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 The statement in the middle column says FC4 and earlier releases are no longer maintained, but it doesn't make a statement about RHL 7.3 and 9.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