Martin Kunz wrote: > > Just out of curiosity.. what would be the requirements, bandwidth and > > storage wise, to act reasonably as a mirror? > > > > Me and some of my clients will have a much easier life and sleep a > > lot better for every additional month that the community can keep the > > older releases alive, so we'd like to help out if we can! > > Not much initially. Probably outbound speeds of a T1 or better, capable > of handling or throttling so that the usage doesn't swamp your normal > services. Storage in the 5gigs area (very soft number, It may take us > QUITE a while to hit 5gigs of updates). > > Perhaps some people who run mirrors for Red Hat currently can speak to > the usage they see for just updates. -- David A. Cafaro, RHCE, CCNA dac(at)cafaro.net Systems Analyst, Georgetown University, DC Co-Chair CALUG (Columbia Area Linux Users Group), MD From xose at wanadoo.es Sat Nov 8 03:53:11 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 04:53:11 +0100 Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... References: Message-ID: <3FAC68A7.8060608@wanadoo.es> Edmund White wrote: > AIX, SCO and HP-UX customers to HP/Compaq servers with appropriate > versions of Redhat (7.x, 8) and our software on top. Luckily, the software > is easily portable and can run unmodified on any unix variant. Redhat 7.2, > 7.3 and 8.0 have proven to be the best match for our software/hardware > solution. The hardcore Compaq/HP Proliant server hardware support (for > ML370's and ML570's) is there. HP's agents add temperature, SCSI/array and HP, Sun, Dell, IBM, Fujuitsu-Siemens, BEA, Oracle ... and Red Hat are going to certify servers and software _only_ with RHEL family. > Now, I have 100+ Linux servers around the country, and a stream of new > customers. I've frozen new deployments at Redhat 8.0 because Redhat 9 was > a bit unstable for us and didn't allow me to use the HP/Compaq-specific ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ did you fill a bug report at bugzilla ? > hardware agents/drivers. So, we've everything from 7.0 through 8.0 in the Yes, RHL 9 doesn't have lot of official support from HW/SW vendors. And believe that HW/SW vendors will drop 'official' support to EOL RHL(7.x, 8.0..) > patches for Redhat 7.0. I feel guilty installing 8.0 on new boxes because > I know support for it will be dropped at the end of the year. By Dec. 31, > all of my systems will be "unsupported." This looks awful because we're awful ? They sent a notice on Dec-2002 about that. > I don't wish to buy into Redhat's Enterprise Linux because I don't > understand what I'm paying for. *I'm* the Redhat support. I just need *longer lifetime and updates*. What are you looking for? > I also build the kernels for each of the servers. I use vanilla kernel.org > 2.4.21 source with additional XFS patches. We sell 2, 4 and 8-way Proliant ^^^ danger!!! ;-) And *2.4.21 has security bugs* http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0307.2/1821.html better stay with a vendor kernel or with *latest latest latest* of kernel.org > servers. Am I missing out on anything from the "optimized" Redhat Advanced > Server kernels? I downloaded the RHEL 3.0 kernel and looked at the 200+ > patches they make to the plain 2.4.21 source. Other than the > hyperthreading patch, none of the enhancements will make that much of a > difference in my company's application. Would using my stable kernel setup ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I don't belive that, Did you test a _standard_ RHEL kernel against a kernel of kernel.org or RHL ? > with RHEL negate the purpose of using that OS? Patching XFS on TOP of > their already heavily-modified kernel is close to impossible. Sorry, but neither a kernel of kernel.org nor RHL kernels are _ideal_ for a 8-way or 4-way servers. RHEL has a lot of backports from 2.6. > not sure who they're targeting. I would imagine that most firms that > select Redhat Advanced server and are willing to pay the price > (>$1000/license) would have a staff talented enough to support it. So why ^^^^ prices are from 180$ to 2500$, or buy RHPW at 85-100$. > 8.0. I'm afraid to recommend RHEL 3.0 for these critical servers because > the userbase is going to be tiny, and we'll essentially be flushing-out > bugs..... in production. That's not a good situation.... * Sidenote: After :-? Do you believe that RHEL kernels are untested? > looking at Redhat's Enterprise kernel's default .config, I'm surprised > that they still enable HAM radio, PCMCIA, ISDN and other rarely-used (at > least in the US) functions by default. I mean, I choose to compile my own > kernels.... but I'm pretty sure that their target market for RHEL won't > bother. Odd. It doesn't matter. They are *modules* > Either way, since these servers are humming along without incident, I > don't have much motivation to reinstall and move to an untested (by my ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ what do your boss pay for ? X-D > application's need) RHEL. Having continued support for RedHat 8 would be > very useful for those in my situation. I know this project is in its > infacy, but I think that 7.2-9.0 are must-support distributions. Please ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and who are going to work on it? This is a volunteer project. Please, a hand up ;-) -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From ewwhite at mac.com Sat Nov 8 04:46:31 2003 From: ewwhite at mac.com (Edmund White) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 22:46:31 -0600 (CST) Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... In-Reply-To: <3FAC68A7.8060608@wanadoo.es> Message-ID: On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > Edmund White wrote: > > > AIX, SCO and HP-UX customers to HP/Compaq servers with appropriate > > versions of Redhat (7.x, 8) and our software on top. Luckily, the software > > is easily portable and can run unmodified on any unix variant. Redhat 7.2, > > 7.3 and 8.0 have proven to be the best match for our software/hardware > > solution. The hardcore Compaq/HP Proliant server hardware support (for > > ML370's and ML570's) is there. HP's agents add temperature, SCSI/array and > > HP, Sun, Dell, IBM, Fujuitsu-Siemens, BEA, Oracle ... and Red Hat are going to > certify servers and software _only_ with RHEL family. The hardware on my existing servers is well-supported. Currently, HP's Proliant health drivers work the best with Redhat 8 (versus the RHAS 2.1 drivers). I don't wish to make changes to those system because they are in 24/7 environments. In time, with new server deployments, I'll make an decision about Red Hat's ES and AS offerings. HP does not have drivers for those variants yet. That's expected in late November. > > Now, I have 100+ Linux servers around the country, and a stream of new > > customers. I've frozen new deployments at Redhat 8.0 because Redhat 9 was > > a bit unstable for us and didn't allow me to use the HP/Compaq-specific > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > did you fill a bug report at bugzilla ? No need for the snippy reply. Our application did not play well the library change between RH8 and RH9. This was not a problem with 9. However, HP Proliant drivers were never released for RH9, so it was not an option for us. > > hardware agents/drivers. So, we've everything from 7.0 through 8.0 in the > > Yes, RHL 9 doesn't have lot of official support from HW/SW vendors. And > believe that HW/SW vendors will drop 'official' support to EOL RHL(7.x, 8.0..) I'm not concerned about the official hardware support on currently-stable production systems. > > patches for Redhat 7.0. I feel guilty installing 8.0 on new boxes because > > I know support for it will be dropped at the end of the year. By Dec. 31, > > all of my systems will be "unsupported." This looks awful because we're > > awful ? They sent a notice on Dec-2002 about that. Yep. We knew about the EOL, but didn't anticipate the end of the Red Hat Consumer product line. > > I don't wish to buy into Redhat's Enterprise Linux because I don't > > understand what I'm paying for. *I'm* the Redhat support. I just need > > *longer lifetime and updates*. What are you looking for? > > > I also build the kernels for each of the servers. I use vanilla kernel.org > > 2.4.21 source with additional XFS patches. We sell 2, 4 and 8-way Proliant > ^^^ danger!!! ;-) > > And *2.4.21 has security bugs* > http://www.ussg.iu.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0307.2/1821.html > better stay with a vendor kernel or with *latest latest latest* of kernel.org We're not concerned about the local exploits detailed in that changelog. It's not an issue given the design of our software. The errata kernels were too much of a moving target with regard to HP Proliant driver support. In addition, the SGI XFS filesystem is very important to our application. > > servers. Am I missing out on anything from the "optimized" Redhat Advanced > > Server kernels? I downloaded the RHEL 3.0 kernel and looked at the 200+ > > patches they make to the plain 2.4.21 source. Other than the > > hyperthreading patch, none of the enhancements will make that much of a > > difference in my company's application. Would using my stable kernel setup > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > I don't belive that, Did you test a _standard_ RHEL kernel against a > kernel of kernel.org or RHL ? I simply examined the patches and RPM spec file for the 2.4.21 RHEL source. Many of the backported patches are nice, but irrelevant in our setup. The hyperthreading scheduling patch is useful, and may make its way into my setup, along with the usual XFS patches. > > with RHEL negate the purpose of using that OS? Patching XFS on TOP of > > their already heavily-modified kernel is close to impossible. > > Sorry, but neither a kernel of kernel.org nor RHL kernels are _ideal_ for > a 8-way or 4-way servers. RHEL has a lot of backports from 2.6. > > > not sure who they're targeting. I would imagine that most firms that > > select Redhat Advanced server and are willing to pay the price > > (>$1000/license) would have a staff talented enough to support it. So why ^^^^ > > prices are from 180$ to 2500$, or buy RHPW at 85-100$. The details of the personal workstation product are sketchy. I'm still waiting for a sales rep to get back to me about volume licensing, etc. for new deployments. The initial costs do not bother me much. That gets passed to the customer. These are clients that are used to paying $15,000/year for their old AIX or HP-UX contracts, so the concept of RHEL licensing isn't too bad.... My primary concern is existing clients. Without a nice upgrade path, (remember, 24/7 operations) there's no good reason to mess with otherwise stable systems. I'm not looking for new functionality..... just a few security patches. > > 8.0. I'm afraid to recommend RHEL 3.0 for these critical servers because > > the userbase is going to be tiny, and we'll essentially be flushing-out > > bugs..... in production. That's not a good situation.... * Sidenote: After > > :-? Do you believe that RHEL kernels are untested? No, but I need a few simple things.... XFS support isn't there, and it's not easy to patch over the hundreds of intrusive RHEL patches to 2.4.21. > > looking at Redhat's Enterprise kernel's default .config, I'm surprised > > that they still enable HAM radio, PCMCIA, ISDN and other rarely-used (at > > least in the US) functions by default. I mean, I choose to compile my own > > kernels.... but I'm pretty sure that their target market for RHEL won't > > bother. Odd. > > It doesn't matter. They are *modules* > > > Either way, since these servers are humming along without incident, I > > don't have much motivation to reinstall and move to an untested (by my > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > what do your boss pay for ? X-D I'm not paid to disrupt stable 24/7 setups for unnecessary operating system upgrades. > > application's need) RHEL. Having continued support for RedHat 8 would be > > very useful for those in my situation. I know this project is in its > > infacy, but I think that 7.2-9.0 are must-support distributions. Please > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ -- Edmund William White http://www.djedwhite.com ewwhite at mac.com From jkeating at j2solutions.net Sat Nov 8 04:54:00 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 20:54:00 -0800 Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200311072054.00245.jkeating@j2solutions.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 07 November 2003 18:58, Edmund White wrote: > Either way, since these servers are humming along without incident, I > don't have much motivation to reinstall and move to an untested (by my > application's need) RHEL. Having continued support for RedHat 8 would be > very useful for those in my situation. I know this project is in its > infacy, but I think that 7.2-9.0 are must-support distributions. Please > advise. Our original thoughts were to include 7.3 and 9 support, since those were the most widely used of legacy releases, adn when initially talking over the Legacy system, nobody stepped up for 8.0/7.2. I've seen more and more interest in these products over the last couple days, so I'm going to say "It depends on the amount of volunteers we get". I know this is horribly vague, but hopefully it'll prompt some people to step up and state that they'll to the work necessary for 7.3/8.0. - -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/rHbo4v2HLvE71NURAiunAJ9xsTxny2XhmlBiLDVBZagQZUdwXQCfQsiI mOT0o12xAeaKt/y7hd99tls= =spL6 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From eiwanski at belo.com Sat Nov 8 05:31:38 2003 From: eiwanski at belo.com (Edward E. Iwanski) Date: Fri, 07 Nov 2003 23:31:38 -0600 Subject: Possible Mirrors (was Re: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora) In-Reply-To: <1068262705.2857.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200311071747.19582.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <1068262705.2857.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1068269498.3766.6.camel@zion> Is rsync the preferred way to set up a mirror? I'd appreciate any good docs or links if someone would provide. I've never set one up before, but would be willing to ask management to host as we have lots of available bandwidth and have the ability to cap it off if necessary. - Ed On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 21:38, David A. Cafaro wrote: > Just to add to the possible mirrors, I'm trying to arrange a server to > provide a mirror for the project at my work as well. I don't know if > this is a guarantee, waiting on the higher ups to decided (policy thing, > I only control the technical stuff). Regardless I'm going to find some > way to help out (even if It mean finding my old rusty C/C++ skills). > > -David > > On Fri, 2003-11-07 at 20:47, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Thursday 06 November 2003 22:51, Martin Kunz wrote: > > > Just out of curiosity.. what would be the requirements, bandwidth and > > > storage wise, to act reasonably as a mirror? > > > > > > Me and some of my clients will have a much easier life and sleep a > > > lot better for every additional month that the community can keep the > > > older releases alive, so we'd like to help out if we can! > > > > Not much initially. Probably outbound speeds of a T1 or better, capable > > of handling or throttling so that the usage doesn't swamp your normal > > services. Storage in the 5gigs area (very soft number, It may take us > > QUITE a while to hit 5gigs of updates). > > > > Perhaps some people who run mirrors for Red Hat currently can speak to > > the usage they see for just updates. From jkeating at j2solutions.net Sat Nov 8 05:38:44 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 7 Nov 2003 21:38:44 -0800 Subject: Possible Mirrors (was Re: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora) In-Reply-To: <1068269498.3766.6.camel@zion> References: <1068262705.2857.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1068269498.3766.6.camel@zion> Message-ID: <200311072138.44884.jkeating@j2solutions.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 07 November 2003 21:31, Edward E. Iwanski wrote: > Is rsync the preferred way to set up a mirror? I'd appreciate any good > docs or links if someone would provide. I've never set one up before, > but would be willing to ask management to host as we have lots of > available bandwidth and have the ability to cap it off if necessary. I do believe rsync is preferred, not sure if we're going to do rsync over ssh or not. Honestly I've never set up a mirror system either, I'll be looking to Red Hat for guidence on this one. - -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/rIFk4v2HLvE71NURAsNjAJ99Dnodj94HSPns4SYlgUWeiogYLQCgiJsW xy3dkZroVzYUBJ4WuUKxRMY= =2uT7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From pekkas at netcore.fi Sat Nov 8 06:58:50 2003 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 08:58:50 +0200 (EET) Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... In-Reply-To: <200311072054.00245.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Friday 07 November 2003 18:58, Edmund White wrote: > > Either way, since these servers are humming along without incident, I > > don't have much motivation to reinstall and move to an untested (by my > > application's need) RHEL. Having continued support for RedHat 8 would be > > very useful for those in my situation. I know this project is in its > > infacy, but I think that 7.2-9.0 are must-support distributions. Please > > advise. > > Our original thoughts were to include 7.3 and 9 support, since those were > the most widely used of legacy releases, adn when initially talking over > the Legacy system, nobody stepped up for 8.0/7.2. I've seen more and more > interest in these products over the last couple days, so I'm going to say > "It depends on the amount of volunteers we get". I know this is horribly > vague, but hopefully it'll prompt some people to step up and state that > they'll to the work necessary for 7.3/8.0. FWIW, 7.2 is terribly easy to upgrade to 7.3 on systems which do have i386. 8.0 is terribly easy to upgrade to 9. I've done both of these multiple times, remotely, not even going on site physically. Tell me again why anyone should bother spending time in doing the updates for these systems? So, the question becomes, is it worth to make RHL72 updates for non-i386 architectures' sake? IMHO, I'd worry about getting the updates done to 7.3 and 9, and if that succeeds, only then worrying whether there are resources for the rest. Less is More! -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From ms-nospam-0306 at arcor.de Sat Nov 8 07:31:07 2003 From: ms-nospam-0306 at arcor.de (Michael Schwendt) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 08:31:07 +0100 Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20031108083107.7873608e.ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de> On Fri, 7 Nov 2003 20:58:53 -0600 (CST), Edmund White wrote: > I don't wish to buy into Redhat's Enterprise Linux because I don't > understand what I'm paying for. *I'm* the Redhat support. I just need > something that will receive patches and support for more than one year. > The 5 year lifespan of the Enterprise versions is nice, but I've NEVER > called Redhat for support. I don't plan to. You're paying them for creating and maintaining the distribution and developing errata support packages over all these years. Errata support you depend on, else you would not worry. Phone/web based support is another thing. -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From barryn at pobox.com Sat Nov 8 08:50:51 2003 From: barryn at pobox.com (Barry K. Nathan) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 00:50:51 -0800 Subject: list of EOL RHL distributions or based In-Reply-To: <3FAB052B.4000509@wanadoo.es> References: <3FAB052B.4000509@wanadoo.es> Message-ID: <20031108085051.GD8225@ip68-4-255-84.oc.oc.cox.net> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 03:36:27AM +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > Yellow Dog 3.0 based on RHL ?? YDL 3.0 seems like a RHL 8.0/9 mix to me. FWIW, the official EOL for YDL 3.0 is April 16, 2004 (i.e., TerraSoft is maintaining it until then). -Barry K. Nathan From sven at timegate.de Sat Nov 8 08:56:37 2003 From: sven at timegate.de (Sven Hoexter) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 09:56:37 +0100 Subject: Possible Mirrors (was Re: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora) In-Reply-To: <200311072138.44884.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <1068262705.2857.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1068269498.3766.6.camel@zion> <200311072138.44884.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <20031108085637.GC1682@sven.home.hoaxter.de> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 09:38:44PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: Hi, > On Friday 07 November 2003 21:31, Edward E. Iwanski wrote: > > Is rsync the preferred way to set up a mirror? I'd appreciate any good > > docs or links if someone would provide. I've never set one up before, > > but would be willing to ask management to host as we have lots of > > available bandwidth and have the ability to cap it off if necessary. > > I do believe rsync is preferred, not sure if we're going to do rsync over > ssh or not. rsync itself produces a high load on the server side, with rsync over ssh it will be even higher and for public updates I don't see a reason for the use of ssh. I personaly prefer the good old mirror.pl script. Sven -- Das Weihnachtskonzert COMBO GUANO 23.12.2003, Saal Norhausen Lev. Rheindorf http://www.comboguano.de From ms-nospam-0306 at arcor.de Sat Nov 8 09:33:42 2003 From: ms-nospam-0306 at arcor.de (Michael Schwendt) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 10:33:42 +0100 Subject: Possible Mirrors (was Re: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora) In-Reply-To: <20031108085637.GC1682@sven.home.hoaxter.de> References: <1068262705.2857.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1068269498.3766.6.camel@zion> <200311072138.44884.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <20031108085637.GC1682@sven.home.hoaxter.de> Message-ID: <20031108103342.54cf1e15.ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de> On Sat, 8 Nov 2003 09:56:37 +0100, Sven Hoexter wrote: > I personaly prefer the good old mirror.pl script. Check out "ftpcopy" with option --mdtm and lftp's mirror command. Really useful stuff, since lftp also does http. -- -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From zen23003 at zen.co.uk Sat Nov 8 10:43:13 2003 From: zen23003 at zen.co.uk (Paul) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 10:43:13 -0000 Subject: [off-list] A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... References: Message-ID: <01ad01c3a5e5$1c8cf700$0100000a@lan> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Pekka Savola" To: Sent: 08 November 2003 06:58 Subject: Re: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... > 8.0 is terribly easy to upgrade to 9. > > I've done both of these multiple times, remotely, not even going on site > physically. Hi Pekka I'm fairly newbie. I have a co-lo machine running RH8. It's not live yet (it was all setup ready to go when RH made the announcement). I was thinking of moving distro to Debian because of the lack of support on the list for RH8 updates, but you make an interesting point here. Can you point me to any info on going about the RH8 to 9 upgrade? What do you think about a RH8 to Fedora upgrade (or even RH8 -> RH9 -> Fedora)? Regards Paul Welsh From zen23003 at zen.co.uk Sat Nov 8 11:02:24 2003 From: zen23003 at zen.co.uk (Paul) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 11:02:24 -0000 Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... References: <01ad01c3a5e5$1c8cf700$0100000a@lan> Message-ID: <020b01c3a5e7$ca8be4e0$0100000a@lan> Apologies for my last post. I forgot to change the recipient's address. From Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de Sat Nov 8 12:20:24 2003 From: Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de (Axel Thimm) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 13:20:24 +0100 Subject: fedora-legacy/Warren agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? In-Reply-To: <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> References: <3FA229D3.4000104@togami.com> <3FA2722D.6090504@togami.com> <20031031180006.1b3cad50.ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de> <1067622953.20763.164.camel@bobcat.mine.nu> <1068204440.12684.29.camel@laptop> <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: <20031108122024.GI11801@puariko.nirvana> On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 05:47:17PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 01:27:20AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > > This however does not matter, since it has been agreed upon on > > fedora-legacy list that ALL distributions supported by Fedora Legacy > > will force an upgrade of rpm as a requirement for users to begin using > > those repositories. > > When was this agreed upon? > [...] so unless we are the only left subscribers of fedora-legacy, > it is not yet an agreement of the whole list. ;) Am I the only one that finds it questionable that assertions like these are simply being made? Even if the whole list and the world agrees postscriptum (which it doesn't), what kind of tacticts are these? There was clearly not a list agreement (set aside if there is need for one), so why present your opinion as the list's? Did I mention that it was agreed upon all fedora-lists to remove glibc from ALL distributions? -- Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnd92021 at cox.net Sat Nov 8 15:25:52 2003 From: johnd92021 at cox.net (John Dickinson) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 07:25:52 -0800 Subject: fedora-legacy/Warren agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? References: <3FA229D3.4000104@togami.com> <3FA2722D.6090504@togami.com> <20031031180006.1b3cad50.ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de> <1067622953.20763.164.camel@bobcat.mine.nu> <1068204440.12684.29.camel@laptop> <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> <20031108122024.GI11801@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: <000a01c3a60c$987aaa20$6400a8c0@router> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Axel Thimm" To: Cc: Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 4:20 AM Subject: fedora-legacy/Warren agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? From xose at wanadoo.es Sat Nov 8 15:35:58 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 16:35:58 +0100 Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... References: Message-ID: <3FAD0D5E.6050901@wanadoo.es> Edmund White wrote: > The hardware on my existing servers is well-supported. Currently, HP's > Proliant health drivers work the best with Redhat 8 (versus the RHAS 2.1 > drivers). I don't wish to make changes to those system because they are in > 24/7 environments. In time, with new server deployments, I'll make an > decision about Red Hat's ES and AS offerings. HP does not have drivers for > those variants yet. That's expected in late November. I don't know what _drivers_ are you talking about, but RHEL usually brings updated drivers for current HW, net and SCSI mainly. And 2.4.23preX already bring latest drivers. And if you insert *any external* driver in your kernel, Red Hat will not support this configuration!!!!! > I'm not concerned about the official hardware support on currently-stable > production systems. I don't know how will take it HP. But others HW/SW companies are going to drop support for RHL EOL OS (no more new drivers, ...), as usual. > Yep. We knew about the EOL, but didn't anticipate the end of the Red Hat > Consumer product line. In this announcement RH said that Consumer product line only will get _1_ year of 'lifetime'. And did you consider to do a migration every year ? Well Fedora is out, and it will get 6-9 month of 'official' lifetime. Plus some months more with this project. If you were happy with RHL then Fedora is for you. > We're not concerned about the local exploits detailed in that changelog. There are remote too. > It's not an issue given the design of our software. The errata kernels > were too much of a moving target with regard to HP Proliant driver > support. In addition, the SGI XFS filesystem is very important to our > application. It was just an example, but I don't know if 2.4.21 or 2.4.22 have more critical bugs. Kernel hackers recomends stay with latest distribution kernels. Otherwise you will have to check linux-kernel *every day* to know if a 'stable' kernel has some critical bug. > I simply examined the patches and RPM spec file for the 2.4.21 RHEL > source. Many of the backported patches are nice, but irrelevant in our to examine them is not enough. RHEL is oriented to servers. > No, but I need a few simple things.... XFS support isn't there, and it's > not easy to patch over the hundreds of intrusive RHEL patches to 2.4.21. XFS is not a simple thing is a _very instrusive patch_ . -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From jkeating at j2solutions.net Sat Nov 8 16:45:39 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 08:45:39 -0800 Subject: fedora-legacy/Warren agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? In-Reply-To: <20031108122024.GI11801@puariko.nirvana> References: <3FA229D3.4000104@togami.com> <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> <20031108122024.GI11801@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: <200311080845.40547.jkeating@j2solutions.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 08 November 2003 04:20, Axel Thimm wrote: > Am I the only one that finds it questionable that assertions like > these are simply being made? > > Even if the whole list and the world agrees postscriptum (which it > doesn't), what kind of tacticts are these? There was clearly not a > list agreement (set aside if there is need for one), so why present > your opinion as the list's? > > Did I mention that it was agreed upon all fedora-lists to remove glibc > from ALL distributions? Alex, calm down. It has been proposed, then modified slightly (which I forgot) by Warren, to just upgrade to the latest that rpm.org has to offer for each respective os. There were reasons posted as well. At the time, nobody seemed to oppose it. Now there seems to be some opposition. No need to get your feathers ruffled, we can discuss it once more. We have until mid December to make some decisions. - -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (http://geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/rR2z4v2HLvE71NURAo8PAJwPx8r5O8cuBG2hHj08mJwMTVoRsQCaAnFu nJ3KRZkvTOg47Bdiq5yrrho= =hKfN -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rostetter at mail.utexas.edu Sat Nov 8 18:33:21 2003 From: rostetter at mail.utexas.edu (Eric Rostetter) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 12:33:21 -0600 Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... In-Reply-To: <200311072054.00245.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <200311072054.00245.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <20031108123321.igtw80wc0gck0k40@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Quoting Jesse Keating : > "It depends on the amount of volunteers we get". I know this is horribly > vague, but hopefully it'll prompt some people to step up and state that > they'll to the work necessary for 7.3/8.0. I've already said so, but I'll say it again for the record. I'll try to help in any way I can to maintain 8.0 support. I run a single 8.0 server (and a single 8.0 workstation that I use to maintain RPMS for that server), so I don't have a good test base, but I can help maintain it if needed/desired. I'm fairly familiar with building RPMS, patches, etc. I'll also mention that I volunteered (off-list) to help with documentation, and in particular the FAQ docs. I've not heard back about it lately (which is fine because my mail server has been acting nasty the last 2 days). But I'm still willing to donate some time to either of these causes, if needed. From rostetter at mail.utexas.edu Sat Nov 8 18:43:20 2003 From: rostetter at mail.utexas.edu (Eric Rostetter) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 12:43:20 -0600 Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20031108124320.0yv40wws0g804400@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Quoting Pekka Savola : > FWIW, > > 7.2 is terribly easy to upgrade to 7.3 on systems which do have i386. > 8.0 is terribly easy to upgrade to 9. Yes, true. > Tell me again why anyone should bother spending time in doing the updates > for these systems? So, the question becomes, is it worth to make RHL72 > updates for non-i386 architectures' sake? For 7.2, the reason most stated is that AS 2.1 is 7.2 based, so the AS 2.1 patches should work easily on 7.2, in fact more easily than 7.3. For 8.0, the argument is standard business practices. (Which would mean not supporting 7.2, BTW). Standard practice is to support the last "dot release" of the last X releases. So if X was 3, that would be RH 9, 8.0, and 7.3. If X was 4, that would be RH 9, 8.0, 7.3, and 6.2. And so on. In theory, if X was 2, we would do RH 9 and 8.0, not RH 9 and 7.3... > IMHO, I'd worry about getting the updates done to 7.3 and 9, and if that > succeeds, only then worrying whether there are resources for the rest. This is a pragmatic approach, but does not follow standard practices... Thus many people will be annoyed by it since their plans were based on standard practices and not on pragmatic goals. > Less is More! Sometimes. But if we have *more* volunteers then we can do *more* instead of *less*. I say support what ever we have people willing to support. We may not get enough people to support 8.0, and if not then it shouldn't be supported. But if we do get enough volunteers to support it, should we not allow it and just say "less is more" to them? Eric From blocke at newpaltz.edu Sat Nov 8 19:04:47 2003 From: blocke at newpaltz.edu (Bruce A. Locke) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 14:04:47 -0500 Subject: Test Message (Sorry) Message-ID: <1068318287.2168.5.camel@kodiak.shivan.org> Please Ignore. From ncb at cc.gatech.edu Sat Nov 8 19:08:34 2003 From: ncb at cc.gatech.edu (Neil Bright) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 14:08:34 -0500 Subject: Possible Mirrors (was Re: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora) In-Reply-To: <200311072138.44884.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <1068262705.2857.16.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1068269498.3766.6.camel@zion> <200311072138.44884.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: On Nov 8, 2003, at 12:38 AM, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Friday 07 November 2003 21:31, Edward E. Iwanski wrote: >> Is rsync the preferred way to set up a mirror? I'd appreciate any >> good >> docs or links if someone would provide. I've never set one up before, >> but would be willing to ask management to host as we have lots of >> available bandwidth and have the ability to cap it off if necessary. > > I do believe rsync is preferred, not sure if we're going to do rsync > over > ssh or not. Honestly I've never set up a mirror system either, I'll be > looking to Red Hat for guidence on this one. I run {ftp|www|rsync}.gtlib.cc.gatech.edu. Our campus has a vested interest in the success of the fedora legacy project, so I'd like to offer space, bandwidth and some my experience running a mirror. I obviously can't comment for RedHat, but I can answer some questions from a redhat mirror's prospective. First off, they use rsync. It does put a bit more of a CPU load on the upstream. In my opinion, the aggregate bandwidth and manageability savings are well worth it. They've got a couple of rsync servers in a DNS RR setup as a back-channel for mirrors to get the bits from. Most of the time (when mirrors have a few days to get the bits), this works pretty well. :) If there's anything I can do, please, feel free to let me know. +==============================================================+ Neil Bright Computing and Networking Services, ncb at cc.gatech.edu CERCS / IHPCL, College of Computing (404) 385-0448 Georgia Institute of Technology From herrold at owlriver.com Sat Nov 8 20:07:26 2003 From: herrold at owlriver.com (R P Herrold) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 15:07:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: fedora-legacy/Warren agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? In-Reply-To: <20031108122024.GI11801@puariko.nirvana> References: <3FA229D3.4000104@togami.com> <3FA2722D.6090504@togami.com> <20031031180006.1b3cad50.ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de> <1067622953.20763.164.camel@bobcat.mine.nu> <1068204440.12684.29.camel@laptop> <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> <20031108122024.GI11801@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 05:47:17PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 01:27:20AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > > > This however does not matter, since it has been agreed upon on > > > fedora-legacy list that ALL distributions supported by Fedora Legacy > > > will force an upgrade of rpm as a requirement for users to begin using > > > those repositories. > > > > When was this agreed upon? > > [...] so unless we are the only left subscribers of fedora-legacy, > > it is not yet an agreement of the whole list. ;) > > Am I the only one that finds it questionable that assertions like > these are simply being made? Clearly, Axel, you are not alone. I have kept relatively silent on public posting on fedora-* lists, because of the prior, and stil unchanged, unwillingness of projects sailing under the 'fedora' name to work from an open, collaborative, and community model, other than when it is convenient. My question from yesterday, as to pointers to reproduceable test cases or RH Bugzilla entries on later rpm variants being broken still remains unanswered. If there are still truly live problems as asserted, that fact would appear to be a showstopper to requiring moving to a later version. The recurrent re-appearance of the old 'there can be only one' autocratic methods and ill-considered 'snap decisions' by some are the antithesis of developing concensus; here specifically, the technical _need_ for such a change of RPM in fedora-legacy is not obvious and potentially (if Jesse's post is backed by live examples) gains nothing but a new set of problems. The turnaround on release naming models is another example within the last couple of days. And of course in a 'fedora-legacy' context, an RPM change requirement breaks the announced (and sensible) principle of NOT introducing new functionality to an post-EOL maintenance status line. So, no, you are not alone; I see nothing beyond yet another questionable assertion without process, principle, or concensus to back it up. -- Russ Herrold From ingo at auroralinux.org Sat Nov 8 22:12:10 2003 From: ingo at auroralinux.org (Ingo T. Storm) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 23:12:10 +0100 Subject: "the rpm question" - summary References: <3FA229D3.4000104@togami.com> <3FA2722D.6090504@togami.com> <20031031180006.1b3cad50.ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de> <1067622953.20763.164.camel@bobcat.mine.nu> <1068204440.12684.29.camel@laptop> <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> <20031108122024.GI11801@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: <017301c3a645$8aa32dd0$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> I have been silent so far because I seem to have joined the list late and did not know all pros and cons of the two sides. Unfortunately the discussion has now rather become political. Not really knowing any of the people involved, I'd like to get back to the issue, because I consider it VERY important. I hereby also acknowledge that I might be an idiot on the technical side, have no experience with rh8/9, but only rh72/73/RHEL21. I think it is fair to summarize that the "pro rpm upgrade" logic is technical with two objectives: A. fix bugs in rpm B. simplify srpm maintainance for all platforms The people "against" have two points, too, although less technical: C. it might break things D. I thought FedoraLegacy is minimal invasive surgery that only patches holes? >From my point of view, A is valid, C is unproven. Let's put aside B for the moment. I think it all comes down to D, which is rather about opinion and directions than technical fact and touches an important question: How much _Fedora.us_ is in _FedoraLegacy_? To me it looks like it's rather the "Fedora.us" core people would like to stay on a successful track (same rpm for everyone), whereas a lot of newcomers want as little change to their platforms and most of them only want security errata "the way we used to get them": backports of security or important bug fixes to the software versions the have on their machines. I can see the benifits of a new version of rpm that is the same across all supported platforms. (B is definitely a big point here.) But I personally am here for patches to the version of software package XYZ, _not_ for a new version that patches the hole and bugs and introduces new features - and perhaps breaks my config due to new default behaviour (anyone not thinking "php" here?). If rpm has bugs - fine. But they don't seem to be bad enough that a lot of people (users, not Fedora.us programmers) haven't learned to live with them. I run servers. Some have already gone RHEL, others will, my sparcs and alphas just can't. But I need all my servers to run reliably, and that means "as little change as possible". Add to that the possible complexity. Assuming all people who _want help_ also _want to help_, so their distros get in the boat, FedoraLegacy will support at least 10 distributions/versions on at least 4 hardware platforms. We're probably talking about 8 different glibc versions. While it might have been viable for Fedora.us to have one version of rpm tried and tested (i.e. it rebuilds nicely all base rpms plus all errata of all platforms), I am afraid this cannot be true for FedoraLegacy. I really don't know how to settle this issue, but I simply cannot wait for a decision until mid december. If I have to upgrade rpm on sparc and alpha, I will have to port it myself. This is too much work and probably too difficult for me, too. Then I'd rather initiate a very much smaller project "keep Enigma and Valhalla alive", because that's all I run. This would be about _only_ backporting RHEL/ia32 errata to rh72 and rh73 on ia32 and then port those to Aurora and rh72axp. Doable by a handful of people, but still a huge waste of effort if done in parallel to FedoraLegacy. So please folks, everybody think again from scratch. Maybe about what FedoraLegacy really is about. Is a new version of rpm a nice-to-have or does it "cut the work/bugs in half" or is it a clear must-have? And then let's vote on the list - soon. For someone with rh72/73 systems out there on the Internet, January 1st isn't really far away. Thanks, Ingo From warren at togami.com Sun Nov 9 00:20:40 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 14:20:40 -1000 Subject: fedora-legacy/Warren agrees to enforce rpm upgrades? In-Reply-To: References: <3FA229D3.4000104@togami.com> <3FA2722D.6090504@togami.com> <20031031180006.1b3cad50.ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de> <1067622953.20763.164.camel@bobcat.mine.nu> <1068204440.12684.29.camel@laptop> <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> <20031108122024.GI11801@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: <1068337239.4430.142.camel@laptop> On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 10:07, R P Herrold wrote: > The recurrent re-appearance of the old 'there can be only one' > autocratic methods and ill-considered 'snap decisions' by some Russ, you are implying me, and I must respond. There has NOT been any of this in the Legacy discussions. I can help to consider you as trolling at this point. Warren From warren at togami.com Sun Nov 9 00:21:31 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2003 14:21:31 -1000 Subject: "the rpm question" - summary In-Reply-To: <017301c3a645$8aa32dd0$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> References: <3FA229D3.4000104@togami.com> <3FA2722D.6090504@togami.com> <20031031180006.1b3cad50.ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de> <1067622953.20763.164.camel@bobcat.mine.nu> <1068204440.12684.29.camel@laptop> <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> <20031108122024.GI11801@puariko.nirvana> <017301c3a645$8aa32dd0$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> Message-ID: <1068337290.4430.145.camel@laptop> On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 12:12, Ingo T. Storm wrote: > I think it all comes down to D, which is rather about opinion and directions > than technical fact and touches an important question: How much _Fedora.us_ > is in _FedoraLegacy_? To me it looks like it's rather the "Fedora.us" core > people would like to stay on a successful track (same rpm for everyone), Only a slight correction. I don't know where this idea came from... but... 1) fedora.us does NOT require users to upgrade rpm. It is currently optional. 2) I never advocated upgrading to the same version of rpm, rpm-4.2 was mentioned. I mentioned that the latest upgrade to the latest versions rpm-4.2.1, rpm-4.1.1 and rpm-4.0.5 at rpm.org. Warren From pekkas at netcore.fi Sun Nov 9 03:10:12 2003 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 05:10:12 +0200 (EET) Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... In-Reply-To: <20031108124320.0yv40wws0g804400@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, 8 Nov 2003, Eric Rostetter wrote: > For 7.2, the reason most stated is that AS 2.1 is 7.2 based, so the AS 2.1 > patches should work easily on 7.2, in fact more easily than 7.3. But those AS patches won't work for 7.3, so extra effort is needed, because 7.3 must be done anyway..? > For 8.0, the argument is standard business practices. (Which would mean > not supporting 7.2, BTW). Standard practice is to support the last "dot > release" of the last X releases. So if X was 3, that would be RH 9, 8.0, > and 7.3. If X was 4, that would be RH 9, 8.0, 7.3, and 6.2. And so on. > In theory, if X was 2, we would do RH 9 and 8.0, not RH 9 and 7.3... Around RHL8 Red Hat ditched the point release plan, so this longer holds. The "major" releases had one major feature: binary compatibility (same glibc level) -- which made providing supports and managing updates easier. That's still there between RHL8 and RHL8 -- RHL8 had so many bugs we wouldn't even consider it here. Consider RHL9 RHL8.1 and it's pretty close.. :-) > Sometimes. But if we have *more* volunteers then we can do *more* instead > of *less*. I say support what ever we have people willing to support. > We may not get enough people to support 8.0, and if not then it shouldn't > be supported. But if we do get enough volunteers to support it, should we > not allow it and just say "less is more" to them? Sure, I'm not against supporting what folks want to contribute effort to. But in my eyes, the resources are likely to be more or less limited, and concentrating on just a few releases would probably help in QA, etc. -- Pekka Savola "You each name yourselves king, yet the Netcore Oy kingdom bleeds." Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings From villegas at math.gatech.edu Sun Nov 9 04:02:51 2003 From: villegas at math.gatech.edu (Carlos Villegas) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 23:02:51 -0500 Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... In-Reply-To: <20031108124320.0yv40wws0g804400@mail.ph.utexas.edu> References: <20031108124320.0yv40wws0g804400@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Message-ID: <20031109040251.GE27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> > > Less is More! > > Sometimes. But if we have *more* volunteers then we can do *more* instead > of *less*. I say support what ever we have people willing to support. > We may not get enough people to support 8.0, and if not then it shouldn't > be supported. But if we do get enough volunteers to support it, should we > not allow it and just say "less is more" to them? I think you missed some part of the discussion, as far as I can tell everyone agrees that if there are enough volunteers to support 8.0, it will be supported. The position so far has been not to support it, since only a few people had shown interest in it (as opposed to 7.3 and 9), however during the last few days the interest on 8.0 seems to have increased, only the "voting machine" will tell us if it is so. Carlos From lowen at pari.edu Sun Nov 9 04:29:22 2003 From: lowen at pari.edu (Lamar Owen) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 23:29:22 -0500 Subject: "the rpm question" - summary In-Reply-To: <1068337290.4430.145.camel@laptop> References: <3FA229D3.4000104@togami.com> <017301c3a645$8aa32dd0$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> <1068337290.4430.145.camel@laptop> Message-ID: <200311082329.22849.lowen@pari.edu> On Saturday 08 November 2003 07:21 pm, Warren Togami wrote: > On Sat, 2003-11-08 at 12:12, Ingo T. Storm wrote: > > I think it all comes down to D, which is rather about opinion and > > directions than technical fact and touches an important question: How > > much _Fedora.us_ is in _FedoraLegacy_? To me it looks like it's rather > > the "Fedora.us" core people would like to stay on a successful track > > (same rpm for everyone), > 2) I never advocated upgrading to the same version of rpm, rpm-4.2 was > mentioned. I mentioned that the latest upgrade to the latest versions > rpm-4.2.1, rpm-4.1.1 and rpm-4.0.5 at rpm.org. For what it's worth, on a purely technical point, Red Hat already did this in the past. It is not unreasonable to get everyone up to the same spec file behavior so that the updated RPMs can be more easily maintained. I have had to maintain specs that build on more than one RPM version. I even had to once do this with as old an RPM version as 2.5. So, Ingo, there are valid technical reasons to desire the same RPM version across the board, if it's not technically unfeasible to do so. Now, if it is technically unfeasible, then that's a different issue. But there's no politics involved from my view: not that there isn't from others; I can only vouch for my own opinion. As to the the politics, I have only two words to the 'opposing factions' involved. "Grow Up!" Fedora Legacy won't involve third party repositories, fancy release tags, or any such. There is strong precedent in the package naming of previous errata; this precedent should continue to be followed so that upgrades don't break from a up2date 7.3 to Fedora Core (or even to RHL9, for that matter). So the issues here are much fewer than the current maelstrom over on the Fedora lists. The issues here are not the same as even the old fedora.us issues, so the same guidelines don't necessarily need to apply. If anything, the guidelines might need to be stricter. I see: 1.) A package needs a maintainer. This is not a small task for some packages: for instance, if a security alert happens for PostgreSQL, the erratum needs to be for the same major version as shipped with that supported Red Hat release. (I pick on PostgreSQL since I maintain the postgresql.org RPMset). This task for PostgreSQL may mean a major backpatching effort (which happened not long ago for multiple releases where the upstream developers were not wont to backpatch). This would have to be up to the maintainer to do, though. The maintainer must be able to exercise some authority over the owned package; rely on the maintainer's possessiveness to keep things right and tight, within guidelines. This is not unlike how Red Hat works internally, from what I've gathered in four years of beta testing. 2.) Guidelines for how to go about the above. When does it become unreasonable to stay with the same major version, backpatching security fixes? Red Hat did this; this is very resource intensive and is expensive, which is why we are in the whole Fedora Legacy situation in the first place. 3.) There needs to be a good way to get the updates out to users. This implies a trust infrastructure between developers, as well as a mirror structure and secure uploading mechanisms. A simple way to do this is with scp using RSA authentication. The upload needs to be source only -- the buildfarm needs to build and sign with the Fedora Legacy key in an automated (or semi automated for a little extra security -- I have some ideas how to make this secure and not exploitable -- the biggest thing is that the actual build farm must not be directly connected to the Internet) fashion. This simplifies the trust relationship somewhat, since the binaries are all signed with a single key (or at least a few keys, instead of one for each maintainer). This boils down to the question 'How seriously is Fedora Legacy going to take itself?' -- that is, is FL going to be a volunteer business with a security reputation equal to Red Hat's (I personally think this is unreasonable: the only way I'm going to use community-built errata is by rebuilding from source RPM!). (although I break my own rules with the Aurora project, but that's about to change...) Or to put it much more bluntly: I wouldn't even install the PostgreSQL binaries that I myself upload on my production machines. And it has nothing to do with the fact that they are not signed. 4.) There needs to be some governance. I propose a steering committee based on merit: if you put up the bandwidth, you get a say in the governance, etc. This is the way the PostgreSQL steering committee works. Membership is by invitation of the existing steering committee. Those who do the work get a say in how the work is done, basically. This would be the way rogue maintainers would be reigned in. (revoke their RSA auth keys, no login). There must be checks and balances all the way around. A dictatorship is worse than anarchy, but neither are very productive. 5.) If FL is to be taken seriously by people like me (IT Directors), then the petty squabbling must stop. Now. -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu From lowen at pari.edu Sun Nov 9 04:30:50 2003 From: lowen at pari.edu (Lamar Owen) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 23:30:50 -0500 Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... In-Reply-To: <20031109040251.GE27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> References: <20031108124320.0yv40wws0g804400@mail.ph.utexas.edu> <20031109040251.GE27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <200311082330.50719.lowen@pari.edu> On Saturday 08 November 2003 11:02 pm, Carlos Villegas wrote: > however during the last few days the interest on 8.0 seems to have > increased, only the "voting machine" will tell us if it is so. For what it's worth, I never have put a RHL9 server into production. I still have several 8.0 boxes that will be migrated to Yarrow when possible. -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu From chuckw at quantumlinux.com Sun Nov 9 04:50:31 2003 From: chuckw at quantumlinux.com (Chuck Wolber) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:50:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: "the rpm question" - summary In-Reply-To: <200311082329.22849.lowen@pari.edu> Message-ID: > 4.) There needs to be some governance. I propose a steering committee > based on merit: if you put up the bandwidth, you get a say in the > governance, etc. How about rather than resources put forth (which anyone with $$$ can do), we base merit on technical contributions *ONLY*? My concern is that a spot can be purchased rather than earned. -Chuck -- Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology * Education | -=^ Ad Astra Per Aspera ^=- * Integration | http://www.quantumlinux.com * Support | chuckw at quantumlinux.com A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text? From chuckw at quantumlinux.com Sun Nov 9 04:53:29 2003 From: chuckw at quantumlinux.com (Chuck Wolber) Date: Sat, 8 Nov 2003 20:53:29 -0800 (PST) Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... In-Reply-To: <200311082330.50719.lowen@pari.edu> Message-ID: > On Saturday 08 November 2003 11:02 pm, Carlos Villegas wrote: > > however during the last few days the interest on 8.0 seems to have > > increased, only the "voting machine" will tell us if it is so. > > For what it's worth, I never have put a RHL9 server into production. I > still have several 8.0 boxes that will be migrated to Yarrow when > possible. We're the converse of that. We've explicitely avoided RH8 in production and have been deliberately migrating all RH 7.3 installations to RH 9. -Chuck -- Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology * Education | -=^ Ad Astra Per Aspera ^=- * Integration | http://www.quantumlinux.com * Support | chuckw at quantumlinux.com A: Because we read from top to bottom, left to right. Q: Why should i start my reply below the quoted text? From lowen at pari.edu Sun Nov 9 05:40:16 2003 From: lowen at pari.edu (Lamar Owen) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 00:40:16 -0500 Subject: "the rpm question" - summary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200311090040.16366.lowen@pari.edu> On Saturday 08 November 2003 11:50 pm, Chuck Wolber wrote: > > 4.) There needs to be some governance. I propose a steering committee > > based on merit: if you put up the bandwidth, you get a say in the > > governance, etc. > How about rather than resources put forth (which anyone with $$$ can do), > we base merit on technical contributions *ONLY*? My concern is that a spot > can be purchased rather than earned. Amount of time spent on the project can also be bought. Providing servers, bandwidth, and other infrastructure is essential for those times that, say, OpenSSH has a root compromise. On the PostgreSQL project, Marc Fournier doesn't provide much in the way of developing code; but he provides the servers and the pipes. Administering such is just as important a contribution as writing code would be; thus he got a spot (one of the first four). But each project is different, and must find its own way. -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu From lowen at pari.edu Sun Nov 9 05:49:32 2003 From: lowen at pari.edu (Lamar Owen) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 00:49:32 -0500 Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200311090049.32969.lowen@pari.edu> On Saturday 08 November 2003 11:53 pm, Chuck Wolber wrote: > We're the converse of that. We've explicitly avoided RH8 in production > and have been deliberately migrating all RH 7.3 installations to RH 9. I found RH8 to be more stable than previous x.0 releases; there were other needs that dictated moving then to 8 (a 3.x gcc was the biggest at the time). 9 introduced some things some of our software didn't play well with on the server; I ran it on my laptop, though. I've played the Red Hat dance since 4.1: the decision to upgrade is based on many factors, as you well know. FC1 and the newer releases of some of our software seems to be better behaved. FC1 seems more stable than 9 in my usage. I still have a Red Hat 5.2 box in production due to some software. It just runs, and runs, and runs. It's not directly Internet exposed, so security issues aren't real problems for it. -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu From ingo at auroralinux.org Sun Nov 9 12:21:58 2003 From: ingo at auroralinux.org (Ingo T. Storm) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 13:21:58 +0100 Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... References: Message-ID: <01e501c3a6f0$442f0580$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> > > For 7.2, the reason most stated is that AS 2.1 is 7.2 based, so the AS 2.1 > > patches should work easily on 7.2, in fact more easily than 7.3. > > But those AS patches won't work for 7.3, so extra effort is needed, > because 7.3 must be done anyway..? I did a rough comparison between Aurora (7.3 based) and Panama (RHEL 2.1): the difference is smaller than you'd think. I need both, I will help supporting and thus I'd vote for both. Ingo From ingo at auroralinux.org Sun Nov 9 19:02:34 2003 From: ingo at auroralinux.org (Ingo T. Storm) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 20:02:34 +0100 Subject: "the rpm question" - summary References: <3FA229D3.4000104@togami.com> <3FA2722D.6090504@togami.com> <20031031180006.1b3cad50.ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de> <1067622953.20763.164.camel@bobcat.mine.nu> <1068204440.12684.29.camel@laptop> <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> <20031108122024.GI11801@puariko.nirvana> <017301c3a645$8aa32dd0$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> <1068337290.4430.145.camel@laptop> Message-ID: <01f601c3a6f4$0bd056e0$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> > Only a slight correction. I apologize. I should have been silent (and read instead) even longer. Ingo From jkeating at j2solutions.net Sun Nov 9 19:08:41 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 11:08:41 -0800 Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... In-Reply-To: <01e501c3a6f0$442f0580$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> References: <01e501c3a6f0$442f0580$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> Message-ID: <200311091108.41386.jkeating@j2solutions.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 09 November 2003 04:21, Ingo T. Storm wrote: > I did a rough comparison between Aurora (7.3 based) and Panama (RHEL > 2.1): the difference is smaller than you'd think. I need both, I will > help supporting and thus I'd vote for both. Both? We won't be supporting any RHEL product. - -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/rpC54v2HLvE71NURAqmBAJ9huw8qMhsELHCfdXPXJEsNmE7MJQCgshFj uEpFA78vCC+KsDtSSe6YhhI= =VsnR -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From Craig.Miskell at agresearch.co.nz Sun Nov 9 19:28:15 2003 From: Craig.Miskell at agresearch.co.nz (Miskell, Craig) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 08:28:15 +1300 Subject: RH 8.0 support - a volunteer Message-ID: Hi all, I've been pondering this some, and I'm prepared to volunteer my time and (sadly limited, and at home not work) computing resources to support RH8.0. I'm a programmer/sysadmin, mid-level competence in C (not a guru, but not a neophyte either), so I should be able to figure out any minor-medium difficulties applying/compiling patches. If somebody is prepared to hold my hand through some of the early RPM builds, and there's some sort of QA backup (I can do some, but certainly nothing major), then I'm prepared to give it a go. Where do I sign? Craig Miskell, Technical Support, AgResearch Invermay ======================================================================= Attention: The information contained in this message and/or attachments from AgResearch Limited is intended only for the persons or entities to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipients is prohibited by AgResearch Limited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately. ======================================================================= From jkeating at j2solutions.net Sun Nov 9 19:34:40 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 11:34:40 -0800 Subject: RH 8.0 support - a volunteer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200311091134.40578.jkeating@j2solutions.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 09 November 2003 11:28, Miskell, Craig wrote: > Where do I sign? You just did. Seriously though when we launch the server and website (hopefully at the end of this month) there will be a section there for developer/member sign up, where you'll be asked for your particulars, and then we'll have a running list of who all is on the team. - -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/rpbQ4v2HLvE71NURAnMZAKCBcTfPDnrmAIIRDCe1D0wkyTUH7ACfbWYm /sUOCl2nSrfTEp4yIX6rXco= =gPes -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From blists at nobaloney.net Sun Nov 9 19:40:00 2003 From: blists at nobaloney.net (Jeff Lasman) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 11:40:00 -0800 Subject: [villegas@math.gatech.edu: Re: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.3] In-Reply-To: <20031107151400.GW27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> References: <20031107151400.GW27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <200311091140.00097.blists@nobaloney.net> On Friday 07 November 2003 07:14 am, Carlos Villegas wrote: > Press Release DRAFT: > > Who: > > The Fedora Legacy Team, made out of volunteers. > > What: > > The Fedora Legacy Project is an ongoing effort led and maintained by > volunteers, which aims to provide security and critical bug fix ...... May I suggest that a press release in this form cannot be published without being completely rewritten. Most publications (in my experience) like to do as little rewriting as possible. My belief is that most publications will trash this release as requiring too much work to prepare for publication. I highly recommend rewording to something similar to: "The Fedora Legacy Project has announced they will continue to maintain legacy releases of Red Hat Linux for several major platforms as Red Hat ends official support for them during the next six months. Complete information is available at their website, "http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy/". That includes the "Who, what, why, where, and when" in the first paragraph, exactly as publications hope and expect to get them. Definitely include a section for each, further down in the press release, but also in a format that can be used verbatim for an end-user publication. And to avoid incomplete information from being printed anywhere, the release should most likely be written in such a way that it can be ended at the end of any paragraph without appearing to have left something out. I'd both hope and expect that Jesse's company's PR firm will do the reformatting, but I could offer to do it once everything is finalized. Jeff -- Jeff Lasman, nobaloney.net, P. O. Box 52672, Riverside, CA 92517 US Professional Internet Services & Support / Consulting / Colocation Our blists address used on lists is for list email only Phone +1 909 324-9706, or see: "http://www.nobaloney.net/contactus.html" From jkeating at j2solutions.net Sun Nov 9 19:51:06 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Sun, 9 Nov 2003 11:51:06 -0800 Subject: [villegas@math.gatech.edu: Re: [Fedora-legacy-list] DRAFT for Press Release 1.3] In-Reply-To: <200311091140.00097.blists@nobaloney.net> References: <20031107151400.GW27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> <200311091140.00097.blists@nobaloney.net> Message-ID: <200311091151.06174.jkeating@j2solutions.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Sunday 09 November 2003 11:40, Jeff Lasman wrote: > I'd both hope and expect that Jesse's company's PR firm will do the > reformatting, but I could offer to do it once everything is finalized. I had hopes for this too (; What we _really_ need to do, stop trying to format something for a press release, start drafing up something that gives all the raw information, so that my PR firm can make it look like a press release. Keep in mind, that a PR firm knows nothing about Linux, nor it's components. SO we also need to include some information about _why_ legacy exists in the first place, assume the end readers know nothing. - -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/rpqq4v2HLvE71NURAsXoAKCeDshPcfvjcIEeymfC32sF9sX5NgCgnVAT Dfn2NY1b1eWMaVuGUTUjYBc= =Jn/V -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From shugal at gmx.de Sun Nov 9 21:14:50 2003 From: shugal at gmx.de (Martin Stricker) Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:14:50 +0100 Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... References: <20031108124320.0yv40wws0g804400@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Message-ID: <3FAEAE4A.27A30452@gmx.de> Eric Rostetter wrote: > For 8.0, the argument is standard business practices. (Which would > mean not supporting 7.2, BTW). Standard practice is to support the > last "dot release" of the last X releases. So if X was 3, that > would be RH 9, 8.0, and 7.3. If X was 4, that would be RH 9, 8.0, > 7.3, and 6.2. And so on. In theory, if X was 2, we would do RH 9 > and 8.0, not RH 9 and 7.3... Well, for me RHL9 is just a misnumbered 8.1 (see the numbering of it's beta). So 7.3 and 9 make sense. But the real question is: Who will do the work? If there are enough volunteers, then 8.0 should be supported. If not, 8.0 *cannot* be supported. I volunteer for helping with QA for 7.3, and I would like to learn, so that I'm able to help with buildimg as well. Best regards, Martin Stricker -- Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/ Linux Migration Project: http://www.linux-migration.org/ Red Hat Linux 9 for low memory: http://www.rule-project.org/ Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/ From ingo at auroralinux.org Mon Nov 10 08:03:08 2003 From: ingo at auroralinux.org (Ingo T. Storm) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:03:08 +0100 Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... References: <20031108124320.0yv40wws0g804400@mail.ph.utexas.edu> <3FAEAE4A.27A30452@gmx.de> Message-ID: <019d01c3a761$13fc1620$be041dac@ingotee2> > But the real question is: Who will do the work? If there are enough > volunteers, then 8.0 should be supported. If not, 8.0 *cannot* be > supported. I'd be surprised if there's be any other logic. Ingo From rainer.traut at epost.de Mon Nov 10 08:16:56 2003 From: rainer.traut at epost.de (Rainer Traut) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:16:56 +0100 Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... In-Reply-To: <20031109040251.GE27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> References: <20031108124320.0yv40wws0g804400@mail.ph.utexas.edu> <20031109040251.GE27935@hemi.math.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <3FAF4978.6010905@epost.de> Hi, Carlos Villegas wrote: >>>Less is More! >> >>Sometimes. But if we have *more* volunteers then we can do *more* instead >>of *less*. I say support what ever we have people willing to support. >>We may not get enough people to support 8.0, and if not then it shouldn't >>be supported. But if we do get enough volunteers to support it, should we >>not allow it and just say "less is more" to them? > > > I think you missed some part of the discussion, as far as I can tell > everyone agrees that if there are enough volunteers to support 8.0, it > will be supported. The position so far has been not to support it, since > only a few people had shown interest in it (as opposed to 7.3 and 9), > however during the last few days the interest on 8.0 seems to have increased, > only the "voting machine" will tell us if it is so. I have to say, me too. We still have several machines of RH8.0 in production, Rh8.0 never let us down. Is the voting machine sthg. real? I'd like to vote for RH8. :) Rainer From ingo at auroralinux.org Mon Nov 10 08:45:41 2003 From: ingo at auroralinux.org (Ingo T. Storm) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 09:45:41 +0100 Subject: A request for RedHat 8.0 continued support... References: <01e501c3a6f0$442f0580$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> <200311091108.41386.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <01b901c3a767$05bd0690$be041dac@ingotee2> > > I did a rough comparison between Aurora (7.3 based) and Panama (RHEL > > 2.1): the difference is smaller than you'd think. I need both, I will > > help supporting and thus I'd vote for both. Sorry for being unclear. I meant I'd vote for both 7.2 and 7.3. I also wanted to say that the backporting work for these two will probably be less than expected, because there is a larger overlap between 7.2, 7.3 and RHEL2.1 than you'd think. To be more precise: When I thought about what to do with my Aurora 1.0 boxes I compiled a "typical minimum rpm set" from my servers that run Aurora. I then compared this list to what is currently in Panama (RHEL2.1). I removed the kernel and his close friends (modutils, util-linux) and the toolchain from the list for obvious reasons. Then I put the srpms in groups : - Aurora only: 4 srpms. - Aurora has same software version as RHEL, rpm release is higher or the same (sed 3.0.2-11 vs. 3.0.2-10): 77 - Aurora has newer software version, but difference is minor (e.g. bzip2 1.0.2 vs 1.0.1): 34 - Aurora has completely different software version (e.g. gmp 4.0.1 vs 3.1.1): 22 Since I looked at servers, the "notorius" packages (openssh, bind, apache) are on my list. They are all in the "uncritical" group and most of them BTW share the same srpm for 7.2, 7.3 and RHEL already. Know grains of salt: - I only skimmed through the stuff quickly in order to assess if my little project is viable at all. There might be incompatibilitities in stuff that I consider "uncritical". - I only looked at what I need for a small server. Removed everything I don't absolutely need. No X, no gui whatsover. For being helpful for FedoraLegacy the list would have to be redone by at least two people with experience in using 7.2/7.3 on a desktop. I hope this has clarified my post. And while we're at it: I hereby sign for the combo "7.2 and 7.3". I cannot sign for just one of them. Ingo From barryn at pobox.com Mon Nov 10 14:07:39 2003 From: barryn at pobox.com (Barry K. Nathan) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 06:07:39 -0800 Subject: "the rpm question" - summary In-Reply-To: <1068337290.4430.145.camel@laptop> References: <3FA2722D.6090504@togami.com> <20031031180006.1b3cad50.ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de> <1067622953.20763.164.camel@bobcat.mine.nu> <1068204440.12684.29.camel@laptop> <20031107164717.GD27327@puariko.nirvana> <20031108122024.GI11801@puariko.nirvana> <017301c3a645$8aa32dd0$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> <1068337290.4430.145.camel@laptop> Message-ID: <20031110140739.GE8225@ip68-4-255-84.oc.oc.cox.net> On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 02:21:31PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > 2) I never advocated upgrading to the same version of rpm, rpm-4.2 was > mentioned. I mentioned that the latest upgrade to the latest versions > rpm-4.2.1, rpm-4.1.1 and rpm-4.0.5 at rpm.org. Please tell me you really mean rpm-4.2-1, not 4.2.1. 4.2.1 has the epoch promotion removal and won't work properly with Red Hat 9 (because various RH 9 packages are broken in this regard). Also, RPM 4.0.5 gives me some scary-looking messages when I use it with up2date. I mentioned the RH Bugzilla bug number in a previous thread; if you have trouble finding it, I'll find it again and post it again at some point in the next few days. -Barry K. Nathan From admin at cs.montana.edu Mon Nov 10 21:25:47 2003 From: admin at cs.montana.edu (Lucas Albers) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 14:25:47 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Fwd: Re: Virtual build environments] Message-ID: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> Forwarded from freshrpms. Have we started thinking about what build method we will use. Where is our primary buildhost going to be? Bugzilla database? Erratta Database? Who is going to be the primary host? How long a cycle are we going to have from exploit to update release? Are we going to use http/apt/up2date or what to distribute the releases? Who has final say on whether to do rpm upgrades or not. Has anyone asked a knowledgable rpm package at redhat their private opinion on the matter, in order to get some expert advice on this? Are their any experts on rpm packaging with practical experience that can say that we need to upgrade rpm packages or not upgrade packages? What is our release cycle going to be? What are our deadlines? Are we supporting desktop applications or just server applications? The deadlines that I see are thus: Finalize Draft. Implement Bugzilla database. Come up with primary build committee. Start monitoring erratta for our versions. Do a test build for all our supported os version. Determine what QA structure we will be using, how much if any QA testing will we be doing? Will we be releasing binary or src rpms? How to prevent random evil people from sticking in trojans in a patch they submit? Setup up distribution repository. Setup mirrors. Setup synchronization schedule. Distribute directions on using fedora-legacy. Distribute gpg key for use. Distribute a rpm upgrade if necessary for everyone who will use. Ideas? Axel Thimm wrote : > On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 07:06:30PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > > For those of you that find vmware a bit too heavy and/or expensive, whats wrong with plain old chroots? I have a RHL9 chroot in my FC1 box that I use to produce RHL9 rpms, I'll be making a RHEL3 and RHL7.3 chroot soon as well. > > Nothing. All of ATrpms for RH7.3, RH8.0, RH9 and FC1 are built in chroots. While I use a tool of my own, I'd recommend mach for managing chroots. > > The true problems are setting up a new chroot (filling with required packages), adding BuildRequires and removing them again. mach uses apt-get to do this job, and apt-get is a good tool for managing rpm pools. ;) Yeah. Quick answer : Use mach if you're looking at where to start. It's really wonderful to be able to be 100% sure that no build requirements have been missed, and that rebuilding a package won't get any extra dependencies inside that shouldn't have been there. I hope Thomas will release a new version soon, as the latest changes (hacks?), he's made fill all my requirements at last (expanded macros in version, source etc. tags). Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow) - Linux kernel 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl Load : 1.14 0.88 0.66 _______________________________________________ RPM-List mailing list http://lists.freshrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list From jkeating at j2solutions.net Mon Nov 10 21:51:33 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 13:51:33 -0800 Subject: [Fwd: Re: Virtual build environments] In-Reply-To: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> Message-ID: <200311101351.33799.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Monday 10 November 2003 13:25, Lucas Albers wrote: > Have we started thinking about what build method we will use. Manual chroots possibly with mach. The build system that was being put together for Fedora has hit a snag, and thus we can't have it by the time we need to launch. Manual chroots it is. > Where is our primary buildhost going to be? My company, Pogo Linux, has offered us a dual opteron server, and rackspace at their colo. This will be the main Fedora Legacy system. It'll be located in the South Seattle area of Washington State, USA. > Bugzilla database? Probably on the Legacy opteron server. > Erratta Database? Interesting idea, I'm open to suggestions. Just a MySQL or PGSQL database driven web query page? > Who is going to be the primary host? My company's colo is for now. > How long a cycle are we going to have from exploit to update release? Depends on many things. Obviously we'll try to minimize it, but it'll depend on the package, how close the latest RH supported version is to any given backport, how long it takes to get through QA, all that fun stuff. Hard to say, but as quick as possible. > Are we going to use http/apt/up2date or what to distribute the > releases? We'll be using yum and apt to push our updates. > Who has final say on whether to do rpm upgrades or not. No one person. It's a community thing. Sure I'm the guy in the lead right now, but I don't get to set policy myself, that'll drive people away. We need to start a new thread on this subject. Warren, you had a good suggestion to bump people up to the latest on rpm.org for each given distro. I can see this for 8.0 and 9, which had some nasty lock bugs, but what of 7.2 and 7.3, is it really necessary? > Has anyone asked a knowledgable rpm package at redhat their private > opinion on the matter, in order to get some expert advice on this? I chat w/ RH packagers on a daily basis, they're offering as much help/insite as they possibly can. > Are their any experts on rpm packaging with practical experience that > can say that we need to upgrade rpm packages or not upgrade packages? > > What is our release cycle going to be? What are our deadlines? 1-2-3-out. We'll be supporting 2 FC releases, while RH supports the 3'rd. Being "out" doesn't mean we won't accept/release updates, but it will not be the focus, nor will any guarantees be made as to updates provided for "out" releases. > Are we supporting desktop applications or just server applications? At this point, we'll be suppporting any package that has a security flaw reported to it, within reason. > The deadlines that I see are thus: > > Finalize Draft. > Implement Bugzilla database. > Come up with primary build committee. > Start monitoring erratta for our versions. > Do a test build for all our supported os version. > Determine what QA structure we will be using, how much if any QA > testing will we be doing? Fedora.us style QA probably. As much QA as possible. We stress tested/stable backports, not "hey look, it compiled!" > Will we be releasing binary or src rpms? Both. > How to prevent random evil people from sticking in trojans in a patch > they submit? Heavy peer review, trusted commiters, etc.. > Setup up distribution repository. > Setup mirrors. > Setup synchronization schedule. > Distribute directions on using fedora-legacy. > Distribute gpg key for use. > Distribute a rpm upgrade if necessary for everyone who will use. > Ideas? I do like your list, nice and complete. We'll be going off of this list. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From warren at togami.com Tue Nov 11 07:19:45 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 21:19:45 -1000 Subject: Call for comments - RPM upgrade In-Reply-To: <200311101351.33799.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <200311101351.33799.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <3FB08D91.3030100@togami.com> Please DO NOT cross post this thread to other lists. It only confuses the issue when different parts of the discussion inevitably end up in different places. Jesse Keating wrote: > No one person. It's a community thing. Sure I'm the guy in the lead > right now, but I don't get to set policy myself, that'll drive people > away. We need to start a new thread on this subject. Warren, you had > a good suggestion to bump people up to the latest on rpm.org for each > given distro. I can see this for 8.0 and 9, which had some nasty lock > bugs, but what of 7.2 and 7.3, is it really necessary? It is my opinion that RH8 and RH9 should be upgraded to the latest versions for the respective distros. Regarding Barry K. Nathan's concern about the epoch promotion problem, could you please post a concrete example of what triggers that problem? The entire list needs a refresher about exactly what this problem is. (Also I believe there was some config option that we could toggle to get the old epoch behavior back. We will determine through your concrete example and further discussions if switching this option will be needed.) We should eventually put up 7.2 and 7.3 for a vote after we have a thorough analysis of the technical improvements in the latest rpm-4.0.5 release. It is true that RPM was less problematic back then, but my main concern is the broken nature of rpmvercmp in those older versions. In those old versions, whenever rpm compared a number to a letter, or letter to letter, it would trigger the "two way upgrade" problem which is bad. Additionally rpm-4.0.4 had *some* deadlock issues that are probably gone in the upgrade version. (Do testing.) Before ANY rpm upgrade happens, we will need to do much testing if the RPM upgrade breaks any 3rd party tools including apt-get, yum, Red Carpet and perhaps others. In some cases users may need a compatibility library like the rpm 404 compat library provided with the rpm-4.1.1 upgrade for RH8. Two more long term notes: 1) Some have suggested a rewritten rhn_applet and up2date for RH7.3, RH8 and RH9. They suggested that after RHN stops providing software update services, perhaps a community based notification service could take its place. I personally think a centralized service may have trust issues like "would you trust your server package information with total strangers?" The next best thing would be a host-based service that daily checks for updates, then sends notification e-mail to the sysadmin if updates are available. The notification e-mail recipient address and possibly SMTP server would then be configured during firstboot and System menu. 2) Before I forget about this... in our RPM upgrade instructions for RH8 and RH9, the docs should mention turning off all services that could cause RPM database contention. That would mean the RHN applet, rhnsd, Red Carpet's daemon, yum's cron thing, or anything else that could possibly touch the RPM database during rpm upgrade. This would lessen the chance of RPM deadlocking during the rpm upgrade. After the upgrade it can be safely turned on again. Warren Togami warren at togami.com From dennis at ausil.us Tue Nov 11 08:19:37 2003 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:19:37 +1000 Subject: Call for comments - RPM upgrade In-Reply-To: <3FB08D91.3030100@togami.com> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <200311101351.33799.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FB08D91.3030100@togami.com> Message-ID: <200311111819.37673.dennis@ausil.us> Once upon a time at band camp Tue, 11 Nov 2003 5:19 pm, Warren Togami wrote: > It is my opinion that RH8 and RH9 should be upgraded to the latest > versions for the respective distros. Regarding Barry K. Nathan's > concern about the epoch promotion problem, could you please post a > concrete example of what triggers that problem? The entire list needs a > refresher about exactly what this problem is. Most definetly i have never experienced issues with rpm so i have never bothered to look into what others have experienced. i only know what ive read from posts to mailing lists. > Two more long term notes: > 1) Some have suggested a rewritten rhn_applet and up2date for RH7.3, RH8 > and RH9. They suggested that after RHN stops providing software update > services, perhaps a community based notification service could take its > place. I personally think a centralized service may have trust issues > like "would you trust your server package information with total > strangers?" The next best thing would be a host-based service that > daily checks for updates, then sends notification e-mail to the sysadmin > if updates are available. The notification e-mail recipient address and > possibly SMTP server would then be configured during firstboot and > System menu. I think a better option would be removal of rhn_applet, and approach Red Hat to see if we could get a licence for a Satelite up2date server we could then rebuild up2date with the default configuration changed to point to our server and not Red Hats. This would then require the user to make a concious decision to move to Fedora Legacy. of course we would offer yum and apt for maintainence but if the user wished to still use up2date we could offer that service also. this will only affect the RHL product line. we could maybe backport to RH 9 the up2date from Fedora Core 1 perhaps but that defeats the goal of only providing security updates and not adding new features. as far as notification of users goes a mailing list for announced updates would be best IMHO. a list that can only be posted to by Fedora Legacy admins when updates are released. by being read only it will be guaranteed to be low traffic. mails should be in a format simmilar to the errata notification emails Red Hat Send out. > 2) Before I forget about this... in our RPM upgrade instructions for RH8 > and RH9, the docs should mention turning off all services that could > cause RPM database contention. That would mean the RHN applet, rhnsd, > Red Carpet's daemon, yum's cron thing, or anything else that could > possibly touch the RPM database during rpm upgrade. This would lessen > the chance of RPM deadlocking during the rpm upgrade. After the upgrade > it can be safely turned on again. Deffinetly agree we need to minimise the chances of something going wrong in the process. Dennis From warren at togami.com Tue Nov 11 08:39:45 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Mon, 10 Nov 2003 22:39:45 -1000 Subject: Call for comments - RPM upgrade In-Reply-To: <200311111819.37673.dennis@ausil.us> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <200311101351.33799.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FB08D91.3030100@togami.com> <200311111819.37673.dennis@ausil.us> Message-ID: <3FB0A051.2080806@togami.com> Dennis Gilmore wrote:> >>It is my opinion that RH8 and RH9 should be upgraded to the latest >>versions for the respective distros. Regarding Barry K. Nathan's >>concern about the epoch promotion problem, could you please post a >>concrete example of what triggers that problem? The entire list needs a >>refresher about exactly what this problem is. > > > Most definetly i have never experienced issues with rpm so i have never > bothered to look into what others have experienced. i only know what ive > read from posts to mailing lists. > Eh? You *never* hit a deadlock with RH8 rpm? I suppose the chance of being hit by lightning and winning the lottery on the same day is higher than that. =) > > >>Two more long term notes: >>1) Some have suggested a rewritten rhn_applet and up2date for RH7.3, RH8 >>and RH9. They suggested that after RHN stops providing software update >>services, perhaps a community based notification service could take its >>place. I personally think a centralized service may have trust issues >>like "would you trust your server package information with total >>strangers?" The next best thing would be a host-based service that >>daily checks for updates, then sends notification e-mail to the sysadmin >>if updates are available. The notification e-mail recipient address and >>possibly SMTP server would then be configured during firstboot and >>System menu. > > > I think a better option would be removal of rhn_applet, and approach Red Hat > to see if we could get a licence for a Satelite up2date server we could then > rebuild up2date with the default configuration changed to point to our server > and not Red Hats. This would then require the user to make a concious > decision to move to Fedora Legacy. of course we would offer yum and apt for > maintainence but if the user wished to still use up2date we could offer that > service also. this will only affect the RHL product line. we could maybe > backport to RH 9 the up2date from Fedora Core 1 perhaps but that defeats the > goal of only providing security updates and not adding new features. My guess is that the chances of this happening would be extremely low, unfortunately. Nothing stops a third party from implementing it themselves though. If that happened, the board of directors and/or membership would vote upon making that "official" for our community project, or using my idea above instead that is decentralized. > > as far as notification of users goes a mailing list for announced updates > would be best IMHO. a list that can only be posted to by Fedora Legacy > admins when updates are released. by being read only it will be guaranteed > to be low traffic. mails should be in a format simmilar to the errata > notification emails Red Hat Send out. There will certainly be announce lists for the legacy project, and communications will also go to other lists that all distributions use like Bugtraq. Warren Togami warren at togami.com From jkeating at j2solutions.net Tue Nov 11 15:38:53 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 07:38:53 -0800 Subject: Call for comments - RPM upgrade In-Reply-To: <3FB08D91.3030100@togami.com> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <200311101351.33799.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FB08D91.3030100@togami.com> Message-ID: <200311110739.00560.jkeating@j2solutions.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Monday 10 November 2003 23:19, Warren Togami wrote: > It is my opinion that RH8 and RH9 should be upgraded to the latest > versions for the respective distros. Regarding Barry K. Nathan's > concern about the epoch promotion problem, could you please post a > concrete example of what triggers that problem? The entire list needs a > refresher about exactly what this problem is. > > (Also I believe there was some config option that we could toggle to get > the old epoch behavior back. We will determine through your concrete > example and further discussions if switching this option will be > needed.) Ok, so there is good sound technical reason to bump rpm on RHL8 and 9. I can live with that, as I think the rest of the list can. > We should eventually put up 7.2 and 7.3 for a vote after we have a > thorough analysis of the technical improvements in the latest rpm-4.0.5 > release. It is true that RPM was less problematic back then, but my > main concern is the broken nature of rpmvercmp in those older versions. > In those old versions, whenever rpm compared a number to a letter, or > letter to letter, it would trigger the "two way upgrade" problem which > is bad. Additionally rpm-4.0.4 had *some* deadlock issues that are > probably gone in the upgrade version. (Do testing.) > > Before ANY rpm upgrade happens, we will need to do much testing if the > RPM upgrade breaks any 3rd party tools including apt-get, yum, Red > Carpet and perhaps others. In some cases users may need a compatibility > library like the rpm 404 compat library provided with the rpm-4.1.1 > upgrade for RH8. Ah, ok. Other issues I see is trying to get yum the same across the board. THere isn't an updated version of yum for the 7.x series, but there are some nice new features, such as handling of src.rpms and whatnot, plus bugfixes. This would be my main push for upgrading rpm on 7.x > Two more long term notes: > 1) Some have suggested a rewritten rhn_applet and up2date for RH7.3, RH8 > and RH9. They suggested that after RHN stops providing software update > services, perhaps a community based notification service could take its > place. I personally think a centralized service may have trust issues > like "would you trust your server package information with total > strangers?" The next best thing would be a host-based service that > daily checks for updates, then sends notification e-mail to the sysadmin > if updates are available. The notification e-mail recipient address and > possibly SMTP server would then be configured during firstboot and > System menu. I would prefer to just go forward with yum/apt. Yum in particular. The yum that we offer for Legacy will be pre-configured with a bunch of mirrors in the config file (end user can uncomment the ones they want to use), and the cron job can be set up to not auto-update, but instead send an email to "root" with a list of available updates. Again, the user can comment out the notice, and uncomment the auto-update line that will already be there. > 2) Before I forget about this... in our RPM upgrade instructions for RH8 > and RH9, the docs should mention turning off all services that could > cause RPM database contention. That would mean the RHN applet, rhnsd, > Red Carpet's daemon, yum's cron thing, or anything else that could > possibly touch the RPM database during rpm upgrade. This would lessen > the chance of RPM deadlocking during the rpm upgrade. After the upgrade > it can be safely turned on again. A very good point. - -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (http://geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/sQKS4v2HLvE71NURAu3NAKCCYAV23Fs/xAnvcyVO8Rd4DNn3kQCgrw3u oKJaenbRvDCpDxbZHUe60rE= =Ehnq -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bill at ycc.com Tue Nov 11 15:53:00 2003 From: bill at ycc.com (Bill Gradwohl) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:53:00 -0500 Subject: Cart before the horse Message-ID: <20031111T105312Z_FFB700000000@ycc.com> When fedora was announced, the Linux landscape was quite a bit different than it is today, just a few weeks later. I'm writing this because I think the landscape is going to change abruptly once again in the not too distant future, and the fedora project might want to wait for the dust to settle before expending too much energy. Today we have Novell acquiring SUSE and Bruce Perins is also announcing a rival distro: http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,61166,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2 Many feel as I do that Novell is a stalking horse for IBM, so it's not too much of a stretch to add IBM's weight into the equation. What would happen if IBM acquired both RedHat and Novell? Would that make SCO go away? I would ask you all to consider that RedHat's Enterprise plans no longer look as secure as they did a few weeks ago. RedHat will have to change their marketing approach to simply acknowledge current reality. Abandoning the low end of the market and asking relatively high prices for support to enterprise clients works when there is no significant competition. I can see the competition shaping up nicely right now however so pricing and support issues will have to be reexamined as the market place adjusts to events. Its inevitable. Don't misunderstand my intentions. I believe the low end of the Linux market needs support and I'm willing to help. I just believe that its prudent to wait a few months and see what shakes out before wasting a lot of effort, especially when industry behemoths are maneuvering. Anyone needing updates to their systems might want to consider learning how to compile whatever they need from source. It's really not all that difficult. Maybe the fedora project should be a vehicle to teach users how to be more self sufficient in the interim period while we all watch the corporate giants jockey for position. Bill Gradwohl (817) 224-9400 x211 www.ycc.com SPAMstomper Protected Email From pavelr at coresma.com Tue Nov 11 17:08:46 2003 From: pavelr at coresma.com (Pavel Rosenboim) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 19:08:46 +0200 Subject: Cart before the horse In-Reply-To: <20031111T105312Z_FFB700000000@ycc.com> References: <20031111T105312Z_FFB700000000@ycc.com> Message-ID: <3FB1179E.1070904@coresma.com> Bill Gradwohl wrote: > When fedora was announced, the Linux landscape was quite a bit different than it is today, just a few weeks later. I'm writing this because I think the landscape is going to change abruptly once again in the not too distant future, and the fedora project might want to wait for the dust to settle before expending too much energy. > > Today we have Novell acquiring SUSE and Bruce Perins is also announcing a rival distro: http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,61166,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2 > > Many feel as I do that Novell is a stalking horse for IBM, so it's not too much of a stretch to add IBM's weight into the equation. What would happen if IBM acquired both RedHat and Novell? Would that make SCO go away? > > I would ask you all to consider that RedHat's Enterprise plans no longer look as secure as they did a few weeks ago. RedHat will have to change their marketing approach to simply acknowledge current reality. Abandoning the low end of the market and asking relatively high prices for support to enterprise clients works when there is no significant competition. I can see the competition shaping up nicely right now however so pricing and support issues will have to be reexamined as the market place adjusts to events. Its inevitable. I'm not a business analyst, but I don't see why RedHat plans may change significantly because of competition. Fedora allows them to create very competitive product with less effort from RedHat side. The only possible change I can see is creating another cheap enterprise offering based on Fedora. > > Don't misunderstand my intentions. I believe the low end of the Linux market needs support and I'm willing to help. I just believe that its prudent to wait a few months and see what shakes out before wasting a lot of effort, especially when industry behemoths are maneuvering. > > Anyone needing updates to their systems might want to consider learning how to compile whatever they need from source. It's really not all that difficult. Maybe the fedora project should be a vehicle to teach users how to be more self sufficient in the interim period while we all watch the corporate giants jockey for position. Compiling packages is not that hard. But newer packages can easily break other programs that depend on them. That's why RedHat always backported security fixes into the older packages. Backporting is quite complex task, that requires good programming skill, and usually way beyond the abilities of simple system administrator. Pavel From heinlein at cse.ogi.edu Tue Nov 11 18:07:36 2003 From: heinlein at cse.ogi.edu (Paul Heinlein) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 10:07:36 -0800 (PST) Subject: Cart before the horse In-Reply-To: <20031111T105312Z_FFB700000000@ycc.com> References: <20031111T105312Z_FFB700000000@ycc.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Bill Gradwohl wrote: > Today we have Novell acquiring SUSE and Bruce Perins is also > announcing a rival distro: >From the cheap seats where I sit, it seems that Novell still has a long way to go -- both in terms of quality of work and sheer market persistence -- before current or prospective Red Hat customers will jump ship. Same thing with Debian: its testing branch has been around for quite a while and it still requires near-expert level ability to install it. My hunch is that it'll be a while before the Debian folks devise a stable distro with current package versions and an installer that works for mere mortals. > I just believe that its prudent to wait a few months and see what > shakes out before wasting a lot of effort, especially when industry > behemoths are maneuvering. I have a hard time seeing that "a few months" is all it'll take. Novell still has a need to make a profit for its shareholders, so it can't just throw endless developer hours at the project. Nor will Bruce's announcement change life for the vast majority of Debian developers. Oh, and there's all the effort that current Red Hat admins have invested in installation/upgrade infrastructure and configuration management. Press releases from Novell and Debian don't inspire me to say, "Gee, what neat press releases! I think I'll ditch my infrastructure on the strength of their promises." :-) It's not that either Novell or Debian can't achieve their goals. I hope they bring to Linux even more excellence. It's just that there are, and will continue to be, lots of Red Hat and Fedore legacy systems out there in need of long-term support. --Paul Heinlein From ingo at auroralinux.org Tue Nov 11 19:50:01 2003 From: ingo at auroralinux.org (Ingo T. Storm) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 20:50:01 +0100 Subject: Call for comments - RPM upgrade References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <200311101351.33799.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FB08D91.3030100@togami.com> Message-ID: <031501c3a88f$bdb08dc0$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> > We should eventually put up 7.2 and 7.3 for a vote after we have a > thorough analysis of the technical improvements in the latest rpm-4.0.5 > release. It is true that RPM was less problematic back then, but my > main concern is the broken nature of rpmvercmp in those older versions. Which is a big concern if you do a lot of package juggling. In the context of providing errata, I wouldn't consider this critical. > Additionally rpm-4.0.4 had *some* deadlock issues that are > probably gone in the upgrade version. (Do testing.) I've seen them in some early betas Aurora SPARC Linux, but never since - and I can't remember having seen them on x86 at all since 4.0.2 (the update on rh6.2). > 1) Some have suggested a rewritten rhn_applet and up2date for RH7.3, RH8 > and RH9. They suggested that after RHN stops providing software update > services, perhaps a community based notification service could take its > place. Again, I can only speak for RH7.2/7.3: I would leave up2date and the applet alone and advocate current (current.tigris.org) to the FedoryLegacy users. It's easy to set up, quite lightweight. A current server run by FedoraLegacy would be possible, but might need a lot bandwifth and cpu. > I personally think a centralized service may have trust issues > like "would you trust your server package information with total > strangers?" Exactly the reason why I pay for RHN to get the errata, but distribute them inhouse with current. Ingo From jim at rossberry.com Tue Nov 11 21:08:37 2003 From: jim at rossberry.com (Jim Wildman) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 16:08:37 -0500 (EST) Subject: Cart before the horse In-Reply-To: Message-ID: The real hook in RHEL is the 3rd party support. It is still (as far as I can tell) the only Linux distro that has full enterprise level support from Oracle, Veritas and Tivoli, not to mention quite a few others. This is the killer for the large enterprise customer base. So RH can leverage that and have 1 sales guy and some CEO/COO/CIO types spend some time with a customer and sell 1000's of seats. Or hire hundreds of people to sell shops with 10 each. I'm willing to bet they've done the math and know which side the bread is buttered on. And as long as they are making money for the ISV's, what incentive do the ISV's have to certify on another platform? On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Paul Heinlein wrote: > On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Bill Gradwohl wrote: > > > Today we have Novell acquiring SUSE and Bruce Perins is also > > announcing a rival distro: > > >From the cheap seats where I sit, it seems that Novell still has a > long way to go -- both in terms of quality of work and sheer market > persistence -- before current or prospective Red Hat customers will > jump ship. > > Same thing with Debian: its testing branch has been around for quite a > while and it still requires near-expert level ability to install it. > My hunch is that it'll be a while before the Debian folks devise a > stable distro with current package versions and an installer that > works for mere mortals. > > > I just believe that its prudent to wait a few months and see what > > shakes out before wasting a lot of effort, especially when industry > > behemoths are maneuvering. > > I have a hard time seeing that "a few months" is all it'll take. > Novell still has a need to make a profit for its shareholders, so it > can't just throw endless developer hours at the project. Nor will > Bruce's announcement change life for the vast majority of Debian > developers. > > Oh, and there's all the effort that current Red Hat admins have > invested in installation/upgrade infrastructure and configuration > management. Press releases from Novell and Debian don't inspire me to > say, "Gee, what neat press releases! I think I'll ditch my > infrastructure on the strength of their promises." :-) > > It's not that either Novell or Debian can't achieve their goals. I > hope they bring to Linux even more excellence. It's just that there > are, and will continue to be, lots of Red Hat and Fedore legacy > systems out there in need of long-term support. > > --Paul Heinlein > > > -- > fedora-legacy-list mailing list > fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jim Wildman, CISSP, RHCE jim at rossberry.com http://www.rossberry.com From shugal at gmx.de Tue Nov 11 23:20:26 2003 From: shugal at gmx.de (Martin Stricker) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 00:20:26 +0100 Subject: Call for comments - RPM upgrade References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <200311101351.33799.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FB08D91.3030100@togami.com> <200311110739.00560.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <3FB16EBA.B31CDA7D@gmx.de> Jesse Keating wrote: > On Monday 10 November 2003 23:19, Warren Togami wrote: > Ok, so there is good sound technical reason to bump rpm on RHL8 and > 9. I can live with that, as I think the rest of the list can. Yes. If it is broken, it needs to be fixed. But what about 7.3? Is rpm broken there as well? I haven't seen anything unusual, but the only thing I use rpm for is installing errata or software which is needed due to changed requirements. > > We should eventually put up 7.2 and 7.3 for a vote after we have a > > thorough analysis of the technical improvements in the latest > > rpm-4.0.5 release. It is true that RPM was less problematic back > > then, but my main concern is the broken nature of rpmvercmp in > > those older versions. > > In those old versions, whenever rpm compared a number to a > > letter, or letter to letter, it would trigger the "two way upgrade" > > problem which is bad. Additionally rpm-4.0.4 had *some* deadlock > > issues that are probably gone in the upgrade version. (Do testing.) What does "two way upgrade" mean? Is this something that could hit me while installing errata or additional software, or does it require more complex situations to show up? > Ah, ok. Other issues I see is trying to get yum the same across the > board. THere isn't an updated version of yum for the 7.x series, but > there are some nice new features, such as handling of src.rpms and > whatnot, plus bugfixes. This would be my main push for upgrading > rpm on 7.x What benefit comes with using yum at all? I don't use it, do I miss anything? > I would prefer to just go forward with yum/apt. Yum in particular. > The yum that we offer for Legacy will be pre-configured with a bunch > of mirrors in the config file (end user can uncomment the ones they > want to use), and the cron job can be set up to not auto-update, but > instead send an email to "root" with a list of available updates. I already work that way: I have one box where a script looks daily in the errata directory on ftp.redhat.com. If there is anything new, it is downloaded, and I get an e-mail. Then I look for the announcement in bugtraq to decide whether I should install or not, and if yes I start my update script. I won't trust any automatic update mechanism (and I can't because most of our servers don't route to the outside world for security reasons). Looks like yum could have saved me programming my scripts (but that was fun). Best regards, Martin Stricker -- Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/ Linux Migration Project: http://www.linux-migration.org/ Red Hat Linux 9 for low memory: http://www.rule-project.org/ Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/ From lowen at pari.edu Tue Nov 11 23:59:20 2003 From: lowen at pari.edu (Lamar Owen) Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:59:20 -0500 Subject: Call for comments - RPM upgrade In-Reply-To: <031501c3a88f$bdb08dc0$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <3FB08D91.3030100@togami.com> <031501c3a88f$bdb08dc0$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> Message-ID: <200311111859.20593.lowen@pari.edu> On Tuesday 11 November 2003 02:50 pm, Ingo T. Storm wrote: > Again, I can only speak for RH7.2/7.3: I would leave up2date and the applet > alone and advocate current (current.tigris.org) to the FedoryLegacy users. > It's easy to set up, quite lightweight. A current server run by > FedoraLegacy would be possible, but might need a lot bandwifth and cpu. Up2date with current on the server works well, at least for Aurora. An RPM with a script to set up the current server in place of the Red Hat Network server could be distributed (one is for Aurora's current set up -- the user runs 'aurora-current-config' and up2date Just Works (TM) with the current server at anthonymendoza.com). -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu From barryn at pobox.com Wed Nov 12 13:28:31 2003 From: barryn at pobox.com (Barry K. Nathan) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 05:28:31 -0800 Subject: Call for comments - RPM upgrade In-Reply-To: <3FB08D91.3030100@togami.com> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <200311101351.33799.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FB08D91.3030100@togami.com> Message-ID: <20031112132831.GA13700@ip68-4-255-84.oc.oc.cox.net> On Mon, Nov 10, 2003 at 09:19:45PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > It is my opinion that RH8 and RH9 should be upgraded to the latest > versions for the respective distros. Regarding Barry K. Nathan's > concern about the epoch promotion problem, could you please post a > concrete example of what triggers that problem? The entire list needs a > refresher about exactly what this problem is. It might be a few days before I get a chance to test and post a very detailed example, but here's one possibility (not yet tested, but I think it should reproduce the bug): (a) Take a Red Hat 9 box, without Mozilla installed. (b) Upgrade to RPM 4.2.1. (c) Try to install the mozilla-* packages from RHL 9. Because of the lack of epoch promotion, IIRC some of the mozilla-* packages will conflict with other ones, and it will fail to install. I remember that the Mozilla packages had to be corrected in rawhide in order for rawhide's Mozilla to install properly with rpm 4.2.1. This was bugzilla bug 97197 at one point. I don't know what other packages in Red Hat 9 are similarly broken, but I'm pretty sure there were others. (BTW, in an earlier mail to this list I expressed concern about scary "error" messages from up2date once rpm 4.0.5 is installed on Red Hat 7.x, but for reasons I'll explain later, I now think it's just cosmetic, so I no longer object to upgrading RHL 7.3 to rpm 4.0.5.) -Barry K. Nathan From smilo at vcn.com Wed Nov 12 14:46:28 2003 From: smilo at vcn.com (david marshall) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 07:46:28 -0700 Subject: (no subject) Message-ID: <000c01c3a92b$d1ed8d00$2455c1d1@smilo> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de Wed Nov 12 09:41:09 2003 From: Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de (Axel Thimm) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 10:41:09 +0100 Subject: rpm: alpha vs numeric In-Reply-To: <3FB16EBA.B31CDA7D@gmx.de> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <200311101351.33799.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FB08D91.3030100@togami.com> <200311110739.00560.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FB16EBA.B31CDA7D@gmx.de> Message-ID: <20031112094109.GG19336@puariko.nirvana> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 12:20:26AM +0100, Martin Stricker wrote: > > > In those old versions, whenever rpm compared a number to a > > > letter, or letter to letter, It only concerns comparing letters and numbers, not letters and letters. > > > it would trigger the "two way upgrade" > > > problem which is bad. Additionally rpm-4.0.4 had *some* deadlock > > > issues that are probably gone in the upgrade version. (Do testing.) > > What does "two way upgrade" mean? Is this something that could hit me > while installing errata or additional software, or does it require more > complex situations to show up? rpm version before January 2003 (so including RH7.3 and RH8.0) had the asymmetric triggering bug, which means that a < 1 and 1 < a This occured only in comparing segments of different types (alpha-segments vs numeric-segments). As background: rpm splits versions, releases (and since a few releases even epochs!) into segments that are then compared segmentwise, e.g. foo-1.2.3.a37 is segmented as "1" "2" "3" "a" "37" and foo-1.2alpha5 is segmented as "1" "2" "alpha" "5" the third segment pair ("3" and "alpha") would have caused this bug to trigger on rpm older than 10 months. Is it critical? If it is triggered, yes. Is an rpm upgrade required? If the crafted packages (and specifications!!!) are made by people aware of this problem, no. Best practice: o Version your rpms, so that this bug is not triggered. Therefore a sane versioning scheme not jumping back and forth from alpha to numeric segments is unevitable. See also the lengthy thread about it with the disttags for the RH family finally recommended as rh7.3 < rh8.0 < rh9 < rhfc1 o Upgrade your rpms nevertheless to a newer version without this bug. I know rpm 4.1.1 onwards have this bug fixed. I don't know about 4.0.5 (latest semi-official rpm for RH7.3 available at rpm.org). About upgrading RH7.3's rpm 4.0.x to 4.2.x: I think this can be best answered by consulting Jeff Johnson, maintainer of rpm upstream and in Red Hat/Fedora. There will be reasons that there have been no official Red Hat errata for rpm, and I hope in the near future that these will be ironed out. Meanwhile I have no problems using rpm 4.2 on any of RH 7.3,8.0,9. Anyone else on this list using them? Please pick a spare machine and test them, otherwise the whole rpm to-upgrade-or-not-to-upgrade will remain an academic example. ;) http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/rpm/ http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/apt/ http://atrpms.physik.fu-berlin.de/name/yum/ -- Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jkeating at j2solutions.net Thu Nov 13 00:28:20 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 16:28:20 -0800 Subject: rpm: alpha vs numeric In-Reply-To: <20031112094109.GG19336@puariko.nirvana> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <3FB16EBA.B31CDA7D@gmx.de> <20031112094109.GG19336@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: <200311121628.20966.jkeating@j2solutions.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wednesday 12 November 2003 01:41, Axel Thimm wrote: > o Version your rpms, so that this bug is not triggered. Therefore a > sane versioning scheme not jumping back and forth from alpha to > numeric segments is unevitable. See also the lengthy thread about it > with the disttags for the RH family finally recommended as > > rh7.3 < rh8.0 < rh9 < rhfc1 Not to start this on yet another list, but I didn't seem to see a consensus on the use of "rhfc1" to indicate fedora core 1. it's rather ugly, and causes every RH person I've talked to about it to shudder. The other method, which seemed much cleaner, was to use "0.7.3" for rh73 "0.9" for rh9, and "1" for fc1. If you _still_ want text, perhaps "0.rc73" and "fc1", so that we don't run into "r" being older than "f". Using text IMHO is a nono and should be avoided at all costs. - -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/stAk4v2HLvE71NURAnj3AKCnQXqW01tNMQX7hWFpdmVCIQGD/wCeKGNr JR5GHYY94bYgPqDTyajA6aQ= =I4kw -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From plazonic at Math.Princeton.EDU Wed Nov 12 14:42:27 2003 From: plazonic at Math.Princeton.EDU (Josko Plazonic) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 09:42:27 -0500 Subject: Call for comments - RPM upgrade In-Reply-To: <20031112132831.GA13700@ip68-4-255-84.oc.oc.cox.net> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <200311101351.33799.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FB08D91.3030100@togami.com> <20031112132831.GA13700@ip68-4-255-84.oc.oc.cox.net> Message-ID: <3FB246D3.1010602@math.princeton.edu> Barry K. Nathan wrote: >It might be a few days before I get a chance to test and post a very >detailed example, but here's one possibility (not yet tested, but I >think it should reproduce the bug): > >(a) Take a Red Hat 9 box, without Mozilla installed. >(b) Upgrade to RPM 4.2.1. >(c) Try to install the mozilla-* packages from RHL 9. Because of the >lack of epoch promotion, IIRC some of the mozilla-* packages will >conflict with other ones, and it will fail to install. > > I think that on RH 9 rpm should be upgraded to 4.2-1 release. It has no epoch problems and it is very hard to get it stuck (unlike the stock 4.2-0.69). I've used it on at least hundred machines with RH 9 and only once did I manage to get it into state where rpm db rebuild was necessary (but that was on a build machine with very heavy rpm use). Josko P. From notting at redhat.com Thu Nov 13 04:15:55 2003 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:15:55 -0500 Subject: rpm: alpha vs numeric In-Reply-To: <200311121628.20966.jkeating@j2solutions.net>; from jkeating@j2solutions.net on Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 04:28:20PM -0800 References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <3FB16EBA.B31CDA7D@gmx.de> <20031112094109.GG19336@puariko.nirvana> <200311121628.20966.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <20031112231555.A2888@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Jesse Keating (jkeating at j2solutions.net) said: > Not to start this on yet another list, but I didn't seem to see a consensus > on the use of "rhfc1" to indicate fedora core 1. To wit: the 'rh' part of 'rhfc1', while implying a lineage, also implies that it's basically produced by Red Hat. And we hope that in the future that's not solely the case. Bill From thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net Wed Nov 12 18:04:28 2003 From: thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net (Matthias Saou) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 19:04:28 +0100 Subject: Call for comments - RPM upgrade In-Reply-To: <3FB08D91.3030100@togami.com> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <200311101351.33799.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FB08D91.3030100@togami.com> Message-ID: <20031112190428.30b0ec19.thias@spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net> Warren Togami wrote : > It is my opinion that RH8 and RH9 should be upgraded to the latest > versions for the respective distros. I totally agree. If it were only up to me, 7.x would also get rpm 4.1.1 or 4.2.x as you then get much less hassles to have the most recent apt and yum versions working. All my servers running 7.0 and 7.3 are now using rpm 4.1.1 and yum 2.0.x, but I must admit that I got a weird problem on many of them after the upgrade which required "rm -f /usr/lib/rpm/Pubkeys" to get rpm working again... so I really wouldn't recommend mass-deploying that update in the current state of things (rpm bug with sigs needing to be fixed?). Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow) - Linux kernel 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl Load : 2.05 1.40 1.18 From cannon2 at us.ibm.com Wed Nov 12 20:05:27 2003 From: cannon2 at us.ibm.com (Arthur G Cannon) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 14:05:27 -0600 Subject: rpm updates and longevity Message-ID: Hi all, I have a couple of questions I hope you--the collective :-)--can answer. First, does anyone know how long fedora-legacy will release rpm updates for bugfixes/vulnerabilities after the release of a version? Will it be like RedHat used to be a long time ago where they support the release for a couple of years or will it be what it is now where once a new version comes out all updates cease for previous versions? thanks in advance... Gerard Cannon Cannon2 at US.IBM.com (817)962-6833 From chuckw at quantumlinux.com Thu Nov 13 07:18:53 2003 From: chuckw at quantumlinux.com (Chuck Wolber) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 23:18:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: rpm updates and longevity In-Reply-To: Message-ID: > Hi all, I have a couple of questions I hope you--the collective :-)--can > answer. First, does anyone know how long fedora-legacy will release rpm > updates for bugfixes/vulnerabilities after the release of a version? As long as there are people who have a vested interested in putting the time into releasing them. There is no official timeframe. > Will it be like RedHat used to be a long time ago where they support the > release for a couple of years or will it be what it is now where once a > new version comes out all updates cease for previous versions? Updates will be released as long as someone somewhere wants to put the time into getting them out the door. To that end, we're getting a server up and hosted towards the end of the year that will host the build environment and probably some fanout logic for the various mirrors ('er what mirrors??? )... -Chuck -- Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology * Education | -=^ Ad Astra Per Aspera ^=- * Integration | http://www.quantumlinux.com * Support | chuckw at quantumlinux.com "M stands for magic, mystery or matrix; according to taste." --Edward Witten From Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de Thu Nov 13 07:31:22 2003 From: Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de (Axel Thimm) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:31:22 +0100 Subject: Call for comments - RPM upgrade In-Reply-To: <20031112190428.30b0ec19.thias@spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <200311101351.33799.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FB08D91.3030100@togami.com> <20031112190428.30b0ec19.thias@spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net> Message-ID: <20031113073122.GB21267@puariko.nirvana> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 07:04:28PM +0100, Matthias Saou wrote: > Warren Togami wrote : > > > It is my opinion that RH8 and RH9 should be upgraded to the latest > > versions for the respective distros. > > I totally agree. If it were only up to me, 7.x would also get rpm 4.1.1 or > 4.2.x as you then get much less hassles to have the most recent apt and yum > versions working. Have you checked the rpm 4.2/yum 2.0.4 version in ATrpms? That's exatcly what they are aiming at. > All my servers running 7.0 and 7.3 are now using rpm 4.1.1 and yum 2.0.x, > but I must admit that I got a weird problem on many of them after the > upgrade which required "rm -f /usr/lib/rpm/Pubkeys" to get rpm working > again... so I really wouldn't recommend mass-deploying that update in the > current state of things (rpm bug with sigs needing to be fixed?). I haven't seen that, if you have a spare 7.3 machine, could you test whether ATrpms' 4.2 rpms also mess up with the Pubkeys? Thanks! -- Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de Thu Nov 13 07:51:13 2003 From: Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de (Axel Thimm) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 08:51:13 +0100 Subject: rpm: alpha vs numeric In-Reply-To: <200311121628.20966.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <3FB16EBA.B31CDA7D@gmx.de> <20031112094109.GG19336@puariko.nirvana> <200311121628.20966.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <20031113075113.GC21267@puariko.nirvana> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 04:28:20PM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 12 November 2003 01:41, Axel Thimm wrote: > > o Version your rpms, so that this bug is not triggered. Therefore > > a sane versioning scheme not jumping back and forth from alpha to > > numeric segments is unevitable. See also the lengthy thread about > > it with the disttags for the RH family finally recommended as > > > > rh7.3 < rh8.0 < rh9 < rhfc1 > > Not to start this on yet another list, but I didn't seem to see a > consensus on the use of "rhfc1" to indicate fedora core 1. it's > rather ugly, and causes every RH person I've talked to about it to > shudder. OTOH it has been adopted by most non-RH repos, and there was no comment against it from any RH people official or not IIRC. > The other method, which seemed much cleaner, was to use "0.7.3" for > rh73 "0.9" for rh9, and "1" for fc1. That method was proposed about 3 time VERY LOUD on the -devel list (with using fdr or whatever distid), but no RH people commented, so it was dropped or better died after a silent death in an agony of 4 or 6 weeks. > If you _still_ want text, perhaps "0.rc73" and "fc1", so that we > don't run into "r" being older than "f". Using text IMHO is a nono > and should be avoided at all costs. "Text" is important. People want to quickly identify the origin and context of the rpm. If the numeric scheme had been chosen to be ordered (e.g. numversion_of(RH9) <_rpm numversion_of(FC1), like in the originally anticipated 7.3 < 8.0 < 9 < 10, or the retrospective reversioning of RHL to 0.7.3 < 0.8.0 < 0.9 < 1) one could use the same distid (e.g. "fdr" in one of my late proposals or even "", if you don't want any nonnumeric characters there), but see above about the acceptance of these schemes. So the rh < rhfc distid tag is the best solution avoiding heterogenous segment comparison (to retun on topic), and providing a natural boundary for human readers and rpm order parsing the like between the proper release build number and the distversion. It also fits nicely into the already established rhX scheme of dist labeling, without forcing rebuilds of pre-FC1 rpms, and obfuscation of RHL versions with a zero in front (which seems to be something RH does not want at all costs). This has all been presented on -devel, please check the archives. -- Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From warren at togami.com Thu Nov 13 08:12:32 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Wed, 12 Nov 2003 22:12:32 -1000 Subject: rpm: alpha vs numeric In-Reply-To: <20031113075113.GC21267@puariko.nirvana> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <3FB16EBA.B31CDA7D@gmx.de> <20031112094109.GG19336@puariko.nirvana> <200311121628.20966.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <20031113075113.GC21267@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: <3FB33CF0.4090608@togami.com> Axel Thimm wrote: >>The other method, which seemed much cleaner, was to use "0.7.3" for >>rh73 "0.9" for rh9, and "1" for fc1. > > > That method was proposed about 3 time VERY LOUD on the -devel list > (with using fdr or whatever distid), but no RH people commented, so it > was dropped or better died after a silent death in an agony of 4 or 6 > weeks. Wrong. Mike Harris replied each time it was proposed in support. And while other RHatters did not reply publicly, behind the scenes several have gave the thumbs up. I could ask them to confirm on list if you really wish. > > This has all been presented on -devel, please check the archives. Simultaneously you have ignored the thread on the same list of "Warren's Package Naming Guidelines" which have widespread support from pretty much everyone except those who agreed to your "rhfc1" type naming. Instead this same camp took mainly to bickering about the "refusal to cooperate" which I later admitted did not belong in that document. I did appreciate that Dag Wieers however did have constructive comments about the package naming guidelines. I suppose I should have posted my thoughts at the time when seeing "rhfc1" but I couldn't think of a nicer way of expressing "idiotic". I also admit I wasn't taking your proposal seriously. Now I have. I believe it is inherently problematic in so many ways. I also find it strange that you are pushing the "rh9" < "rhfc" reason while also supporting the RPM upgrade proposal. It seems contradictory to me. Warren From Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de Thu Nov 13 09:06:44 2003 From: Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de (Axel Thimm) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 10:06:44 +0100 Subject: Idiotic (was: rpm: alpha vs numeric) In-Reply-To: <3FB33CF0.4090608@togami.com> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <3FB16EBA.B31CDA7D@gmx.de> <20031112094109.GG19336@puariko.nirvana> <200311121628.20966.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <20031113075113.GC21267@puariko.nirvana> <3FB33CF0.4090608@togami.com> Message-ID: <20031113090644.GB27188@puariko.nirvana> On Wed, Nov 12, 2003 at 10:12:32PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > > > The other method, which seemed much cleaner, was to use "0.7.3" > > > for rh73 "0.9" for rh9, and "1" for fc1. > > That method was proposed about 3 time VERY LOUD on the -devel list > > (with using fdr or whatever distid), but no RH people commented, > > so it was dropped or better died after a silent death in an agony > > of 4 or 6 weeks. > > Wrong. Mike Harris replied each time it was proposed in support. IIRC Mike suggested a scheme of the type letter < number, not anything about the prefixed 0 (I am very grateful that Mike did take his time to read and answer to the thread, his comments were the only aiming at a constructive solution!). > And while other RHatters did not reply publicly, behind the scenes > several have gave the thumbs up. I could ask them to confirm on > list if you really wish. I cannot see behind the scenes from where I stand, and most other people also lack abilities of telepathy, so that doesn't count. RH's announced policy is to have these discussions in public. The thread was waiting for input since September, so if people had an opinion, they had time to express it (in public!). > Simultaneously you have ignored the thread on the same list of "Warren's > Package Naming Guidelines" That sounds childish. And if you expect a childish answer, ask yourself, why you didn't seriously contribute the the disttag thread and problem instead of diverting into "Warren's drafts". > Instead this same camp took mainly to bickering about the "refusal to > cooperate" which I later admitted did not belong in that document. But still to your attitude, which you enforced and which is unfortunate and blocking cooperation. It is also very unfortunate that many people think that you are speaking for all of fedora.us, and that you created and still maintain the chasm. > I suppose I should have posted my thoughts at the time when seeing > "rhfc1" but I couldn't think of a nicer way of expressing "idiotic". Why being offensive (again)? Please carry on with the thread alone. -- Axel.Thimm at physik.fu-berlin.de -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net Thu Nov 13 11:42:50 2003 From: thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net (Matthias Saou) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 12:42:50 +0100 Subject: Call for comments - RPM upgrade In-Reply-To: <20031113073122.GB21267@puariko.nirvana> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <200311101351.33799.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FB08D91.3030100@togami.com> <20031112190428.30b0ec19.thias@spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net> <20031113073122.GB21267@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: <20031113124250.4c53688a.thias@spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net> Axel Thimm wrote : > > All my servers running 7.0 and 7.3 are now using rpm 4.1.1 and yum > > 2.0.x, but I must admit that I got a weird problem on many of them > > after the upgrade which required "rm -f /usr/lib/rpm/Pubkeys" to get > > rpm working again... so I really wouldn't recommend mass-deploying that > > update in the current state of things (rpm bug with sigs needing to be > > fixed?). > > I haven't seen that, if you have a spare 7.3 machine, could you test > whether ATrpms' 4.2 rpms also mess up with the Pubkeys? Thanks! I haven't been able to track down the cause. On 6 identical servers of a cluster for instance (same hardware, same set of packages), some would exhibit the problem, while some others not... very strange. I do make an extensive use of gpg checking, previously from gnupg itself and "rpm -K" calls from autoupdate, then from within rpm itself through yum. Probably just a corner-case, but given the complexity of the upgrade, there may be many others, and I know for myself that I got hit really hard by this one, and don't think an average user could have solved it easily (I had to ask jbj for help...). But upgrading 7.x releases to rpm 4.0.5 is another story, and I would favor that one for a mass-upgrade. It seems much safer, as there are less semantics changes and less possible side-effects. No using yum 2.x though :-( Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora Core release 1 (Yarrow) - Linux kernel 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl Load : 1.01 0.77 0.82 From jkeating at j2solutions.net Thu Nov 13 15:55:06 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 07:55:06 -0800 Subject: Idiotic (was: rpm: alpha vs numeric) In-Reply-To: <20031113090644.GB27188@puariko.nirvana> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <3FB33CF0.4090608@togami.com> <20031113090644.GB27188@puariko.nirvana> Message-ID: <200311130755.07553.jkeating@j2solutions.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 13 November 2003 01:06, Axel Thimm wrote: > IIRC Mike suggested a scheme of the type letter < number, not anything > about the prefixed 0 (I am very grateful that Mike did take his time > to read and answer to the thread, his comments were the only aiming at > a constructive solution!). Mike also discussed it in the public IRC channel, along with other rhatters, including JBJ briefly. I don't recall _any_ of them in favor of using text anywhere other than disttag, where disttag would _not_ be used in the package comparison. > > And while other RHatters did not reply publicly, behind the scenes > > several have gave the thumbs up. I could ask them to confirm on > > list if you really wish. > > I cannot see behind the scenes from where I stand, and most other > people also lack abilities of telepathy, so that doesn't count. RH's > announced policy is to have these discussions in public. The thread > was waiting for input since September, so if people had an opinion, > they had time to express it (in public!). IRC is public. Sorry you weren't there. > > Simultaneously you have ignored the thread on the same list of > > "Warren's Package Naming Guidelines" > > That sounds childish. And if you expect a childish answer, ask > yourself, why you didn't seriously contribute the the disttag thread > and problem instead of diverting into "Warren's drafts". He did seriously contribute. He bunked the idea as I did, he proposed a better solution IMHO, and it was summarily ignored by you and others opposed. > > Instead this same camp took mainly to bickering about the "refusal to > > cooperate" which I later admitted did not belong in that document. > > But still to your attitude, which you enforced and which is > unfortunate and blocking cooperation. Huh? can you try that one in English? Bottom line, I'm getting really sick of the bickering. It seems that repos will never agree on anything, and I see little reason they should anymore. A quick shop around showed at least 4(!) repos carrying the same package, but with different dist-tags. xmms-mp3. 4!! Who's wins if all repos are configured in apt/yum? If there is no effort to minimize duplication, why should anybody care about package naming scheme? I especially find this tiring in the guise of Fedora-Legacy, since we're going to continue using the RH naming scheme, w/out leaking in any 3'rd party schemes which don't really belong. At the very most, we'll add "fl" as a disttag, to indicate that the update came from Fedora Legacy instead of RHN. - -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (http://geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (http://www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/s6la4v2HLvE71NURAi6mAJ40whltMb3CDqshoYDQ0CiD9EyRKgCfb0sa gRobX4CeILJcUyQoWsiGfbw= =5puU -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From warren at togami.com Thu Nov 13 16:09:21 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 06:09:21 -1000 Subject: Idiotic In-Reply-To: <200311130755.07553.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <3FB33CF0.4090608@togami.com> <20031113090644.GB27188@puariko.nirvana> <200311130755.07553.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <3FB3ACB1.90504@togami.com> Jesse Keating wrote: > >>>Simultaneously you have ignored the thread on the same list of >>>"Warren's Package Naming Guidelines" >> >>That sounds childish. And if you expect a childish answer, ask >>yourself, why you didn't seriously contribute the the disttag thread >>and problem instead of diverting into "Warren's drafts". > > He did seriously contribute. He bunked the idea as I did, he proposed a > better solution IMHO, and it was summarily ignored by you and others > opposed. > I could have worded it in a nicer way than mentioning "idiotic", but otherwise the purpose of the message I entirely meant. Warren From rdieter at math.unl.edu Thu Nov 13 17:54:38 2003 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 11:54:38 -0600 Subject: rpm: alpha vs numeric In-Reply-To: <20031113170004.12814.43043.Mailman@listman.back-rdu.redhat.com> References: <20031113170004.12814.43043.Mailman@listman.back-rdu.redhat.com> Message-ID: <3FB3C55E.8030609@math.unl.edu> Axel wrote: >Best practice: >o Version your rpms, so that this bug is not triggered. Therefore a > sane versioning scheme not jumping back and forth from alpha to > numeric segments is unevitable. See also the lengthy thread about it > with the disttags for the RH family finally recommended as > > rh7.3 < rh8.0 < rh9 < rhfc1 > In practice, one should never see the problem anyway. Since only <=rh8.0 is affected, you shouldn't ever have the opportunity to be comparing versions of Fedora packages, so the rh73 < rh80 < rh90 < 1 disttags are fine as far as I'm concerned. Ie, the only time 1 with be compared with rhxx is when you are using Fedora Core (with rpm-4.2.x). Am I missing something? -- Rex From lowen at pari.edu Thu Nov 13 21:42:59 2003 From: lowen at pari.edu (Lamar Owen) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 16:42:59 -0500 Subject: Idiotic (was: rpm: alpha vs numeric) In-Reply-To: <200311130755.07553.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> <20031113090644.GB27188@puariko.nirvana> <200311130755.07553.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <200311131642.59544.lowen@pari.edu> On Thursday 13 November 2003 10:55 am, Jesse Keating wrote: > Mike also discussed it in the public IRC channel, along with other > rhatters, including JBJ briefly. I don't recall _any_ of them in favor of > using text anywhere other than disttag, where disttag would _not_ be used > in the package comparison. > IRC is public. Sorry you weren't there. Serious development conversations should not happen in IRC unless the chat is fully logged and posted. IMHO. A global development community must needs be asynchronous. Synchronous communications channels have no place in a global community. IMHO, and IME as part of the PGDG. Public or not; key developers may not be up|online|in the mood to develop at the instant of the chat. > Bottom line, I'm getting really sick of the bickering. Amen. Fedora Legacy packages should simply follow the Red Hat precedent. No more; no less. The third party repositories can do whatever they want for their extra/alternative packages, but that discussion does not belong here. There IS a precedent for errata packages, if the people arguing this would just care to find it. -- Lamar Owen Director of Information Technology Pisgah Astronomical Research Institute 1 PARI Drive Rosman, NC 28772 (828)862-5554 www.pari.edu From chuckw at quantumlinux.com Fri Nov 14 01:56:43 2003 From: chuckw at quantumlinux.com (Chuck Wolber) Date: Thu, 13 Nov 2003 17:56:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: Idiotic (was: rpm: alpha vs numeric) In-Reply-To: <200311130755.07553.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: > I especially find this tiring in the guise of Fedora-Legacy, since we're > going to continue using the RH naming scheme, w/out leaking in any 3'rd > party schemes which don't really belong. At the very most, we'll add > "fl" as a disttag, to indicate that the update came from Fedora Legacy > instead of RHN. Damn straight! Jesse, you are setting a good direction for the overall project. Keep up the good work. -Chuck -- Quantum Linux Laboratories - ACCELERATING Business with Open Technology * Education | -=^ Ad Astra Per Aspera ^=- * Integration | http://www.quantumlinux.com * Support | chuckw at quantumlinux.com "M stands for magic, mystery or matrix; according to taste." --Edward Witten From admin at cs.montana.edu Fri Nov 14 17:37:24 2003 From: admin at cs.montana.edu (Lucas Albers) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 10:37:24 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Fwd: Re: Virtual build environments] In-Reply-To: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> References: <2794.153.90.196.197.1068499547.squirrel@www.cs.montana.edu> Message-ID: <2037.216.166.133.165.1068831444.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu> > Bugzilla database? > Erratta Database? We should use bugzilla for our erratta database. That is what redhat uses. We also need to setup a mailing list for errata notifications. We need a global mailing list, and then a mailing list for each supported OS. We also need to monitor exploits, what mailing lists should we track for erratta? What is the priority of our build targets? I think 7.3 should be our priority, and 9 should be lower as support has not EOL on 9. --Luke From zen23003 at zen.co.uk Sat Nov 15 01:01:15 2003 From: zen23003 at zen.co.uk (Paul) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 01:01:15 -0000 Subject: RH9 vs Fedora References: Message-ID: <039a01c3ab13$f875bda0$0100000a@lan> I appreciate that this depends on volunteer numbers, but is it fair to assume that Fedora Core 1 would be supported beyond Red Hat 9, simply because it is more recent? I've just upgraded from RH8 to RH9 because RH9 is being supported for longer. Before my server goes live later this month, I have to choose whether or not to upgrade from RH9 to Fedora. Any advice appreciated. From jkeating at j2solutions.net Sat Nov 15 01:03:51 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:03:51 -0800 Subject: RH9 vs Fedora In-Reply-To: <039a01c3ab13$f875bda0$0100000a@lan> References: <039a01c3ab13$f875bda0$0100000a@lan> Message-ID: <200311141703.56807.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Friday 14 November 2003 17:01, Paul wrote: > I appreciate that this depends on volunteer numbers, but is it fair > to assume that Fedora Core 1 would be supported beyond Red Hat 9, > simply because it is more recent? Not exactly. I have a feeling that 7.[23]/8/9 will be supported for a while. FC1 will be "dropped" once FC4 is released. > I've just upgraded from RH8 to RH9 because RH9 is being supported for > longer. Before my server goes live later this month, I have to > choose whether or not to upgrade from RH9 to Fedora. Any advice > appreciated. Well, if you're starting fresh, you could go w/ Fedora, and have 1.5~ years worth of backports via RH and Fedora Legacy. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From rostetter at mail.utexas.edu Sat Nov 15 04:23:14 2003 From: rostetter at mail.utexas.edu (Eric Rostetter) Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 22:23:14 -0600 Subject: RH9 vs Fedora In-Reply-To: <039a01c3ab13$f875bda0$0100000a@lan> References: <039a01c3ab13$f875bda0$0100000a@lan> Message-ID: <20031114222314.fzptbmsk4008gk0o@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Quoting Paul : > I appreciate that this depends on volunteer numbers, but is it fair to > assume that Fedora Core 1 would be supported beyond Red Hat 9, simply > because it is more recent? No, it is not fair to assume that. Eric From zen23003 at zen.co.uk Sat Nov 15 15:44:31 2003 From: zen23003 at zen.co.uk (Paul Welsh) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:44:31 -0000 Subject: RH9 vs Fedora References: <039a01c3ab13$f875bda0$0100000a@lan> <200311141703.56807.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <006401c3ab8f$5d09c420$0100000a@lan> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jesse Keating" To: Sent: 15 November 2003 01:03 Subject: Re: RH9 vs Fedora > FC1 will be "dropped" once FC4 is released ... if you're starting fresh, you could go w/ Fedora, and have > 1.5~ years worth of backports via RH and Fedora Legacy. On http://fedora.redhat.com it says Fedora Core will be updated "about 2-3 times a year". Are you basing your estimate of 1.5~ years on FC4 being released in 12 to 16 months time? I didn't think RH would be providing backports though. From jkeating at j2solutions.net Sat Nov 15 17:42:12 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 09:42:12 -0800 Subject: RH9 vs Fedora In-Reply-To: <006401c3ab8f$5d09c420$0100000a@lan> References: <200311141703.56807.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <006401c3ab8f$5d09c420$0100000a@lan> Message-ID: <200311150942.12579.jkeating@j2solutions.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Saturday 15 November 2003 07:44, Paul Welsh wrote: > On http://fedora.redhat.com it says Fedora Core will be updated "about > 2-3 times a year". Are you basing your estimate of 1.5~ years on FC4 > being released in 12 to 16 months time? > > I didn't think RH would be providing backports though. I'm expecting Fedora releases every 6~ months. Red Hat will provide backports/updates for a FC release up to 2~3 months after the next FC release. Fedora Legacy will pick it up and continue on through. - -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/tmV04v2HLvE71NURAsAmAJ4wQp9Mdqe7I5Srfw8FD+c2O0zOdQCgg3np OJYHamiY/UvAhp2IyOjFPTA= =TcUF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From xose at wanadoo.es Sat Nov 15 19:27:37 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 20:27:37 +0100 Subject: is Press Release ready? Message-ID: <3FB67E29.5060302@wanadoo.es> hi, 1 week and waiting...... -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From smoogen at lanl.gov Sat Nov 15 22:56:33 2003 From: smoogen at lanl.gov (Stephen Smoogen) Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 15:56:33 -0700 (MST) Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora In-Reply-To: <200311071747.19582.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: On Fri, 7 Nov 2003, Jesse Keating wrote: >On Thursday 06 November 2003 22:51, Martin Kunz wrote: >> Just out of curiosity.. what would be the requirements, bandwidth and >> storage wise, to act reasonably as a mirror? >> >> Me and some of my clients will have a much easier life and sleep a >> lot better for every additional month that the community can keep the >> older releases alive, so we'd like to help out if we can! > >Not much initially. Probably outbound speeds of a T1 or better, capable >of handling or throttling so that the usage doesn't swamp your normal >services. Storage in the 5gigs area (very soft number, It may take us >QUITE a while to hit 5gigs of updates). > I would disagree strongly with that statement. As you add more OS's to the legacy project and try to port fixes to each of those, you will find that the size actually shoots up quite a bit. Worst case of shooting up diskspace is where you go to the latest product versus backporting a patch. In most cases the latest product is going to need a lot of supplemental packages also brought in because it uses XYZ-3.so versus the XYZ-2.so that the older package used. Sometimes it will also need something that was never included in the base product of Red Hat. >Perhaps some people who run mirrors for Red Hat currently can speak to >the usage they see for just updates. The updates are usually the hardest hit of the diskdrives of a mirror. The data changes over time and as time goes on its access usually grows higher than the downloads of the main OS (IE more 7.3 updates are checked than 7.3 downloads.) -- Stephen John Smoogen smoogen at lanl.gov Los Alamos National Labrador CCN-5 Sched 5/40 PH: 5-8058 Ta-03 SM-261 MailStop P208 DP 17U Los Alamos, NM 87545 -- So shines a good deed in a weary world. = Willy Wonka -- From whooperhsd3 at earthlink.net Sun Nov 16 05:30:15 2003 From: whooperhsd3 at earthlink.net (William Hooper) Date: Sun, 16 Nov 2003 00:30:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: Disk Space (was Re: Delay? Looks bad for Fedora ) In-Reply-To: References: <200311071747.19582.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <64583.69.68.37.57.1068960615.squirrel@69.68.37.57> Stephen Smoogen said: > I would disagree strongly with that statement. As you add more OS's to > the legacy project and try to port fixes to each of those, you will find > that the size actually shoots up quite a bit. > > Worst case of shooting up diskspace is where you go to the latest > product versus backporting a patch. In most cases the latest product is > going to need a lot of supplemental packages also brought in because it > uses XYZ-3.so versus the XYZ-2.so that the older package used. Sometimes > it will also need something that was never included in the base product > of Red Hat. Isn't the whole point of Legacy to do the backporting? If you are upgrading versions and adding newer library dependencies wouldn't the testing be better spend on testing the newest version of the whole distro? That doesn't even get into packages that depend on whatever you are updating, config file changes, etc. At the point you are needing something that was never included in the base OS you are targeting take it somewhere else. That definitely goes against the policy of security fixes with minimal change. -- William Hooper From ow.mun.heng at wdc.com Thu Nov 20 07:42:27 2003 From: ow.mun.heng at wdc.com (Ow Mun Heng) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:42:27 +0800 Subject: Test Message : Is this list still alive? (NO content) Message-ID: From jkeating at j2solutions.net Thu Nov 20 17:06:22 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:06:22 -0800 Subject: Test Message : Is this list still alive? (NO content) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200311200906.26663.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 19 November 2003 23:42, Ow Mun Heng wrote: Yeah it's alive. I think we're all still trying to digest the recent announcements made on RH's behalf by news agencies. Speaking of news agencies, is everybody happy with the smallish press-release draft that was last posted? If there are no objections, I'd like to submit it off to Pogo's PR group. Before we do the actual press release, I'd really like to have a real website for people to come to and look at. Are there any folks on the list that have the spare time to whip up a static webpage for now, until we get something a bit more dynamic up? I suppose we need a logo to. But please, no old guy w/ a cane wearing a Fedora, thats just the wrong image (; -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu Thu Nov 20 17:11:18 2003 From: sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu (Jeff Sheltren) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:11:18 -0800 Subject: Test Message : Is this list still alive? (NO content) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1069348277.18848.6.camel@derelict> Still alive? I thought this was a new list ;) -Jeff On Wed, 2003-11-19 at 23:42, Ow Mun Heng wrote: > -- > fedora-legacy-list mailing list > fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list From sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu Thu Nov 20 17:16:20 2003 From: sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu (Jeff Sheltren) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:16:20 -0800 Subject: Test Message : Is this list still alive? (NO content) In-Reply-To: <200311200906.26663.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <200311200906.26663.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <1069348580.18848.8.camel@derelict> On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 09:06, Jesse Keating wrote: > I suppose we need a logo > to. But please, no old guy w/ a cane wearing a Fedora, thats just the > wrong image (; Oooh, but what about an old penguin with a cane? :) -Jeff From xose at wanadoo.es Thu Nov 20 17:26:37 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:26:37 +0100 Subject: PR draft References: <200311200906.26663.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <3FBCF94D.2060300@wanadoo.es> Jesse Keating wrote: > Speaking of news agencies, is everybody happy with the smallish > press-release draft that was last posted? If there are no objections, > I'd like to submit it off to Pogo's PR group. I think that PR 1.6 with these corrections would be ok: http://redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/2003-November/msg00125.html -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From zen23003 at zen.co.uk Thu Nov 20 10:10:24 2003 From: zen23003 at zen.co.uk (Paul Welsh) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:10:24 -0000 Subject: yum vs apt References: <20031111T105312Z_FFB700000000@ycc.com> Message-ID: <016201c3af4e$83af00a0$0100000a@lan> Apologies if this question is beneath contempt but I'm running Fedora Core 1 on a single co-lo server. It will be live shortly and I intend making as few changes as possible. On 15 November, Jesse Keating said "Red Hat will provide backports/updates for a FC release up to 2~3 months after the next FC release. Fedora Legacy will pick it up and continue on through." Is yum or apt my best bet in terms of installing updates? From jkeating at j2solutions.net Thu Nov 20 18:48:41 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:48:41 -0800 Subject: yum vs apt In-Reply-To: <016201c3af4e$83af00a0$0100000a@lan> References: <20031111T105312Z_FFB700000000@ycc.com> <016201c3af4e$83af00a0$0100000a@lan> Message-ID: <200311201048.47204.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Thursday 20 November 2003 02:10, Paul Welsh wrote: > Is yum or apt my best bet in terms of installing updates? My personal preference lies with Yum, but I've been persuaded to make both yum and apt repositories available for our updates. Either one should work. Of course, yum is included with Fedora Core.... -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From bhughes at elevating.com Thu Nov 20 18:54:58 2003 From: bhughes at elevating.com (Bret Hughes) Date: 20 Nov 2003 12:54:58 -0600 Subject: Test Message : Is this list still alive? (NO content) In-Reply-To: <1069348580.18848.8.camel@derelict> References: <200311200906.26663.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <1069348580.18848.8.camel@derelict> Message-ID: <1069354503.2779.27.camel@bretsony> On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 11:16, Jeff Sheltren wrote: > On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 09:06, Jesse Keating wrote: > > I suppose we need a logo > > to. But please, no old guy w/ a cane wearing a Fedora, thats just the > > wrong image (; > > Oooh, but what about an old penguin with a cane? :) > How bout a penguin in mid life that is stable and knows what he is doing as opposed to a baby penguin still learning to run or a penguin with a rolex? Bret From jkeating at j2solutions.net Thu Nov 20 18:59:26 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:59:26 -0800 Subject: Test Message : Is this list still alive? (NO content) In-Reply-To: <1069354503.2779.27.camel@bretsony> References: <1069348580.18848.8.camel@derelict> <1069354503.2779.27.camel@bretsony> Message-ID: <200311201059.26361.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Thursday 20 November 2003 10:54, Bret Hughes wrote: > How bout a penguin in mid life that is stable and knows what he is > doing as opposed to a baby penguin still learning to run or a penguin > with a rolex? What, no mid-life crisis penguin? Hair plants, convertable car(or motorcycle), mistress on the side... (; -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From tdiehl at rogueind.com Thu Nov 20 19:06:41 2003 From: tdiehl at rogueind.com (Tom Diehl) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:06:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: yum vs apt In-Reply-To: <016201c3af4e$83af00a0$0100000a@lan> References: <20031111T105312Z_FFB700000000@ycc.com> <016201c3af4e$83af00a0$0100000a@lan> Message-ID: On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Paul Welsh wrote: > Apologies if this question is beneath contempt but I'm running Fedora > Core 1 on a single co-lo server. It will be live shortly and I intend > making as few changes as possible. > > On 15 November, Jesse Keating said "Red Hat will provide > backports/updates for a FC release up to 2~3 months after the next FC > release. Fedora Legacy will pick it up and continue on through." > > Is yum or apt my best bet in terms of installing updates? Your choice. Either will do the job. Just make sure that wherever you are going to get your updates from has the type of repository you need. There is work being done so that In the future the repos are the same but today that is not true. AFAIK Red Hat is only supporting yum on their sites. That may have changed and I am sure someone will correct me if I am wrong. I think most of the repo sites have both. HTH, ................Tom From rostetter at mail.utexas.edu Thu Nov 20 19:44:53 2003 From: rostetter at mail.utexas.edu (Eric Rostetter) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:44:53 -0600 Subject: Test Message : Is this list still alive? (NO content) Message-ID: <20031120134453.qhqj4ssgsg4k0c80@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Arg. Sent with wrong From: address... Sorry moderator... Eric ----- Forwarded message from eric.rostetter at physics.utexas.edu ----- Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:15:40 -0600 From: Eric Rostetter Reply-To: Eric Rostetter Subject: Re: Test Message : Is this list still alive? (NO content) To: fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com Quoting Jesse Keating : > Speaking of news agencies, is everybody happy with the smallish > press-release draft that was last posted? If there are no objections, > I'd like to submit it off to Pogo's PR group. The only question I didn't see resolved was what, if any, versions of RH we should state as being supported... I think that either needs to be resolved, or we need to leave out version references all together (just say something like "selected versions of Red Hat Linux" instead). > Before we do the actual press release, I'd really like to have a real > website for people to come to and look at. Are there any folks on the > list that have the spare time to whip up a static webpage for now, > until we get something a bit more dynamic up? I would have, but I've not yet got around to jumping through the required hoops. And now I'll be busy with a wedding, Thanksgiving visits, etc. In other words, nope, sorry, I can't right now. Would to have loved to, and will probably help in the future, but can't right now... -- Eric Rostetter The Department of Physics The University of Texas at Austin Why get even? Get odd! ----- End forwarded message ----- From villegas at math.gatech.edu Thu Nov 20 20:39:58 2003 From: villegas at math.gatech.edu (Carlos Villegas) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 15:39:58 -0500 Subject: PR draft In-Reply-To: <3FBCF94D.2060300@wanadoo.es> References: <200311200906.26663.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FBCF94D.2060300@wanadoo.es> Message-ID: <20031120203958.GM9978@hemi.math.gatech.edu> On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 06:26:37PM +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > I think that PR 1.6 with these corrections would be ok: > http://redhat.com/archives/fedora-legacy-list/2003-November/msg00125.html Agreed. Except that instead of listing all the companies and trademarks, I'd use "All trademarks are property of their respective owners", I've seen that on a few places, and should be "legal" enough and best of all should cover everything, and can become a static part of further press releases if needed. Carlos From jkeating at j2solutions.net Thu Nov 20 21:17:18 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:17:18 -0800 Subject: PR draft In-Reply-To: <20031120203958.GM9978@hemi.math.gatech.edu> References: <3FBCF94D.2060300@wanadoo.es> <20031120203958.GM9978@hemi.math.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <200311201317.18446.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Thursday 20 November 2003 12:39, Carlos Villegas wrote: > Agreed. Except that instead of listing all the companies and > trademarks, I'd use "All trademarks are property of their respective > owners", I've seen that on a few places, and should be "legal" enough > and best of all should cover everything, and can become a static part > of further press releases if needed. I'll probably let the PR company settle that one out. This isn't what will go out to news sites, this is what I'm going to submit to our PR group, and they can refine/expand upon it. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From xose at wanadoo.es Thu Nov 20 21:33:30 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:33:30 +0100 Subject: PR draft References: <200311200906.26663.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <3FBCF94D.2060300@wanadoo.es> <20031120203958.GM9978@hemi.math.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <3FBD332A.9010407@wanadoo.es> Carlos Villegas wrote: > Agreed. Except that instead of listing all the companies and trademarks, > I'd use "All trademarks are property of their respective owners", I've > seen that on a few places, and should be "legal" enough and best of all > should cover everything, and can become a static part of further > press releases if needed. Linus Torvalds's words: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=94827313516750&w=2 -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From ingo at auroralinux.org Fri Nov 21 06:38:56 2003 From: ingo at auroralinux.org (Ingo T. Storm) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:38:56 +0100 Subject: yum vs apt References: <20031111T105312Z_FFB700000000@ycc.com> <016201c3af4e$83af00a0$0100000a@lan> Message-ID: <005a01c3affa$43909720$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> > Is yum or apt my best bet in terms of installing updates? yum is the official way for Fedora Core. For legacy versions before that, it should be up2date (be it off a current server run by the users or a RH sponsored Satellite Server run by FedoraLegacy - thoughts aren't final on that one, I think.) Ingo From graham.mullier at syngenta.com Fri Nov 21 09:18:46 2003 From: graham.mullier at syngenta.com (graham.mullier at syngenta.com) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 09:18:46 -0000 Subject: Test Message : Is this list still alive? (NO content) Message-ID: <0B27450D68F1D511993E0001FA7ED2B30437CE67@ukjhmbx12.ukjh.zeneca.com> On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 11:16, Jeff Sheltren wrote: > On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 09:06, Jesse Keating wrote: > > I suppose we need a logo > > to. But please, no old guy w/ a cane wearing a Fedora, thats just the > > wrong image (; > > Oooh, but what about an old penguin with a cane? :) > well maybe it's too obvious but what about a penguin with a hat? Graham Mullier Chemoinformatics Team Leader, Chemistry Design Group, Syngenta, Bracknell, RG42 6EY, UK. direct line: +44 (0) 1344 414163 mailto:Graham.Mullier at syngenta.com From Robin.Laing at drdc-rddc.gc.ca Fri Nov 21 14:59:47 2003 From: Robin.Laing at drdc-rddc.gc.ca (Robin Laing) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 07:59:47 -0700 Subject: The first Fedora (tm) project. Message-ID: <3FBE2863.8010405@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> The Fedora(tm) Project. It looks like there is a Fedora Project that dates back to before Red Hat thought of using Fedora. I don't have the link that lead me to this handy but from what I remember, it looks like Red Hat may have to change the name of this project. -- Robin Laing From skvidal at phy.duke.edu Fri Nov 21 15:01:11 2003 From: skvidal at phy.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: 21 Nov 2003 10:01:11 -0500 Subject: The first Fedora (tm) project. In-Reply-To: <3FBE2863.8010405@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> References: <3FBE2863.8010405@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> Message-ID: <1069426871.16594.6.camel@opus> On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 09:59, Robin Laing wrote: > The Fedora(tm) Project. > > > It looks like there is a Fedora Project that dates back to before Red > Hat thought of using Fedora. > > I don't have the link that lead me to this handy but from what I > remember, it looks like Red Hat may have to change the name of this > project. Hi, I talked with Michael Johnson who is cited as the leader of the fedora project on the fedora.redhat.com pages. He talked with the legal counsel at red hat and got the following info. - the fedora.info people haven't tried to take a number of steps to work it out - they've taken none - fedora.info was only using f.e.d.o.r.a as an acronym -not as a trademark - only after the rh trademark filing did fedora.info assert a trademark - rh had previously informed uva and cornell that rh would not interfere with their continued use of the fedora trademark. - the fedora has been associated with red hat ever since the shadowman logo was adopted. so there is some more exact info. it seems to me rh has acted both legally and ethically correct - especially that they told uva and cornell that they would not interfere with the use of the term for the fedora.info project. -sv From Robin.Laing at drdc-rddc.gc.ca Fri Nov 21 15:21:29 2003 From: Robin.Laing at drdc-rddc.gc.ca (Robin Laing) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 08:21:29 -0700 Subject: The first Fedora (tm) project. In-Reply-To: <1069426871.16594.6.camel@opus> References: <3FBE2863.8010405@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> <1069426871.16594.6.camel@opus> Message-ID: <3FBE2D79.6010408@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> seth vidal wrote: > On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 09:59, Robin Laing wrote: > >>The Fedora(tm) Project. >> >> > > Hi, > I talked with Michael Johnson who is cited as the leader of the fedora > project on the fedora.redhat.com pages. > > He talked with the legal counsel at red hat and got the following info. > > - the fedora.info people haven't tried to take a number of steps to work > it out - they've taken none > - fedora.info was only using f.e.d.o.r.a as an acronym -not as a > trademark > - only after the rh trademark filing did fedora.info assert a trademark > - rh had previously informed uva and cornell that rh would not interfere > with their continued use of the fedora trademark. > - the fedora has been associated with red hat ever since the shadowman > logo was adopted. > > so there is some more exact info. > > it seems to me rh has acted both legally and ethically correct - > especially that they told uva and cornell that they would not interfere > with the use of the term for the fedora.info project. > > -sv > > > > -- > fedora-legacy-list mailing list > fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list > This is good news. The first WWW site says something different from what you posted but I cannot remember how I got to in. From what you posted, it looks as if there is nothing to worry about. -- Robin Laing From rdieter at math.unl.edu Fri Nov 21 17:23:54 2003 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:23:54 -0600 Subject: yum vs apt In-Reply-To: <20031121170003.14332.26334.Mailman@listman.back-rdu.redhat.com> References: <20031121170003.14332.26334.Mailman@listman.back-rdu.redhat.com> Message-ID: <3FBE4A2A.5000302@math.unl.edu> Paul wrote: >Is yum or apt my best bet in terms of installing updates? Yes. (-: (Either is fine) -- Rex From cavassin at conectiva.com.br Fri Nov 21 17:26:50 2003 From: cavassin at conectiva.com.br (Wanderlei Antonio Cavassin) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:26:50 -0200 Subject: yum vs apt In-Reply-To: <3FBE4A2A.5000302@math.unl.edu> References: <20031121170003.14332.26334.Mailman@listman.back-rdu.redhat.com> <3FBE4A2A.5000302@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <20031121172650.GB6798@conectiva.com.br> Em Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 11:23:54AM -0600, Rex Dieter escreveu: > Paul wrote: > > >Is yum or apt my best bet in terms of installing updates? > > Yes. (-: (Either is fine) good :-) I'm sure apt is very good for larger updates. It has a mature technology, even for rpm. It's standard for several distributions, and well proved for almost all of them. See this article: The Great Package Management Experiment http://lwn.net/Articles/50687/ Regards, Wanderlei Antonio Cavassin Conectiva Linux From Robin.Laing at drdc-rddc.gc.ca Fri Nov 21 22:00:38 2003 From: Robin.Laing at drdc-rddc.gc.ca (Robin Laing) Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:00:38 -0700 Subject: The first Fedora (tm) project. In-Reply-To: <1069426871.16594.6.camel@opus> References: <3FBE2863.8010405@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> <1069426871.16594.6.camel@opus> Message-ID: <3FBE8B06.4060706@drdc-rddc.gc.ca> seth vidal wrote: > On Fri, 2003-11-21 at 09:59, Robin Laing wrote: > >>The Fedora(tm) Project. >> >> >>It looks like there is a Fedora Project that dates back to before Red >>Hat thought of using Fedora. >> >>I don't have the link that lead me to this handy but from what I >>remember, it looks like Red Hat may have to change the name of this >>project. > > > Hi, > I talked with Michael Johnson who is cited as the leader of the fedora > project on the fedora.redhat.com pages. > > He talked with the legal counsel at red hat and got the following info. > > - the fedora.info people haven't tried to take a number of steps to work > it out - they've taken none > - fedora.info was only using f.e.d.o.r.a as an acronym -not as a > trademark > - only after the rh trademark filing did fedora.info assert a trademark > - rh had previously informed uva and cornell that rh would not interfere > with their continued use of the fedora trademark. > - the fedora has been associated with red hat ever since the shadowman > logo was adopted. > > so there is some more exact info. > > it seems to me rh has acted both legally and ethically correct - > especially that they told uva and cornell that they would not interfere > with the use of the term for the fedora.info project. > > -sv > > > > -- > fedora-legacy-list mailing list > fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list > I just read this. Some parts of the article. A team of university researchers says it will oppose Red Hat's attempt to trademark "Fedora," the company's moniker for its new hobbyist Linux line, based on their prior use of the name. "We make no request that they stop using the name...although it is a pain in the neck for us that they use it," he said. "Our support people get requests for their Fedora all the time." The Patent Office lists several other trademark actions relating to "fedora," including a proposed trademark for chemical analysis software. -- Robin Laing From admin at cs.montana.edu Sun Nov 23 02:45:13 2003 From: admin at cs.montana.edu (Lucas Albers) Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 19:45:13 -0700 (MST) Subject: Schedule In-Reply-To: <200311201317.18446.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <3FBCF94D.2060300@wanadoo.es> <20031120203958.GM9978@hemi.math.gatech.edu> <200311201317.18446.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <2988.216.166.133.165.1069555513.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu> Alright some items we need to get cracking on, the necessary steps to get the bits out the door. Everyone done arguing about whether to upgrade rpm or not? I'll upgrade to whatever rpm is required I don't care, I just need fedora legacy to give me time to upgrade my systems. (And support my systems that I can't upgrade...) Do we have a bugzilla database setup? Do we have a test apt-yum/mirror that we will be using as a master server? Do we have a build environment setup? Do we have our master environment, build lab, security hardened? (As you know the debian master servers were compromized recently, and it would be nice if the same thing did not happen to use. While their is no comparison between their volume and our expected volume, it is still an important head's up.) Do we have gpg keys setup for fedora legacy? What is our erratta turnaround going to be? What is our quality control? Do we do a tiered release of updated packages, or all at once? We need announce mailing lists setup for erratta notifications. I believe we need to get a dry-run of fedora-legacy working... --Luke From patms at ev1.net Tue Nov 25 16:01:09 2003 From: patms at ev1.net (Patrick Smith) Date: Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:01:09 -0600 Subject: Interested in helping Message-ID: To whom it may concern: We are interested in sponsoring and or donating to this project and would like to know who we need to contact. Thank you for your time! -- Regards, Patrick Smith Director of Web Hosting Technical Support Everyones Internet/EV1Servers.net patms at ev1.net From harri.haataja at smilehouse.com Wed Nov 26 16:18:33 2003 From: harri.haataja at smilehouse.com (Harri Haataja) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:18:33 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] System In-Reply-To: <200310252154.26518@join.TCLUG.at.www.mn-linux.org> References: <200310252154.26518@join.TCLUG.at.www.mn-linux.org> Message-ID: <20031126161833.GB27458@mail1.smilehouse.com> On Sat, Oct 25, 2003 at 09:54:26PM -0500, Bob Tanner wrote: > On Saturday 25 October 2003 03:51 am, Chuck Wolber wrote: > > > > So it looks like Red Hat's build system may not be ready in time > > > > for our December deadline for 7.3 EOLd. That means we need to > > > > launch with something else. > > > Just courious, given that 7.3 is approaching the 18 month mark and > > > given that last time I looked the wiki said basically 123 out for > > > supporting old versions how long are you guys looking to support > > > 7.3 "officially"?? > > I don't know about "officially". We (as in Quantum Linux Labs) plan > > to support it until all our customers are migrated. How long will > > that be? It'll take as long as it takes... > I can chime on this as well. > The company I work for still has many customers on redhat 6.2. Like > Quantum Linux Labs we will support 7.3 until all our customers are > migrated. I believe Sun still ships their with-Linux lines (like Fire V60x/V65x we have) with 7.x and a driver floppy. From rcaskey at uga.edu Wed Nov 26 18:46:47 2003 From: rcaskey at uga.edu (Rob J. Caskey) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:46:47 -0500 Subject: RFD: Alternative Release Support Message-ID: <1069872407.2939.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> I think that even with the stated goals of Legacy, it is not likely to achieve a sufficiently long EOL for a lot of .edu and the like. Might we possibly discuss the virtues and drawbacks of supporting every other release? Doing so might help concentrate limited legacy people resources and eventually allow for longer EOLs. It seems to me having a legacy-supported release every year is still timely enough for the vast majority of people and might provide a better target for 3rd party backports of server software. Any thoughts? Sincerely, Rob J. Caskey From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Nov 26 18:43:31 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 10:43:31 -0800 Subject: RFD: Alternative Release Support In-Reply-To: <1069872407.2939.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1069872407.2939.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200311261043.35916.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 26 November 2003 10:46, Rob J. Caskey wrote: > I think that even with the stated goals of Legacy, it is not likely > to achieve a sufficiently long EOL for a lot of .edu and the like. > Might we possibly discuss the virtues and drawbacks of supporting > every other release? Doing so might help concentrate limited legacy > people resources and eventually allow for longer EOLs. It seems to me > having a legacy-supported release every year is still timely enough > for the vast majority of people and might provide a better target for > 3rd party backports of server software. This kind of length would directly compete with the RHEL product line, and that is not a goal of Legacy. Educational institutes have HEAVY discounts on RHEL products now, including site licenses with RHN Proxy service included. Legacy's goal is to service the folks that fall in between the rapid pace of Fedora and the enterprise pace of RHEL. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From cannon2 at us.ibm.com Wed Nov 26 19:09:34 2003 From: cannon2 at us.ibm.com (Arthur G Cannon) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:09:34 -0600 Subject: RFD: Alternative Release Support Message-ID: Every other version sounds like a good idea to me. Conentrate the man power. Just be sure to indicate what versions will be the supported ones. As long as the life of the version is at least a year and a half .edu's might be alright. kind regards... Gerard Cannon Cannon2 at US.IBM.com (817)962-6833 "Rob J. Caskey" To: fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com Sent by: cc: fedora-legacy-list-admin Subject: RFD: Alternative Release Support @redhat.com 11/26/2003 12:46 PM Please respond to fedora-legacy-list I think that even with the stated goals of Legacy, it is not likely to achieve a sufficiently long EOL for a lot of .edu and the like. Might we possibly discuss the virtues and drawbacks of supporting every other release? Doing so might help concentrate limited legacy people resources and eventually allow for longer EOLs. It seems to me having a legacy-supported release every year is still timely enough for the vast majority of people and might provide a better target for 3rd party backports of server software. Any thoughts? Sincerely, Rob J. Caskey -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list From xose at wanadoo.es Wed Nov 26 19:22:31 2003 From: xose at wanadoo.es (Xose Vazquez Perez) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 20:22:31 +0100 Subject: RFD: Alternative Release Support References: <1069872407.2939.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200311261043.35916.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <3FC4FD77.8090105@wanadoo.es> Jesse Keating wrote: > This kind of length would directly compete with the RHEL product line, > and that is not a goal of Legacy. Educational institutes have HEAVY > discounts on RHEL products now, including site licenses with RHN Proxy > service included. Legacy's goal is to service the folks that fall in > between the rapid pace of Fedora and the enterprise pace of RHEL. Already there are two projects to build free RHEL clones: caosity http://caosity.org/ White Box Enterprise Linux http://whiteboxlinux.org and a ml: http://www2.uibk.ac.at/zid/software/unix/linux/ -- HTML mails are going to trash automagically From shugal at gmx.de Wed Nov 26 20:01:07 2003 From: shugal at gmx.de (Martin Stricker) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:01:07 +0100 Subject: RFD: Alternative Release Support References: <1069872407.2939.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <3FC50683.61D8FD5F@gmx.de> "Rob J. Caskey" wrote: > > I think that even with the stated goals of Legacy, it is not likely > to achieve a sufficiently long EOL for a lot of .edu and the like. > Might we possibly discuss the virtues and drawbacks of supporting > every other release? Doing so might help concentrate limited legacy > people resources and eventually allow for longer EOLs. Agreed. I'm interested only in the really stable releases anyway (like 5.2, 6.2, and 7.3). Hopefully a FC release will stand up for this as well. Future will show... Best regards, Martin Stricker -- Homepage: http://www.martin-stricker.de/ Linux Migration Project: http://www.linux-migration.org/ Red Hat Linux 9 for low memory: http://www.rule-project.org/ Registered Linux user #210635: http://counter.li.org/ From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Nov 26 20:56:56 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:56:56 -0800 Subject: RFD: Alternative Release Support In-Reply-To: <3FC50683.61D8FD5F@gmx.de> References: <1069872407.2939.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3FC50683.61D8FD5F@gmx.de> Message-ID: <200311261257.00182.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 26 November 2003 12:01, Martin Stricker wrote: > Agreed. I'm interested only in the really stable releases anyway > (like 5.2, 6.2, and 7.3). Hopefully a FC release will stand up for > this as well. Future will show... The current Red Hat Linux releases are special cases to Legacy. Those I want to support until they're pried from our cold dead hands. The FC releases however will only get the 1-2-3-out "official" support from Legacy. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From rcaskey at uga.edu Wed Nov 26 21:19:27 2003 From: rcaskey at uga.edu (Rob J. Caskey) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 16:19:27 -0500 Subject: RFD: Alternative Release Support In-Reply-To: <200311261257.00182.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <1069872407.2939.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3FC50683.61D8FD5F@gmx.de> <200311261257.00182.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <1069881567.2939.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> I think what I am trying to say is that I, along with a lot of other people, would like that policy to change. As no security releases are yet being issued by Legacy, this seems like the time to make such adjustments to policy. Supporting every other release is a purely conservative move, an effort to concentrate limited developer resources, and a move I think that will be beneficial to the OSS community overall. Sincerely, Rob J. Caskey On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 15:56, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 26 November 2003 12:01, Martin Stricker wrote: > > Agreed. I'm interested only in the really stable releases anyway > > (like 5.2, 6.2, and 7.3). Hopefully a FC release will stand up for > > this as well. Future will show... > > The current Red Hat Linux releases are special cases to Legacy. Those I > want to support until they're pried from our cold dead hands. The FC > releases however will only get the 1-2-3-out "official" support from > Legacy. From jkeating at j2solutions.net Wed Nov 26 21:13:53 2003 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 13:13:53 -0800 Subject: RFD: Alternative Release Support In-Reply-To: <1069881567.2939.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1069872407.2939.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200311261257.00182.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <1069881567.2939.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <200311261313.53282.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Wednesday 26 November 2003 13:19, Rob J. Caskey wrote: > I think what I am trying to say is that I, along with a lot of other > people, would like that policy to change. As no security releases are > yet being issued by Legacy, this seems like the time to make such > adjustments to policy. Supporting every other release is a purely > conservative move, an effort to concentrate limited developer > resources, and a move I think that will be beneficial to the OSS > community overall. We had discussed this before, and it didn't seem to get a whole lot of approval. I suppose we can discuss again, but it's getting really late in the game, especially when we're about to make a press-release. -- Jesse Keating RHCE MCSE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedora.us/wiki/FedoraLegacy) Mondo DevTeam (www.mondorescue.org) GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: signature URL: From rcaskey at uga.edu Wed Nov 26 22:02:03 2003 From: rcaskey at uga.edu (Rob J. Caskey) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:02:03 -0500 Subject: RFD: Alternative Release Support In-Reply-To: <200311261313.53282.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <1069872407.2939.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200311261257.00182.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <1069881567.2939.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200311261313.53282.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <1069884123.2939.63.camel@localhost.localdomain> Hold the presses! But seriously, I think the pluses and minuses are pretty clear, perhaps a little informal poll could help us clarify the needs of Legacy users? Where would be the best place for such a poll? Sincerely, Rob J. Caskey On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 16:13, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 26 November 2003 13:19, Rob J. Caskey wrote: > > I think what I am trying to say is that I, along with a lot of other > > people, would like that policy to change. As no security releases are > > yet being issued by Legacy, this seems like the time to make such > > adjustments to policy. Supporting every other release is a purely > > conservative move, an effort to concentrate limited developer > > resources, and a move I think that will be beneficial to the OSS > > community overall. > > We had discussed this before, and it didn't seem to get a whole lot of > approval. I suppose we can discuss again, but it's getting really late > in the game, especially when we're about to make a press-release. From smoogen at lanl.gov Wed Nov 26 22:38:12 2003 From: smoogen at lanl.gov (Stephen Smoogen) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 15:38:12 -0700 Subject: RFD: Alternative Release Support In-Reply-To: <1069884123.2939.63.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1069872407.2939.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200311261257.00182.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <1069881567.2939.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200311261313.53282.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <1069884123.2939.63.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1069886292.9685.12.camel@smoogen1.lanl.gov> On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 15:02, Rob J. Caskey wrote: > Hold the presses! But seriously, I think the pluses and minuses are > pretty clear, perhaps a little informal poll could help us clarify the > needs of Legacy users? Where would be the best place for such a poll? > > Sincerely, > Rob J. Caskey > pluses: allows for many releases to have support for a long time minuses: every release supported will require more engineering support and time into doing it. The number of current coding volunteers is small. > On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 16:13, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Wednesday 26 November 2003 13:19, Rob J. Caskey wrote: > > > I think what I am trying to say is that I, along with a lot of other > > > people, would like that policy to change. As no security releases are > > > yet being issued by Legacy, this seems like the time to make such > > > adjustments to policy. Supporting every other release is a purely > > > conservative move, an effort to concentrate limited developer > > > resources, and a move I think that will be beneficial to the OSS > > > community overall. > > > > We had discussed this before, and it didn't seem to get a whole lot of > > approval. I suppose we can discuss again, but it's getting really late > > in the game, especially when we're about to make a press-release. > > > -- > fedora-legacy-list mailing list > fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list -- Stephen John Smoogen smoogen at lanl.gov Los Alamos National Lab CCN-5 Sched 5/40 PH: 4-0645 Ta-03 SM-1498 MailStop B255 DP 10S Los Alamos, NM 87545 -- So shines a good deed in a weary world. = Willy Wonka -- From mikko at ipi.fi Wed Nov 26 22:56:08 2003 From: mikko at ipi.fi (Mikko Paananen) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 00:56:08 +0200 Subject: RFD: Alternative Release Support In-Reply-To: <1069872407.2939.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1069872407.2939.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1069887368.15249.196.camel@death.local> Rob J. Caskey wrote: > I think that even with the stated goals of Legacy, it is not likely to > achieve a sufficiently long EOL for a lot of .edu and the like. Might we > possibly discuss the virtues and drawbacks of supporting every other > release? Doing so might help concentrate limited legacy people resources > and eventually allow for longer EOLs. It seems to me having a > legacy-supported release every year is still timely enough for the vast > majority of people and might provide a better target for 3rd party > backports of server software. Fedora Core 1 should stay supported for some time, considering it will be last release using now stable 2.4 kernel series and someone might want to use Fedora as server. According plans, Fedora Core Release 2 should have 2.6.x kernel that _will_ be somewhat problematic at beginning (during last releases Linux kernel proved to be stable around x.x.13 - 18.) So those who want stable environment need to upgrade their systems least to Core Release 3 or 4. (Maybe skip early 2.6.x kernels.) Therefore release 2 long term maintenance is not as important as fc1 or later releases. Same applies to other big updates as well, when there some day will be glibc 2.4 version, last Core release using glibc 2.3.x should also be maintained longer than usual. From ingo at auroralinux.org Thu Nov 27 05:09:05 2003 From: ingo at auroralinux.org (Ingo T. Storm) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 06:09:05 +0100 Subject: RFD: Alternative Release Support References: <1069872407.2939.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1069887368.15249.196.camel@death.local> Message-ID: <004401c3b4a4$adbdf710$022ca8c0@OPTIMUS> > Fedora Core 1 should stay supported for some time, considering it will > be last release using now stable 2.4 kernel series and someone might > want to use Fedora as server. > > Same applies to other big updates as well, when there some day will be > glibc 2.4 version, last Core release using glibc 2.3.x should also be > maintained longer than usual. Most sensible reasoning so far, I think - from an admin point of view. Time will tell if there are enough coders around to make it real. Ingo From harri.haataja at smilehouse.com Thu Nov 27 13:30:32 2003 From: harri.haataja at smilehouse.com (Harri Haataja) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 15:30:32 +0200 Subject: [Fedora-legacy-list] Re: System In-Reply-To: <1691.153.90.196.197.1067981500.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu> References: <3FA80E86.9070801@jlab.org> <1691.153.90.196.197.1067981500.squirrel@lists.cs.montana.edu> Message-ID: <20031127133030.GA18239@mail1.smilehouse.com> On Tue, Nov 04, 2003 at 02:31:40PM -0700, Lucas Albers wrote: > > Warren Togami wrote: > > I would further suggest our policy include two additional clarifications: > > > > * If we must fix bugs which are not security-related, fix the > > high priority items that cause work stoppage, data loss, etc. > > Don't fix unimportant bugs (simple cosmetic items, rarely used > > features, etc). Let those be fixed in newer Fedora releases. > > * Don't add new features no matter how popular they are, unless > > they are necessary to resolve security or high-priority > > functionality bugs. Good. > If it's a bug and no one encounters it, who cares. The ones who _will_ hit the bug because it has not been fixed. http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?IfItIsWorkingDontChange The stupid "IfItAintBrokeDontFixIt" is mostly an antipattern. Maintenance is a good thing. But stable version of a product indeed do not neccessarily need new features. These are two different things. Not a flame or anything, just rephrasing. -- The most common error message we got from a modula II compiler that I used at an other company was "Unexpected ';', expecting ';'" -- Rick Clements From shurdeek at routehat.org Thu Nov 27 13:44:34 2003 From: shurdeek at routehat.org (Peter Surda) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 14:44:34 +0100 Subject: RFD: Alternative Release Support In-Reply-To: <1069886292.9685.12.camel@smoogen1.lanl.gov> References: <1069872407.2939.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200311261257.00182.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <1069881567.2939.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200311261313.53282.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <1069884123.2939.63.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1069886292.9685.12.camel@smoogen1.lanl.gov> Message-ID: <20031127134433.GA11310@chloe.cb.ac.at> On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 03:38:12PM -0700, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > pluses: allows for many releases to have support for a long time > minuses: every release supported will require more engineering support and > time into doing it. The number of current coding volunteers is small. I volunteer and know 2 other guys who could help (we were actually planning of doing something like this before we realized fedora legacy was there). Each of us need this for maintaining numerous decentralized deployments of Red Hat Linux, where frequent upgrades or migrations are out of question (noone would pay for them), and all of us have practical experience building own rpm packages, and have our own machines to test it. I wouldn't worry about developer availability, but as one of the previous posters mentioned, about RH not being happy with this competing with Red Hat Enterprise Linux. Where do I apply, is some formal application necessary? Bye, Peter Surda (Shurdeek) , ICQ 10236103, +436505122023 -- It's not a bug, it's tradition! From rcaskey at uga.edu Thu Nov 27 16:14:00 2003 From: rcaskey at uga.edu (Rob J. Caskey) Date: Thu, 27 Nov 2003 11:14:00 -0500 Subject: RFD: Alternative Release Support In-Reply-To: <20031127134433.GA11310@chloe.cb.ac.at> References: <1069872407.2939.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200311261257.00182.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <1069881567.2939.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200311261313.53282.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <1069884123.2939.63.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1069886292.9685.12.camel@smoogen1.lanl.gov> <20031127134433.GA11310@chloe.cb.ac.at> Message-ID: <1069949640.2726.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> I created a page on the wiki: http://www.fedora.us/wiki/EveryOtherRelease?action=edit It would be nice if everyone just put their name down under yay or nay so we can see how many people are going in which direction. -Rob On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 08:44, Peter Surda wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 03:38:12PM -0700, Stephen Smoogen wrote: > > pluses: allows for many releases to have support for a long time > > minuses: every release supported will require more engineering support and > > time into doing it. The number of current coding volunteers is small. > I volunteer and know 2 other guys who could help (we were actually planning of > doing something like this before we realized fedora legacy was there). Each of > us need this for maintaining numerous decentralized deployments of Red Hat > Linux, where frequent upgrades or migrations are out of question (noone would > pay for them), and all of us have practical experience building own rpm > packages, and have our own machines to test it. > > I wouldn't worry about developer availability, but as one of the previous > posters mentioned, about RH not being happy with this competing with Red Hat > Enterprise Linux. > > Where do I apply, is some formal application necessary? > > Bye, > > Peter Surda (Shurdeek) , ICQ 10236103, +436505122023 From fedoraleg_form at mm-vanecek.cc Sat Nov 29 03:45:40 2003 From: fedoraleg_form at mm-vanecek.cc (Mike Vanecek) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 21:45:40 -0600 Subject: RFD: Alternative Release Support In-Reply-To: <200311261257.00182.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <1069872407.2939.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <3FC50683.61D8FD5F@gmx.de> <200311261257.00182.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <20031129034507.M49541@mm-vanecek.cc> On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 12:56:56 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote > On Wednesday 26 November 2003 12:01, Martin Stricker wrote: > > Agreed. I'm interested only in the really stable releases anyway > > (like 5.2, 6.2, and 7.3). Hopefully a FC release will stand up for > > this as well. Future will show... > > The current Red Hat Linux releases are special cases to Legacy. > Those I want to support until they're pried from our cold dead > hands. Thank you, thank you, thank you. From warren at togami.com Fri Nov 28 23:13:03 2003 From: warren at togami.com (Warren Togami) Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 13:13:03 -1000 Subject: RFD: Alternative Release Support In-Reply-To: <1069949640.2726.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1069872407.2939.18.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200311261257.00182.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <1069881567.2939.38.camel@localhost.localdomain> <200311261313.53282.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <1069884123.2939.63.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1069886292.9685.12.camel@smoogen1.lanl.gov> <20031127134433.GA11310@chloe.cb.ac.at> <1069949640.2726.0.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1070061182.7000.13.camel@laptop> On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 06:14, Rob J. Caskey wrote: > I created a page on the wiki: > > http://www.fedora.us/wiki/EveryOtherRelease?action=edit > > It would be nice if everyone just put their name down under yay or nay > so we can see how many people are going in which direction. > > -Rob It is my opinion that it is way too early to make this kind of decision now. We cannot possibly know about the state of the software by the time FC3 becomes EOL, and the status of volunteers. Rob may well be right in the stated underlying assumptions, but let us make that determination when the time draws nearer. Warren