From mattdm at mattdm.org Mon Jan 1 04:02:58 2007
From: mattdm at mattdm.org (Matthew Miller)
Date: Sun, 31 Dec 2006 23:02:58 -0500
Subject: Thanks FL! (was: Fedora Legacy shutting down)
In-Reply-To: <20061230111033.GD16034@neu.nirvana>
References: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net> <20061230111033.GD16034@neu.nirvana>
Message-ID: <20070101040258.GA31644@jadzia.bu.edu>
On Sat, Dec 30, 2006 at 12:10:33PM +0100, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2006 at 11:23:47PM -0600, David Eisenstein wrote:
> > In case any of you are not aware, the Fedora Legacy project is in the
> > process of shutting down.
> I think since this is the very official end of the project, very
> official thanks for all efforts are in order!
Yes, thank you so much, everyone. All of your work has been very helpful.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org
Boston University Linux ------>
From nils at lemonbit.nl Mon Jan 1 13:28:08 2007
From: nils at lemonbit.nl (Nils Breunese (Lemonbit))
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 14:28:08 +0100
Subject: Fedora Legacy shutting down
In-Reply-To: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
References: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
Message-ID: <4EC59776-D7A5-4D62-8394-66B9B88D6A69@lemonbit.nl>
David Eisenstein wrote:
> In case any of you are not aware, the Fedora Legacy project is in the
> process of shutting down.
There's a big discussion going on on Slashdot (http://
linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/31/1837253). I think it
really is time to change the right sidebar on www.fedoralegacy.org.
It still says RHL 7.3, 9 and FC3 and 4 are supported releases. The
statement in the middle column says FC4 and earlier releases are no
longer maintained, but it doesn't make a statement about RHL 7.3 and
9. Also http://download.fedoralegacy.org/ is still saying RHL 7.3, 9
and FC3 and 4 are active releases.
Can someone please change these? They're both very small changes, but
I think it's best not to confuse people now.
Nils Breunese.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend
URL:
From jkeating at j2solutions.net Mon Jan 1 16:54:25 2007
From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 11:54:25 -0500
Subject: Fedora Legacy shutting down
In-Reply-To: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
References: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
Message-ID: <200701011154.25684.jkeating@j2solutions.net>
On Saturday 30 December 2006 00:23, fedora-legacy-announce at redhat.com wrote:
> Discussions last night on the #Fedora-Legacy channel have brought to
> light the fact that certain Fedora Legacy properties (servers) may be
> going away soon, such as the repository at
> and the build server. ?Legacy folks
> need to let us know what they want to be done with the content in the
> repository mirrors. ?If you don't speak up, we may find ourselves in a
> place where 'yum update' commands will fail in the near future for the
> Red Hat and Fedora Core releases that Legacy has supported in the past.
I would like to make clear that the servers are only going offline because the
project is ending, and keeping them online consumes real resources. This
consumption is unnecessary if the project is shut down.
--
Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From nils at lemonbit.nl Mon Jan 1 17:08:37 2007
From: nils at lemonbit.nl (Nils Breunese (Lemonbit))
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 18:08:37 +0100
Subject: Fedora Legacy shutting down
In-Reply-To: <200701011154.25684.jkeating@j2solutions.net>
References: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
<200701011154.25684.jkeating@j2solutions.net>
Message-ID:
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Saturday 30 December 2006 00:23, fedora-legacy-
> announce at redhat.com wrote:
>> Discussions last night on the #Fedora-Legacy channel have brought to
>> light the fact that certain Fedora Legacy properties (servers) may be
>> going away soon, such as the repository at
>> and the build server. Legacy
>> folks
>> need to let us know what they want to be done with the content in the
>> repository mirrors. If you don't speak up, we may find ourselves
>> in a
>> place where 'yum update' commands will fail in the near future for
>> the
>> Red Hat and Fedora Core releases that Legacy has supported in the
>> past.
>
> I would like to make clear that the servers are only going offline
> because the
> project is ending, and keeping them online consumes real
> resources. This
> consumption is unnecessary if the project is shut down.
I understand, but I would really appreciate it if the updates created
by Fedora Legacy would not just disappear. Any chance (like I asked
before in another post) they could be hosted in a legacy dir under
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/ or something? The
download.fedora.redhat.com site still hosts all base, updates and
extras packages for all Fedora releases since version 1, so I imagine
adding the FL created packages shouldn't take a lot of extra space.
Nils.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend
URL:
From sec at shee.org Mon Jan 1 18:08:57 2007
From: sec at shee.org (Moire)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 19:08:57 +0100
Subject: Fedora Legacy shutting down
Message-ID:
30.12.2006 06:23 David Eisenstein wrote:
> Legacy folks need to let us know what they want to be done with the
> content in the repository mirrors.
Hello, like other people i depend on FC3 for production systems.
I would like to see the repositories being accessible. Not only
to be able to install additional rpms and there dependencies.
Besides - many thanks for your efforts. M.
From cave.dnb at tiscali.fr Mon Jan 1 18:43:39 2007
From: cave.dnb at tiscali.fr (Nigel Henry)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 19:43:39 +0100
Subject: Fedora Legacy shutting down
In-Reply-To:
References: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
<200701011154.25684.jkeating@j2solutions.net>
Message-ID: <200701011943.39581.cave.dnb@tiscali.fr>
On Monday 01 January 2007 18:08, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Saturday 30 December 2006 00:23, fedora-legacy-
> >
> > announce at redhat.com wrote:
> >> Discussions last night on the #Fedora-Legacy channel have brought to
> >> light the fact that certain Fedora Legacy properties (servers) may be
> >> going away soon, such as the repository at
> >> and the build server. Legacy
> >> folks
> >> need to let us know what they want to be done with the content in the
> >> repository mirrors. If you don't speak up, we may find ourselves
> >> in a
> >> place where 'yum update' commands will fail in the near future for
> >> the
> >> Red Hat and Fedora Core releases that Legacy has supported in the
> >> past.
> >
> > I would like to make clear that the servers are only going offline
> > because the
> > project is ending, and keeping them online consumes real
> > resources. This
> > consumption is unnecessary if the project is shut down.
>
> I understand, but I would really appreciate it if the updates created
> by Fedora Legacy would not just disappear. Any chance (like I asked
> before in another post) they could be hosted in a legacy dir under
> http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/ or something? The
> download.fedora.redhat.com site still hosts all base, updates and
> extras packages for all Fedora releases since version 1, so I imagine
> adding the FL created packages shouldn't take a lot of extra space.
>
> Nils.
I have to agree with Nils. It doesn't make any sense that I can reinstall FC2
for example, get all the updates up until the time it was taken over by
Fedora legacy, and yet all the Fedora Legacy updates are going to be sent
down the can when the servers are switched off.
This doesn't seem very fair considering all the time spent by various folks,
including yourself, in prolonging the life of RH7.2, RH9, FC1, FC2, and FC3.
Surely there is someway to incorporate the legacy updates into Redhat Fedora
updates. If not there doesn't seem to be much sense in the Redhat Fedora
servers (core and updates) still being online for RH7.2, RH9, FC1, FC2, and
FC3.
I have to say that the best FC versions, with the least install problems have
been FC1, and FC2, and am posting from one of my FC2 installs at this time.
I can understand moving on, and have FC3, FC4, and FC5 installed on my 2
machines. They have all presented their own problems. FC3 has a continual
problem with KDE's kicker crashing each time I logout. FC4 would only run
using Xorg's vesa driver until I did 100's of MB's of updates. FC5 on one
machine using a Rage 128 card with r128 driver would not start X, and I had
to use the vesa driver. Apparently this is a bug in Xorg-7.0. On the other
machine FC5 works ok with my onboard Cyberbladei1 card using the trident
driver, and I'm not complaining about FC5 on this machine as it works ok.
All in all though I still believe that FC1 with the 2.4 kernel, and FC2 moving
to the 2.6 kernel have been the best of FC for me.
I'm only a home user, and only been using computers since 2003, and mainly
Linux. I wish I could have helped with Fedora Legacy, but didn't feel
suitably qualified. It's a real shame seeing it going down the tubes.
Nigel.
From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Jan 2 01:42:32 2007
From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 20:42:32 -0500
Subject: Fedora Legacy shutting down
In-Reply-To:
References: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
<200701011154.25684.jkeating@j2solutions.net>
Message-ID: <200701012042.35799.jkeating@redhat.com>
On Monday 01 January 2007 12:08, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
> I understand, but I would really appreciate it if the updates created ?
> by Fedora Legacy would not just disappear. Any chance (like I asked ?
> before in another post) they could be hosted in a legacy dir under ?
> http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/ or something? The ?
> download.fedora.redhat.com site still hosts all base, updates and ?
> extras packages for all Fedora releases since version 1, so I imagine ?
> adding the FL created packages shouldn't take a lot of extra space.
It wouldn't take space, but mirrors aren't generally keen on taking on a load
of new content for a small usage base. There is already a mirror system for
Legacy itself http://fedoralegacy.org/download/fedoralegacy-mirrors.php
Any of these mirrors could be convinced to keep the content online longer.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Jan 2 01:54:53 2007
From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating)
Date: Mon, 1 Jan 2007 20:54:53 -0500
Subject: Fedora Legacy shutting down
In-Reply-To: <200701012042.35799.jkeating@redhat.com>
References: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
<200701012042.35799.jkeating@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <200701012054.53414.jkeating@redhat.com>
On Monday 01 January 2007 20:42, Jesse Keating wrote:
> It wouldn't take space
Correction, wouldn't take huge amounts of space.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Tue Jan 2 04:29:28 2007
From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal)
Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2007 23:29:28 -0500
Subject: Fedora Legacy shutting down
In-Reply-To: <200701012054.53414.jkeating@redhat.com>
References: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
<200701012042.35799.jkeating@redhat.com>
<200701012054.53414.jkeating@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <1167712168.32218.0.camel@cutter>
On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 20:54 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Monday 01 January 2007 20:42, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > It wouldn't take space
>
> Correction, wouldn't take huge amounts of space.
It's 63GB in total.
-sv
From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Tue Jan 2 06:02:29 2007
From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 07:02:29 +0100
Subject: Fedora Legacy shutting down
In-Reply-To: <1167712168.32218.0.camel@cutter>
References: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
<200701012042.35799.jkeating@redhat.com>
<200701012054.53414.jkeating@redhat.com>
<1167712168.32218.0.camel@cutter>
Message-ID: <20070102060229.GA9961@neu.nirvana>
On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 11:29:28PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 20:54 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > On Monday 01 January 2007 20:42, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > It wouldn't take space
> >
> > Correction, wouldn't take huge amounts of space.
>
> It's 63GB in total.
I count about 10GB. The difference is probably the fedora/redhat
non-legacy updates from *.redhat.com, but in any case if someone wants
to archive FL's work he needs just 10GB.
1698108 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/rh7.3-i386/redhat/updates-legacy
174952 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/rh8.0-i386/redhat/updates-legacy
680 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/rh8.0-i386/redhat/updates-legacy-testing
1631480 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/rh9-i386/redhat/updates-legacy
108 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/rh9-i386/redhat/updates-legacy-testing
1228616 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/fc1-i386/redhat/updates-legacy
548756 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/fc2-i386/redhat/updates-legacy
235680 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/fc3-i386/redhat/updates-legacy
234696 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/fc3-x86_64/redhat/updates-legacy
108 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/fc4-i386/redhat/updates-legacy
112 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/fc4-x86_64/redhat/updates-legacy
1040256 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/src/rh7.3-i386/redhat/updates-legacy
57688 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/src/rh8.0-i386/redhat/updates-legacy
436 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/src/rh8.0-i386/redhat/updates-legacy-testing
1229792 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/src/rh9-i386/redhat/updates-legacy
328 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/src/rh9-i386/redhat/updates-legacy-testing
1092420 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/src/fc1-i386/redhat/updates-legacy
560940 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/src/fc2-i386/redhat/updates-legacy
4 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/src/fc2-x86_64/redhat/updates-legacy
302600 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/src/fc3-i386/redhat/updates-legacy
4 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/src/fc3-x86_64/redhat/updates-legacy
360 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/src/fc4-i386/redhat/updates-legacy
4 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/src/fc4-ppc/redhat/updates-legacy
4 /srv/atrpms.net/dl-repo.master/src/fc4-x86_64/redhat/updates-legacy
10038132 total
N.B. The "empty" src folders of fcX-x86_64 are due to hardlinking with
fcX-i386, if hardlinks are counted seperately you have 11GB (10902376
bytes) instead.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From nils at lemonbit.nl Tue Jan 2 10:37:51 2007
From: nils at lemonbit.nl (Nils Breunese (Lemonbit))
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 11:37:51 +0100
Subject: Fedora Legacy shutting down
In-Reply-To: <20070102060229.GA9961@neu.nirvana>
References: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
<200701012042.35799.jkeating@redhat.com>
<200701012054.53414.jkeating@redhat.com>
<1167712168.32218.0.camel@cutter>
<20070102060229.GA9961@neu.nirvana>
Message-ID: <3E680DF4-C4CC-4711-870F-D6065F932D4D@lemonbit.nl>
Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 11:29:28PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
>> On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 20:54 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> On Monday 01 January 2007 20:42, Jesse Keating wrote:
>>>> It wouldn't take space
>>>
>>> Correction, wouldn't take huge amounts of space.
>>
>> It's 63GB in total.
>
> I count about 10GB. The difference is probably the fedora/redhat
> non-legacy updates from *.redhat.com, but in any case if someone wants
> to archive FL's work he needs just 10GB.
The legacy and non-legacy updates are not in separate directories on
download.fedoralegacy.org. Is there an easy way to just download
(rsync?) the legacy updates? The non-legacy base and updates packages
are still available at download.fedora.redhat.com. Or does anyone
know of a download.fedoralegacy.org mirror that won't shutdown after
download.fedoralegacy.org goes away?
Nils Breunese.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend
URL:
From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Tue Jan 2 11:25:58 2007
From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 12:25:58 +0100
Subject: Fedora Legacy shutting down
In-Reply-To: <3E680DF4-C4CC-4711-870F-D6065F932D4D@lemonbit.nl>
References: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
<200701012042.35799.jkeating@redhat.com>
<200701012054.53414.jkeating@redhat.com>
<1167712168.32218.0.camel@cutter>
<20070102060229.GA9961@neu.nirvana>
<3E680DF4-C4CC-4711-870F-D6065F932D4D@lemonbit.nl>
Message-ID: <20070102112558.GE9961@neu.nirvana>
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 11:37:51AM +0100, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jan 01, 2007 at 11:29:28PM -0500, seth vidal wrote:
> >>On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 20:54 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >>>On Monday 01 January 2007 20:42, Jesse Keating wrote:
> >>>>It wouldn't take space
> >>>
> >>>Correction, wouldn't take huge amounts of space.
> >>
> >>It's 63GB in total.
> >
> >I count about 10GB. The difference is probably the fedora/redhat
> >non-legacy updates from *.redhat.com, but in any case if someone wants
> >to archive FL's work he needs just 10GB.
>
> The legacy and non-legacy updates are not in separate directories on
> download.fedoralegacy.org.
Yes, I'm removing the packages that already exist on the non-legacy
updates (I have a mirror of them, too).
> Is there an easy way to just download
> (rsync?) the legacy updates?
I think all packages have "legacy" in their names, so using proper
rsync options like excluding '*.rpm' and then including '*legacy*rpm'
should work.
> The non-legacy base and updates packages are still available at
> download.fedora.redhat.com. Or does anyone know of a
> download.fedoralegacy.org mirror that won't shutdown after
> download.fedoralegacy.org goes away?
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From nils at lemonbit.nl Tue Jan 2 12:08:10 2007
From: nils at lemonbit.nl (Nils Breunese (Lemonbit))
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 13:08:10 +0100
Subject: Fedora Legacy shutting down
In-Reply-To: <20070102112558.GE9961@neu.nirvana>
References: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
<200701012042.35799.jkeating@redhat.com>
<200701012054.53414.jkeating@redhat.com>
<1167712168.32218.0.camel@cutter>
<20070102060229.GA9961@neu.nirvana>
<3E680DF4-C4CC-4711-870F-D6065F932D4D@lemonbit.nl>
<20070102112558.GE9961@neu.nirvana>
Message-ID:
Axel Thimm wrote:
>> Is there an easy way to just download
>> (rsync?) the legacy updates?
>
> I think all packages have "legacy" in their names, so using proper
> rsync options like excluding '*.rpm' and then including '*legacy*rpm'
> should work.
I have trouble gettinng this to work. When I exclude *.rpm and
include *legacy*.rpm I seem to receive no rpms at all. I ran the
following dry-run command:
$ rsync -avH --exclude "*.rpm" --include "*legacy*rpm" --dry-run
download.fedoralegacy.org::legacy legacy
What am I doing wrong here?
Thanks,
Nils Breunese.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend
URL:
From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Tue Jan 2 15:49:35 2007
From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 16:49:35 +0100
Subject: Fedora Legacy shutting down
In-Reply-To:
References: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
<200701012042.35799.jkeating@redhat.com>
<200701012054.53414.jkeating@redhat.com>
<1167712168.32218.0.camel@cutter>
<20070102060229.GA9961@neu.nirvana>
<3E680DF4-C4CC-4711-870F-D6065F932D4D@lemonbit.nl>
<20070102112558.GE9961@neu.nirvana>
Message-ID: <20070102154935.GF9961@neu.nirvana>
On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 01:08:10PM +0100, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
>
> >>Is there an easy way to just download
> >>(rsync?) the legacy updates?
> >
> >I think all packages have "legacy" in their names, so using proper
> >rsync options like excluding '*.rpm' and then including '*legacy*rpm'
> >should work.
>
> I have trouble gettinng this to work. When I exclude *.rpm and
> include *legacy*.rpm I seem to receive no rpms at all. I ran the
> following dry-run command:
>
> $ rsync -avH --exclude "*.rpm" --include "*legacy*rpm" --dry-run
> download.fedoralegacy.org::legacy legacy
>
> What am I doing wrong here?
The order needs to be reversed (rsybc stops at first match),
e.g. something like
rsync -nvaH --delete \
--include '*legacy*rpm' \
--include '*/' \
--exclude '*' \
--stats \
rsync://download.fedoralegacy.org/legacy/ \
legacy
yields:
[...]
> Number of files: 3090
> Number of files transferred: 2737
> Total file size: 10481717817 bytes
> Total transferred file size: 10285704687 bytes
> Literal data: 0 bytes
> Matched data: 0 bytes
> File list size: 147410
> Total bytes sent: 11050
> Total bytes received: 158395
>
> sent 11050 bytes received 158395 bytes 7210.43 bytes/sec
> total size is 10481717817 speedup is 61859.12
which seems to be matching the 10GB mentioned before.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From rostetter at mail.utexas.edu Tue Jan 2 16:06:41 2007
From: rostetter at mail.utexas.edu (Eric Rostetter)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 10:06:41 -0600
Subject: Fedora Legacy shutting down
In-Reply-To: <4EC59776-D7A5-4D62-8394-66B9B88D6A69@lemonbit.nl>
References: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
<4EC59776-D7A5-4D62-8394-66B9B88D6A69@lemonbit.nl>
Message-ID: <20070102100641.91a9fuy6ziq880cw@mail.ph.utexas.edu>
Quoting "Nils Breunese (Lemonbit)" :
> There's a big discussion going on on Slashdot (http://
> linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/31/1837253). I think it really
> is time to change the right sidebar on www.fedoralegacy.org. It still
> says RHL 7.3, 9 and FC3 and 4 are supported releases. The statement in
> the middle column says FC4 and earlier releases are no longer
> maintained, but it doesn't make a statement about RHL 7.3 and 9. Also
> http://download.fedoralegacy.org/ is still saying RHL 7.3, 9 and FC3
> and 4 are active releases.
Fixed on www.fedoralegacy.org, but not on download.fedoralegacy.org.
> Can someone please change these? They're both very small changes, but
> I think it's best not to confuse people now.
Jesse will have to do download.fedoralegacy.org.
> Nils Breunese.
--
Eric Rostetter
The Department of Physics
The University of Texas at Austin
Go Longhorns!
From jkeating at j2solutions.net Tue Jan 2 16:12:57 2007
From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating)
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 11:12:57 -0500
Subject: Fedora Legacy shutting down
In-Reply-To: <20070102100641.91a9fuy6ziq880cw@mail.ph.utexas.edu>
References: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
<4EC59776-D7A5-4D62-8394-66B9B88D6A69@lemonbit.nl>
<20070102100641.91a9fuy6ziq880cw@mail.ph.utexas.edu>
Message-ID: <200701021112.57618.jkeating@j2solutions.net>
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 11:06, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> Fixed on www.fedoralegacy.org, but not on download.fedoralegacy.org.
>
> > Can someone please change these? They're both very small changes, but
> > I think it's best not to confuse people now.
>
> Jesse will have to do download.fedoralegacy.org.
The plan for download.fedoralegacy.org is to point it at the document
describing the project status with a pointer to the last known mirror list.
This way repos will break, people will go to the URL to see whats up, notice
the project closure, and reconfigure for one of the mirrors if they still
need updates, and make informed decisions regarding their system's future.
--
Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From nils at lemonbit.nl Tue Jan 2 16:18:03 2007
From: nils at lemonbit.nl (Nils Breunese (Lemonbit))
Date: Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:18:03 +0100
Subject: Fedora Legacy shutting down
In-Reply-To: <20070102154935.GF9961@neu.nirvana>
References: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
<200701012042.35799.jkeating@redhat.com>
<200701012054.53414.jkeating@redhat.com>
<1167712168.32218.0.camel@cutter>
<20070102060229.GA9961@neu.nirvana>
<3E680DF4-C4CC-4711-870F-D6065F932D4D@lemonbit.nl>
<20070102112558.GE9961@neu.nirvana>
<20070102154935.GF9961@neu.nirvana>
Message-ID:
Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 02, 2007 at 01:08:10PM +0100, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit)
> wrote:
>
>> I have trouble gettinng this to work. When I exclude *.rpm and
>> include *legacy*.rpm I seem to receive no rpms at all. I ran the
>> following dry-run command:
>>
>> $ rsync -avH --exclude "*.rpm" --include "*legacy*rpm" --dry-run
>> download.fedoralegacy.org::legacy legacy
>>
>> What am I doing wrong here?
>
> The order needs to be reversed (rsybc stops at first match)
Thanks, it's working now.
Nils Breunese.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend
URL:
From florin at andrei.myip.org Wed Jan 3 22:55:04 2007
From: florin at andrei.myip.org (Florin Andrei)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 14:55:04 -0800
Subject: where? security updates for FC4
Message-ID: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org>
Now that the Legacy project is shutting down, the biggest problem
becomes the security updates. I have an FC4 server that I plan to keep
running until CentOS 5 comes out, but I also have to apply security
patches to this machine meanwhile.
What would be the best source of security updates for FC4 short-term?
SRPMs from FC5 or FC6, recompiled? But then there might be some
dependency issues that might get ugly.
SRPMs from RHEL or CentOS? Which version would be closest to FC4? Again,
I expect some dependency issues here.
Of course, one can always download the upstream tarballs and generate
packages, but somehow I suspect this to be the most difficult method.
Any other suggestions?
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
From keb at pa.net Wed Jan 3 23:26:05 2007
From: keb at pa.net (Kevin Bonner)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 18:26:05 -0500
Subject: Fedora Legacy shutting down
In-Reply-To: <20070102112558.GE9961@neu.nirvana>
References: <4595F7E3.8060100@gtw.net>
<3E680DF4-C4CC-4711-870F-D6065F932D4D@lemonbit.nl>
<20070102112558.GE9961@neu.nirvana>
Message-ID: <200701031826.05870.keb@pa.net>
On Tuesday 02 January 2007 06:25, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Is there an easy way to just download
> > (rsync?) the legacy updates?
>
> I think all packages have "legacy" in their names, so using proper
> rsync options like excluding '*.rpm' and then including '*legacy*rpm'
> should work.
I removed the '*legacy*rpm' inclusion rules, grabbed the entire tree, and just
hardlinked against our local fedora/redhat mirrors. I found at least one
package (tzdata) that didn't follow the "legacy" naming convention which
needed to be updated on my older servers.
fedora/3/updates/i386/tzdata-2006a-2.fc3.1.noarch.rpm
Kevin Bonner
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From kelson at speed.net Thu Jan 4 00:06:21 2007
From: kelson at speed.net (Kelson)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:06:21 -0800
Subject: where? security updates for FC4
In-Reply-To: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org>
References: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org>
Message-ID: <459C44FD.3030902@speed.net>
Florin Andrei wrote:
> Of course, one can always download the upstream tarballs and generate
> packages, but somehow I suspect this to be the most difficult method.
What I've done in cases like this is to take the latest SRPM for the
target distribution and the current upstream tarball. Then I install
the SRPM instead of rebuilding it, change the version number in the
.spec file, and try to build it.
This is most likely to work with minor version changes -- 1.2.3 to
1.2.5, for instance.
1. Grab package.lastversion.fc4.src.rpm
2. Grab package.newversion.tar.gz
3. rpm -i package.lastversion.fc4.src.rpm
4. cp package.newversion.tar.gz /path/to/rpm/SOURCES
5. Edit /path/to/rpm/SPECS/package.spec
6. rpmbuild -ba /path/to/rpm/SPECS/package.spec
7. Tweak stuff (like patches that won't apply), go back to step 5 until
you get an RPM or give up.
--
Kelson Vibber
SpeedGate Communications
From nils at lemonbit.nl Thu Jan 4 00:10:06 2007
From: nils at lemonbit.nl (Nils Breunese (Lemonbit))
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 01:10:06 +0100
Subject: where? security updates for FC4
In-Reply-To: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org>
References: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org>
Message-ID: <2B70E412-618B-4107-9FCB-DEAB0DD7CB7B@lemonbit.nl>
Florin Andrei wrote:
> Now that the Legacy project is shutting down, the biggest problem
> becomes the security updates.
FL never provided anything else than security updates.
> I have an FC4 server that I plan to keep running until CentOS 5
> comes out, but I also have to apply security patches to this
> machine meanwhile.
>
> What would be the best source of security updates for FC4 short-term?
>
> SRPMs from FC5 or FC6, recompiled? But then there might be some
> dependency issues that might get ugly.
>
> SRPMs from RHEL or CentOS? Which version would be closest to FC4?
> Again, I expect some dependency issues here.
>
> Of course, one can always download the upstream tarballs and
> generate packages, but somehow I suspect this to be the most
> difficult method.
>
> Any other suggestions?
You could upgrade to FC5 and later upgrade to CentOS 5?
Nils Breunese.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend
URL:
From michal at harddata.com Thu Jan 4 00:36:29 2007
From: michal at harddata.com (Michal Jaegermann)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 17:36:29 -0700
Subject: where? security updates for FC4
In-Reply-To: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org>
References: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org>
Message-ID: <20070104003629.GA29674@mail.harddata.com>
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:55:04PM -0800, Florin Andrei wrote:
>
> What would be the best source of security updates for FC4 short-term?
There is no universal answer.
> SRPMs from FC5 or FC6, recompiled?
Very often this works pretty well although not always. Most likely
the is good for the first try (on source level, not binaries).
> But then there might be some
> dependency issues that might get ugly.
What dependencies? Either you edited spec and recompiled
results, which means among other things that you are not using
a version which is too high for other packages which may be using
it, or this is not doable. In both cases you do not have any
dependency problems although in the second case you are also
missing an update.
> SRPMs from RHEL or CentOS?
They are really the same.
> Which version would be closest to FC4?
Version of what? Quite often these packages are "too old" to
be used on FC4 directly.
You are forgetting another option. You are taking src.rpm package
from FC4 to be updated and you apply patches "stolen" from updated
corresponding packages from FC5/FC5 and/or RHEL. Very often this is
straightforward or nearly so.
If all of that would be so automatic as you seem to imagine then
Fedora Legacy would have no constant problems with manpower and
missing contributors.
Michal
From florin at andrei.myip.org Thu Jan 4 00:36:47 2007
From: florin at andrei.myip.org (Florin Andrei)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:36:47 -0800
Subject: where? security updates for FC4
In-Reply-To: <2B70E412-618B-4107-9FCB-DEAB0DD7CB7B@lemonbit.nl>
References: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org>
<2B70E412-618B-4107-9FCB-DEAB0DD7CB7B@lemonbit.nl>
Message-ID: <459C4C1F.5020509@andrei.myip.org>
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
>
> You could upgrade to FC5 and later upgrade to CentOS 5?
The extra upgrade is what I want to avoid. This server is running 24/7.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
From florin at andrei.myip.org Thu Jan 4 00:44:56 2007
From: florin at andrei.myip.org (Florin Andrei)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 16:44:56 -0800
Subject: where? security updates for FC4
In-Reply-To: <20070104003629.GA29674@mail.harddata.com>
References: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org>
<20070104003629.GA29674@mail.harddata.com>
Message-ID: <459C4E08.7090709@andrei.myip.org>
Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:55:04PM -0800, Florin Andrei wrote:
>> But then there might be some
>> dependency issues that might get ugly.
>
> What dependencies? Either you edited spec and recompiled
> results, which means among other things that you are not using
> a version which is too high for other packages which may be using
> it, or this is not doable. In both cases you do not have any
> dependency problems although in the second case you are also
> missing an update.
Such as an FC6 application requiring a certain library version that
cannot be found on FC4, so then the library needs an upgrade, which
sometimes may require another thing to be upgraded, and so on. I've seen
this before.
>> SRPMs from RHEL or CentOS?
>
> They are really the same.
>
>> Which version would be closest to FC4?
>
> Version of what?
RHEL or CentOS.
Since they are really the same, you know. ;-)
> If all of that would be so automatic as you seem to imagine
I was merely asking for common sense suggestions. I do not expect
anything to happen as if by magic.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
From mail-lists at karan.org Thu Jan 4 01:20:20 2007
From: mail-lists at karan.org (Karanbir Singh)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 01:20:20 +0000
Subject: where? security updates for FC4
In-Reply-To: <2B70E412-618B-4107-9FCB-DEAB0DD7CB7B@lemonbit.nl>
References: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org>
<2B70E412-618B-4107-9FCB-DEAB0DD7CB7B@lemonbit.nl>
Message-ID: <459C5654.5040807@karan.org>
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
> You could upgrade to FC5 and later upgrade to CentOS 5?
>
Will most likely not work as expected : FC5 updates are going to out
strip the E-V-R for similar packages in EL5. And there is the issue of
orphan packages that in turn might be required based on installed role.
- KB
--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq
From nils at lemonbit.nl Thu Jan 4 01:28:16 2007
From: nils at lemonbit.nl (Nils Breunese (Lemonbit))
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 02:28:16 +0100
Subject: where? security updates for FC4
In-Reply-To: <459C5654.5040807@karan.org>
References: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org>
<2B70E412-618B-4107-9FCB-DEAB0DD7CB7B@lemonbit.nl>
<459C5654.5040807@karan.org>
Message-ID:
Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
>> You could upgrade to FC5 and later upgrade to CentOS 5?
> Will most likely not work as expected : FC5 updates are going to
> out strip the E-V-R for similar packages in EL5. And there is the
> issue of orphan packages that in turn might be required based on
> installed role.
And that won't happen when he stays at FC4 and then upgrades to
CentOS when it comes out? I have to say I don't exactly understand
what you're saying there though. I guess that if Florin wants a nice
clean CentOS 5 system it might better to reinstall.
Nils Breunese.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend
URL:
From michal at harddata.com Thu Jan 4 01:28:57 2007
From: michal at harddata.com (Michal Jaegermann)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 18:28:57 -0700
Subject: where? security updates for FC4
In-Reply-To: <459C4E08.7090709@andrei.myip.org>
References: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org>
<20070104003629.GA29674@mail.harddata.com>
<459C4E08.7090709@andrei.myip.org>
Message-ID: <20070104012857.GB29674@mail.harddata.com>
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 04:44:56PM -0800, Florin Andrei wrote:
> Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> >
> >Version of what?
>
> RHEL or CentOS.
> Since they are really the same, you know. ;-)
What you are interested in differs only by identifier strings
in release parts. CentOS on purpose _precisely_ tracks RHEL only
removing and/or replacing things like artworks, identifiers, etc. in
order not to violate copyrights or create false impressions.
As you can guess there are delays, ranging from few hours to
few days, before CentOS equivalents of RHEL updates are showing
on mirrors.
> I was merely asking for common sense suggestions. I do not expect
> anything to happen as if by magic.
So you got, I hope, what you asked for. OTOH it is definitely
easier to maintain some specific machines than a whole distro. You
do have much more leeway. Patching sources of packages you are
using is the safest and the most correct course of action.
Still it happens then the only sane thing to do is to upgrade
a version of something.
Michal
From florin at andrei.myip.org Thu Jan 4 01:34:43 2007
From: florin at andrei.myip.org (Florin Andrei)
Date: Wed, 03 Jan 2007 17:34:43 -0800
Subject: where? security updates for FC4
In-Reply-To:
References: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org> <2B70E412-618B-4107-9FCB-DEAB0DD7CB7B@lemonbit.nl> <459C5654.5040807@karan.org>
Message-ID: <459C59B3.9030702@andrei.myip.org>
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
>
> I guess that if Florin wants a nice clean CentOS 5
> system it might better to reinstall.
Exactly.
Meanwhile, I have to keep this silly FC4 box on life support, cross my
fingers, prepare for the worst and hope for the best.
It's the "prepare for the worst" part that I'm trying to disentangle now.
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
From mail-lists at karan.org Thu Jan 4 01:40:56 2007
From: mail-lists at karan.org (Karanbir Singh)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 01:40:56 +0000
Subject: where? security updates for FC4
In-Reply-To:
References: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org> <2B70E412-618B-4107-9FCB-DEAB0DD7CB7B@lemonbit.nl> <459C5654.5040807@karan.org>
Message-ID: <459C5B28.4060004@karan.org>
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
> Karanbir Singh wrote:
>
>> Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
>>> You could upgrade to FC5 and later upgrade to CentOS 5?
>> Will most likely not work as expected : FC5 updates are going to out
>> strip the E-V-R for similar packages in EL5. And there is the issue of
>> orphan packages that in turn might be required based on installed role.
>
> And that won't happen when he stays at FC4 and then upgrades to CentOS
> when it comes out? I have to say I don't exactly understand what you're
> saying there though. I guess that if Florin wants a nice clean CentOS 5
> system it might better to reinstall.
sorry for not being very clear... here is the same thing in -vv mode :)
FC5 installed and then updated with all released packages will contain
packages that will by the time CentOS-5 is out there, already be newer
than whats included in CentOS-5. Which will create problems since those
packages will then not get yum updated to whats in the centos-5 repo's.
Add to this the problem of orphans - there might be packages in the
installed system that are not included in CentOS-5 at all! There will
need to be an audit and work out what these packages are - and if they
are even required on the machine.
--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq
From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Thu Jan 4 02:17:04 2007
From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 03:17:04 +0100
Subject: where? security updates for FC4
In-Reply-To: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org>
References: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org>
Message-ID: <20070104021704.GB16389@neu.nirvana>
On Wed, Jan 03, 2007 at 02:55:04PM -0800, Florin Andrei wrote:
> Now that the Legacy project is shutting down, the biggest problem
> becomes the security updates. I have an FC4 server that I plan to keep
> running until CentOS 5 comes out, but I also have to apply security
> patches to this machine meanwhile.
>
> What would be the best source of security updates for FC4 short-term?
It depends of course on what you are running on this system, but at
the very least you will be concerned with the kernel. In theory you
can use any newer kernel, but usually you need to stick to the known
features and bugs of the kernel you are running.
So the best source for security updates is using sources from FC4 and
patching them with security fixes of issues being announced. But that
was exactly what FL was about and is too much work for a single
person/server.
So the true answer is: There are no security updates for FC4 and no
healthy way to provide some short of resurrecting FL.
My advice is to try to harden security in other ways (iptables,
fail2ban etc) and schedule either an upgrade to FC6 or a reinstall to
RHEL4/5 as soon as possible.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From nils at lemonbit.nl Thu Jan 4 02:49:51 2007
From: nils at lemonbit.nl (Nils Breunese (Lemonbit))
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 03:49:51 +0100
Subject: where? security updates for FC4
In-Reply-To: <459C5B28.4060004@karan.org>
References: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org> <2B70E412-618B-4107-9FCB-DEAB0DD7CB7B@lemonbit.nl> <459C5654.5040807@karan.org>
<459C5B28.4060004@karan.org>
Message-ID: <5D56808B-984E-435A-9B37-31D84DC5D567@lemonbit.nl>
Karanbir Singh wrote:
> FC5 installed and then updated with all released packages will
> contain packages that will by the time CentOS-5 is out there,
> already be newer than whats included in CentOS-5. Which will create
> problems since those packages will then not get yum updated to
> whats in the centos-5 repo's.
I thought CentOS 5 was going to be based on FC6 and that therefore it
would be (kind of) possible to upgrade from FC5 to CentOS 5, but I
guess I'm wrong then.
Nils Breunese.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend
URL:
From mail-lists at karan.org Thu Jan 4 03:04:48 2007
From: mail-lists at karan.org (Karanbir Singh)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 03:04:48 +0000
Subject: where? security updates for FC4
In-Reply-To: <5D56808B-984E-435A-9B37-31D84DC5D567@lemonbit.nl>
References: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org> <2B70E412-618B-4107-9FCB-DEAB0DD7CB7B@lemonbit.nl> <459C5654.5040807@karan.org> <459C5B28.4060004@karan.org>
<5D56808B-984E-435A-9B37-31D84DC5D567@lemonbit.nl>
Message-ID: <459C6ED0.3000704@karan.org>
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
> I thought CentOS 5 was going to be based on FC6 and that therefore it
> would be (kind of) possible to upgrade from FC5 to CentOS 5, but I guess
> I'm wrong then.
At release time, FC5 would have older packages than FC6 at release time,
but FC5 has since seen updates etc. Eg.
fc5 release firefox : firefox-1.5.0.1-9
fc5 latest firefox : firefox-1.5.0.9-1.fc5
fc6 release firefox : firefox-1.5.0.7-7.fc6
fc6 latest firefox : firefox-1.5.0.9-1.fc6
centos-5beta firefox : firefox-1.5.0.8-1.el5.centos
--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq
From michal at harddata.com Thu Jan 4 04:35:21 2007
From: michal at harddata.com (Michal Jaegermann)
Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 21:35:21 -0700
Subject: where? security updates for FC4
In-Reply-To: <459C6ED0.3000704@karan.org>
References: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org>
<2B70E412-618B-4107-9FCB-DEAB0DD7CB7B@lemonbit.nl>
<459C5654.5040807@karan.org>
<459C5B28.4060004@karan.org>
<5D56808B-984E-435A-9B37-31D84DC5D567@lemonbit.nl>
<459C6ED0.3000704@karan.org>
Message-ID: <20070104043521.GB2416@mail.harddata.com>
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 03:04:48AM +0000, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
>
> At release time, FC5 would have older packages than FC6 at release time,
> but FC5 has since seen updates etc. Eg.
>
> fc5 release firefox : firefox-1.5.0.1-9
> fc5 latest firefox : firefox-1.5.0.9-1.fc5
....
>
> centos-5beta firefox : firefox-1.5.0.8-1.el5.centos
In this particular case this happens to be no problem. 1.5.0.9 is a
security fix and firefox-1.5.0.9-0.1.el4.centos4 is in CentOS 4
updates now so whatever will eventually show up will be not lower.
Besides I have seen an anoucement, even if I cannot find it
currently, that support for firefox-1.5 series will end in
not so distant future (April?) and backpatching those browsers
is really hard and does not really buy much beyond headaches.
In other words you can expect newer versions of Firefox soon.
OTOH FC5 still has mozilla with known security issues
( https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=195318 )
so maybe I am too optimistic here.
Michal
From mail-lists at karan.org Thu Jan 4 11:00:30 2007
From: mail-lists at karan.org (Karanbir Singh)
Date: Thu, 04 Jan 2007 11:00:30 +0000
Subject: where? security updates for FC4
In-Reply-To: <20070104043521.GB2416@mail.harddata.com>
References: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org> <2B70E412-618B-4107-9FCB-DEAB0DD7CB7B@lemonbit.nl> <459C5654.5040807@karan.org> <459C5B28.4060004@karan.org> <5D56808B-984E-435A-9B37-31D84DC5D567@lemonbit.nl> <459C6ED0.3000704@karan.org>
<20070104043521.GB2416@mail.harddata.com>
Message-ID: <459CDE4E.3030009@karan.org>
Michal Jaegermann wrote:
>> fc5 release firefox : firefox-1.5.0.1-9
>> fc5 latest firefox : firefox-1.5.0.9-1.fc5
> ....
>> centos-5beta firefox : firefox-1.5.0.8-1.el5.centos
>
> In this particular case this happens to be no problem. 1.5.0.9 is a
> security fix and firefox-1.5.0.9-0.1.el4.centos4 is in CentOS 4
> updates now so whatever will eventually show up will be not lower.
ok, bad example from me :)
but the point was, as the distro rolls along it will get updates etc,
while as the EL5 tree is frozen, its going to stay that way. ( I'd
presume that has already happened upstream )
- KB
--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522219 at icq
From guallar at easternrad.com Thu Jan 4 14:51:47 2007
From: guallar at easternrad.com (Josep L. Guallar-Esteve)
Date: Thu, 4 Jan 2007 09:51:47 -0500
Subject: where? security updates for FC4
In-Reply-To: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org>
References: <459C3448.1010603@andrei.myip.org>
Message-ID: <200701040951.49923.guallar@easternrad.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Wednesday 03 January 2007 17:55, Florin Andrei wrote:
> Now that the Legacy project is shutting down, the biggest problem
> becomes the security updates. I have an FC4 server that I plan to keep
> running until CentOS 5 comes out, but I also have to apply security
> patches to this machine meanwhile.
>
> What would be the best source of security updates for FC4 short-term?
>
> SRPMs from FC5 or FC6, recompiled? But then there might be some
> dependency issues that might get ugly.
>
> SRPMs from RHEL or CentOS? Which version would be closest to FC4? Again,
> I expect some dependency issues here.
>
> Of course, one can always download the upstream tarballs and generate
> packages, but somehow I suspect this to be the most difficult method.
>
> Any other suggestions?
I had to face a similar situation.
We had a critical RHL 7.3 server running 24x7. Thanks to Fedora Legacy
project , we've managed to keep it running until recently. With the notice of
FL dropping support to all RHL versions by the end of 2006, we had no choice
but migrate to newer platform.
Thus, be built a new server with CentOS 4.4 and moved all applications running
on RHL 7.3 to CentOS 4.4. We found several gotchas:
* newer versions changed location of configuration files/data files, etc
* some apps in RHL 7.3 were installed from tar.gz, and heavily customized ->
we had to deconstruct (reverse engineering?) those apps and migrate
to "standard" (read, "rpm-provided") paths, filenames and such
* some apps on RHL 7.3 were no longer on CentOS 4.4, so we had to choose
different app to do same thing --> research, test, research, test.
* we were lucky that there were no proprietary application running on RHL 7.3.
* we tried different configs and tested ways of doing things with virtual
machines on VMware Server (free download).
We[*] documented all differences, kept log of what I was doing and established
a plan to test the new server. That plan was a life-saver, when we switched
off old server, as plan had a "stop and rollback" procedures for every step,
as well as what tests to run .
[*] by that I mean "yours truly" *grin*
Also, now we keep a "mirror QA server" were we apply first updates and check
if something breaks.
Make sure you have plenty of time to do things. Or else, keep plenty of coffee
around.
And plan, test, plan, test, plan and test.
Regards,
Josep
- --
Josep L. Guallar-Esteve - IT Department - Eastern Radiologists, Inc.
Systems and PACS Administration http://www.easternrad.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFnRSFSGQa4/zQ9e8RAu10AJ97JXC6cepg8li6SNoL3MPdmZLd7QCcDgSR
QW8tU5HOiZNZQa0evKNJRDA=
=bBFN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From deisenst at gtw.net Fri Jan 5 07:06:36 2007
From: deisenst at gtw.net (David Eisenstein)
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 01:06:36 -0600
Subject: Legacy's Success; Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM
In-Reply-To: <2cb10c440701030858g4a0c84cdi3cc1f67186b3258f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2cb10c440701030059l49323ecaqeae7c7041f735d63@mail.gmail.com> <459B7B49.8040101@leemhuis.info>
<2cb10c440701030858g4a0c84cdi3cc1f67186b3258f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <459DF8FC.4020805@gtw.net>
So many people now seem to want to point to Fedora Legacy and use it as
a Free-Software Whipping Boy to use its eventual demise as some kind of
example of failure to point to. For example,
Luis Villa wrote:
> On 1/3/07, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Hi!
>> A Fedora LTS (two years? maybe the server parts ever three?) now and
>> then (every second or third release?) from a new Fedora Legacy (needs a
>> different name) would IMHO a nice solution.
>
>
>
> (FWIW, I think it is unreasaonble to expect a true-community distro to
> do real LTS-y stuff- most volunteers don't have the patience to do the
> necessary backporting for the necessary length of time. (See Fedora
> Legacy.)
As a long-time contributor to and advocate for the Fedora Legacy
Project, I have to say that, over most of its life, Legacy did not fail
its mission, if one were to consider Legacy's mission to provide
security updates to packages that people really cared about. Why?
Because it was those packages that folks cared about either (a) that
squeaked the wheel on the project's email list or (b) that motivated
people to dig in and get themselves dirty doing onerous, boring, but
important work for the community of Legacy users.
For the longest time, I personally cared about Fedora Core 1, and also
cared about the old Red Hat Linux releases 7.3 and 9.0. The project
cared too. Fedora Core 1 came out in Fall of 2003, and was essentially
supported until May or June of this year -- which is a lifetime of
two-and-a-half years -- covering security updates for those packages
that the folks who volunteered wanted or that users squawked loudly for
(like sendmail, glibc, mozilla, and others). And what about Red Hat
Linux 7.3 and 9? Even longer! For these three releases, and also
perhaps FC2, this project was more successful than perhaps the founders
of Fedora Legacy had hoped or dreamed it would be.
A lot of the work towards the end of the useful life of Fedora Legacy
was done by one man: Marc Deslauriers, to which all Fedora Legacy users
owe a LOT (and I mean a *LOT*) of thank-you's! He was the one builder
brave enough to go in and do kernel security updates for the (at one
time) FIVE Linux releases that Legacy was supporting; and for many other
packages, Marc did much or most the work of the steps we had in place to
assure sanity, quality, and security in the creation of updated
(backported) packages for our end-users.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart, Marc!!! Your example is one we
should all be committed enough to follow and emulate!
And what were Marc and the other contributors paid for this often
onerous work? Not one penny. Often we were paid more complaints than
compliments. It became utterly too thankless of a task (and too little
interest from the community in even doing the QA work we had outlined in
our documentation) for me to continue, and probably the same goes for
Marc. I believe the few who did most of the work finally burned out.
There are still people who want to help out and don't know where to
begin to help to keep some kind of Legacy alive for the releases they
care about. Is this failure?
My assessment is this: If legacy failed it did so in these areas:
* Management of contributor resources
* Devotion of people who knew how to motivate and cause people
in the contributing community to feel valued, motivated and
special, and to give a voice to those who cared.
Legacy rarely had meetings, had no board to speak of, and therefore no
clear mechanism of accountability.
I hope the good folks of Legacy remember Legacy *not* as a failed
experiment, but as one that lasted longer and did better than folks had
any right to expect.
Warm regards,
David Eisenstein
From prupe at nc.rr.com Fri Jan 5 16:11:19 2007
From: prupe at nc.rr.com (Paul Rupe)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:11:19 -0500 (EST)
Subject: 2007 DST update for RH7.2
Message-ID: <42631.127.0.0.1.1168013479.squirrel@jenova.local>
We have some RedHat 7.2 machines that we are stuck with for the time
being. Of concern is the new daylight savings time rules that take effect
this year. I did some searching on this list and found an update for 7.3
.
I understand that no one is making updates for 7.2 anymore, so I was
wondering if I can adapt the one for 7.3. The timezone rules are part of
the glibc packages. Do I really need the new version of glibc, or can I
simply copy the /usr/share/zoneinfo files from the updated 7.3 packages
onto 7.2? In other words, do the new zoneinfo files require the new glibc
to work properly?
--
Paul Rupe
From jkeating at j2solutions.net Fri Jan 5 16:23:02 2007
From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:23:02 -0500
Subject: 2007 DST update for RH7.2
In-Reply-To: <42631.127.0.0.1.1168013479.squirrel@jenova.local>
References: <42631.127.0.0.1.1168013479.squirrel@jenova.local>
Message-ID: <200701051123.02466.jkeating@j2solutions.net>
On Friday 05 January 2007 11:11, Paul Rupe wrote:
> I understand that no one is making updates for 7.2 anymore, so I was
> wondering if I can adapt the one for 7.3. ?The timezone rules are part of
> the glibc packages. ?Do I really need the new version of glibc, or can I
> simply copy the /usr/share/zoneinfo files from the updated 7.3 packages
> onto 7.2? ?In other words, do the new zoneinfo files require the new glibc
> to work properly?
I don't believe so. In future releases, tzdata was separate from glibc so
that one didn't have to do a glibc update to get new zone info, which seems
to change on a month to month basis (looking at the world view).
--
Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From rostetter at mail.utexas.edu Fri Jan 5 17:01:08 2007
From: rostetter at mail.utexas.edu (Eric Rostetter)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 11:01:08 -0600
Subject: Legacy's Success; Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM
In-Reply-To: <459DF8FC.4020805@gtw.net>
References: <2cb10c440701030059l49323ecaqeae7c7041f735d63@mail.gmail.com>
<459B7B49.8040101@leemhuis.info>
<2cb10c440701030858g4a0c84cdi3cc1f67186b3258f@mail.gmail.com>
<459DF8FC.4020805@gtw.net>
Message-ID: <20070105110108.myrgf34tcjs4sk84@mail.ph.utexas.edu>
Quoting David Eisenstein :
> As a long-time contributor to and advocate for the Fedora Legacy
> Project, I have to say that, over most of its life, Legacy did not fail
> its mission, if one were to consider Legacy's mission to provide
> security updates to packages that people really cared about. Why?
I agree completely. It was really when we decided the drop RHL and
FC1 that things fell apart, IMHO.
Of course, it didn't help that other options came along, but this is
exactly what _should_ happen. I joined Fedora Legacy when Red Hat
dropped RHL and didn't provide any _upgrade_ path (the only supported
RHEL install was a fresh install, not an upgrade from RHL). My only
other option was to switch to a non-RH distro, which would be as bad
as a fresh RHEL install (but cheaper perhaps). Well, a few years
later, we have lots of RHEL options (Centos, Whitebox, etc) and a
community of users who will help provide community support to those
who upgrade to those from RHL. We also have of course Fedora Core
and its ability to upgrade between releases. So Fedora Legacy is no
longer the only option. As such, it isn't needed as much. As such,
it is natural that participation would fall off some.
> For the longest time, I personally cared about Fedora Core 1, and also
> cared about the old Red Hat Linux releases 7.3 and 9.0. The project
Yes, I was in it for the RHL only. When that was killed off, I had no
real reason to stay (but I did anyway).
> And what about Red Hat
> Linux 7.3 and 9? Even longer! For these three releases, and also
> perhaps FC2, this project was more successful than perhaps the founders
> of Fedora Legacy had hoped or dreamed it would be.
Yes, and I think that was a problem too. Jesse didn't want to keep
supporting RHL, but most of the community was most interested (IMHO)
in RHL, and hence we had a problem. Jesse was most gracious in allowing
us RHL folks to hijack his FC project, to tell the truth...
> A lot of the work towards the end of the useful life of Fedora Legacy
> was done by one man: Marc Deslauriers, to which all Fedora Legacy
> users owe a LOT (and I mean a *LOT*) of thank-you's! He was the one
Yes, THANK YOU Marc! I really appreciate all you (and the other core
people) did!
> Thank you from the bottom of my heart, Marc!!! Your example is one we
> should all be committed enough to follow and emulate!
Indeed!
> for Marc. I believe the few who did most of the work finally burned
> out.
Probably. But also lost some interest, when the versions they cared
most about were discontinued, I suspect. That was the case for me
at least.
> My assessment is this: If legacy failed it did so in these areas:
> * Management of contributor resources
Not sure what that means really.
> * Devotion of people who knew how to motivate and cause people
> in the contributing community to feel valued, motivated and
> special, and to give a voice to those who cared.
Definately.
> Legacy rarely had meetings, had no board to speak of, and therefore no
> clear mechanism of accountability.
Yes. Getting any changes made that were not coming from Jesse, Marc or
David, or Pekka seemed impossible. My suggestions on how to improve
the situation never got anywhere...
> I hope the good folks of Legacy remember Legacy *not* as a failed
> experiment, but as one that lasted longer and did better than folks had
> any right to expect.
Yes, that is about how I'll remember it. And I think all those who joined
for RHL support will remember it that way too.
> Warm regards,
>
> David Eisenstein
And I'd like to thank David for all he did for the project too!
--
Eric Rostetter
The Department of Physics
The University of Texas at Austin
Go Longhorns!
From jkeating at j2solutions.net Fri Jan 5 18:03:03 2007
From: jkeating at j2solutions.net (Jesse Keating)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 13:03:03 -0500
Subject: Legacy's Success; Re: why I'm using Ubuntu instead of Fedora ATM
In-Reply-To: <20070105110108.myrgf34tcjs4sk84@mail.ph.utexas.edu>
References: <2cb10c440701030059l49323ecaqeae7c7041f735d63@mail.gmail.com>
<459DF8FC.4020805@gtw.net>
<20070105110108.myrgf34tcjs4sk84@mail.ph.utexas.edu>
Message-ID: <200701051303.03999.jkeating@j2solutions.net>
On Friday 05 January 2007 12:01, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> And I'd like to thank David for all he did for the project too!
Indeed. There is a long list of folks who have helped with this project, and
stuck through working with me, and I appreciate all of it. Without the help,
it would have never gotten of the ground and helped those who needed it when
they needed it.
--
Jesse Keating RHCE (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From cradle at umd.edu Fri Jan 5 21:55:38 2007
From: cradle at umd.edu (David Eisner)
Date: Fri, 05 Jan 2007 16:55:38 -0500
Subject: fedora-l] Migrating from RH9 Legacy to CentOS 3
In-Reply-To:
References: <453E2432.5050708@umd.edu>
Message-ID: <459EC95A.6050503@umd.edu>
R P Herrold wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, David Eisner wrote:
>> With the end of Legacy support for RH9, I'd like to migrate my Fedora
>> Legacified RH9 box to Centos 3.
>> http://www.owlriver.com/tips/centos-31-ex-rhl-9/
>> Any thoughts on whether this should also work with the .legacy packages?
>
> As author of the migration instructions in question, let me give an
> unqualified "Yes, probably" .... ;)
[...]
> good luck -- please let us know how it turns out.
>
> - Russ Herrold
[Better late than never ...]
Summary: The upgrade worked, with a few minor snags. I am now running
Centos-3.8 on that box.
A few notes:
Full disclosure: I screwed up and wound up using Centos 3.8 isos, but
used the Centos *3.1* updates in step 3. of the Owl River instructions.
I don't think this caused any major problems, though.
First I pared down the number of packages (removing -devel, etc.) to a
little under 400. And, yes, the box is backed-up nightly (with the most
recent full backup tapes at hand).
Here are the issues I ran into.
1. The Centos-3.8 isos for CD 1 and 3 both had a
comps-3.8centos.0-0.20060803.i386.rpm package, which were not identical.
I used the CD 3 version.
2. In step 8. of the Owl River instructions, when I executed
"yum -y -t -c /etc/yum-upgrade.conf upgrade rpm kernel",
I got a Segmentation Fault at this point:
Gathering header information file(s) from server(s)
Server: CentOS-9 - Updates
Server: Centos upgrade
Finding updated packages
Downloading needed headers
Finding obsoleted packages
Resolving dependencies
[Segmentation fault happened here]
To solve this, I first tried upgrading python from python-2.2.2-26 to
python-2.2.3-26, using an RPM downloaded from www.python.org. This
didn't help. So I tried running "/usr/bin/python /usr/bin/yum -y -t -c
..." in gdb to see where it was crashing, but it Heisenbergily refused
to segfault this time. In any case I wasn't complaining.
3. Step 8. has one run the same two commands twice. The second time I
ran "rpm -vv --rebuilddb", it was not happy:
# rpm -vv --rebuilddb
D: rebuilding database /var/lib/rpm into /var/lib/rpmrebuilddb.10450
D: creating directory /var/lib/rpmrebuilddb.10450
D: opening old database with dbapi 3
D: opening db environment /var/lib/rpm/Packages joinenv
rpmdb: Program version 4.2 doesn't match environment version
error: db4 error(22) from dbenv->open: Invalid argument
D: opening db index
/var/lib/rpm/Packages rdonly mode=0x0
error: cannot open Packages index
D: removing directory /var/lib/rpmrebuilddb.10450
I rebooted, and then the rebuilddb worked. The second
"yum -y -t -c /etc/yum-upgrade.conf upgrade rpm kernel" ran and, not
surprisingly, told me there were no upgrades available.
4. Step 9. worked fine, it just took awhile. However, a few .legacy
packages remained:
$ rpm -qa |grep legacy
sendmail-cf-8.12.11-4.24.1.legacy
fetchmail-6.2.0-3.4.legacy
libpng10-1.0.15-0.9.1.legacy
gettext-0.11.4-7.2.legacy
kernel-2.4.20-46.9.legacy
tcpdump-3.7.2-7.9.4.legacy
libpcap-0.7.2-7.9.4.legacy
kernel-2.4.20-43.9.legacy
zip-2.3-26.1.0.9.legacy
sendmail-8.12.11-4.24.1.legacy
I removed the legacy kernel packages, and "upgraded" the rest manually
with rpm -Uvh --force. That seems to have worked. Then I rebooted.
Finally I replaced /etc/yum.conf with the sample given in the Owl River
instructions, and it appears to be working (there were two packages
available for updating (GConf and oaf) which I was able to do with no
problems).
If I run into any problems in the future, I'll let you know.
-David
From michal at harddata.com Sat Jan 6 00:08:51 2007
From: michal at harddata.com (Michal Jaegermann)
Date: Fri, 5 Jan 2007 17:08:51 -0700
Subject: fedora-l] Migrating from RH9 Legacy to CentOS 3
In-Reply-To: <459EC95A.6050503@umd.edu>
References: <453E2432.5050708@umd.edu>
<459EC95A.6050503@umd.edu>
Message-ID: <20070106000851.GA10682@mail.harddata.com>
On Fri, Jan 05, 2007 at 04:55:38PM -0500, David Eisner wrote:
>
> Summary: The upgrade worked, with a few minor snags. I am now running
> Centos-3.8 on that box.
....
>
> # rpm -vv --rebuilddb
....
> error: db4 error(22) from dbenv->open: Invalid argument
....
> I rebooted, and then the rebuilddb worked.
Chances are that running 'rpm -vv --rebuilddb' the second time,
without rebooting, would work too. I have seen that in the past.
No harm in rebooting. :-)
> 4. Step 9. worked fine, it just took awhile. However, a few .legacy
> packages remained:
....
> I removed the legacy kernel packages, and "upgraded" the rest manually
> with rpm -Uvh --force.
You may want to run at this stage 'rpm -qa --last >packlist' and
check results to see what "old" packages still linger on your system
and if you want to keep them. Also if 'yum-utils' package is
available in 'extras' for your OS version then it has a utility called
'package-cleanup'. Options '--problems' and '--orphans' would be of
a particular interest.
Michal
From herrold at owlriver.com Sun Jan 7 19:25:00 2007
From: herrold at owlriver.com (R P Herrold)
Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 14:25:00 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Migrating from RH9 Legacy to CentOS 3
In-Reply-To: <459EC95A.6050503@umd.edu>
References: <453E2432.5050708@umd.edu>
<459EC95A.6050503@umd.edu>
Message-ID:
On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, David Eisner wrote:
> R P Herrold wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, David Eisner wrote:
>>> With the end of Legacy support for RH9, I'd like to migrate my Fedora
>>> Legacified RH9 box to Centos 3.
>>> http://www.owlriver.com/tips/centos-31-ex-rhl-9/
>>> Any thoughts on whether this should also work with the .legacy packages?
>> As author of the migration instructions in question, let me give an
>> unqualified "Yes, probably" .... ;)
> 1. The Centos-3.8 isos for CD 1 and 3 both had a
> comps-3.8centos.0-0.20060803.i386.rpm package, which were
> not identical. I used the CD 3 version.
noted, wearing my 'CentOS' hat - thanks for the report -- U9
whould be along in reasonably soon which will get a respin,
but we'll look for that in the CentOS build process
> "yum -y -t -c /etc/yum-upgrade.conf upgrade rpm kernel",
> [Segmentation fault happened here]
hmmm --- wish I had more information here -- probably the
instructions need to be updated to suggest removing all
but the kernel in use; a pre-conversion 'yum -y clean all'
would probably be prophylactic as well.
> To solve this, I first tried upgrading python from python-2.2.2-26 to
> python-2.2.3-26, using an RPM downloaded from www.python.org. This
ouch -- python version dependent matters are _so_ integral to
a Red Hat derived system, that I consider that pretty 'daring'
> 3. Step 8. has one run the same two commands twice. The
> second time I ran "rpm -vv --rebuilddb", it was not happy:
> I rebooted, and then the rebuilddb worked. The second "yum
> -y -t -c /etc/yum-upgrade.conf upgrade rpm kernel" ran and,
> not surprisingly, told me there were no upgrades available.
We are in terra incognita here with the python version
possibly in play; I think my instructions whould suggest the
reboot before the first and second rebuilddb's again, not for
a known issue, but to make sure we are under the new kernel
> 4. Step 9. worked fine, it just took awhile. However, a few
> .legacy packages remained:
> $ rpm -qa |grep legacy
>
> sendmail-cf-8.12.11-4.24.1.legacy
> fetchmail-6.2.0-3.4.legacy
> libpng10-1.0.15-0.9.1.legacy
> gettext-0.11.4-7.2.legacy
> kernel-2.4.20-46.9.legacy
> tcpdump-3.7.2-7.9.4.legacy
> libpcap-0.7.2-7.9.4.legacy
> kernel-2.4.20-43.9.legacy
> zip-2.3-26.1.0.9.legacy
> sendmail-8.12.11-4.24.1.legacy
I had not considered this later versioned material (when the
outline was written, it was in the future, and unknowable as
to how this would play out), as the path I outlined from RHL 9
would not encounter it; I will approach other members of the
CentOS team in the topic of how we are to offer a path to
'care' for the people orphaned by the EOL of FL.
btw, Kudos to Jesse and the folks who kept FL running for the
two years or so it ran -- I know how difficult starting and
running a distribution is, and a great effort and success were
the result.
> I removed the legacy kernel packages, and "upgraded" the
> rest manually with rpm -Uvh --force. That seems to have
> worked. Then I rebooted.
I will consider adding a section about 'housekeeping' to
identify and get back onto the CentOS main line path for the
FL transitioners. seems like a good idea. Thanks for noting
this.
> Finally I replaced /etc/yum.conf with the sample given in
> the Owl River instructions, and it appears to be working
> (there were two packages available for updating (GConf and
> oaf) which I was able to do with no problems).
Great -- Thank You, David.
-- Russ Herrold
From lance at uklinux.net Mon Jan 8 01:23:11 2007
From: lance at uklinux.net (Lance Davis)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 01:23:11 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [CentOS-devel] Migrating from RH9 Legacy to CentOS 3
In-Reply-To:
References: <453E2432.5050708@umd.edu>
<459EC95A.6050503@umd.edu>
Message-ID:
On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Jan 2007, David Eisner wrote:
>> 1. The Centos-3.8 isos for CD 1 and 3 both had a
>> comps-3.8centos.0-0.20060803.i386.rpm package, which were not identical. I
>> used the CD 3 version.
>
> noted, wearing my 'CentOS' hat - thanks for the report -- U9 whould be along
> in reasonably soon which will get a respin, but we'll look for that in the
> CentOS build process
Errm I think U8 was the last respin for rhel3 ... and likewise CentOS 3
???
Regards
Lance
--
uklinux.net -
The ISP of choice for the discerning Linux user.
From cradle at umd.edu Mon Jan 8 15:41:52 2007
From: cradle at umd.edu (David Eisner)
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 10:41:52 -0500
Subject: Migrating from RH9 Legacy to CentOS 3
In-Reply-To:
References: <453E2432.5050708@umd.edu> <459EC95A.6050503@umd.edu>
Message-ID: <45A26640.9050004@umd.edu>
R P Herrold wrote:
>> "yum -y -t -c /etc/yum-upgrade.conf upgrade rpm kernel",
>> [Segmentation fault happened here]
>
> hmmm --- wish I had more information here -- probably the instructions
> need to be updated to suggest removing all but the kernel in use; a
> pre-conversion 'yum -y clean all' would probably be prophylactic as well.
Actually, I did do a yum clean all before the conversion (should have
mentioned that in the notes). My hunch was that, because the "Resolving
dependencies" stage took awhile, some data structure was growing too
large and exposing a flaw in python or one of the libraries.
>> To solve this, I first tried upgrading python from python-2.2.2-26 to
>> python-2.2.3-26, using an RPM downloaded from www.python.org. This
>
> ouch -- python version dependent matters are _so_ integral to a Red
> Hat derived system, that I consider that pretty 'daring'
I should mention that it was an RPM designed for RH9. From
http://www.python.org/download/releases/2.2.3/rpms/ : "These RPMs are
built from Red Hat's SRPM, not the python.org tar-file. These RPMs are
meant to more closely match the standard Python provided by Red Hat."
> [...]
>
> Great -- Thank You, David.
And thanks, Russ, for the excellent instructions and your work on
CentOS. I echo your thanks to Jesse et. al. for all their hard work
over the years. I know it was a mostly thankless job.
-David
From agibson at ptm.com Mon Jan 8 15:46:45 2007
From: agibson at ptm.com (Adam Gibson)
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 10:46:45 -0500
Subject: 2007 DST update for RH7.2
In-Reply-To: <200701051123.02466.jkeating@j2solutions.net>
References: <42631.127.0.0.1.1168013479.squirrel@jenova.local>
<200701051123.02466.jkeating@j2solutions.net>
Message-ID: <45A26765.30406@ptm.com>
Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Friday 05 January 2007 11:11, Paul Rupe wrote:
>
>> I understand that no one is making updates for 7.2 anymore, so I was
>> wondering if I can adapt the one for 7.3. The timezone rules are part of
>> the glibc packages. Do I really need the new version of glibc, or can I
>> simply copy the /usr/share/zoneinfo files from the updated 7.3 packages
>> onto 7.2? In other words, do the new zoneinfo files require the new glibc
>> to work properly?
>>
>
> I don't believe so. In future releases, tzdata was separate from glibc so
> that one didn't have to do a glibc update to get new zone info, which seems
> to change on a month to month basis (looking at the world view).
>
Couldn't you just take a correctly setup and updated 7.3 system's
/etc/localtime file and copy it to the 7.2's etc directory? I wonder if
there are any formating changes of the localtime file that would cause
problems between glibc versions. I would think that format is set in
stone by now.
From cradle at umd.edu Mon Jan 8 17:52:26 2007
From: cradle at umd.edu (David Eisner)
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 12:52:26 -0500
Subject: Migrating from RH9 Legacy to CentOS 3
In-Reply-To: <459EC95A.6050503@umd.edu>
References: <453E2432.5050708@umd.edu>
<459EC95A.6050503@umd.edu>
Message-ID: <45A284DA.2010106@umd.edu>
David Eisner wrote:
> If I run into any problems in the future, I'll let you know.
>
>
Update: I am running into this bug: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=1598
In short, NFS mounts fail when mounting from multiple hosts. Only mounts
from the first host succeed, with the remaining producing the error
mount: mount: RPC: Unable to receive; errno = Connection refused
-David
From guallar at easternrad.com Mon Jan 8 18:31:10 2007
From: guallar at easternrad.com (Josep L. Guallar-Esteve)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 13:31:10 -0500
Subject: Migrating from RH9 Legacy to CentOS 3
In-Reply-To: <45A284DA.2010106@umd.edu>
References: <453E2432.5050708@umd.edu> <459EC95A.6050503@umd.edu>
<45A284DA.2010106@umd.edu>
Message-ID: <200701081331.13318.guallar@easternrad.com>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Monday 08 January 2007 12:52, David Eisner wrote:
> David Eisner wrote:
> > If I run into any problems in the future, I'll let you know.
>
> Update: I am running into this bug: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=1598
>
> In short, NFS mounts fail when mounting from multiple hosts. Only mounts
> from the first host succeed, with the remaining producing the error
>
> mount: mount: RPC: Unable to receive; errno = Connection refused
>
> -David
Is RPC really running? Or is it dead?
Has the update changed your firewall rules?
Regards,
Josep
- --
Josep L. Guallar-Esteve - IT Department - Eastern Radiologists, Inc.
Systems and PACS Administration http://www.easternrad.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFoo3xSGQa4/zQ9e8RAgMPAJ0ZP5Mp8tSU5E/OURljfxuIVZxWaQCfYdyH
LcRX8004a9e/KyqZFddy5/w=
=xbFd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
From cradle at umd.edu Mon Jan 8 20:06:54 2007
From: cradle at umd.edu (David Eisner)
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 15:06:54 -0500
Subject: Migrating from RH9 Legacy to CentOS 3
In-Reply-To: <200701081331.13318.guallar@easternrad.com>
References: <453E2432.5050708@umd.edu> <459EC95A.6050503@umd.edu>
<45A284DA.2010106@umd.edu>
<200701081331.13318.guallar@easternrad.com>
Message-ID: <45A2A45E.5020601@umd.edu>
Josep L. Guallar-Esteve wrote:
> On Monday 08 January 2007 12:52, David Eisner wrote:
> >> David Eisner wrote:
> >
> >> mount: mount: RPC: Unable to receive; errno = Connection refused
>
>
> Is RPC really running? Or is it dead?
>
> Has the update changed your firewall rules?
I fixed the problem. In addition to upgrading util-linux, as suggested
on the bug page, it is also necessary to upgrade the mount package. Now
I have mount-2.11y-31.19 and util-linux-2.11y-31.19, installed from the
fasttrack repository, and everything works.
-David
From herrold at owlriver.com Tue Jan 9 01:06:55 2007
From: herrold at owlriver.com (R P Herrold)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 20:06:55 -0500 (EST)
Subject: Migrating from RH9 Legacy to CentOS 3
In-Reply-To: <20070108093639.GI7356@br-online.de>
References: <453E2432.5050708@umd.edu>
<459EC95A.6050503@umd.edu>
<20070108093639.GI7356@br-online.de>
Message-ID:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2007, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>> On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, R P Herrold wrote:
>>> noted, wearing my 'CentOS' hat - thanks for the report --
>>> U9 whould be along in reasonably soon which will get a
>>> respin, but we'll look for that in the CentOS build
>>> process
> I think he said said ("would be along in reasonably soon") or at least
> meant to say that :)
> Ralph
Thanks, Ralph -- looks like at least _someone_ understands how
I type ;)
From Andrew.Wilson at nottingham.ac.uk Fri Jan 12 21:33:43 2007
From: Andrew.Wilson at nottingham.ac.uk (Wilson Andrew)
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 21:33:43 -0000
Subject: Fedora Legacy
Message-ID:
Hi, All.
It is with some sadness I have noted that the fedora legacy project has significantly downscaled it's scope.
Not least because it leaves me a job to do with my fedora servers (many of which are FC3)! That got me thinking... should I be lamenting lack of community interest in the project, and moving on; or should I be trying to help.
First of all, qualifications: Experienced linux sysadmin, from way back (well RH6 ish), and a good background in managing RedHat / Fedora servers and (some) workstations.
Now snags: Limited (in the most limited sense of the word!) programming skills. Bash, perl, php, some c and that's about it.
I do however have a few hours a week to contribute, and therefore propose that I may be suitable as your mirror coordinator [seems a documentation / support role to me, suitable for a mere sysadmin ;-)], and can also act as a tester / qa tester. I have a reasonable scope of hardware to run or emulate a range of OSs.
Let me know if I can be of use.
Thanks
Andrew Wilson
Research Systems Support Officer
School of Physics & Astronomy
The University of Nottingham.
(+44) 115 951 5182
andrew.wilson at nottingham.ac.uk
This message has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment
may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system:
you are advised to perform your own checks. Email communications with the
University of Nottingham may be monitored as permitted by UK legislation.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
From smooge at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 00:33:39 2007
From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen)
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 17:33:39 -0700
Subject: Fedora Legacy
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <80d7e4090701121633s10a4326bsae8ac4f18fe662fa@mail.gmail.com>
On 1/12/07, Wilson Andrew wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Hi, All.
>
> It is with some sadness I have noted that the fedora legacy project has
> significantly downscaled it's scope.
>
> Not least because it leaves me a job to do with my fedora servers (many of
> which are FC3)! That got me thinking... should I be lamenting lack of
> community interest in the project, and moving on; or should I be trying to
> help.
>
At this point.. I think moving on is the status. The Fedora Legacy
project pretty much closed doors, rolled up the sidewalk, and drove
out of town in December 2006.
--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
From mattdm at mattdm.org Sat Jan 13 04:40:58 2007
From: mattdm at mattdm.org (Matthew Miller)
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 2007 23:40:58 -0500
Subject: Fedora Legacy
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <20070113044058.GA31636@jadzia.bu.edu>
On Fri, Jan 12, 2007 at 09:33:43PM -0000, Wilson Andrew wrote:
> Not least because it leaves me a job to do with my fedora servers (many of
> which are FC3)! That got me thinking... should I be lamenting lack of
> community interest in the project, and moving on; or should I be trying to
> help.
Well, you probably could have helped five months ago.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org
Boston University Linux ------>
From matthew at zeut.net Sat Jan 13 22:16:51 2007
From: matthew at zeut.net (Matthew T. O'Connor)
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 17:16:51 -0500
Subject: Fresh Install of RH 7.3
Message-ID: <45A95A53.4010403@zeut.net>
Hello, for various reasons I'm trying to install Redhat 7.3, but I can't
figure out how to do it. There aren't any bootable ISO images for that
distribution, and I lost my CDs a long time ago. Anyone have any
suggestions?
Thanks,
Matt
From smooge at gmail.com Sat Jan 13 23:41:28 2007
From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen)
Date: Sat, 13 Jan 2007 16:41:28 -0700
Subject: Fresh Install of RH 7.3
In-Reply-To: <45A95A53.4010403@zeut.net>
References: <45A95A53.4010403@zeut.net>
Message-ID: <80d7e4090701131541o5ceb8ceaq12abd0e35fa2f0fd@mail.gmail.com>
On 1/13/07, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
> Hello, for various reasons I'm trying to install Redhat 7.3, but I can't
> figure out how to do it. There aren't any bootable ISO images for that
> distribution, and I lost my CDs a long time ago. Anyone have any
> suggestions?
>
The ISO #1 for RHL-7.3 is bootable. You can download it from multiple
mirror sites still.
> Thanks,
>
> Matt
>
> --
> fedora-legacy-list mailing list
> fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
>
--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
From ra+centos at br-online.de Mon Jan 8 09:36:39 2007
From: ra+centos at br-online.de (Ralph Angenendt)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 10:36:39 +0100
Subject: [CentOS-devel] Migrating from RH9 Legacy to CentOS 3
In-Reply-To:
References: <453E2432.5050708@umd.edu>
<459EC95A.6050503@umd.edu>
Message-ID: <20070108093639.GI7356@br-online.de>
Lance Davis wrote:
> On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, R P Herrold wrote:
>>noted, wearing my 'CentOS' hat - thanks for the report -- U9 whould be
>>along in reasonably soon which will get a respin, but we'll look for that
>>in the CentOS build process
>
> Errm I think U8 was the last respin for rhel3 ... and likewise CentOS 3
> ???
I think he said said ("would be along in reasonably soon") or at least
meant to say that :)
Cheers,
Ralph
--
Ralph Angenendt......ra at br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it possible
Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 M?nchen | ....to right-justify any idea, even one
Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any other
Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From ra+centos at br-online.de Mon Jan 8 09:39:01 2007
From: ra+centos at br-online.de (Ralph Angenendt)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 10:39:01 +0100
Subject: [CentOS-devel] Migrating from RH9 Legacy to CentOS 3
In-Reply-To: <20070108093639.GI7356@br-online.de>
References: <453E2432.5050708@umd.edu>
<459EC95A.6050503@umd.edu>
<20070108093639.GI7356@br-online.de>
Message-ID: <20070108093901.GJ7356@br-online.de>
Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> Lance Davis wrote:
> > On Sun, 7 Jan 2007, R P Herrold wrote:
> >>noted, wearing my 'CentOS' hat - thanks for the report -- U9 whould be
> >>along in reasonably soon which will get a respin, but we'll look for that
> >>in the CentOS build process
> >
> > Errm I think U8 was the last respin for rhel3 ... and likewise CentOS 3
> > ???
>
> I think he said said ("would be along in reasonably soon") or at least
> meant to say that :)
Yay for incomplete sentences:
... to say that 3.9 will be available in the not so distant future and
will get a respin of the ISOs.
Ralph
--
Ralph Angenendt......ra at br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it possible
Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 M?nchen | ....to right-justify any idea, even one
Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any other
Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From ra+centos at br-online.de Mon Jan 8 11:21:07 2007
From: ra+centos at br-online.de (Ralph Angenendt)
Date: Mon, 8 Jan 2007 12:21:07 +0100
Subject: [CentOS-devel] Migrating from RH9 Legacy to CentOS 3
In-Reply-To: <1168255080.16299.247.camel@myth.home.local>
References: <453E2432.5050708@umd.edu>
<459EC95A.6050503@umd.edu>
<20070108093639.GI7356@br-online.de>
<20070108093901.GJ7356@br-online.de>
<1168255080.16299.247.camel@myth.home.local>
Message-ID: <20070108112107.GL7356@br-online.de>
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-01-08 at 10:39 +0100, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>> ... to say that 3.9 will be available in the not so distant future and
>> will get a respin of the ISOs.
>
> But ... I think Lance means that RHEL-3 is in Maintenance Mode
> upstream ... and that 3.8 MAY have been the latest respin.
Okay. It *is* monday after all and I'm still trying to wake up :)
Ralph
--
Ralph Angenendt......ra at br-online.de | .."Text processing has made it possible
Bayerischer Rundfunk...80300 M?nchen | ....to right-justify any idea, even one
Programmbereich.Bayern 3, Jugend und | .which cannot be justified on any other
Multimedia.........Tl:089.5900.16023 | ..........grounds." -- J. Finnegan, USC
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
From nils at lemonbit.nl Wed Jan 17 07:39:27 2007
From: nils at lemonbit.nl (Nils Breunese (Lemonbit))
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:39:27 +0100
Subject: RHEL subset of which FC ?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <44861E11-3E2F-4ED6-A955-DCC12C98825C@lemonbit.nl>
P. Martinez wrote:
> Hi, is it true when i say, FC3 == RHEL4 ?
No, but you can say RHEL4 was based on FC3. RHEL5 will be based on
FC6. But you can't really say they are the same thing at all.
Nils Breunese.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend
URL:
From martin at bugs.unl.edu.ar Wed Jan 17 13:10:47 2007
From: martin at bugs.unl.edu.ar (Martin Marques)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 10:10:47 -0300
Subject: RHEL subset of which FC ?
In-Reply-To: <44861E11-3E2F-4ED6-A955-DCC12C98825C@lemonbit.nl>
References:
<44861E11-3E2F-4ED6-A955-DCC12C98825C@lemonbit.nl>
Message-ID: <45AE2057.1060909@bugs.unl.edu.ar>
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
> P. Martinez wrote:
>
>> Hi, is it true when i say, FC3 == RHEL4 ?
>
>
> No, but you can say RHEL4 was based on FC3. RHEL5 will be based on FC6.
> But you can't really say they are the same thing at all.
Is there any ideas on when RHEL5 will be out?
P.D.: FC3 has packages which are newer then the ones in RHEL4: KDE for
example.
--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
---------------------------------------------------------
Mart?n Marqu?s | Programador, DBA
Centro de Telem?tica | Administrador
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
---------------------------------------------------------
From nils at lemonbit.nl Wed Jan 17 13:18:11 2007
From: nils at lemonbit.nl (Nils Breunese (Lemonbit))
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 14:18:11 +0100
Subject: RHEL subset of which FC ?
In-Reply-To: <45AE2057.1060909@bugs.unl.edu.ar>
References:
<44861E11-3E2F-4ED6-A955-DCC12C98825C@lemonbit.nl>
<45AE2057.1060909@bugs.unl.edu.ar>
Message-ID: <4F1286FD-0C49-4F71-9A5E-0926352ADDC2@lemonbit.nl>
Martin Marques wrote:
> Is there any ideas on when RHEL5 will be out?
http://www.itweek.co.uk/itweek/news/2171826/red-hat-enterprise-linux
says:
"Red Hat Enterprise OS Marketing Manager Nick Carr said that the
proposed schedule for a downloadable version of RHEL 5.0 is looking
good for mid-to-late February, but added that OEM partners may not
start to put the operating system onto new servers until later."
Nils Breunese.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: Dit deel van het bericht is digitaal ondertekend
URL:
From smooge at gmail.com Thu Jan 18 01:19:05 2007
From: smooge at gmail.com (Stephen John Smoogen)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 18:19:05 -0700
Subject: RHEL subset of which FC ?
In-Reply-To:
References:
Message-ID: <80d7e4090701171719w2774cc0eof12284399e4b810d@mail.gmail.com>
On 1/16/07, P. Martinez wrote:
> Hi, is it true when i say, FC3 == RHEL4 ?
>
No its more like
RHL-7.2 =~ RHEL-2.1
RHL-9 =~ RHEL-3
FCL-3 =~ RHEL-4
If you are looking at one could attempt an upgrade from to then it would be that
RHL-7.0, RHL-7.1, RHL-7.2 might be upgraded to RHEL-2.1
RHL-7.3, RHL-8, RHL-9 might be upgraded to RHEL-3
FCL-1, FCL-2, FCL-3 might be upgraded to RHEL-4
FCL-4, FCL-5, FCL-6 might be upgraded to RHEL-5
none of these are 'clean' upgrades, and can lead to crashed machines
around 20% of the time due to things outside the scope of this email.
The steps to follow it are the following:
0) Look up on google better how-tos than this :)
1) Backup current data to media that can be recovered from after an
install (USB diskdrive works great)
2) Make a file listing of your RPM database like
rpm -qa --qf='%{NAME} %{EPOCH}:%{VERSION}:%{RELEASE}\n' > filename
3) Do an upgrade
One needs to force the RHEL/Centos installer to do an upgrade of outside its
4) Look for files that were left over and why
5) Fix broken configs because versions have changed greatly.
[my guess is that FCL-9 might be RHEL-6 :)]
> I compiled myself this dates:
>
> FC3 - 8 November 2004
> RHEL4 - February 2005
> FC4 - 13 June 2005
>
>
--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
From michal at harddata.com Thu Jan 18 18:37:54 2007
From: michal at harddata.com (Michal Jaegermann)
Date: Thu, 18 Jan 2007 11:37:54 -0700
Subject: RHEL subset of which FC ?
In-Reply-To:
References:
<80d7e4090701171719w2774cc0eof12284399e4b810d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20070118183754.GA13620@mail.harddata.com>
On Thu, Jan 18, 2007 at 11:11:29AM +0100, P. Martinez wrote:
> Am 18.01.2007 um 02:19 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen:
>
> >If you are looking at one could attempt an upgrade from to then it
> >would be that
> >
> >RHL-7.0, RHL-7.1, RHL-7.2 might be upgraded to RHEL-2.1
> >RHL-7.3, RHL-8, RHL-9 might be upgraded to RHEL-3
> >FCL-1, FCL-2, FCL-3 might be upgraded to RHEL-4
> >FCL-4, FCL-5, FCL-6 might be upgraded to RHEL-5
There could be individual circumstances but I "upgraded" two heavily
hacked RHL-7.x machines to CentOS-4, which is from a software point
of view really the same as RHEL-4, and this was a "non-event".
True, it required some coaxing to start the whole process and a
careful cleanup afterwards (both 'yum-utils' and 'rpm' are helpful
in that) but other than that, which means an extra work, this was
not a problem.
If you did not dump everything into one big partition in the first
place then installing over system parts, while keeping local data,
and restoring a desired configuration afterwards could be simpler
and quicker. Selectively restoring from backups also can be an
option. Make no mistake - a machine in use for a while is likely
"more customized" then it looks at the first glance so getting to an
equivalent configuration on a new installation is usually quite a
bit more work than you think. Still with a bit of planning you may
end up ahead.
> Till now, there is no decision about our current
> OS-strategies.
Thinking in terms what can be, apparently, "upgraded" to what
is possibly not that great idea.
Michal
From mht at research.dfci.harvard.edu Thu Jan 25 19:04:49 2007
From: mht at research.dfci.harvard.edu (Matt Temple)
Date: Thu, 25 Jan 2007 14:04:49 -0500
Subject: 2007 DST update for RH7.2
In-Reply-To: <45A26765.30406@ptm.com>
References: <42631.127.0.0.1.1168013479.squirrel@jenova.local> <200701051123.02466.jkeating@j2solutions.net>
<45A26765.30406@ptm.com>
Message-ID: <45B8FF51.2070706@research.dfci.harvard.edu>
What I found was that the newest tzdata rpms did NO writing to anything
expect /usr/share/zoneinfo,
so I installed them via RPM with --nodeps and --force.
Then I fixed the link at /etc/locatime to
/usr/share/zoneinfo/America/New_York.
It seems to be working on 7.3 and 9.0. I can't speak for 7.2.
Has anyone found different?
Matt Temple
Adam Gibson wrote:
> Jesse Keating wrote:
>> On Friday 05 January 2007 11:11, Paul Rupe wrote:
>>
>>> I understand that no one is making updates for 7.2 anymore, so I was
>>> wondering if I can adapt the one for 7.3. The timezone rules are
>>> part of
>>> the glibc packages. Do I really need the new version of glibc, or
>>> can I
>>> simply copy the /usr/share/zoneinfo files from the updated 7.3 packages
>>> onto 7.2? In other words, do the new zoneinfo files require the new
>>> glibc
>>> to work properly?
>>>
>>
>> I don't believe so. In future releases, tzdata was separate from
>> glibc so that one didn't have to do a glibc update to get new zone
>> info, which seems to change on a month to month basis (looking at the
>> world view).
>>
> Couldn't you just take a correctly setup and updated 7.3 system's
> /etc/localtime file and copy it to the 7.2's etc directory? I wonder
> if there are any formating changes of the localtime file that would
> cause problems between glibc versions. I would think that format is
> set in stone by now.
>
> --
> fedora-legacy-list mailing list
> fedora-legacy-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-legacy-list
--
=============================================================
Matthew Temple Tel: 617/632-2597
Director, Research Computing Fax: 617/582-7820
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute mht at research.dfci.harvard.edu
44 Binney Street, LG300/300 http://research.dfci.harvard.edu
Boston, MA 02115 Choice is the Choice!
From redhat at rampaginggeek.com Wed Jan 17 13:57:50 2007
From: redhat at rampaginggeek.com (Jason Edgecombe)
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2007 08:57:50 -0500
Subject: RHEL subset of which FC ?
In-Reply-To: <4F1286FD-0C49-4F71-9A5E-0926352ADDC2@lemonbit.nl>
References:
<44861E11-3E2F-4ED6-A955-DCC12C98825C@lemonbit.nl>
<45AE2057.1060909@bugs.unl.edu.ar>
<4F1286FD-0C49-4F71-9A5E-0926352ADDC2@lemonbit.nl>
Message-ID: <45AE2B5E.70607@rampaginggeek.com>
Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
> Martin Marques wrote:
>
>> Is there any ideas on when RHEL5 will be out?
>
> http://www.itweek.co.uk/itweek/news/2171826/red-hat-enterprise-linux
> says:
>
> "Red Hat Enterprise OS Marketing Manager Nick Carr said that the
> proposed schedule for a downloadable version of RHEL 5.0 is looking
> good for mid-to-late February, but added that OEM partners may not
> start to put the operating system onto new servers until later."
>
> Nils Breunese.
>
Feb 28.
http://news.com.com/Red+Hats+next+Linux+due+before+March/2100-1016_3-6146149.html