From rostetter at mail.utexas.edu Mon Nov 1 03:24:02 2004 From: rostetter at mail.utexas.edu (Eric Rostetter) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 21:24:02 -0600 Subject: installing yum In-Reply-To: <004c01c4bf8c$e440b8b0$330a0a0a@hal> References: <004c01c4bf8c$e440b8b0$330a0a0a@hal> Message-ID: <1099279442.d0aeb796e86e7@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Quoting David Anthrope : > I have an RH9 system that I want to configure to use yum > (which I want to auto-update my system with Fedora Legacy's updates). > > I am reading intently, beginning with the setup How-To at > http://fedoralegacy.org/docs/yum-rh9.php So far, so good. > Unfortunately my system is responding with the following error: > > Retrieving > http://download.fedora.us/fedora/redhat/9/i386/RPMS.stable/yum-2.0.3-0.fdr.1 > .rh90.noarch.rpm > error: skipping > http://download.fedora.us/fedora/redhat/9/i386/RPMS.stable/yum-2.0.3-0.fdr.1 > .rh90.noarch.rpm - transfer failed - Unknown or unexpected error For what ever reason(s) download.fedora.us is currently down. My only suggestions are to either wait until it comes up, or try to find a mirror site for it. > I tried to poke around and find the package manually but to no avail. > > Can some kind soul PLEASE point me to the proper place? Sorry, I don't know any mirrors off hand. Best I can offer is to wait until the site comes back up, or until Fedora Legacy releases a FL version. > Regards, > -- > David Anthrope > mailto://David at DAnthrope.com > http://www.DAnthrope.com > -- > > > -- > fedora-legacy-list mailing list > fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list > -- Eric Rostetter From wilson at wilsonch.gotdns.com Mon Nov 1 03:43:04 2004 From: wilson at wilsonch.gotdns.com (Wilson) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:43:04 -1000 Subject: installing yum In-Reply-To: <1099279442.d0aeb796e86e7@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Message-ID: <200411010343.iA13h9kM011493@ms-smtp-01-eri0.socal.rr.com> A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7m Type: application/x-pkcs7-mime Size: 4811 bytes Desc: not available URL: From wilson at wilsonch.gotdns.com Mon Nov 1 03:59:47 2004 From: wilson at wilsonch.gotdns.com (Wilson) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2004 17:59:47 -1000 Subject: installing yum Message-ID: <200411010359.iA13xtuY014851@ms-smtp-03-eri0.socal.rr.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Wilson [mailto:wilson at wilsonch.gotdns.com] > Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 5:43 PM > To: 'Discussion of the Fedora Legacy Project' > Subject: RE: installing yum > > > For what ever reason(s) download.fedora.us is currently down. My only > > suggestions are to either wait until it comes up, or try to find a > mirror > > site for it. [Wilson ] Fedora.us runs off the University of Hawaii. It seems that the heavy rain and flooding in that area is causing network outages. Looks like the entire University's external is down. From tdiehl at rogueind.com Mon Nov 1 05:24:05 2004 From: tdiehl at rogueind.com (Tom Diehl) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 00:24:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: installing yum In-Reply-To: <200411010359.iA13xtuY014851@ms-smtp-03-eri0.socal.rr.com> References: <200411010359.iA13xtuY014851@ms-smtp-03-eri0.socal.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, Wilson wrote: > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wilson [mailto:wilson at wilsonch.gotdns.com] > > Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 5:43 PM > > To: 'Discussion of the Fedora Legacy Project' > > Subject: RE: installing yum > > > > > For what ever reason(s) download.fedora.us is currently down. My only > > > suggestions are to either wait until it comes up, or try to find a > > mirror > > > site for it. > [Wilson ] > Fedora.us runs off the University of Hawaii. It seems that the heavy rain > and flooding in that area is causing network outages. Looks like the > entire University's external is down. Warren posted to fedora-devel that the server room that fedora.us lives in was flooded. IIRC he said that fedora.us was back up but the power was still unstable, so how knows for sure. The build system, etc. are down for the time being. :-) Tom From dom at earth.li Mon Nov 1 14:52:07 2004 From: dom at earth.li (Dominic Hargreaves) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 14:52:07 +0000 Subject: Bugzilla down (was Re: installing yum) In-Reply-To: <200411010359.iA13xtuY014851@ms-smtp-03-eri0.socal.rr.com> References: <200411010359.iA13xtuY014851@ms-smtp-03-eri0.socal.rr.com> Message-ID: <20041101145207.GH15895@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> On Sun, Oct 31, 2004 at 05:59:47PM -1000, Wilson wrote: > Fedora.us runs off the University of Hawaii. It seems that the heavy rain > and flooding in that area is causing network outages. Looks like the > entire University's external is down. http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-October/msg01634.html: "fedora.us Bugzilla and build system is down for an indeterminate amount of time." Would this be a good opportunity to migrate to Red Hat's bugzilla? Cheers, Dominic. From sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu Mon Nov 1 15:25:50 2004 From: sheltren at cs.ucsb.edu (Jeff Sheltren) Date: Mon, 01 Nov 2004 07:25:50 -0800 Subject: Bugzilla down (was Re: installing yum) In-Reply-To: <20041101145207.GH15895@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> Message-ID: Ouch! Good luck getting everything back online, Warren. IMO, I'd say moving over to RedHat's bugzilla (have they offered this to us?) would complicate searches, etc. a bit. I'd prefer to have our own Legacy bugzilla somewhere if possible. -Jeff On 11/1/04 6:52 AM, "Dominic Hargreaves" wrote: > On Sun, Oct 31, 2004 at 05:59:47PM -1000, Wilson wrote: > >> Fedora.us runs off the University of Hawaii. It seems that the heavy rain >> and flooding in that area is causing network outages. Looks like the >> entire University's external is down. > > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2004-October/msg01634.html: > > "fedora.us Bugzilla and build system is down for an indeterminate amount > of time." > > Would this be a good opportunity to migrate to Red Hat's bugzilla? > > Cheers, > > Dominic. > > -- > fedora-legacy-list mailing list > fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list From dom at earth.li Mon Nov 1 15:29:01 2004 From: dom at earth.li (Dominic Hargreaves) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 15:29:01 +0000 Subject: Bugzilla down (was Re: installing yum) In-Reply-To: References: <20041101145207.GH15895@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> Message-ID: <20041101152901.GI15895@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 07:25:50AM -0800, Jeff Sheltren wrote: > IMO, I'd say moving over to RedHat's bugzilla (have they offered this to > us?) would complicate searches, etc. a bit. I'd prefer to have our own > Legacy bugzilla somewhere if possible. I don't see why it should. We already have a separate product in the fedora.us bugzilla. If anything it makes life easier as people can move bugs to the Legacy product on EOL, rather than having to clone them between systems. Also the Red Hat bugzilla would allow us to track non-public issues as it is set up to have private bugs. Maintaining a bugzilla just for FL would be a waste of effort, IMO. This isn't out of the blue - AIUI Jesse is already planning a move. Cheers, Dominic. From simon at nzservers.com Mon Nov 1 15:34:16 2004 From: simon at nzservers.com (Simon Weller) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 09:34:16 -0600 Subject: Bugzilla down (was Re: installing yum) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <200411010934.16493.simon@nzservers.com> On Monday 01 November 2004 09:25 am, Jeff Sheltren wrote: > Ouch! Good luck getting everything back online, Warren. > > IMO, I'd say moving over to RedHat's bugzilla (have they offered this to > us?) would complicate searches, etc. a bit. I'd prefer to have our own > Legacy bugzilla somewhere if possible. > > -Jeff Obviously I'm a bit behind the play of this as well...has Redhat offered this to us? What advantages would that have for us (except the obvious such as a very stable bugzilla platform) over our own bugzilla? - Si -- Simon Weller LPIC-2 Systems Engineer NZServers LTD http://www.nzservers.com/ U.S. Branch <- To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. - Scott Granneman, Security Focus -> From simon at nzservers.com Mon Nov 1 15:43:07 2004 From: simon at nzservers.com (Simon Weller) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 09:43:07 -0600 Subject: Bugzilla down (was Re: installing yum) In-Reply-To: <20041101152901.GI15895@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> References: <20041101145207.GH15895@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> <20041101152901.GI15895@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> Message-ID: <200411010943.07337.simon@nzservers.com> On Monday 01 November 2004 09:29 am, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 07:25:50AM -0800, Jeff Sheltren wrote: > > IMO, I'd say moving over to RedHat's bugzilla (have they offered this to > > us?) would complicate searches, etc. a bit. I'd prefer to have our own > > Legacy bugzilla somewhere if possible. > > I don't see why it should. We already have a separate product in the > fedora.us bugzilla. If anything it makes life easier as people can move > bugs to the Legacy product on EOL, rather than having to clone them > between systems. Also the Red Hat bugzilla would allow us to track > non-public issues as it is set up to have private bugs. Maintaining a > bugzilla just for FL would be a waste of effort, IMO. Sounds like a plan then! - Si > > This isn't out of the blue - AIUI Jesse is already planning a move. > > Cheers, > > Dominic. -- Simon Weller LPIC-2 Systems Engineer NZServers LTD http://www.nzservers.com/ U.S. Branch <- To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. - Scott Granneman, Security Focus -> From lbirkhahn at adomo.com Mon Nov 1 18:59:59 2004 From: lbirkhahn at adomo.com (Lutz Birkhahn) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 10:59:59 -0800 Subject: lslR in the download tree In-Reply-To: <200410310215.25628.jkeating@j2solutions.net> References: <1099138245.4788.55.camel@athlon.localdomain> <1099216742.4808.3.camel@athlon.localdomain> <200410310215.25628.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <200411011059.59420@lutz-dt.adomo.com> Jesse Keating wrote: > I just put this up today, wanted to get opinions of the list before I made > it a link and incorporated it into my upload scripts. The tree looks nice!! *But*: I personally think a "find . -print" would be more useful. The problem is that the tree only has the file name in every line, not the whole path. So if you grep through the file, say, you wanna find where the nss_ldap package is ("grep nss_ldap tree"), you only get the answer "yes, that file is there, and it's called nss_ldap-207-3.src.rpm etc., but you still don't know where it is. Even if you load the tree file into an editor and do a search, you have to scroll up many pages before you find the complete path of the file (usually skipping 1 or 2 paths if you scroll too fast, so that answer is wrong quite often). If you go to the root directory and do a "find . -print" (or optionally a "find . -ls" if you want all the file attributes as well, equivalent to the ls-lR) and grep for nss_ldap, you get all the occurences including the com- plete path for each of them... It might take up a little bit more space, but that could easily be solved by gzipping the file (=> faster download, too). Just my $0.02 /lutz From mattdm at mattdm.org Mon Nov 1 21:27:49 2004 From: mattdm at mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:27:49 -0500 Subject: Bugzilla down (was Re: installing yum) In-Reply-To: <20041101152901.GI15895@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> References: <20041101145207.GH15895@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> <20041101152901.GI15895@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> Message-ID: <20041101212749.GA22961@jadzia.bu.edu> On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 03:29:01PM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > I don't see why it should. We already have a separate product in the > fedora.us bugzilla. If anything it makes life easier as people can move > bugs to the Legacy product on EOL, rather than having to clone them > between systems. Also the Red Hat bugzilla would allow us to track > non-public issues as it is set up to have private bugs. Maintaining a > bugzilla just for FL would be a waste of effort, IMO. And we could maybe have separate components for each package? Pretty please? :) -- Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org Boston University Linux ------> From deisenst at gtw.net Mon Nov 1 21:48:41 2004 From: deisenst at gtw.net (David Eisenstein) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 15:48:41 -0600 Subject: Fw: installing yum Message-ID: <00a301c4c05c$9dd73ef0$0100a8c0@homedns.org> Hi David, Since fedora.us is still down -- a google search of 'fedora.us mirrors' yielded the Fedora Wiki - Fedora Mirror List. Google's cache of that page is < http://64.233.167.104/search?hl=en&lr=&q=cache%3Awww.fedora.us%2Fwiki%2FFedoraMirrorList&btnG=Search >. A possible location for the yum RPM you are looking for is: < http://mirrors.usc.edu/pub/linux/fedora/fedora/redhat/9/i386/RPMS.stable/yum-2.0.3-0.fdr.1.rh90.noarch.rpm >. Hope this helped. -David ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Anthrope" To: Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 3:02 PM Subject: installing yum ... To install yum, use the following command as the root user on your machine: # rpm -ivh http://download.fedora.us/fedora/redhat/9/i386/RPMS.stable/yum-2.0.3-0.fdr.1.rh90.noarch.rpm ... Can some kind soul PLEASE point me to the proper place? Regards, -- David Anthrope mailto://David at DAnthrope.com http://www.DAnthrope.com From David at DAnthrope.com Mon Nov 1 23:04:34 2004 From: David at DAnthrope.com (David Anthrope) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:04:34 -0500 Subject: installing yum In-Reply-To: <009801c4c05c$0b1c1310$0100a8c0@homedns.org> Message-ID: <016801c4c067$2754a640$330a0a0a@hal> Thanks to all who replied with suggestions. I found a later version on RedHat's site and have installed and configured it without too much concern (other than the missing key warning). So I'm officially a huge fan of the Fedora Legacy project as I can feel safe about my RH9 servers again! THANKS to all - the world could learn a lesson or two from "community efforts" such as Fedora. peace /D > -----Original Message----- > From: Dave Eisenstein [mailto:c438421 at twinkie.homedns.org] > Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 4:45 PM > To: David at DAnthrope.com > Cc: Discussion of the Fedora Legacy Project > Subject: Re: installing yum > > > Hi David, > > A google search of 'fedora.us mirrors' > yielded the Fedora Wiki - Fedora Mirror List. Google's cache > of that page is < > http://64.233.167.104/search?hl=en&lr=&q=cache%3Awww.fedora.us %2Fwiki%2FFedoraMirrorList&btnG=Search >. A possible location for the yum RPM you are looking for is: < http://mirrors.usc.edu/pub/linux/fedora/fedora/redhat/9/i386/RPMS.stable/yum -2.0.3-0.fdr.1.rh90.noarch.rpm >. Hope this helped. -David ----- Original Message ----- From: "David Anthrope" To: Sent: Sunday, October 31, 2004 3:02 PM Subject: installing yum ... To install yum, use the following command as the root user on your machine: # rpm -ivh http://download.fedora.us/fedora/redhat/9/i386/RPMS.stable/yum-2.0.3-0.fdr.1 .rh90.noarch.rpm ... Can some kind soul PLEASE point me to the proper place? Regards, -- David Anthrope mailto://David at DAnthrope.com http://www.DAnthrope.com From David at DAnthrope.com Mon Nov 1 23:06:18 2004 From: David at DAnthrope.com (David Anthrope) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 18:06:18 -0500 Subject: guesses on RH9 support lifetime? In-Reply-To: <009801c4c05c$0b1c1310$0100a8c0@homedns.org> Message-ID: <017001c4c067$64ff3d70$330a0a0a@hal> I'm just curious if those more in the know than I might have some notion as to how long support for RH9 will be available. I see the notices about RH7-8 gone, so it got me wondering how soon I'd have to migrate off RH. Peace /D -- David Anthrope mailto://David at DAnthrope.com http://www.DAnthrope.com -- From dom at earth.li Mon Nov 1 23:46:33 2004 From: dom at earth.li (Dominic Hargreaves) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 23:46:33 +0000 Subject: guesses on RH9 support lifetime? In-Reply-To: <017001c4c067$64ff3d70$330a0a0a@hal> References: <009801c4c05c$0b1c1310$0100a8c0@homedns.org> <017001c4c067$64ff3d70$330a0a0a@hal> Message-ID: <20041101234633.GM15895@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 06:06:18PM -0500, David Anthrope wrote: > I'm just curious if those more in the know than I might > have some notion as to how long support for RH9 will be > available. I see the notices about RH7-8 gone, so it > got me wondering how soon I'd have to migrate off RH. The website states: "For supported Red Hat Linux releases, we will continue to issue back-port security or critical fixes for as long as there is community interest, but for at least another 1.5 years from their official Red Hat End of Life." so for Red Hat 9 this would mean 1st November 2005. This could *easily* slip though; it really does depend entirely on how community interest keeps up. (Red Hat 7.3 is still supported by us at present). Cheers, Dominic. From michal at harddata.com Mon Nov 1 23:58:55 2004 From: michal at harddata.com (Michal Jaegermann) Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2004 16:58:55 -0700 Subject: guesses on RH9 support lifetime? In-Reply-To: <017001c4c067$64ff3d70$330a0a0a@hal>; from David@DAnthrope.com on Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 06:06:18PM -0500 References: <009801c4c05c$0b1c1310$0100a8c0@homedns.org> <017001c4c067$64ff3d70$330a0a0a@hal> Message-ID: <20041101165855.A23302@mail.harddata.com> On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 06:06:18PM -0500, David Anthrope wrote: > I see the notices about RH7-8 gone, Really? How about this one? Advisory ID: FLSA:2089 Issue date: 2004-10-27 ^^^^ ..... 2. Relevant releases/architectures: Red Hat Linux 7.3 - i386 Red Hat Linux 9 - i386 Fedora Core 1 - i386 ..... > so it got me wondering how soon I'd have to migrate off RH. It very much depends on you. As long as there is enough of people willing to maintain the given code then in could/would be maintained. Nobody can order you to stop. If you are asking for how long _others_ will be doing that - well, who knows? Not enough of "bodies" were interested in RH8 to keep it. In any case it is not that different from RH9, which is in many aspects better done than RH8, so updating is here a rather simple solution. Michal From David at DAnthrope.com Tue Nov 2 13:51:53 2004 From: David at DAnthrope.com (David Anthrope) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 08:51:53 -0500 Subject: guesses on RH9 support lifetime? In-Reply-To: <20041101165855.A23302@mail.harddata.com> Message-ID: <018201c4c0e3$1c6de5d0$330a0a0a@hal> > On Mon, Nov 01, 2004 at 06:06:18PM -0500, David Anthrope wrote: > > I see the notices about RH7-8 gone, > > Really? How about this one? > > Advisory ID: FLSA:2089 > Issue date: 2004-10-27 My bad - I misread the notice. > It very much depends on you. As long as there is enough of > people willing to maintain the given code then in could/would > be maintained. Nobody can order you to stop. If you are > asking for how long _others_ will be doing that - well, who knows? I was just asking for opinions/guesses. Yes I read the FAQ so I know the official stance, I was only curious how long people thought it might last. > Not enough of "bodies" were interested in RH8 to keep it. In > any case it is not that different from RH9, which is in many > aspects better done than RH8, so updating is here a rather > simple solution. Thank You -- David Anthrope mailto://David at DAnthrope.com http://www.DAnthrope.com -- From jpdalbec at ysu.edu Tue Nov 2 18:14:58 2004 From: jpdalbec at ysu.edu (John Dalbec) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 13:14:58 -0500 Subject: ImageMagick Remote EXIF Parsing Buffer Overflow Message-ID: <4187CEA2.1040204@ysu.edu> From the @RISK digest (I'd post a bug, but Bugzilla's down): 04.43.24 CVE: Not Available Platform: Cross Platform Title: ImageMagick Remote EXIF Parsing Buffer Overflow Description: ImageMagick is an image manipulation program. It is reported to be vulnerable to a remote buffer overflow issue. The vulnerability exists due to improper boundary checks. All ImageMagick versions prior to 6.1.2 are reported to be vulnerable. Ref: http://secunia.com/advisories/12995/ From simon at nzservers.com Tue Nov 2 18:52:11 2004 From: simon at nzservers.com (Simon Weller) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 12:52:11 -0600 Subject: ImageMagick Remote EXIF Parsing Buffer Overflow In-Reply-To: <4187CEA2.1040204@ysu.edu> References: <4187CEA2.1040204@ysu.edu> Message-ID: <200411021252.11672.simon@nzservers.com> On Tuesday 02 November 2004 12:14 pm, John Dalbec wrote: > From the @RISK digest (I'd post a bug, but Bugzilla's down): > > 04.43.24 CVE: Not Available > Platform: Cross Platform > Title: ImageMagick Remote EXIF Parsing Buffer Overflow > Description: ImageMagick is an image manipulation program. It is > reported to be vulnerable to a remote buffer overflow issue. The > vulnerability exists due to improper boundary checks. All ImageMagick > versions prior to 6.1.2 are reported to be vulnerable. > Ref: http://secunia.com/advisories/12995/ > > -- > fedora-legacy-list mailing list > fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list This has yet to appear on the Redhat bugzilla, and Gentoo have just added the latest version to portage, so we don't have a patch for 5.x at this point in time. As soon as we have a consensus on one, I'll post new packages for 7.3. - Si -- Simon Weller LPIC-2 Systems Engineer NZServers LTD http://www.nzservers.com/ U.S. Branch <- To mess up a Linux box, you need to work at it; to mess up your Windows box, you just need to work on it. - Scott Granneman, Security Focus -> From David at DAnthrope.com Tue Nov 2 21:10:22 2004 From: David at DAnthrope.com (David Anthrope) Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2004 16:10:22 -0500 Subject: error running yum update for the first time Message-ID: <01de01c4c120$5ddceb50$330a0a0a@hal> I have a newly installed RH9 system (meaning I just installed RH9 out of the box, clean, and have no updates applied), and I've installed yum and told it to update. After looking for dependencies, yum says it needs to install libao (0.8.3-3.i386) and prompts me y/n to which I respond y of course. Then it returns an error: error: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: MD5 digest: BAD Expected(long-hex-string) != (other-long-hex-string) It then continues along installing other things but eventually returns several other errors (which I'm presuming probably result from the initial error). Can anyone offer me some insight? I'm guessing that my "virgin RH9" install is lacking some stuff needed to let yum do it's thang. If someone can offer some insight into what's needed to bring an out-of-the-box-RH9 up to snuff I'd be tremendously appreciative. -- David Anthrope mailto://David at DAnthrope.com http://www.DAnthrope.com -- From skvidal at phy.duke.edu Tue Nov 2 22:07:25 2004 From: skvidal at phy.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 17:07:25 -0500 Subject: error running yum update for the first time In-Reply-To: <01de01c4c120$5ddceb50$330a0a0a@hal> References: <01de01c4c120$5ddceb50$330a0a0a@hal> Message-ID: <1099433245.8403.0.camel@binkley> On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 16:10 -0500, David Anthrope wrote: > I have a newly installed RH9 system (meaning I just installed RH9 > out of the box, clean, and have no updates applied), > and I've installed yum and told it to update. > > After looking for dependencies, yum says it needs to > install libao (0.8.3-3.i386) and prompts me y/n > to which I respond y of course. > Then it returns an error: > error: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: MD5 digest: BAD > Expected(long-hex-string) != (other-long-hex-string) > > It then continues along installing other things > but eventually returns several other errors (which I'm presuming > probably result from the initial error). > > Can anyone offer me some insight? You need to provide the full errors you see before I can even begin to take a guess. -sv From skvidal at phy.duke.edu Tue Nov 2 22:10:05 2004 From: skvidal at phy.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2004 17:10:05 -0500 Subject: error running yum update for the first time In-Reply-To: <01df01c4c120$c450f250$330a0a0a@hal> References: <01df01c4c120$c450f250$330a0a0a@hal> Message-ID: <1099433405.8403.2.camel@binkley> On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 16:13 -0500, David Anthrope wrote: > > On Tue, 2004-11-02 at 16:10 -0500, David Anthrope wrote: > > > I have a newly installed RH9 system (meaning I just > > installed RH9 out > > > of the box, clean, and have no updates applied), and I've installed > > > yum and told it to update. > > > > > > After looking for dependencies, yum says it needs to > > > install libao (0.8.3-3.i386) and prompts me y/n > > > to which I respond y of course. > > > Then it returns an error: > > > error: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: MD5 digest: BAD > > > Expected(long-hex-string) != (other-long-hex-string) > > > > > > It then continues along installing other things > > > but eventually returns several other errors (which I'm presuming > > > probably result from the initial error). > > > > > > Can anyone offer me some insight? > > > > You need to provide the full errors you see before I can even > > begin to take a guess. > > > > You need more than the initial > error: rpmts_HdrFromFdno: MD5 digest: BAD > Expected(long-hex-string) != (other-long-hex-string) > ? > > Does yum keep a log file of it's errors somewhere? > 1. always respond to the list 2. Typically the errors are only outputted to stderr - b/c many of them come from w/i the rpm install, not from yum. -sv From elvislives at gmx.net Wed Nov 3 09:34:37 2004 From: elvislives at gmx.net (Elvis) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 09:34:37 +0000 Subject: Yum repository compatibility In-Reply-To: <01de01c4c120$5ddceb50$330a0a0a@hal> References: <01de01c4c120$5ddceb50$330a0a0a@hal> Message-ID: <4188A62D.3080705@gmx.net> Hello everyone Does anyone know of a definitive compatibility list for yum? There are more and more different repos all over the place, some warning not to mix with repo xyz - this can get confusing and trying to keep a stable, up to date box! Could someone point me to a list? or if there are a lot of replies to this, I could make one. Thanks -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 254 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From rob.myers at gtri.gatech.edu Wed Nov 3 16:08:26 2004 From: rob.myers at gtri.gatech.edu (Rob Myers) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 11:08:26 -0500 Subject: FL bug #2164 (in lieu of bugzilla) Message-ID: <1099498106.7513.39.camel@rXm-581b.stl.gtri.gatech.edu> i figured i'd just post this package to QA announcement to the mailing list since bugzilla is still down. is that appropriate? rob. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Here is an updated kdepgraphics package to QA for rh9: this package should fix: - - CAN-2004-0803,0803,0886 kdefax libtiff remote code execution - - compilation under mach changelog: * Fri Oct 29 2004 Rob Myers 3.1-5.1.legacy - - add fix to link against system libtiff CAN-2004-0886 (FL #2164) - - add BuildRequires: autoconf automake arts-devel gnome-libs-devel - - to build in mach: mach chroot "'(cd /usr/lib ; ln -s libart_lgpl_2.so.2 libart_lgpl_2.so)'" - - change %ifarch %{scanner_archs} to %ifnarch s390 s390x - - add BuildRequires: libusb-devel sha1sums: 7ccb38fa7f1408266b5d0e1654703b03d21994a6 kdegraphics-3.1-5.1.legacy.i386.rpm 6a8c48f3a6f0ef82f1d7d0798402d1cb40befc5d kdegraphics-3.1-5.1.legacy.src.rpm 628d626d306417f658959f1ec84b99a603420acb kdegraphics-debuginfo-3.1-5.1.legacy.i386.rpm aa394e19c6afb8314a04b9539797a7747a3420df kdegraphics-devel-3.1-5.1.legacy.i386.rpm files: http://www.stl.gtri.gatech.edu/rmyers/fedoralegacy/kdegraphics-3.1-5.1.legacy.src.rpm http://www.stl.gtri.gatech.edu/rmyers/fedoralegacy/kdegraphics-3.1-5.1.legacy.i386.rpm http://www.stl.gtri.gatech.edu/rmyers/fedoralegacy/kdegraphics-debuginfo-3.1-5.1.legacy.i386.rpm http://www.stl.gtri.gatech.edu/rmyers/fedoralegacy/kdegraphics-devel-3.1-5.1.legacy.i386.rpm -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBiQFhtU2XAt1OWnsRAn/WAKCb1R4/ZZDPNeXcTYPHsPoZfutHrgCfWh/z MlqTcOeKjnJnn7bFgb6LXks= =JDMJ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From jonny.strom at netikka.fi Wed Nov 3 17:13:19 2004 From: jonny.strom at netikka.fi (Johnny Strom) Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2004 19:13:19 +0200 Subject: FL bug #2164 (in lieu of bugzilla) In-Reply-To: <1099498106.7513.39.camel@rXm-581b.stl.gtri.gatech.edu> References: <1099498106.7513.39.camel@rXm-581b.stl.gtri.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <418911AF.8090806@netikka.fi> Yes I guess it is ok until we have bugzilla operational again. Rob Myers wrote: > i figured i'd just post this package to QA announcement to the mailing > list since bugzilla is still down. is that appropriate? > > rob. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > Here is an updated kdepgraphics package to QA for rh9: > > this package should fix: > - - CAN-2004-0803,0803,0886 kdefax libtiff remote code execution > - - compilation under mach > > changelog: > * Fri Oct 29 2004 Rob Myers 3.1-5.1.legacy > - - add fix to link against system libtiff CAN-2004-0886 (FL #2164) > - - add BuildRequires: autoconf automake arts-devel gnome-libs-devel > - - to build in mach: mach chroot "'(cd /usr/lib ; ln -s > libart_lgpl_2.so.2 > libart_lgpl_2.so)'" > - - change %ifarch %{scanner_archs} to %ifnarch s390 s390x > - - add BuildRequires: libusb-devel > > > sha1sums: > 7ccb38fa7f1408266b5d0e1654703b03d21994a6 > kdegraphics-3.1-5.1.legacy.i386.rpm > 6a8c48f3a6f0ef82f1d7d0798402d1cb40befc5d > kdegraphics-3.1-5.1.legacy.src.rpm > 628d626d306417f658959f1ec84b99a603420acb > kdegraphics-debuginfo-3.1-5.1.legacy.i386.rpm > aa394e19c6afb8314a04b9539797a7747a3420df > kdegraphics-devel-3.1-5.1.legacy.i386.rpm > > files: > http://www.stl.gtri.gatech.edu/rmyers/fedoralegacy/kdegraphics-3.1-5.1.legacy.src.rpm > http://www.stl.gtri.gatech.edu/rmyers/fedoralegacy/kdegraphics-3.1-5.1.legacy.i386.rpm > http://www.stl.gtri.gatech.edu/rmyers/fedoralegacy/kdegraphics-debuginfo-3.1-5.1.legacy.i386.rpm > http://www.stl.gtri.gatech.edu/rmyers/fedoralegacy/kdegraphics-devel-3.1-5.1.legacy.i386.rpm > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFBiQFhtU2XAt1OWnsRAn/WAKCb1R4/ZZDPNeXcTYPHsPoZfutHrgCfWh/z > MlqTcOeKjnJnn7bFgb6LXks= > =JDMJ > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > -- > fedora-legacy-list mailing list > fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list From Oisin.Curtin at PhoenixFltOps.com Thu Nov 4 18:26:36 2004 From: Oisin.Curtin at PhoenixFltOps.com (Oisin Curtin) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:26:36 -0500 Subject: [FLSA-2004:1804] Updated kernel resolves security vulnerabilities In-Reply-To: <1098896518.1834.15.camel@opus.phy.duke.edu> References: <1098896518.1834.15.camel@opus.phy.duke.edu> Message-ID: <418A745C.6080805@PhoenixFltOps.com> On Sun, 2004-10-24 at 06:43, Heikki Kortti wrote: >On Mon, 18 Oct 2004, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > >>Please note that this update is also available via yum and apt. Many >>people find this an easier way to apply updates. To use yum issue: >> >>yum update > >Hasn't anyone noticed that this does not really work for kernel packages? >Yum 2.0.7-1 shows that the kernel update is available (with check-update), >but "yum update" results in yum pulling up a blank: It also failed for me on cvs. I had manually downloaded the kernel update and installed it with rpm. For cvs I tried asking yum to remove the package then install it. That worked well, but I wouldn't want to try it with the kernel! :-) I found that cvs was not up-to-date by checking the installed version of all the packages listed on the legacy download site. Other latecomers to the legacy service might need to do the same. -- Oisin "Is that a Colonel, Bug?" Curtin From Oisin.Curtin at PhoenixFltOps.com Thu Nov 4 18:54:05 2004 From: Oisin.Curtin at PhoenixFltOps.com (Oisin Curtin) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 13:54:05 -0500 Subject: Is there a guide or howto on 7.2 ==> 7.3 overall upgrade? In-Reply-To: <417E3038.4070409@andreso.net> References: <417E3038.4070409@andreso.net> Message-ID: <418A7ACD.10703@PhoenixFltOps.com> Andres Adrover Kvamsdal wrote: .. after Mitchell Marks griped about minimal documentation >> I prefer to handle packages one-by-one, and would thus prefer to see >> these >> commands in the one-package form with the applicable package name. [snip] > If you want to upgrade the packages one by one just download them > manually from the fedora site. Yum can probably be configured to just > download and to keep the rpms in its spool directory. Or just type `yum update packagename...` frex: yum update scrollkeeper pxe For more info, type `man yum` without the quotes. And press enter. -- Oisin "RTFM: Read The Fine Manpage!" Curtin From mitchell at cuip.net Thu Nov 4 19:52:08 2004 From: mitchell at cuip.net (Mitchell Marks) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 13:52:08 -0600 (CST) Subject: Is there a guide or howto on 7.2 ==> 7.3 overall upgrade? In-Reply-To: <418A7ACD.10703@PhoenixFltOps.com> References: <417E3038.4070409@andreso.net> <418A7ACD.10703@PhoenixFltOps.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Oisin Curtin wrote: > Andres Adrover Kvamsdal wrote: > > .. after Mitchell Marks griped about minimal documentation Honest, I didn't mean to be griping! And I think FL documentation is coming along okay ... I was suggesting a change of outlook about how yum or apt-get would be / could be / should be used, which would be reflected in the phrasing in the alert messages. [I said:] > >> I prefer to handle packages one-by-one, and would thus prefer to see > >> these > >> commands in the one-package form with the applicable package name. I probably was misusing the expression "one-by-one", which led Michal Jaegermann to chide me for apparently wanting to override dependencies. (Okay, maybe "chide" isn't right either!:) But I'm perfectly happy to have yum or apt-get point out dependencies, and suggest additions to the install, which generally I then accept. The only part of the yum or apt maintenance approach I'm being reluctant about is the all-at-once updates. (And taking this as the default.) I admit I've been lazy about tracking down information about using and maintaining an exceptions list for yum or apt-get. But we've got packages which (for three or four different reasons in different cases) should not be automatically updated. So for my situation, unless I buckle down and make an exceptions list and get it to be used, a general "yum update" is not a viable option. [Andres (or O. Curtin?) points out:] > Or just type `yum update packagename...` > frex: yum update scrollkeeper pxe Thanks. I mean it. And that's what I do, usually. My suggestion was that *that* form is what should be suggested in the messages about particular packages. So the netpbm message, say, should by my lights advise running yum update netpbm rather than yum update Why? (a) Believe it or not, sometimes I find it hard to locate or determine from the message what the right package name to use would be. Really! Not netpbm or most application-level packages, but something like glibc. (b) Parity with the way the messages treat the RPM URL approach. If the one-by-one outlook is okay for them, why not also for the yummies and apt-dwellers? BTW, thank you to both Andres and Michal for responding to my main original question, reflected in the continuing Subject line. We have a 7.2 and a 7.3, and would like to bring the updates process more into alignment between them, and it seemed that turning the 7.2 into a 7.3 would be a way to do that. We're holding off on it for the moment, however, while my managers decide on various other matters. I'd have to confess that I'm also hesitant about it for reason of some of the same 'one-by-one' concerns underlying my reluctance about all-at-once updating. We have things installed from tarball that would end up being rolled back if we ran update from the 7.3 CDs, it looks like. Thanks much, Mitch Marks -- Mitchell Marks CUIP & WIT Tech Coordinator CUIP: Chicago Public Schools / Univ. of Chicago Internet Project WIT: Web Institute for Teachers http://cuip.net/cuip http://tech.cuip.net/ http://wit.uchicago.edu/wit 5640 S Ellis Ave AAC-045, Univ of Chgo, Chgo IL 60637 Phones: Area 773 (O) 702-6041 (F) 702-8212 (H) 241-7166 (C) 620-6744 Email: Primary address: mitchell at cuip.net Alternate UofC addresses (use especially to report problems with CUIP\WIT mail!): mitchell at cs.uchicago.edu and mmar at midway.uchicago.edu Off-campus (ISP) address: mmarks at pobox.com You must leave now, take what you need, you think will last. But whatever you wish to keep, you better grab it fast. Yonder stands your orphan with his gun, Crying like a fire in the sun. Look out!-- the saints are comin' through And it's all over now, Baby Blue. From Oisin.Curtin at PhoenixFltOps.com Thu Nov 4 19:58:43 2004 From: Oisin.Curtin at PhoenixFltOps.com (Oisin Curtin) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 14:58:43 -0500 Subject: lslR in the download tree In-Reply-To: <200411011059.59420@lutz-dt.adomo.com> References: <1099138245.4788.55.camel@athlon.localdomain> <1099216742.4808.3.camel@athlon.localdomain> <200410310215.25628.jkeating@j2solutions.net> <200411011059.59420@lutz-dt.adomo.com> Message-ID: <418A89F3.2070002@PhoenixFltOps.com> Lutz Birkhahn wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: > >>I just put this up today, wanted to get opinions of the list before I made >>it a link and incorporated it into my upload scripts. > The tree looks nice!! *But*: I personally think a "find . -print" would be > more useful. The problem is that the tree only has the file name in every > line, not the whole path. [snip] I agree. And a lot less work, too. > If you go to the root directory and do a "find . -print" (or optionally a > "find . -ls" if you want all the file attributes as well, equivalent to the [snip] `find -print` doesn't give enough info and `find -ls` gives too much. How about... find -ls|cut -c13,23,70- This gives the file type, one space, the pathname and link targets. -- Oisin "l money/Canada/2_cents -> ../../USA/1.64_cents" Curtin From Oisin.Curtin at PhoenixFltOps.com Thu Nov 4 20:42:58 2004 From: Oisin.Curtin at PhoenixFltOps.com (Oisin Curtin) Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 15:42:58 -0500 Subject: Is there a guide or howto on 7.2 ==> 7.3 overall upgrade? In-Reply-To: References: <417E3038.4070409@andreso.net> <418A7ACD.10703@PhoenixFltOps.com> Message-ID: <418A9452.2020909@PhoenixFltOps.com> Mitchell Marks wrote: > On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Oisin Curtin wrote: >>Andres Adrover Kvamsdal wrote: >> >>.. after Mitchell Marks griped about minimal documentation > > > Honest, I didn't mean to be griping! And I think FL documentation is I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were doing anything wrong or rude. I understood from your original message that you know how yum works. It seemed to me from AK's response that AK was not aware of the easier way. -- Oisin "My bad" Curtin From mitchell at cuip.net Thu Nov 4 21:37:55 2004 From: mitchell at cuip.net (Mitchell Marks) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 15:37:55 -0600 (CST) Subject: Is there a guide or howto on 7.2 ==> 7.3 overall upgrade? In-Reply-To: <418A9452.2020909@PhoenixFltOps.com> References: <417E3038.4070409@andreso.net> <418A7ACD.10703@PhoenixFltOps.com> <418A9452.2020909@PhoenixFltOps.com> Message-ID: Not to start on an endless round of self-abnegations and apology[*], but if anyone should apologise, it's me -- for posting a question then getting busy with other things and ignoring the thread for a week, and dropping back in at a random moment. I appreciate that you spelled out by direct example what I laboriously and confusingly called something like "the single-package form of the yum update command". I would still urge that as the form to use in FL messages about update package availability. But it's not a hot button. Thanks to all who provide the FL support, and also for advice given here. Even if I sometimes say "But I want /different/ advice!" == Mitch Marks [*]Hey, at least that would be better than endless sniping and dispute! On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Oisin Curtin wrote: > Mitchell Marks wrote: > > On Thu, 4 Nov 2004, Oisin Curtin wrote: > > >>Andres Adrover Kvamsdal wrote: > >> > >>.. after Mitchell Marks griped about minimal documentation > > > > > > Honest, I didn't mean to be griping! And I think FL documentation is > > I'm sorry, I didn't mean to imply you were doing anything wrong or rude. > > I understood from your original message that you know how yum works. > It seemed to me from AK's response that AK was not aware of the easier way. > > > -- Mitchell Marks CUIP & WIT Tech Coordinator CUIP: Chicago Public Schools / Univ. of Chicago Internet Project WIT: Web Institute for Teachers http://cuip.net/cuip http://tech.cuip.net/ http://wit.uchicago.edu/wit 5640 S Ellis Ave AAC-045, Univ of Chgo, Chgo IL 60637 Phones: Area 773 (O) 702-6041 (F) 702-8212 (H) 241-7166 (C) 620-6744 Email: Primary address: mitchell at cuip.net Alternate UofC addresses (use especially to report problems with CUIP\WIT mail!): mitchell at cs.uchicago.edu and mmar at midway.uchicago.edu Off-campus (ISP) address: mmarks at pobox.com You must leave now, take what you need, you think will last. But whatever you wish to keep, you better grab it fast. Yonder stands your orphan with his gun, Crying like a fire in the sun. Look out!-- the saints are comin' through And it's all over now, Baby Blue. The highway is for gamblers, better use your sense. Take what you have gathered from coincidence. The empty-handed painter from your streets Is drawing crazy patterns on your sheets. This sky, too, is folding under you And it's all over now, Baby Blue. From dom at earth.li Fri Nov 5 01:46:30 2004 From: dom at earth.li (Dominic Hargreaves) Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 01:46:30 +0000 Subject: Round-up, 2004-11-05 Message-ID: <20041105014627.GA25146@home.thedom.org> $Id: issues.txt,v 1.126 2004/11/04 22:40:18 dom Exp $ See bottom for changes This list is also available at http://www-astro.physics.ox.ac.uk/~dom/legacy/issues.txt Packages that have been verified and should be fully released ------------------------------------------------------------- cupsomatic - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2076 Packages waiting to be built for updates-testing ------------------------------------------------ yum - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1604 gnome-vfs - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1944 libxpm - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2075 Packages in state RESOLVED (ie exist in updates-testing) that need active work. ------------------------------------------------------------------ abiword - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1906 Needs 2 VERIFY [rh73,rh9] tripwire - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1719 Needs VERIFY for rh73 mailman - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1269 There were some unconfirmed reports of breakage with the candidate. This needs more QA before release. Packages in state UNCONFIRMED, NEW, ASSIGNED or REOPENED: -------------------------------------------------------- readline - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2017 Needs QA and decision on whether to release [rh9] libpng - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1943 Need 1 PUBLISH for rh9 - issues to resolve? sox - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1945 Needs possible renaming of rh7.3 package and PUBLISH for rh9 qt - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2002 Needs 2 PUBLISH gdk-pixbuf - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2005 Needs PUBLISH [rh9] mysql - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2006 Needs 2 PUBLISH ruby - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2007 Needs PUBLISH [rh73,rh9,fc1] kdelibs - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2008 Needs 2 PUBLISH mc - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2009 Needs PUBLISH pam_wheel - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2010 Needs PUBLISH and full auditing and packages for rh9 krb5 - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2040 Needs 1 PUBLISH for rh9 / investigate possible bug introduced imlib - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2051 Needs PUBLISH [rh9] ImageMagick - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2052 Needs 2 PUBLISH/updated packages? cdrecord - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2058 Needs 2 PUBLISH for rh9 gtk2 - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2073 Needs PUBLISH [rh9] openoffice - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2074 Needs PUBLISH for rh9 redhat-config-nfs - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2086 Need PUBLISH for rh9 rp-pppoe - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2116 Need PUBLISH for rh73, rh9 cups - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2127 Needs PUBLISH [rh73,rh9] kernel - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2128 Needs investigation/packages mysql - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2129 Needs QA [rh73,rh9] gtk2 - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2134 Needs investigation cyrus-sasl - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2137 Needs QA [7.3] lesstiff - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2142 Needs investigation/packages openmotif - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2143 Needs PUBLISH [rh73,rh9,fc1] security.conf - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2146 Needs QA [fc1], packages [rh9], discussion of updated extras httpd - http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2148 Needs packages [rh9,fc1] squid - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2150 Needs QA [rh9] gettext - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2151 Needs investigation/packages sharutils - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2155 Needs QA [rh73,rh9,fc1] libtiff - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2163 Needs QA [rh73] kdefax - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2164 Needs investigation/packages xpdf - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2186 Needs PUBLISH [rh73,rh9,fc1] freeradius - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2187 Needs packages gaim - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2188 Needs PUBLISH gpdf - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2195 Needs PUBISH [fc1] libxml2 - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2207 Needs packages/investigation links - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2213 Needs packages/investigation mozilla - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2214 Needs investigation/packages lynx - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2215 Needs investigation/packages w3m - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2216 Needs investigation/packages ppp - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2229 Needs investigation/packages (reject I guess...) General (non-package bugs) -------------------------- sample yum.conf - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 FLSA broken - http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2147 yum.conf - http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2149 up2date - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2193 up2date - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2194 Notes ----- Needs PUBLISH means that there are packages available for QA that need to be QAd at the source level. Needs VERIFY means that there are updates-testing packages that need testing. This is the easy bit, let's get this old ones out of the way ASAP. * means that there is a judgement call that can be made on the bug system immediately. Please follow up onlist with opinions. Changes ------- $Log: issues.txt,v $ Revision 1.126 2004/11/04 22:40:18 dom updates Revision 1.125 2004/11/04 22:29:35 dom update openmotif Revision 1.124 2004/11/04 11:12:11 dom update cupsomatic Revision 1.123 2004/10/29 11:33:30 dom add libxmls Revision 1.122 2004/10/28 21:22:57 dom stuff Revision 1.121 2004/10/27 16:25:33 dom updates Revision 1.120 2004/10/26 23:57:08 dom update mozilla Revision 1.119 2004/10/25 16:46:55 dom update gdk-pixbuf Revision 1.118 2004/10/24 16:28:52 dom updates Revision 1.117 2004/10/23 12:03:05 dom updates -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From mattdm at mattdm.org Fri Nov 5 03:49:40 2004 From: mattdm at mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 22:49:40 -0500 Subject: problems with httpd-2.0.40-21.16.legacy on RH 9 Message-ID: <20041105034940.GA10863@jadzia.bu.edu> After upgrading to the new httpd, I get this error when trying to do large (more than half a dozen -- so actually, not that large) bulk changes in bugzilla: (20507)The timeout specified has expired: ap_content_length_filter: apr_bucket_read() failed, referer: http://lbugs.bu.edu/buglist.cgi?[...] at which point the page just hangs and eventually the browser gives up and kills the connection. The server is pretty slow (PIII/450) and overloaded and connecting over 10baseT half-duplex (it's an old building) the the MySQL server for the backend. But it never used to have this problem. -- Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org Boston University Linux ------> From marcdeslauriers at videotron.ca Fri Nov 5 13:06:58 2004 From: marcdeslauriers at videotron.ca (Marc Deslauriers) Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 08:06:58 -0500 Subject: [FLSA-2004:2076] Updated foomatic package fixes security vulnerability Message-ID: <1099660017.23743.1.camel@mdlinux> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Fedora Legacy Update Advisory Synopsis: Updated foomatic package fixes security vulnerability Advisory ID: FLSA:2076 Issue date: 2004-11-05 Product: Fedora Core Keywords: Bugfix Cross references: https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2076 CVE Names: CAN-2004-0801 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Topic: Updated foomatic packages that fix an arbitrary command execution vulnerability are now available. Foomatic is a comprehensive, spooler-independent database of printers, printer drivers, and driver descriptions. 2. Relevent releases/architectures: Fedora Core 1 - i386 3. Problem description: Sebastian Krahmer reported a bug in the cupsomatic and foomatic-rip print filters, used by the CUPS print spooler. An attacker who has printing access could send a carefully named file to the print server causing arbitrary commands to be executed as root. The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures project (cve.mitre.org) has assigned the name CAN-2004-0801 to this issue. All users are advised to upgrade to these updated packages, which contain a backported fix and are not vulnerable to this issue. 4. Solution: Before applying this update, make sure all previously released errata relevant to your system have been applied. To update all RPMs for your particular architecture, run: rpm -Fvh [filenames] where [filenames] is a list of the RPMs you wish to upgrade. Only those RPMs which are currently installed will be updated. Those RPMs which are not installed but included in the list will not be updated. Note that you can also use wildcards (*.rpm) if your current directory *only* contains the desired RPMs. Please note that this update is also available via yum and apt. Many people find this an easier way to apply updates. To use yum issue: yum update or to use apt: apt-get update; apt-get upgrade This will start an interactive process that will result in the appropriate RPMs being upgraded on your system. This assumes that you have yum or apt-get configured for obtaining Fedora Legacy content. Please visit http://www fedoralegacy.org/docs for directions on how to configure yum and apt-get. 5. Bug IDs fixed: http://bugzilla.fedora.us - 2076 - CAN-2004-0801 - cupsomatic, foomatic arbitrary command execution 6. RPMs required: Fedora Core 1: SRPM: http://download.fedoralegacy.org/fedora/1/updates/SRPMS/foomatic-3.0.0-21.5.legacy.src.rpm i386: http://download.fedoralegacy.org/fedora/1/updates/i386/foomatic-3.0.0-21.5.legacy.i386.rpm 7. Verification: SHA1 sum Package Name --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 8a425a8debf0be9be2dbbc0f028ed1eb8350e833 fedora/1/updates/i386/foomatic-3.0.0-21.5.legacy.i386.rpm a684fc034e1cde9ee35185f5db9e3da4446104b3 fedora/1/updates/SRPMS/foomatic-3.0.0-21.5.legacy.src.rpm These packages are GPG signed by Fedora Legacy for security. Our key is available from http://www.fedoralegacy org/about/security.php You can verify each package with the following command: rpm --checksig -v If you only wish to verify that each package has not been corrupted or tampered with, examine only the sha1sum with the following command: sha1sum 8. References: http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2004-0801 http://secunia.com/advisories/12557/ 9. Contact: The Fedora Legacy security contact is . More project details at http://www.fedoralegacy.org --------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- 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 vherva at viasys.com Mon Nov 8 14:24:35 2004 From: vherva at viasys.com (Ville Herva) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:24:35 +0200 Subject: FL 7.3: dhcp 2.x CAN-2004-1006 Message-ID: <20041108142435.GG13468@viasys.com> Regarding dhcp CAN-2004-1006: see http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=CAN-2004-1006 http://www.debian.org/security/2004/dsa-584 and http://secunia.com/advisories/13112/ I separated the fix for CAN-2004-1006 from the Debian dhcp package diff http://security.debian.org/pool/updates/main/d/dhcp/dhcp_2.0pl5-11woody1.diff.gz See the attached patch dhcp.CAN-2004-1006. (I hope I got the whole hunk - Debian does not mark individual fixes in their diff.) The patch appears to apply cleanly to the dhcp-2.0pl5-8.src.rpm: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/7.3/en/os/i386/SRPMS/dhcp-2.0pl5-8.src.rpm (which is the same that shipped with RH72 and RHEL21 afaict, and newer doesn't seem to be available in the updates either.) I merely added lines Patch3: dhcp.CAN-2004-1006 and %patch3 -p1 to the .spec and upped Release. Should this fix be pushed via FL73, too? -- v -- v at iki.fi -------------- next part -------------- --- dhcp-2.0pl5/common/errwarn.c.orig2 Mon Nov 8 10:29:07 2004 +++ dhcp-2.0pl5/common/errwarn.c Mon Nov 8 10:29:22 2004 @@ -71,7 +71,7 @@ void error (ANSI_DECL(char *) fmt, VA_DO va_end (list); #ifndef DEBUG - syslog (log_priority | LOG_ERR, mbuf); + syslog (log_priority | LOG_ERR, "%s", mbuf); #endif /* Also log it to stderr? */ @@ -104,7 +104,7 @@ int warn (ANSI_DECL (char *) fmt, VA_DOT va_end (list); #ifndef DEBUG - syslog (log_priority | LOG_ERR, mbuf); + syslog (log_priority | LOG_ERR, "%s", mbuf); #endif if (log_perror) { @@ -130,7 +130,7 @@ int note (ANSI_DECL (char *) fmt, VA_DOT va_end (list); #ifndef DEBUG - syslog (log_priority | LOG_INFO, mbuf); + syslog (log_priority | LOG_INFO, "%s", mbuf); #endif if (log_perror) { @@ -156,7 +156,7 @@ int debug (ANSI_DECL (char *) fmt, VA_DO va_end (list); #ifndef DEBUG - syslog (log_priority | LOG_DEBUG, mbuf); + syslog (log_priority | LOG_DEBUG, "%s", mbuf); #endif if (log_perror) { @@ -231,8 +231,8 @@ int parse_warn (ANSI_DECL (char *) fmt, va_end (list); #ifndef DEBUG - syslog (log_priority | LOG_ERR, mbuf); - syslog (log_priority | LOG_ERR, token_line); + syslog (log_priority | LOG_ERR, "%s", mbuf); + syslog (log_priority | LOG_ERR, "%s", token_line); if (lexline < 81) syslog (log_priority | LOG_ERR, "%s^", &spaces [sizeof spaces - lexchar]); From cra at WPI.EDU Tue Nov 9 01:07:41 2004 From: cra at WPI.EDU (Charles R. Anderson) Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 20:07:41 -0500 Subject: FL 7.3: dhcp 2.x CAN-2004-1006 In-Reply-To: <20041108142435.GG13468@viasys.com> Message-ID: <20041109010741.GD2173@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> Red Hat Linux 7.3 is affected. See bugzilla: https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2251 ----- Forwarded message from "David W. Hankins" ----- From: "David W. Hankins" To: dhcp-announce at isc.org Date: Mon, 8 Nov 2004 16:33:45 -0800 Subject: dhcp-2 Security Announcement Message-ID: <20041109003345.GG763 at isc.org> Precedence: bulk Reply-To: dhcp-server at isc.org *** From dhcp-announce -- To unsubscribe, see the end of this message. *** Debian has recently distributed a security advisory on the dhcp-2.0pl5 package they distribute. You can read about that here: http://www.debian.org/security/2004/dsa-584 The following versions of ISC DHCP are vulnerable: dhcp-2.0: All versions are vulnerable. dhcp-3.0: dhcp-3.0b1pl17 and previous versions are vulnerable. All users of these versions should upgrade to the latest dhcp-3 release, currently dhcp-3.0.1. Note: If for some reason upgrading from dhcp-2 is not possible, you may also consider applying this patch: ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/dhcp/dhcp-2.0-history/dhcp-2.0pl6.patch ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/dhcp/dhcp-2.0-history/dhcp-2.0pl6.patch.asc But users are strongly advised to make the upgrade to dhcp-3 now. -- David W. Hankins "If you don't do it right the first time, Operations Engineer you'll just have to do it again." Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. -- Jack T. Hankins ----------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this list, visit http://www.isc.org/dhcp-lists.html or send mail to dhcp-announce-request at isc.org with the subject line of 'unsubscribe'. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- End forwarded message ----- From deisenst at gtw.net Wed Nov 10 08:31:32 2004 From: deisenst at gtw.net (David Eisenstein) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 02:31:32 -0600 (CST) Subject: Web space? - fixing FC1 ImageMagick bugs (bugzilla #2052) Message-ID: Hi People, The bugzilla bug # 2052 for ImageMagick only has QA packages for RH9 and RH7.3. However, it seems to me that FC1's ImageMagick should also be affected by one of more of those bugs. The bugs identified so far in # 2052 appear to be: * CAN-2003-0455 - "The imagemagick libmagick library 5.5 and earlier creates temporary files insecurely, which allows local users to create or overwrite arbitrary files." * CAN-2004-0827 - DoS - Multiple buffer overflows in the AVI, BMP, and DIB parsers/decoders. * CAN-2004-0981 - Buffer overflow in EXIF parser. I am thinking that FC1's ImageMagick may be affected by any of those CVE candidates. Am investigating it. If I find that they are affected by it, I plan to submit .src.rpm's for QA under Bug #2052. This would be my first attempt to submit patched .src.rpm's &c. However, I have a bit of a problem. I have no online web accounts with enough disk space to hold a FC1 ImageMagick .src.rpm, along with the .i386.rpm's that folks usually submit along with it. Can anyone who has plenty of disk space help me out with some place I can upload rpm's for QA testing to you so you could post them on the web for me? I would appreciate it. Thanks in advance for any help! - David Eisenstein From dom at earth.li Wed Nov 10 12:06:59 2004 From: dom at earth.li (Dominic Hargreaves) Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 12:06:59 +0000 Subject: Web space? - fixing FC1 ImageMagick bugs (bugzilla #2052) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20041110120658.GP15895@tirian.magd.ox.ac.uk> On Wed, Nov 10, 2004 at 02:31:32AM -0600, David Eisenstein wrote: > However, I have a bit of a problem. I have no online web accounts with > enough disk space to hold a FC1 ImageMagick .src.rpm, along with the > .i386.rpm's that folks usually submit along with it. Don't feel you have to submit binary packages - people should be QAing from the SRPMs. > Can anyone who has plenty of disk space help me out with some place I can > upload rpm's for QA testing to you so you could post them on the web for > me? I would appreciate it. http://www.fedoralegacy.org/contrib/ is available for this; you could email Jesse to see if he can give you access. Altenatively you can upload to ftp://ftp-astro-incoming.physics.ox.ac.uk/pub/incoming/ (anonymously, let me know if you do by email) and I'll stick the packages up. Cheers, Dominic. From dom at earth.li Fri Nov 12 10:23:14 2004 From: dom at earth.li (Dominic Hargreaves) Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 10:23:14 +0000 Subject: Fedora Legacy Test Update Notification: abiword In-Reply-To: <20041022000614.GB4396@home.thedom.org> References: <20041022000614.GB4396@home.thedom.org> Message-ID: <20041112102309.GA19102@home.thedom.org> On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > Name : abiword > Version (7.3) : 0.99.5-3.legacy I've updated the 7.3 version of this; please verify: Changelog: * Fri Nov 05 2004 Craig Kelley - Added gnome-libs-devel ImageMagick BuildPrereq Download from http://www-astro.physics.ox.ac.uk/~dom/legacy/official/redhat/7.3/updates-testing/ 6f80db178d363aff920754de5275f387322403cc SRPMS/abiword-0.99.5-4.legacy.src.rpm 28833237709e98fdb0b5aa7a9fde1bb9051a0f35 i386/abiword-0.99.5-4.legacy.i386.rpm (these are official test updates; Jesse is away so I can't get them onto download.fedoralegacy.org at the moment). Cheers, Dominic. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From unix at bikesn4x4s.com Sun Nov 14 05:05:03 2004 From: unix at bikesn4x4s.com (Paul) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 00:05:03 -0500 (EST) Subject: using up2date with Core 1 - getting GPG sig not signed Message-ID: <35308.192.168.103.1.1100408703.squirrel@192.168.103.1> Hello, I have configured my up2date according to: http://fedoralegacy.org/docs/up2date-fc1-reconfigure.php Seems to work fine but then gets this error: ----------------------------------------- cups-1.1.19-13.2.legacy.i38 ########################## Done. The package cups-1.1.19-13.2.legacy is not signed with a GPG signature. Aborting... Package cups-1.1.19-13.2.legacy does not have a GPG signature. Aborting... ----------------------------------------- Should I not be checking sigs? Any help appreciated. Thanks. From leonard at den.ottolander.nl Sun Nov 14 12:29:24 2004 From: leonard at den.ottolander.nl (Leonard den Ottolander) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 13:29:24 +0100 Subject: debuginfo rpms missing Message-ID: <1100435364.4784.8.camel@athlon.localdomain> Hi, I noticed there are no debuginfo rpms in the update (or even os) tree. Why is this? Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research From unix at bikesn4x4s.com Sun Nov 14 22:23:43 2004 From: unix at bikesn4x4s.com (Paul) Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 17:23:43 -0500 (EST) Subject: using up2date with Core 1 - getting GPG sig not signed In-Reply-To: <35308.192.168.103.1.1100408703.squirrel@192.168.103.1> References: <35308.192.168.103.1.1100408703.squirrel@192.168.103.1> Message-ID: <35787.192.168.103.1.1100471023.squirrel@192.168.103.1> Never mind. I just imported the key from the legacy site and all is well. Paul said: > Hello, I have configured my up2date according to: > http://fedoralegacy.org/docs/up2date-fc1-reconfigure.php > > Seems to work fine but then gets this error: > > ----------------------------------------- > cups-1.1.19-13.2.legacy.i38 ########################## Done. > The package cups-1.1.19-13.2.legacy is not signed with a GPG signature. > Aborting... > Package cups-1.1.19-13.2.legacy does not have a GPG signature. > Aborting... > ----------------------------------------- > > Should I not be checking sigs? Any help appreciated. Thanks. > > -- > fedora-legacy-list mailing list > fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list > From nehresma at css.tayloru.edu Tue Nov 16 17:07:56 2004 From: nehresma at css.tayloru.edu (Nathan Ehresman) Date: Tue, 16 Nov 2004 12:07:56 -0500 Subject: Self-Introduction: Nathan Ehresman Message-ID: <20041116170756.GD25895@css.tayloru.edu> Hello folks, I'd like to participate in this project. :) Okay, here's the formal info the web page asks for: 1. Full Legal name: Nathan Ehresman 2. Location: Upland, IN USA 3. Profession or Student status: Assistant Computing and Resource Manager 4. Company or School: Computer and System Sciences department of Taylor University 5. Goals: - I'm interested in working with the Fedora Legacy project, in particular on support for Red Hat 9. We run lots of Red Hat 9 boxen and as such I am very keen on having security patches for our software available. - I am not very interested on doing QA work because of time constraints. 6. Historical qualifications: Hmm. I am not too fond of talking myself up but as this was requested here goes. Projects I've worked on in the past: - Co-founded the SquirrelMail project with my brother back in the fall of 1999. - Worked on the Centrallix application server and created a rough proof of concept IDE for it called bojangles. - Added reverse connections (server to client) for the Unix implementation of VNC summer of 2000. Submitted it to the list but as far as I am aware of it was never put into the main tree. - Added better logging of LDAP connection attempts that fail over to a slave OpenLDAP server to Samba. Submitted to samba-devel but was not put into tree. - Implemented PAM support for CVS several years ago that is used internally by our university. Since there were other implemenations available I never posted patches to the list. Computer langauges/skills: - Been using Linux since 1996. - I've been administering a network of 65 Linux clients and 8 servers for the past 3 years. - I worked for 2 years doing full time Java client development. - I know C, C++, Perl, Bash, Java, etc. Why should you trust me? Through work, I have a vested interest in maintaining support for Red Hat 9. Thanks for listening. Nathan Ehresman http://www.css.tayloru.edu/~nehresma/ -- nre :wq From deisenst at gtw.net Wed Nov 17 10:33:33 2004 From: deisenst at gtw.net (David Eisenstein) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 04:33:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: ImageMagick status - Heap Overflow ++ ? (Bugzilla # 2052) Message-ID: Hello everyone, First of all, a plug. :-) I have submitted my first .src.rpm to be verified. If you would like to verify the FC1 source package for ImageMagick, or otherwise comment on it, just take your browser to and have at it. Please. :-) Secondly, I am a bit confused about the status of the the other portions of the ImageMagick Bug ticket. A RedHat 9 version was submitted for verification by Marc Deslauriers on Sept. 12th for CAN-2004-0827 (Heap overflow, the original issue). Since then, two new vulnerabilities had been identified which might affect RH9: CAN-2003-0455 (temporary filename) and CAN-2004-0981 (remote EXIF parsing buffer overflow). Marc, are you planning on re-issuing .src.rpm's for those patches? Various Red Hat 7.3 versions have also been submitted. Some by Simon Weller (also his first submissions for verify QA), with helpful suggestions by Michal Jaegermann (before we became aware of CAN-2003- 0455 and CAN-2004-0981), and one by Martin Seigert, that has all extant patches in place, ready to be QA tested. Except for this-- Michal Jaegermann has introduced some altered patches, because he took issue with Red Hat's patch for CAN-2003-0455. Mike's issue (discussed in Comment #17 ff.) is that RH's patch introduces a new bug - it creates temporary directories that are never deleted, one per invocation of an ImageMagick utility. So he has created a new patch to replace RedHat's to take care of that. After creasing my brow on his new patch (mentioned in Comment #21), I have submitted some comments to him about it, but I think what he has should work for taking care of both CAN- 2003-0455 and getting rid of the temporary directory created to address the CVE. We need to decide whether or not to accept Michal Jaegermann's updated patch or not, and move forward with this. Comments, anyone? -David From dom at earth.li Thu Nov 18 01:01:43 2004 From: dom at earth.li (Dominic Hargreaves) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 01:01:43 +0000 Subject: Fedora Legacy Test Update Notification: abiword In-Reply-To: <20041112102309.GA19102@home.thedom.org> References: <20041022000614.GB4396@home.thedom.org> <20041112102309.GA19102@home.thedom.org> Message-ID: <20041118010141.GA25332@home.thedom.org> On Fri, Nov 12, 2004 at 10:23:14AM +0000, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2004 at 01:06:17AM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > > Name : abiword > > Version (7.3) : 0.99.5-3.legacy > > I've updated the 7.3 version of this; please verify: Third time lucky: http://download.fedoralegacy.org/ 00dd8f5f01ce6682a351cff89fc7e3ae146ce2fb redhat/7.3/updates-testing/SRPMS/abiword-0.99.5-5.legacy.src.rpm 6fae7b296b25173f3c275e5b6d57e44a1e8dd453 redhat/7.3/updates-testing/i386/abiword-0.99.5-5.legacy.i386.rpm Dominic. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From marcdeslauriers at videotron.ca Thu Nov 18 02:57:48 2004 From: marcdeslauriers at videotron.ca (Marc Deslauriers) Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 21:57:48 -0500 Subject: Fedora Legacy Test Update Notification: httpd Message-ID: <1100746669.18132.2.camel@mdlinux> --------------------------------------------------------------------- Fedora Legacy Test Update Notification FEDORALEGACY-2004-2148 Bugzilla https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2148 2004-11-17 --------------------------------------------------------------------- Name : httpd, apache and mod_ssl Versions : 7.3: apache-1.3.27-6.legacy, mod_ssl-2.8.12-7.legacy Versions : 9: httpd-2.0.40-21.17.legacy Versions : fc1: httpd-2.0.51-1.6.legacy Summary : The httpd Web server Description : This package contains a powerful, full-featured, efficient, and freely-available Web server based on work done by the Apache Software Foundation. It is also the most popular Web server on the Internet. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Update Information: An issue has been discovered in the mod_ssl module when configured to use the "SSLCipherSuite" directive in directory or location context. If a particular location context has been configured to require a specific set of cipher suites, then a client will be able to access that location using any cipher suite allowed by the virtual host configuration. The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures project (cve.mitre.org) has assigned the name CAN-2004-0885 to this issue. Problems that apply to Red Hat Linux 7.3 only: A buffer overflow in mod_include could allow a local user who is authorised to create server side include (SSI) files to gain the privileges of a httpd child. The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures project (cve.mitre.org) has assigned the name CAN-2004-0940 to this issue. Problems that apply to Red Hat Linux 9 and Fedora Core 1 only: An issue has been discovered in the handling of white space in request header lines using MIME folding. A malicious client could send a carefully crafted request, forcing the server to consume large amounts of memory, leading to a denial of service. The Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures project (cve.mitre.org) has assigned the name CAN-2004-0942 to this issue. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Changelogs rh73: apache-1.3.27-6.legacy: * Thu Nov 04 2004 Rob Myers 1.3.27-6.legacy - add patch for CAN-2004-0940 (FL bug #2148) mod_ssl-2.8.12-7.legacy: * Fri Nov 05 2004 Rob Myers 2.8.12-7.legacy - add patch for CAN-2004-0885 (FL bug #2148) rh9: * Thu Nov 04 2004 Rob Myers 2.0.40-21.17.legacy - add patches for CAN-2004-0885, CAN-2004-0942 (FL bug #2148) fc1: * Fri Nov 05 2004 Rob Myers 2.0.51-1.6.legacy - add patch for CAN-2004-0942 (FL bug #2148) * Thu Oct 21 2004 Rob Myers 2.0.51-1.5.legacy - add patch for CAN-2004-0885 (FL bug #2148) --------------------------------------------------------------------- This update can be downloaded from: http://download.fedoralegacy.org/ (sha1sums) 7.3: d40866e11e91598844b054f657856d697449aad0 redhat/7.3/updates-testing/i386/apache-1.3.27-6.legacy.i386.rpm 14463609d71731d2d1a388dae83d03bcbb200eb3 redhat/7.3/updates-testing/i386/apache-devel-1.3.27-6.legacy.i386.rpm ba4e9892ffe4afbc73d4913c145e2e5dc109751d redhat/7.3/updates-testing/i386/apache-manual-1.3.27-6.legacy.i386.rpm a55bac0fa92970caf3e3d8aa611fb80698f90573 redhat/7.3/updates-testing/i386/mod_ssl-2.8.12-7.legacy.i386.rpm 6def62270ae08a9fa7a8fc375bea8eb1e3553ff4 redhat/7.3/updates-testing/SRPMS/apache-1.3.27-6.legacy.src.rpm 079fb1966c98fab1274d44ca5d0c735c9e4b851b redhat/7.3/updates-testing/SRPMS/mod_ssl-2.8.12-7.legacy.src.rpm 9: cf4421a5eb0cc960c4ac0e79c5a75af4d0a82caf redhat/9/updates-testing/i386/httpd-2.0.40-21.17.legacy.i386.rpm 6e74bb9366d1b43462ccc01eb394b8d28fc71008 redhat/9/updates-testing/i386/httpd-devel-2.0.40-21.17.legacy.i386.rpm fedddfa1d24545b9203c9d4dcd80565f12a68150 redhat/9/updates-testing/i386/httpd-manual-2.0.40-21.17.legacy.i386.rpm a4d3ec49253f09496284c7b089a539363d8c1ad1 redhat/9/updates-testing/i386/mod_ssl-2.0.40-21.17.legacy.i386.rpm 1e7bca22c9f078a4053eea21db5d04f825a60807 redhat/9/updates-testing/SRPMS/httpd-2.0.40-21.17.legacy.src.rpm fc1: 900fab9908fe5655ffaf75e85ddec3766244b095 fedora/1/updates-testing/i386/httpd-2.0.51-1.6.legacy.i386.rpm 92ceef4e0b98ae64df0ae82bdc70fbe19bbc3bff fedora/1/updates-testing/i386/httpd-devel-2.0.51-1.6.legacy.i386.rpm 76b92621a50c287af6fc54c9bd93555d12bf206b fedora/1/updates-testing/i386/httpd-manual-2.0.51-1.6.legacy.i386.rpm e4e38ace9ca2a3ee4c82b4c04fd15dc326fe0004 fedora/1/updates-testing/i386/mod_ssl-2.0.51-1.6.legacy.i386.rpm 7204fb50b3eb48203142201f0f3e6324c327bafe fedora/1/updates-testing/SRPMS/httpd-2.0.51-1.6.legacy.src.rpm --------------------------------------------------------------------- Please test and comment in bugzilla. -------------- 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 CCall at madentech.com Thu Nov 18 20:46:27 2004 From: CCall at madentech.com (Christian Call) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:46:27 -0500 Subject: Bugzilla Down? Message-ID: <51F5B55D04F3EA4591451D3DF39E4AF30844EB@hqmsex01.madentech.com> I have been unable to access Bugzilla today, although I was able to get to it yesterday. Has anyone else been having the same problem? Is there somewhere (other than here) I should report this sort of problem? Thanks for any help you can offer. -- Chris From sebenste at weather.admin.niu.edu Thu Nov 18 21:34:16 2004 From: sebenste at weather.admin.niu.edu (Gilbert Sebenste) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 15:34:16 -0600 (CST) Subject: Just tried XFree86, httpd/ssl... Message-ID: Hello all, Just wanted to throw in my $.02. I have Fedora Core 1, did a yum update and got the new XFree86 and httpd/ssl packages. All works fine on a P4 3 GHZ relatively generic build machine. ******************************************************************************* Gilbert Sebenste ******** (My opinions only!) ****** Staff Meteorologist, Northern Illinois University **** E-mail: sebenste at weather.admin.niu.edu *** web: http://weather.admin.niu.edu ** Work phone: 815-753-5492 * ******************************************************************************* From marcdeslauriers at videotron.ca Thu Nov 18 21:56:10 2004 From: marcdeslauriers at videotron.ca (Marc Deslauriers) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:56:10 -0500 Subject: Just tried XFree86, httpd/ssl... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1100814971.24298.0.camel@mdlinux> On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 15:34 -0600, Gilbert Sebenste wrote: > Just wanted to throw in my $.02. I have Fedora Core 1, did a yum update > and got the new XFree86 and httpd/ssl packages. All works fine on a P4 3 > GHZ relatively generic build machine. Could you please put this in bugzilla so we can count it towards releasing the packages officially. Thanks, Marc. -------------- 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 sebenste at weather.admin.niu.edu Thu Nov 18 22:05:33 2004 From: sebenste at weather.admin.niu.edu (Gilbert Sebenste) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:05:33 -0600 (CST) Subject: Just tried XFree86, httpd/ssl... In-Reply-To: <1100814971.24298.0.camel@mdlinux> References: <1100814971.24298.0.camel@mdlinux> Message-ID: On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Marc Deslauriers wrote: > On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 15:34 -0600, Gilbert Sebenste wrote: > > Just wanted to throw in my $.02. I have Fedora Core 1, did a yum update > > and got the new XFree86 and httpd/ssl packages. All works fine on a P4 3 > > GHZ relatively generic build machine. > > Could you please put this in bugzilla so we can count it towards > releasing the packages officially. > > Thanks, > > Marc. > > Hi Marc, Sure. OK, being a newbie to this kinda thing, how do I do it? ******************************************************************************* Gilbert Sebenste ******** (My opinions only!) ****** Staff Meteorologist, Northern Illinois University **** E-mail: sebenste at weather.admin.niu.edu *** web: http://weather.admin.niu.edu ** Work phone: 815-753-5492 * ******************************************************************************* From rob.myers at gtri.gatech.edu Thu Nov 18 22:13:48 2004 From: rob.myers at gtri.gatech.edu (Rob Myers) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 17:13:48 -0500 Subject: Just tried XFree86, httpd/ssl... In-Reply-To: References: <1100814971.24298.0.camel@mdlinux> Message-ID: <1100816028.23408.41.camel@rXm-581b.stl.gtri.gatech.edu> On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 17:05, Gilbert Sebenste wrote: > On Thu, 18 Nov 2004, Marc Deslauriers wrote: > > > On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 15:34 -0600, Gilbert Sebenste wrote: > > > Just wanted to throw in my $.02. I have Fedora Core 1, did a yum update > > > and got the new XFree86 and httpd/ssl packages. All works fine on a P4 3 > > > GHZ relatively generic build machine. > > > > Could you please put this in bugzilla so we can count it towards > > releasing the packages officially. > > > > Sure. OK, being a newbie to this kinda thing, how do I do it? i think bugzilla is currently down. i think it would be ok to post clearsigned QAs to the mailing list in the meantime. (we can put them in bugzilla whenever it comes back) from http://www.fedoralegacy.org/wiki/index.php/QaTesting Testing packages for release to updates 1. Download the binary RPM package from the updates-testing channel. 2. Verify the integrity of the downloaded package (see http://www.fedoralegacy.org/about/security.php). 3. Install the package, and note any installation problems. 4. Use the package (as appropriate for the package), and note any problems found. After testing a package Report your test results in the Bugzilla system. QA comments in Bugzilla should be GnuPG clearsigned. In cases where a QA message would lead to package approval or publication, the message MUST be GnuPG clearsigned, and should contain sha1sums of the reviewed source or binary RPM packages(s). The source RPM sha1sum is mandatory in step 1 of the QA process in order to be sure that the package to be built is the same as the reviewed one. GnuPG clearsigned messages that give good advice can all be traced back to your GnuPG key and accumulate over time. This process allows new developers to gain trust through technical correctness and hard work over a period of time, eventually being able to prove to the community that the developer can be trusted. If QA comments are submitted listing things within the package that should be fixed, the original packager should update their SRPM or respond why they feel suggestions are not valid. Be sure to increment the release number before building the new SRPMS. Upload the new SRPMS along with updated clearsigned sha1sums to your web server. To vote that a package be moved into updates-testing, be sure to use the tag PUBLISH clearly in the message (e.g. "I vote to PUBLISH"). To vote that a package be moved from updates-testing to updates, be sure to use the tag VERIFIED clearly in the message. hope that helps rob. From rostetter at mail.utexas.edu Thu Nov 18 22:15:45 2004 From: rostetter at mail.utexas.edu (Eric Rostetter) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:15:45 -0600 Subject: Just tried XFree86, httpd/ssl... In-Reply-To: References: <1100814971.24298.0.camel@mdlinux> Message-ID: <1100816145.f0f21edba80fb@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Quoting Gilbert Sebenste : > Sure. OK, being a newbie to this kinda thing, how do I do it? See the section called "After testing a package" at http://www.fedoralegacy.org/wiki/index.php/QaTesting -- Eric Rostetter From CCall at madentech.com Fri Nov 19 14:55:06 2004 From: CCall at madentech.com (Christian Call) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:55:06 -0500 Subject: Need a working 7.3 yum repository Message-ID: <51F5B55D04F3EA4591451D3DF39E4AF30844EC@hqmsex01.madentech.com> OK... I have a Red Hat Linux 7.3 installation (2.4.18-3), and I need to get a set of updates for it. The yum repository at fedoralegacy is broken, and when I try to update from there I get error messages about interdependencies that can't be resolved (involving mozilla stuff). The yum repository at Duke is broken: When I try to update from there, I get a message that the signature check failed for XFree86-xf86cfg-4.2.1-13.73.23-i386.rpm. So far, I've been unable to locate another yum repository for Red Hat 7.3. Can anyone point me toward one? Alternatively, would it be possible to fix the fedoralegacy repository? (I'll join the Duke list and post there about that problem as well). Thanks, -- Chris From skvidal at phy.duke.edu Fri Nov 19 15:02:14 2004 From: skvidal at phy.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:02:14 -0500 Subject: Need a working 7.3 yum repository In-Reply-To: <51F5B55D04F3EA4591451D3DF39E4AF30844EC@hqmsex01.madentech.com> References: <51F5B55D04F3EA4591451D3DF39E4AF30844EC@hqmsex01.madentech.com> Message-ID: <1100876534.3349.8.camel@cutter> On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 09:55 -0500, Christian Call wrote: > OK... I have a Red Hat Linux 7.3 installation (2.4.18-3), and I need to get a set of updates for it. > > The yum repository at fedoralegacy is broken, and when I try to update from there I get error messages about interdependencies that can't be resolved (involving mozilla stuff). > > The yum repository at Duke is broken: When I try to update from there, I get a message that the signature check failed for XFree86-xf86cfg-4.2.1-13.73.23-i386.rpm. > > So far, I've been unable to locate another yum repository for Red Hat 7.3. > > Can anyone point me toward one? > > Alternatively, would it be possible to fix the fedoralegacy repository? (I'll join the Duke list and post there about that problem as well). > What is the dependency failure you're seeing from fedora legacy? The mirror at duke is just a stock rhl 7.3 mirror, it's not being updated anymore. the reason you're getting a signature check failure is probably b/c you don't have the gpg public keys imported. Check the fedoralegacy webpage for how to do that. -sv From CCall at madentech.com Fri Nov 19 15:08:06 2004 From: CCall at madentech.com (Christian Call) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:08:06 -0500 Subject: Need a working 7.3 yum repository Message-ID: <51F5B55D04F3EA4591451D3DF39E4AF30844EE@hqmsex01.madentech.com> I documented the fedoralecacy failure in a Bugzilla report (#2236) I wrote on Wednesday. Unfortunately, Bugzilla has been down. But the problem description is below. I don't see how the signature problem could be from failure to install the GPG keys. I installed the keys as instructed on the fedoralegacy web page you refer to. This error occurred after I had already downloaded *lots* of packages from Duke, without any signature-failure errors. Did I miss some keys? Are there different keys used by some of the Duke stuff that I need to install? Thanks for your reply, and for any further help you can offer. -- Chris === Begin After a fresh installation of Red Hat Linux 7.3 on an Intel P4 platform, I installed yum from download.fedoralegacy.org and tried to do a "yum update". I received the messages: .... identical dependency loop exceeded. package mozilla-psm needs mozilla-nss = 1.0.2-2.7.3 (not provided) package mozilla-psm needs mozilla-nss = 1.0.2-2.7.3 (not provided) I have been doing a fair number of Red Hat 7.3 installations over the past several weeks, and the yum updates used to work. As I recall, they stopped working (and started displaying the above problem) somewhere around November 5. Here is what uname -v -r reports for my system: 2.4.18-3smp #1 SMP Thu Apr 18 (etc.) I would appreciate any help with this problem. === End -----Original Message----- From: fedora-legacy-list-bounces at redhat.com on behalf of seth vidal Sent: Fri 11/19/2004 10:02 AM To: Discussion of the Fedora Legacy Project Cc: Subject: Re: Need a working 7.3 yum repository On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 09:55 -0500, Christian Call wrote: > OK... I have a Red Hat Linux 7.3 installation (2.4.18-3), and I need to get a set of updates for it. > > The yum repository at fedoralegacy is broken, and when I try to update from there I get error messages about interdependencies that can't be resolved (involving mozilla stuff). > > The yum repository at Duke is broken: When I try to update from there, I get a message that the signature check failed for XFree86-xf86cfg-4.2.1-13.73.23-i386.rpm. > > So far, I've been unable to locate another yum repository for Red Hat 7.3. > > Can anyone point me toward one? > > Alternatively, would it be possible to fix the fedoralegacy repository? (I'll join the Duke list and post there about that problem as well). > What is the dependency failure you're seeing from fedora legacy? The mirror at duke is just a stock rhl 7.3 mirror, it's not being updated anymore. the reason you're getting a signature check failure is probably b/c you don't have the gpg public keys imported. Check the fedoralegacy webpage for how to do that. -sv -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 6634 bytes Desc: not available URL: From skvidal at phy.duke.edu Fri Nov 19 15:17:21 2004 From: skvidal at phy.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:17:21 -0500 Subject: Need a working 7.3 yum repository In-Reply-To: <51F5B55D04F3EA4591451D3DF39E4AF30844EE@hqmsex01.madentech.com> References: <51F5B55D04F3EA4591451D3DF39E4AF30844EE@hqmsex01.madentech.com> Message-ID: <1100877441.3349.12.camel@cutter> On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 10:08 -0500, Christian Call wrote: > I documented the fedoralecacy failure in a Bugzilla report (#2236) I wrote on Wednesday. > > Unfortunately, Bugzilla has been down. But the problem description is below. > > I don't see how the signature problem could be from failure to install the GPG keys. > I installed the keys as instructed on the fedoralegacy web page you refer to. > This error occurred after I had already downloaded *lots* of packages from Duke, > without any signature-failure errors. > Did I miss some keys? Are there different keys used by some of the Duke stuff > that I need to install? The files at duke are just a stock red hat mirror. There are no "duke files". > === Begin > After a fresh installation of Red Hat Linux 7.3 on an Intel P4 platform, I > installed yum from download.fedoralegacy.org and tried to do a "yum update". I > received the messages: > > .... identical dependency loop exceeded. > package mozilla-psm needs mozilla-nss = 1.0.2-2.7.3 (not provided) > package mozilla-psm needs mozilla-nss = 1.0.2-2.7.3 (not provided) > > I have been doing a fair number of Red Hat 7.3 installations over the past > several weeks, and the yum updates used to work. As I recall, they stopped > working (and started displaying the above problem) somewhere around November 5. > > Here is what uname -v -r reports for my system: > > 2.4.18-3smp #1 SMP Thu Apr 18 (etc.) > > I would appreciate any help with this problem. try running yum upgrade instead of yum update and see if the mozilla issue goes away. I bet it will. -sv From cra at WPI.EDU Fri Nov 19 15:22:36 2004 From: cra at WPI.EDU (Charles R. Anderson) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:22:36 -0500 Subject: Need a working 7.3 yum repository In-Reply-To: <51F5B55D04F3EA4591451D3DF39E4AF30844EE@hqmsex01.madentech.com> References: <51F5B55D04F3EA4591451D3DF39E4AF30844EE@hqmsex01.madentech.com> Message-ID: <20041119152236.GS14135@angus.ind.WPI.EDU> On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 10:08:06AM -0500, Christian Call wrote: > Did I miss some keys? You'll need the Fedora Legacy key, and the Red Hat Linux key. Try checking the sig on a package manually to see what key is failing: rpm --checksig -v /var/cache/yum/updates/packages/XFree86-xf86cfg-4.2.1-13.73.23-i386.rpm Header V3 DSA signature: OK, key ID db42a60e Header SHA1 digest: OK (4b1e883971a4380ab90ec106391dfa82c36cbf79) MD5 digest: OK (499fc4c20822e6dd09c8a5f2a17ee4a7) V3 DSA signature: OK, key ID db42a60e From webmaster at jnsolutions.co.uk Fri Nov 19 15:30:36 2004 From: webmaster at jnsolutions.co.uk (Nunners) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:30:36 -0000 Subject: RH 7.3 Download Message-ID: HI All, Does anyone know where I can download a copy of Redhat 7.3 from please? I've looked through the download section of fedoralegacy.org but can't find the original iso's. Many thanks James -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cshelton at indiana.edu Fri Nov 19 15:42:39 2004 From: cshelton at indiana.edu (Chris Shelton) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 10:42:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: RH 7.3 Download In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 James, On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 at 3:30pm, Nunners wrote: > Does anyone know where I can download a copy of Redhat 7.3 from please? > > I've looked through the download section of fedoralegacy.org but can't find > the original iso's. There is a list of mirror sites available here: http://freshrpms.net/mirrors/redhat/7.3.html Many of the sites seem to have discontinued their redhat 7.3 directories, but several of the sites still seem to have the original ISO's available for download. chris - -- Chris Shelton -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.3.90 (GNU/Linux) iD4DBQFBnhR0M5TknMKatUwRAhpzAJ0X3Tw+d2u4JZNU9e4CUOpQFoETswCYlZVm vZTCdTNfA07a7ZtVPH4DJQ== =HBH2 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From steffen.grunewald at aei.mpg.de Fri Nov 19 16:09:59 2004 From: steffen.grunewald at aei.mpg.de (Steffen Grunewald) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 17:09:59 +0100 Subject: RH 7.3 Download In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20041119160959.GC32678@debian-server.aei.mpg.de> On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 10:42:39AM -0500, Chris Shelton wrote: > There is a list of mirror sites available here: > > http://freshrpms.net/mirrors/redhat/7.3.html > > Many of the sites seem to have discontinued their redhat 7.3 directories, > but several of the sites still seem to have the original ISO's available > for download. If anything alse fails (but only then) I might setup a copy for you (3 CD version, cannot promise they are still readable). I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to do this... Steffen -- Steffen Grunewald * * * Merlin cluster admin (http://pandora.aei.mpg.de) Albert-Einstein-Institut (MPI Gravitationsphysik, http://www.aei.mpg.de) Science Park Golm, Am M?hlenberg 1, 14476 Potsdam, Germany e-mail: steffen.grunewald(*)aei.mpg.de * +49-331-567-{fon:7233,fax:7298} From webmaster at jnsolutions.co.uk Fri Nov 19 16:12:15 2004 From: webmaster at jnsolutions.co.uk (Nunners) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:12:15 -0000 Subject: RH 7.3 Download In-Reply-To: <20041119160959.GC32678@debian-server.aei.mpg.de> Message-ID: Thank you everyone - I am currently taking all my works bandwidth trying to download them from about 4 mirror sites now! Cheers James > -----Original Message----- > From: Steffen Grunewald [mailto:steffen.grunewald at aei.mpg.de] > Sent: 19 November 2004 16:10 > To: Discussion of the Fedora Legacy Project > Subject: Re: RH 7.3 Download > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 10:42:39AM -0500, Chris Shelton wrote: > > There is a list of mirror sites available here: > > > > http://freshrpms.net/mirrors/redhat/7.3.html > > > > Many of the sites seem to have discontinued their redhat 7.3 > directories, > > but several of the sites still seem to have the original ISO's available > > for download. > > If anything alse fails (but only then) I might setup a copy for you > (3 CD version, cannot promise they are still readable). > I'm not sure whether I'm allowed to do this... > > Steffen > > -- > Steffen Grunewald * * * Merlin cluster admin (http://pandora.aei.mpg.de) > Albert-Einstein-Institut (MPI Gravitationsphysik, http://www.aei.mpg.de) > Science Park Golm, Am M?hlenberg 1, 14476 Potsdam, Germany > e-mail: steffen.grunewald(*)aei.mpg.de * +49-331-567-{fon:7233,fax:7298} > > -- > fedora-legacy-list mailing list > fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list > From rostetter at mail.utexas.edu Fri Nov 19 17:49:40 2004 From: rostetter at mail.utexas.edu (Eric Rostetter) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 11:49:40 -0600 Subject: Need a working 7.3 yum repository In-Reply-To: <51F5B55D04F3EA4591451D3DF39E4AF30844EC@hqmsex01.madentech.com> References: <51F5B55D04F3EA4591451D3DF39E4AF30844EC@hqmsex01.madentech.com> Message-ID: <1100886580.e7246708e11c9@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Quoting Christian Call : > OK... I have a Red Hat Linux 7.3 installation (2.4.18-3), and I need to get a > set of updates for it. Fedora Legacy is the way to go. > The yum repository at fedoralegacy is broken, and when I try to update from > there I get error messages about interdependencies that can't be resolved > (involving mozilla stuff). Maybe you have a non-standard install or something? I use the 7.3 repo from Fedora Legacy all the time with no problems. If there are real problems, then you need to say what they are so they can be fixed. You can't just say it is broken, when others have no problems with it, and expect it to be resolved. > So far, I've been unable to locate another yum repository for Red Hat 7.3. You will find no better than Fedora Legacy. > Can anyone point me toward one? Nope. > Alternatively, would it be possible to fix the fedoralegacy repository? It it is broken, yes. But you seem to be the only person reporting problems with it. > (I'll join the Duke list and post there about that problem as well). > > Thanks, > > -- Chris > > -- > fedora-legacy-list mailing list > fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list > -- Eric Rostetter From SNielsen at comscore.com Fri Nov 19 18:38:04 2004 From: SNielsen at comscore.com (Nielsen, Steve) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:38:04 -0500 Subject: Need a working 7.3 yum repository Message-ID: <66E9FEE99E96034ABB4DE197A927DBF105921F9B@csiadmail01.office.comscore.com> I had similar issue and realized I needed to re yum-arch my updates area. The header file corruption was entirely on my side. If you rsync (to make you have all rpms) and then yum-arch you should be okay. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Eric Rostetter [mailto:rostetter at mail.utexas.edu] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2004 11:50 AM To: fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com Subject: Re: Need a working 7.3 yum repository Quoting Christian Call : > OK... I have a Red Hat Linux 7.3 installation (2.4.18-3), and I need to get a > set of updates for it. Fedora Legacy is the way to go. > The yum repository at fedoralegacy is broken, and when I try to update from > there I get error messages about interdependencies that can't be resolved > (involving mozilla stuff). Maybe you have a non-standard install or something? I use the 7.3 repo from Fedora Legacy all the time with no problems. If there are real problems, then you need to say what they are so they can be fixed. You can't just say it is broken, when others have no problems with it, and expect it to be resolved. > So far, I've been unable to locate another yum repository for Red Hat 7.3. You will find no better than Fedora Legacy. > Can anyone point me toward one? Nope. > Alternatively, would it be possible to fix the fedoralegacy repository? It it is broken, yes. But you seem to be the only person reporting problems with it. > (I'll join the Duke list and post there about that problem as well). > > Thanks, > > -- Chris > > -- > fedora-legacy-list mailing list > fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list > -- Eric Rostetter -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list From CCall at madentech.com Fri Nov 19 20:00:53 2004 From: CCall at madentech.com (Christian Call) Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 15:00:53 -0500 Subject: Need a working 7.3 yum repository Message-ID: <51F5B55D04F3EA4591451D3DF39E4AF30844F1@hqmsex01.madentech.com> Yes, indeed--using "upgrade" instead of "update" allowed the process to run to completion. It's hard for me to tell whether that's a bug or a feature, but at any rate I appreciate the help Thanks! -- Chris -----Original Message----- From: fedora-legacy-list-bounces at redhat.com on behalf of seth vidal Sent: Fri 11/19/2004 10:17 AM try running yum upgrade instead of yum update and see if the mozilla issue goes away. I bet it will. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: winmail.dat Type: application/ms-tnef Size: 3938 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dcbw at redhat.com Tue Nov 9 21:21:48 2004 From: dcbw at redhat.com (Dan Williams) Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 16:21:48 -0500 Subject: FC1 OpenOffice.org builds Message-ID: <1100035308.16779.7.camel@dcbw.boston.redhat.com> Hi, Since FC1 updates have been moved from Red Hat to Fedora Legacy project, I don't have the facility inside Red Hat as the OOo packager (using the internal build system or whatever) to make updated builds of OpenOffice.org available. However, I've made sure that FC1 builds work correctly by flipping a bit in the specfile, and have built the current version myself on FC1+updates. This version is 1.1.2-11. I'd like to make that available to FC1 users since it fixes a wide variety of problems with the FC1 version of OOo. What needs to be done to get updated FC1 versions of OOo into the update queue on Fedora Legacy? Cheers, Dan (Please CC me on replies, I'm not subscribed to the list) From geoh_41 at yahoo.com Wed Nov 10 02:09:42 2004 From: geoh_41 at yahoo.com (George) Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:09:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: iptables changes Message-ID: <20041110020942.22676.qmail@web14022.mail.yahoo.com> Hello, I recently purchased a box with an ABIT motherboard and an Athlon 3200+ processor running Fedora2 on a cable modem. I installed my own firewall from netfilter.org using iptables. I am a bit of a newbie. I have used RH update and YUM and recently took a look at my tables and they have been changed cosiderably in several places to include: Chain INPUT RH-Firewall-1-INPUT Policy accept all anywhere Chain FORWARD Policy accept RH-Firewall-1-FORWARD accept all anywhere anywhere Chain RH-Firewall-1-INPUT accept all anywhere anywhere ACCEPT all anywhere aywhere ACCEPT icmp all anywhere anywhere ACCEPT IPV6-crypt anywhere anywhere ACCEPT IPV6-AUTH anywhere anywhere and more too numerous to write Is this the result of using YUM and or Redhat up2date or has someone been in my box? I would sure appreciate any feedback about this that someone on staff may be able to answer. Sincerely, George Hare __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. www.yahoo.com From alilou_linux at yahoo.fr Thu Nov 18 08:26:42 2004 From: alilou_linux at yahoo.fr (AlilouLinux) Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 09:26:42 +0100 Subject: [RH9] impossible to mount eth0 under VMware Message-ID: <000401c4cd60$94bceb60$1837ac0a@diepu.univtours.local> Hello the list, I installed Red Hat 9 (the same problem exist within fedora) under Windows with the assistance of the VMware software. I encountered a problem: The network card eth0 does not be mounted. Even when I test the software of the network management. The system give me the following messages: Mounting eth0: failed It is impossible to activate eth0 definition of IP information for eth0 failed. No link is found. Check the cable? Whereas when I leave the VMware software (return under Windows), the network exists. Do you have a solution or explanations? Thank you __________ Aliloulinux -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From p.cain at phasefale.com.au Sun Nov 21 23:59:34 2004 From: p.cain at phasefale.com.au (Peter Cain) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:59:34 +1100 Subject: [RH9] impossible to mount eth0 under VMware In-Reply-To: <000401c4cd60$94bceb60$1837ac0a@diepu.univtours.local> References: <000401c4cd60$94bceb60$1837ac0a@diepu.univtours.local> Message-ID: <41A12BE6.8000205@phasefale.com.au> This is an issue with VMware and is covered in they're knowledge base. Putting 'dhcp' into the knowledge base search gets you the answer. http://www.vmware.com/support/kb/enduser/std_adp.php?p_sid=tBh2I5rh&p_lva=&p_faqid=977&p_created=1050435523&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9ncmlkc29ydD0mcF9yb3dfY250PTIwJnBfc2VhcmNoX3RleHQ9ZGhjcCZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPTcmcF9wcm9kX2x2bDE9fmFueX4mcF9wcm9kX2x2bDI9fmFueX4mcF9jYXRfbHZsMT1_YW55fiZwX2NhdF9sdmwyPX5hbnl_JnBfc29ydF9ieT1kZmx0JnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li= AlilouLinux wrote: > Hello the list, > I installed Red Hat 9 (the same problem exist within fedora) under Windows > with the assistance of the VMware software. > I encountered a problem: The network card eth0 does not be mounted. Even > when I test the software of the network management. > The system give me the following messages: > Mounting eth0: failed > It is impossible to activate eth0 > definition of IP information for eth0 failed. No link is found. Check > the cable? > > Whereas when I leave the VMware software (return under Windows), the > network > exists. Do you have a solution or explanations? Thank you > __________ > Aliloulinux > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >-- >fedora-legacy-list mailing list >fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com >http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list > -- Peter Cain Senior Programmer Phasefale Pty Ltd From jkosin at beta.intcomgrp.com Mon Nov 22 17:20:22 2004 From: jkosin at beta.intcomgrp.com (James Kosin) Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 12:20:22 -0500 Subject: fedora-legacy-list Digest, Vol 9, Issue 18 In-Reply-To: <20041122170008.6F62573F71@hormel.redhat.com> References: <20041122170008.6F62573F71@hormel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <41A21FD6.5000109@beta.intcomgrp.com> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 fedora-legacy-list-request at redhat.com wrote: |------------------------------ | |Message: 2 |Date: Tue, 9 Nov 2004 18:09:42 -0800 (PST) |From: George |Subject: iptables changes |To: fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com |Cc: geoh_41 at yahoo.com |Message-ID: <20041110020942.22676.qmail at web14022.mail.yahoo.com> |Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii | |Hello, | |I recently purchased a box with an ABIT motherboard |and an Athlon 3200+ processor running Fedora2 on a |cable modem. I installed my own firewall from |netfilter.org using iptables. I am a bit of a newbie. |I have used RH update and YUM and recently took a look |at my tables and they have been changed cosiderably in |several places to include: | |Chain INPUT |RH-Firewall-1-INPUT Policy accept all anywhere |Chain FORWARD Policy accept |RH-Firewall-1-FORWARD accept all anywhere anywhere |Chain RH-Firewall-1-INPUT accept all anywhere anywhere |ACCEPT all anywhere aywhere |ACCEPT icmp all anywhere anywhere |ACCEPT IPV6-crypt anywhere anywhere |ACCEPT IPV6-AUTH anywhere anywhere |and more too numerous to write | |Is this the result of using YUM and or Redhat up2date |or has someone been in my box? |I would sure appreciate any feedback about this that |someone on staff may be able to answer. | |Sincerely, | |George Hare | | | | | | |__________________________________ |Do you Yahoo!? |Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page. |www.yahoo.com | | | | Either someone has been in your box, or you really don't understand setting up iptables. This is a wide open system that poses a security risk. Please fix this ASAP and start searching for who setup this. Sorry, If I'm a bit harsh. PS: Change your root password ASAP as well. James Kosin -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBoh/WkNLDmnu1kSkRAqoXAJ9jLjSYAa9y7lSGjCeQ1dXvJXrNvgCeMX54 uA5HAbPq6D70eCQz8vHfzb0= =Ifun -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From marcdeslauriers at videotron.ca Tue Nov 23 13:09:52 2004 From: marcdeslauriers at videotron.ca (Marc Deslauriers) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 08:09:52 -0500 Subject: FC1 OpenOffice.org builds In-Reply-To: <1100035308.16779.7.camel@dcbw.boston.redhat.com> References: <1100035308.16779.7.camel@dcbw.boston.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1101215392.18548.4.camel@mdlinux> On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 16:21 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: > Since FC1 updates have been moved from Red Hat to Fedora Legacy project, > I don't have the facility inside Red Hat as the OOo packager (using the > internal build system or whatever) to make updated builds of > OpenOffice.org available. However, I've made sure that FC1 builds work > correctly by flipping a bit in the specfile, and have built the current > version myself on FC1+updates. This version is 1.1.2-11. I'd like to > make that available to FC1 users since it fixes a wide variety of > problems with the FC1 version of OOo. > > What needs to be done to get updated FC1 versions of OOo into the update > queue on Fedora Legacy? Hi Dan, You can add it to the FL bugzilla: https://bugzilla.fedora.us/buglist.cgi?keywords=LEGACY (Make sure to put it in the "Fedora Legacy" product). Or, you can send me a personal mail with the details and I'll handle it in myself. Usually we only release security updates, but we can discuss making an exception for OOo. Thanks! Marc. -------------- 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 mark.scott at csuk-solutions.net Tue Nov 23 14:48:12 2004 From: mark.scott at csuk-solutions.net (Mark Scott) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 14:48:12 +0000 Subject: Self Introduction: Mark Scott Message-ID: <41A34DAC.1050601@csuk-solutions.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 1. Full name: Mark A. Scott 2. Location : Edinburgh, Scotland, UK 3. Status : Website Developer / Sysadmin. 4. Company : Caravan Sitefinder UK Ltd. 5. Goals : Wish to do QA on existing test packages, either source RPMs and/or the updates-testing binaries, particularly ~ packages used in a webserver/database environment. ~ OS Version: Fedora Core 1. ~ Do QA?: Yes, I want to do QA. 6. History: Submitted either bug reports or patches to various bits ~ of software and Linux distributions, in particular Linux ~ Mandrake. ~ Qualific-: ~ ations : Languages/skills: o C/C++/JAVA/PHP o BASH shell scripting o HTML o Know my way around spec & patch files; have upgraded and patched SRPMs. o Have used Linux since 1997 ~ - Redhat, Fedora but primarily Mandrake 7. GPG KEYID & Fingerprint: $ gpg --fingerprint 8ACFFBAF pub 1024D/8ACFFBAF 2004-11-23 Mark Scott ~ Key fingerprint = EED9 4AD8 2FD0 3B99 2D9D 5537 9762 347D 8ACF FBAF sub 1024g/26675EA3 2004-11-23 [published to pgp.mit.edu] - -- Mark Scott CSUK Solutions Technical Team Tel: +44 (0)845 6444 185 Email: mark.scott at csuk-solutions.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBo02gl2I0fYrP+68RAkbPAKC6dV4Fu02Cf42hBl4ozyWBEN0CRACfX/kG +0Yg2kgfOwbFVyZD5KK8KNs= =B8vk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rob.myers at gtri.gatech.edu Tue Nov 23 16:11:56 2004 From: rob.myers at gtri.gatech.edu (Rob Myers) Date: Tue, 23 Nov 2004 11:11:56 -0500 Subject: FC1 OpenOffice.org builds In-Reply-To: <1101215392.18548.4.camel@mdlinux> References: <1100035308.16779.7.camel@dcbw.boston.redhat.com> <1101215392.18548.4.camel@mdlinux> Message-ID: <1101226316.23408.70.camel@rXm-581b.stl.gtri.gatech.edu> On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 08:09, Marc Deslauriers wrote: > On Tue, 2004-11-09 at 16:21 -0500, Dan Williams wrote: > > Since FC1 updates have been moved from Red Hat to Fedora Legacy project, > > I don't have the facility inside Red Hat as the OOo packager (using the > > internal build system or whatever) to make updated builds of > > OpenOffice.org available. However, I've made sure that FC1 builds work > > correctly by flipping a bit in the specfile, and have built the current > > version myself on FC1+updates. This version is 1.1.2-11. I'd like to > > make that available to FC1 users since it fixes a wide variety of > > problems with the FC1 version of OOo. > > Usually we only release security updates, but we can discuss making an > exception for OOo. my thoughts are that if 1) it comes from an upstream maintainer, 2) it passes QA, and 3) it fixes an existing package without changing it "too much" it should be published. my $0.02 rob. From webmaster at jnsolutions.co.uk Wed Nov 24 10:39:40 2004 From: webmaster at jnsolutions.co.uk (James Nunnerley) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 10:39:40 -0000 Subject: Compaq SmartStart Message-ID: This is going to sound a slightly silly question, and slightly off-topic. but. I've just received a copy of the SmartStart 5.5 disks, and want to run it to install Redhat 7.3.. How do I start SmartStart?!!!! It doesn't want to boot from the CD's - assuming they are bootable. Cheers James -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From webmaster at jnsolutions.co.uk Wed Nov 24 11:00:08 2004 From: webmaster at jnsolutions.co.uk (James Nunnerley) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:00:08 -0000 Subject: Compaq SmartStart Message-ID: Whoops - sorry folks - worked out why now - I'd swopped the CD Rom cables, and the one I was using was knackered.. James _____ From: James Nunnerley [mailto:webmaster at jnsolutions.co.uk] Sent: 24 November 2004 10:40 To: 'fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com' Subject: Compaq SmartStart This is going to sound a slightly silly question, and slightly off-topic. but. I've just received a copy of the SmartStart 5.5 disks, and want to run it to install Redhat 7.3.. How do I start SmartStart?!!!! It doesn't want to boot from the CD's - assuming they are bootable. Cheers James -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tgc at statsbiblioteket.dk Wed Nov 24 11:00:20 2004 From: tgc at statsbiblioteket.dk (Tom G. Christensen) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 12:00:20 +0100 Subject: Compaq SmartStart In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <41A469C4.20602@statsbiblioteket.dk> James Nunnerley wrote: > I?ve just received a copy of the SmartStart 5.5 disks, and want to run > it to install Redhat 7.3?. > Unless you need to modify the hardware settings you don't need it for anything when installing Linux. It's only purpose is hardware configuration and creation of the EISA partition. Now you don't actually need the EISA partition at all. It's just convenient sometimes when you need to change a hardware setting and can't be bothered to boot from the CD. > How do I start SmartStart?!!!! It doesn?t want to boot from the CD?s ? > assuming they are bootable? > The SmartStart for Servers CD is bootable. The Management CD is not. -tgc From webmaster at jnsolutions.co.uk Wed Nov 24 11:45:14 2004 From: webmaster at jnsolutions.co.uk (James Nunnerley) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 11:45:14 -0000 Subject: RH 7.3 on Compaq PL2500 installation Message-ID: Hi all, I'm trying to install RedHat 7.3 on a Compaq Proliant 2500. I've followed all the instructions on www.cpqlinux.com and what is with the Compaq Support pages, and everything seems fine.. I've booted from the RH cd, and install using: Linux mem=256M (If I just used linux it would say there's not enough memory) It ticks away and gets to the following lines and stops IP Protocols: ICMP, UDP, TCP IP: routing cache has table of 512 buckets, 4Kbytes TCP: Hash tables configured (established 1024 bind 1024) NET4: Unix domain sockets 1.0/SMP for Linux Net4.0 EXT2-fs: unable to read superblock Cramfs: wrong magic FAT: unable to read boot sector Isofs_read_super: bread failed, dev=09:00, iso_blknum=16, block=32 Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 09:00 Am I correct by saying it's something to do with the disk drives? If so, how do I get around it? Cheers James -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From byte at aeon.com.my Wed Nov 24 14:55:02 2004 From: byte at aeon.com.my (Colin Charles) Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2004 22:55:02 +0800 Subject: FC1 OpenOffice.org builds In-Reply-To: <1101226316.23408.70.camel@rXm-581b.stl.gtri.gatech.edu> References: <1100035308.16779.7.camel@dcbw.boston.redhat.com> <1101215392.18548.4.camel@mdlinux> <1101226316.23408.70.camel@rXm-581b.stl.gtri.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <1101308102.12254.63.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2004-11-23 at 11:11 -0500, Rob Myers wrote: > > Usually we only release security updates, but we can discuss making an > > exception for OOo. > > my thoughts are that if 1) it comes from an upstream maintainer, 2) it > passes QA, and 3) it fixes an existing package without changing it "too > much" it should be published. In fact, for (1) you can drop the "upstream" bit, and make sure that (2) and (3) happen, and a package should still be pushed All this assuming the maintainer in (1) is willing to continue maintaining the package, and let bugs get assigned to her/him -- Colin Charles, byte at aeon.com.my http://www.bytebot.net/ "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mohandas Gandhi From hjp+fedora-legacy at wsr.ac.at Thu Nov 25 16:31:29 2004 From: hjp+fedora-legacy at wsr.ac.at (Peter J. Holzer) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 17:31:29 +0100 Subject: Non-critical (but annoying) bug in procps 2.0.7 Message-ID: <20041125163129.GR10227@wsr.ac.at> The top program from procps 2.0.7 (as distributed with RH 7.3) computes the CPU states wrong if the machine has multiple CPUs and at least one CPU has more than 2^31-1 idle jiffies. If this CPU has been totally idle since the last refresh, top will die with a floating point exception, otherwise it will show a CPU usage of 100%. The bug is fixed in procps 2.0.11 (RH 9), so we could either just take the RPM from RH 9, or apply the (rather trivial) patch. Comments? hp -- _ | Peter J. Holzer | If the code is old but the problem is new |_|_) | Sysadmin WSR / LUGA | then the code probably isn't the problem. | | | hjp at wsr.ac.at | __/ | http://www.hjp.at/ | -- Tim Bunce on dbi-users, 2004-11-05 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 388 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tedkaz at optonline.net Fri Nov 26 22:08:44 2004 From: tedkaz at optonline.net (Ted Kaczmarek) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:08:44 -0500 Subject: RH 7.3 on Compaq PL2500 installation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1101506924.4499.14.camel@inyoureyes.linsolutions.com> On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 11:45 +0000, James Nunnerley wrote: > Hi all, > > > > I?m trying to install RedHat 7.3 on a Compaq Proliant 2500. > > > > I?ve followed all the instructions on www.cpqlinux.com and what is > with the Compaq Support pages, and everything seems fine?. > > > > I?ve booted from the RH cd, and install using: > > Linux mem=256M > > > > (If I just used linux it would say there?s not enough memory) > > > > It ticks away and gets to the following lines and stops > > IP Protocols: ICMP, UDP, TCP > > IP: routing cache has table of 512 buckets, 4Kbytes > > TCP: Hash tables configured (established 1024 bind 1024) > > NET4: Unix domain sockets 1.0/SMP for Linux Net4.0 > > EXT2-fs: unable to read superblock > > Cramfs: wrong magic > > FAT: unable to read boot sector > > Isofs_read_super: bread failed, dev=09:00, iso_blknum=16, block=32 > > Kernel panic: VFS: Unable to mount root fs on 09:00 > > > > Am I correct by saying it?s something to do with the disk drives? > > > > If so, how do I get around it? > > > > Cheers > > James > Do you have 256 mb of memory? Remember some quirks with certain compaqs where they use regular ram for video, if that is indeed the case maybe your ramdisk is getting hosed on bootup. ram=248 or something close to that may save you. You could also try installing from text instead of graphical mode if you haven't already? 3 things I know of that can be wrong. Your scsi module did not load on boot Your filesystem module did not load on boot Your HD is trashed Alternately after you get the machine up, you can eliminate the need for the ramdisk(where the modules get loaded for boot) by compliling the modules into your kernel. This is good and bad, good if the drivers are all fine, bad if you need a patched driver. Try booting from a floppy, and manually loading the modules. Google for your mobo for right one if your are indeed using scsi. Not for nothing, but do you have a specific requirement for RH 7.3? Kind of odd at this stage in the game for a fresh 7.3 install otherwise. FC1 is where I would send you if you want to stay on 2.4 series kernel. Ted From marcdeslauriers at videotron.ca Sat Nov 27 00:14:58 2004 From: marcdeslauriers at videotron.ca (Marc Deslauriers) Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 19:14:58 -0500 Subject: RH 7.3 on Compaq PL2500 installation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1101514498.13812.0.camel@mdlinux> On Wed, 2004-11-24 at 11:45 +0000, James Nunnerley wrote: > Isofs_read_super: bread failed, dev=09:00, iso_blknum=16, block=32 Isn't this a cd-rom error? Are you sure your media is good? Marc. -------------- 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 dom at earth.li Sun Nov 28 18:11:27 2004 From: dom at earth.li (Dominic Hargreaves) Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:11:27 +0000 Subject: Round-up, 2004-11-28 Message-ID: <20041128181125.GA3941@home.thedom.org> $Id: issues.txt,v 1.136 2004/11/28 18:10:17 dom Exp $ See bottom for changes This list is also available at http://www-astro.physics.ox.ac.uk/~dom/legacy/issues.txt Packages that have been verified and should be fully released ------------------------------------------------------------- Packages waiting to be built for updates-testing ------------------------------------------------ yum - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1604 gnome-vfs - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1944 libxpm - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2075 gpdf - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2195 xpdf - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2186 unarj - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2272 Packages in state RESOLVED (ie exist in updates-testing) that need active work. ------------------------------------------------------------------ httpd - http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2148 Needs VERIFY [rh73] abiword - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1906 Needs 2 VERIFY [rh73,rh9] tripwire - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1719 Needs VERIFY for rh73 mailman - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1269 There were some unconfirmed reports of breakage with the candidate. This needs more QA before release. Packages in state UNCONFIRMED, NEW, ASSIGNED or REOPENED: -------------------------------------------------------- readline - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2017 Needs QA and decision on whether to release [rh9] libpng - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1943 Need PUBLISH [rh73,rh9,fc1] sox - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=1945 Needs possible renaming of rh7.3 package and PUBLISH for rh9 qt - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2002 Needs 2 PUBLISH gdk-pixbuf - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2005 Needs PUBLISH [rh9] mysql - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2006 Needs 2 PUBLISH ruby - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2007 Needs PUBLISH [fc1], packages for [rh73,rh9]? kdelibs - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2008 Needs 2 PUBLISH mc - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2009 Needs PUBLISH pam_wheel - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2010 Needs PUBLISH and full auditing and packages for rh9 krb5 - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2040 Needs 1 PUBLISH for rh9 / investigate possible bug introduced zlib - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2043 Needs PUBLISH [fc1] imlib - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2051 Needs PUBLISH [rh9] ImageMagick - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2052 Needs PUBLISH [rh73,rh9] cdrecord - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2058 Needs 2 PUBLISH for rh9 gtk2 - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2073 Needs PUBLISH [rh9] openoffice - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2074 Needs PUBLISH for rh9 redhat-config-nfs - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2086 Need PUBLISH for rh9 rp-pppoe - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2116 Need PUBLISH for rh73, rh9 cups - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2127 Needs PUBLISH [rh73,rh9,fc1] kernel - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2128 Needs investigation/packages mysql - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2129 Needs QA [rh73,rh9] gtk2 - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2134 Needs investigation cyrus-sasl - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2137 Needs QA [7.3] lesstiff - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2142 Needs PUBLISH [rh73,rh9,fc1] openmotif - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2143 Needs PUBLISH [rh73,rh9,fc1], further work? security.conf - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2146 Needs QA [fc1,rh9], packages [rh9], discussion of updated extras squid - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2150 Needs QA [rh9] gettext - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2151 Needs investigation/packages sharutils - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2155 Needs QA [rh73,rh9,fc1] libtiff - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2163 Needs QA [rh73] kdefax - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2164 Needs PUBLISH [rh73,rh9,fc1] freeradius - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2187 Needs PUBLISH [fc1] gaim - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2188 Needs PUBLISH [rh73,rh9,fc1] libxml2 - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2207 Needs PUBLISH [rh73,rh9,fc1] links - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2213 Needs packages/investigation mozilla - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2214 Needs investigation/packages lynx - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2215 Needs investigation/packages w3m - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2216 Needs investigation/packages ppp - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2229 Needs investigation/packages (reject I guess...) dhcp - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2251 Needs investigation/packages iptables - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2252 Needs investigation/packages shadow - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2253 Needs investigation/packages libgd - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2254 Needs investigation/packages zip - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2255 Needs PUBLISH [rh73,rh9,fc1] groff - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2256 Needs investigation/packages openssl - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2257 Needs investigation/packages lvm - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2258 Needs investigation/packages netatalk - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2259 Needs investigation/packages postgresql - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2260 Needs investigation/packages perl - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2261 Needs investigation/packages pppd - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2262 Needs investigation/packages samba - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2264 Needs PUBLISH [rh73,rh9,fc1] glibc - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2265 Needs investigation/packages ghostscript - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2266 Needs investigation/packages krb5 - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2267 Needs investigation/packages spamassassin - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2268 Needs investigation/packages squirrelmail - http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2290 Needs investigation/packages sudo - http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2291 Needs investigation/packages gzip - http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2292 Needs investigation/packages General (non-package bugs) -------------------------- sample yum.conf - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2140 up2date - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2193 up2date - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2194 updates - http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2281 up2date - http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2306 Notes ----- Needs PUBLISH means that there are packages available for QA that need to be QAd at the source level. Needs VERIFY means that there are updates-testing packages that need testing. This is the easy bit, let's get this old ones out of the way ASAP. * means that there is a judgement call that can be made on the bug system immediately. Please follow up onlist with opinions. Changes ------- $Log: issues.txt,v $ Revision 1.136 2004/11/28 18:10:17 dom new packages Revision 1.135 2004/11/28 17:56:13 dom Many updates Revision 1.134 2004/11/16 23:53:39 dom updates Revision 1.133 2004/11/16 00:30:54 dom move httpd Revision 1.132 2004/11/13 00:34:24 dom update xpdf Revision 1.131 2004/11/10 22:38:32 dom changes Revision 1.130 2004/11/10 01:25:05 dom many new packages Revision 1.129 2004/11/06 00:27:11 dom update imagemagick Revision 1.128 2004/11/06 00:25:49 dom remove various Revision 1.127 2004/11/06 00:22:02 dom rob's update -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: From pekkas at netcore.fi Mon Nov 29 07:02:15 2004 From: pekkas at netcore.fi (Pekka Savola) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:02:15 +0200 (EET) Subject: Round-up, 2004-11-28 In-Reply-To: <20041128181125.GA3941@home.thedom.org> References: <20041128181125.GA3941@home.thedom.org> Message-ID: On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > httpd - http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2148 > Needs VERIFY [rh73] This has been superceded. There's a new bug out there allowing local code execution through SSI parsing, and I guess this update should include that as well... btw. when I had a bit of free time last week, I tried to figure how I could help e.g. with QA of some pending packages. It seemed waaaay too complex (starting with creation of separate-from-RH bugzilla accounts). Is there any chance of making the update creation and verification a bit simpler, so that it wouldn't take so damned huge amount of work to get an update out..? -- 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 mark.scott at csuk-solutions.net Mon Nov 29 09:34:00 2004 From: mark.scott at csuk-solutions.net (Mark Scott) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:34:00 +0000 Subject: Round-up, 2004-11-28 In-Reply-To: References: <20041128181125.GA3941@home.thedom.org> Message-ID: <41AAED08.2010307@csuk-solutions.net> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Pekka Savola wrote: | On Sun, 28 Nov 2004, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: | |> httpd - http://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2148 |> Needs VERIFY [rh73] | | | This has been superceded. There's a new bug out there allowing local | code execution through SSI parsing, and I guess this update should | include that as well... | Is there some kind of policy on when an update gets merged in with another? If this continues to happen it can *really* delay the previous fixes. Bug 2148 has been open since 11th October, which means there has been nearly 2 months with webservers running an insecure httpd. - -- Mark Scott CSUK Solutions Technical Team Tel: +44 (0)845 6444 185 Email: mark.scott at csuk-solutions.net -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFBqu0Bl2I0fYrP+68RAr/cAJ9GJTMRAgYEhtshyEKUwDsLZr02sACgjN52 gSfMxxw4FQL+XDPbd9ythTo= =ky/5 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From marcdeslauriers at videotron.ca Mon Nov 29 13:17:47 2004 From: marcdeslauriers at videotron.ca (Marc Deslauriers) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:17:47 -0500 Subject: Round-up, 2004-11-28 In-Reply-To: <41AAED08.2010307@csuk-solutions.net> References: <20041128181125.GA3941@home.thedom.org> <41AAED08.2010307@csuk-solutions.net> Message-ID: <1101734267.23488.1.camel@mdlinux> On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 09:34 +0000, Mark Scott wrote: > Is there some kind of policy on when an update gets merged in with another? > If this continues to happen it can *really* delay the previous fixes. Bug > 2148 has been open since 11th October, which means there has been nearly 2 > months with webservers running an insecure httpd. I don't think there is an official policy, but if packages already have some QA done on them, opening a new bug for newer issues is the best idea. Bug 2148 still needs a rh73 VERIFY for it to get pushed to official updates and then the other vulnerability can be addressed. Marc. -------------- 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 marcdeslauriers at videotron.ca Mon Nov 29 13:19:51 2004 From: marcdeslauriers at videotron.ca (Marc Deslauriers) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 08:19:51 -0500 Subject: Round-up, 2004-11-28 In-Reply-To: References: <20041128181125.GA3941@home.thedom.org> Message-ID: <1101734391.23488.4.camel@mdlinux> On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 09:02 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: > accounts). Is there any chance of making the update creation and > verification a bit simpler, so that it wouldn't take so damned huge > amount of work to get an update out..? It would be nice to simplify the process so more users can contribute. Do you have any suggestions? Marc. -------------- 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 Mon Nov 29 23:07:54 2004 From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:07:54 -0800 Subject: Round-up, 2004-11-28 In-Reply-To: References: <20041128181125.GA3941@home.thedom.org> Message-ID: <200411291507.57888.jkeating@j2solutions.net> On Sunday 28 November 2004 23:02, Pekka Savola wrote: > btw. when I had a bit of free time last week, I tried to figure how I > could help e.g. with QA of some pending packages. It seemed waaaay > too complex (starting with creation of separate-from-RH bugzilla > accounts). Is there any chance of making the update creation and > verification a bit simpler, so that it wouldn't take so damned huge > amount of work to get an update out..? I'm still working with Red Hat on being able to use their bugzilla for Legacy stuff, therefor you'll be able to use your RH bugzilla account. You'll still NEED an account though. Other than the account, what is too complex? -- Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.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 jimpop at yahoo.com Tue Nov 30 01:36:24 2004 From: jimpop at yahoo.com (Jim Popovitch) Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 17:36:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: Round-up, 2004-11-28 In-Reply-To: <200411291507.57888.jkeating@j2solutions.net> Message-ID: <20041130013624.87741.qmail@web60710.mail.yahoo.com> --- Jesse eating wrote: > Other than the account, what is too complex? IMO, The bug system itself. That, and the steps involved in completely understanding WHAT needs to be tested and having/maintaining a stable (but not production) system to test the fix on. Oh yeah, also having enough faith to trust that others have *really* and *solidly* tested what they are labeling resolved. I think FL has just grown too fast and is trying to do too much. Support barely begins before it is dropped. I'd wish that RH would deal with their FC1/2/3 mess, they created it, and let FL focus only on Redhat Legacy stuff (i.e 6.2,7.3,8,9). Perhaps it's worth splitting and starting a Redhat-Legacy group, that way FL could focus on Fedora features and the new group could focus on just older Redhat security patches. Then again, Dag pretty much has that covered. -Jim P. From rob.myers at gtri.gatech.edu Tue Nov 30 15:00:54 2004 From: rob.myers at gtri.gatech.edu (Rob Myers) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:00:54 -0500 Subject: Round-up, 2004-11-28 In-Reply-To: <20041130013624.87741.qmail@web60710.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041130013624.87741.qmail@web60710.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1101826854.23408.110.camel@rXm-581b.stl.gtri.gatech.edu> On Mon, 2004-11-29 at 20:36, Jim Popovitch wrote: > --- Jesse eating wrote: > > Other than the account, what is too complex? > > IMO, The bug system itself. That, and the steps involved in completely > understanding WHAT needs to be tested and having/maintaining a stable (but not > production) system to test the fix on. Oh yeah, also having enough faith to > trust that others have *really* and *solidly* tested what they are labeling > resolved. the process requires many independent checks before an update is released. this robust process is designed to ensure that vulnerabilities are resolved in a solid fashion. in time the FL community will prove itself, and people will have the same "faith" in it that they have in other community projects. > I think FL has just grown too fast and is trying to do too much. i disagree. i think FL needs to grow faster. it needs to have more involvement. more people submitting patched packages. more people QA'ing those packages. and more people verifying those packages. please contribute. if anyone gets hung up on something that is too complex please ask for help on the mailing list or on irc. rob. From rostetter at mail.utexas.edu Tue Nov 30 15:34:55 2004 From: rostetter at mail.utexas.edu (Eric Rostetter) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:34:55 -0600 Subject: Round-up, 2004-11-28 In-Reply-To: <20041130013624.87741.qmail@web60710.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20041130013624.87741.qmail@web60710.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1101828895.fb08276cdc0ed@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Quoting Jim Popovitch : > --- Jesse eating wrote: > > Other than the account, what is too complex? > > IMO, The bug system itself. Do you mean Bugzilla, or something else? > That, and the steps involved in completely > understanding WHAT needs to be tested I agree it is hard for new people to know what needs testing, etc. The round-up sent out periodically (and linked off the web site) is of tremendous value here. It is perhaps the only reason FL is actually getting updates out IMHO. > and having/maintaining a stable (but > not > production) system to test the fix on. Well, not much we can do about that, in particular since that would be a site policy issue (along with site finances, etc). > Oh yeah, also having enough faith to > trust that others have *really* and *solidly* tested what they are labeling > resolved. This is the whole point of a community project. If you can't come to terms with this, then you really can't use any community project. Also, I don't have faith in many commercial vendors that they have really and solidly tested their software. I have as much or more faith in FL than in many vendors, or than in projects like FC. > I think FL has just grown too fast and is trying to do too much. I think it has grown too slowly myself. Not in what it is trying to do, that was stated in the beginning. But in getting people to participate and actually do the work, it has, and is, growing too slowely. > Support > barely begins before it is dropped. What are you refering to? The droping of RH 7.2 and RH 8? Or the FC1 support cycle? I disagree really. The plan, developed long ago, seems good to me. Supporting FC any longer than we decided to would be very problematic due to the large changes in FC releases. > I'd wish that RH would deal with their > FC1/2/3 mess, they created it, and let FL focus only on Redhat Legacy stuff > (i.e 6.2,7.3,8,9). Well, RH is not going to deal with any of it, so FL will have to do it if we want support. > Perhaps it's worth splitting and starting a Redhat-Legacy > group, that way FL could focus on Fedora features and the new group could > focus > on just older Redhat security patches. Then again, Dag pretty much has that > covered. No, no, and no. You could split into two groups if you want, no problem. FL for FC udpates, and RL for RHL updates. That isn't a big deal. But if you did, we would still want to provide updates only. No features, no upgrades, etc. Dag and FreshRPMS and all the others are completely 100% different from FL. They provide additions and upgrades to distributions, where as FL only provides updates/fixes for distributions. > -Jim P. > > > -- > fedora-legacy-list mailing list > fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list > -- Eric Rostetter From leonard at den.ottolander.nl Tue Nov 30 16:42:48 2004 From: leonard at den.ottolander.nl (Leonard den Ottolander) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 17:42:48 +0100 Subject: mc [was Re: Round-up, 2004-11-28] In-Reply-To: <20041128181125.GA3941@home.thedom.org> References: <20041128181125.GA3941@home.thedom.org> Message-ID: <1101832967.4785.11.camel@athlon.localdomain> Hello Dominic, On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 19:11, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > mc - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2009 > Needs PUBLISH The original fix for CAN-2004-0494 is incomplete. Apart from the original perl script quoting vulnerabilities in vfs upstream (mostly myself) has also fixed the vfs shell scripts wrt quoting issues. I believe Jindrich Novy is currently working on backporting these complete fixes to RHEL 2.1 and FC 2. Please wait until he finishes this job, so the complete patches can be included for RHL 7.3 and RHL 9. See also https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=127973 and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=127974 . Leonard. -- mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna /genetic/research From mattdm at mattdm.org Tue Nov 30 17:31:12 2004 From: mattdm at mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 12:31:12 -0500 Subject: Round-up, 2004-11-28 In-Reply-To: <1101828895.fb08276cdc0ed@mail.ph.utexas.edu> References: <20041130013624.87741.qmail@web60710.mail.yahoo.com> <1101828895.fb08276cdc0ed@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Message-ID: <20041130173112.GA27125@jadzia.bu.edu> On Tue, Nov 30, 2004 at 09:34:55AM -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote: > > IMO, The bug system itself. > Do you mean Bugzilla, or something else? Can't speak for the original poster, but I'd be happier with a nicer bugzilla _configuration_. -- Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org Boston University Linux ------> From shibu at iitk.ac.in Thu Nov 25 10:16:54 2004 From: shibu at iitk.ac.in (Shibu Clement Phd aero) Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2004 15:46:54 +0530 (IST) Subject: queries regarding fedora core 3 Message-ID: <32846.172.28.32.210.1101377814.squirrel@nwebmail.iitk.ac.in> I have few days back I have installed fedora core 3 on mu computer. It is having dual operating system. The other operating system is WindowsXP. Now I am not able to boot windowsXP. Can you give me a proper solution for this. I am a very bad shape. Waiting for your postive and prompt reply. My system is Pentium4, 3.2 Ghz with HT. The mother board is intel D865GVHZ. regards, Shibu From jnovy at redhat.com Tue Nov 30 17:11:12 2004 From: jnovy at redhat.com (Jindrich Novy) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 18:11:12 +0100 Subject: mc [was Re: Round-up, 2004-11-28] In-Reply-To: <1101832967.4785.11.camel@athlon.localdomain> References: <20041128181125.GA3941@home.thedom.org> <1101832967.4785.11.camel@athlon.localdomain> Message-ID: <1101834672.8423.35.camel@obelix.redhat.usu> Hello Leonard, Dominic, On Tue, 2004-11-30 at 17:42 +0100, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > Hello Dominic, > > On Sun, 2004-11-28 at 19:11, Dominic Hargreaves wrote: > > mc - https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=2009 > > Needs PUBLISH > > The original fix for CAN-2004-0494 is incomplete. Apart from the > original perl script quoting vulnerabilities in vfs upstream (mostly > myself) has also fixed the vfs shell scripts wrt quoting issues. > > I believe Jindrich Novy is currently working on backporting these > complete fixes to RHEL 2.1 and FC 2. Please wait until he finishes this > job, so the complete patches can be included for RHL 7.3 and RHL 9. To port the patches to RHEL 2.1 and FC2 is on my TODO list for tomorrow. For FC2 I think I'll include the mc version now available rawhide, mc-4.6.1-0.10. cheers, Jindrich -- Jindrich Novy , http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/ From ad+lists at uni-x.org Tue Nov 30 18:09:38 2004 From: ad+lists at uni-x.org (Alexander Dalloz) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 19:09:38 +0100 Subject: queries regarding fedora core 3 In-Reply-To: <32846.172.28.32.210.1101377814.squirrel@nwebmail.iitk.ac.in> References: <32846.172.28.32.210.1101377814.squirrel@nwebmail.iitk.ac.in> Message-ID: <1101838177.22761.420.camel@serendipity.dogma.lan> Am Do, den 25.11.2004 schrieb Shibu Clement Phd aero um 11:16: > I have few days back I have installed fedora core 3 on mu computer. It is > having dual operating system. The other operating system is WindowsXP. Now > Shibu You are mailing on the wrong list. Alexander -- Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | new address - new key: 0xB366A773 legal statement: http://www.uni-x.org/legal.html Fedora GNU/Linux Core 2 (Tettnang) on Athlon kernel 2.6.9-1.6_FC2smp Serendipity 19:09:30 up 10 days, 13:57, load average: 0.46, 0.67, 0.70 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil URL: From spamtrap433941935136 at anime.net Tue Nov 30 22:05:31 2004 From: spamtrap433941935136 at anime.net (Dan Hollis) Date: Tue, 30 Nov 2004 14:05:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: Round-up, 2004-11-28 In-Reply-To: <1101828895.fb08276cdc0ed@mail.ph.utexas.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 30 Nov 2004, Eric Rostetter wrote: > Quoting Jim Popovitch : > > --- Jesse eating wrote: > > > Other than the account, what is too complex? > > IMO, The bug system itself. > Do you mean Bugzilla, or something else? bugzilla is rather top heavy, cumbersome and non intuitive. i've used a number of different bug tracking systems and i'd rank it near the bottom. -Dan