Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)

2012-05-29 Thread Lamar Owen
On Monday, May 28, 2012 02:22:32 AM David Hrbáč wrote: > Dne 26.5.2012 18:33, Lamar Owen napsal(a): > > Which is just as well, since this amavisd-new-milter is different from > > amavisd-milter, which is currently at version 1.5.0, the version that is > > compatible with amavisd-new 2.7.0 and up.

Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)

2012-05-27 Thread David Hrbáč
Dne 26.5.2012 18:33, Lamar Owen napsal(a): > > The amavisd-new-milter package does exist for CentOS 5.8; I cannot, however, > find an amavisd-new-milter package for CentOS 6 in either rpmforge or > rpmforge-extras. Right, there's no el6 build because of spec file: 10 %{?el6:%define _without_milt

Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)

2012-05-27 Thread Les Mikesell
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > On Saturday, May 26, 2012 12:47:04 PM Les Mikesell wrote: >> Have you looked at MimeDefang's ability to run all of your scanners >> out of one milter? > > Yes. > > Doing the same thing with amavisd-new on the few sendmail installs I still > hav

Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)

2012-05-26 Thread Lamar Owen
On Saturday, May 26, 2012 12:47:04 PM Les Mikesell wrote: > Have you looked at MimeDefang's ability to run all of your scanners > out of one milter? Yes. Doing the same thing with amavisd-new on the few sendmail installs I still have running; amavisd-new runs clam (or, at one site, the sopho

Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)

2012-05-26 Thread Les Mikesell
On Sat, May 26, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > > > To my knowledge no repos have the amavisd-milter package available; I've > built my own for six years or so.  I've used both, and the amavisd-new-milter > (/usr/sbin/amavis-milter) is not nearly as useful as this amavisd-milter.  In > fa

Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)

2012-05-26 Thread Lamar Owen
On Saturday, May 26, 2012 05:15:41 AM David Hrbáč wrote: > Dne 25.5.2012 02:00, Lamar Owen napsal(a): > > At the moment both EPEL and RPMforge are on a 2.6.x amavisd-new; 2.7 makes > > some changes in the AM.PDP protocol that can break, for instance, > > amavisd-milter (distinct from the much les

Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)

2012-05-26 Thread David Hrbáč
Dne 25.5.2012 02:00, Lamar Owen napsal(a): > At the moment both EPEL and RPMforge are on a 2.6.x amavisd-new; 2.7 makes > some changes in the AM.PDP protocol that can break, for instance, > amavisd-milter (distinct from the much less useful amavis-milter). Neither > repo has amavisd-milter, so

Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences

2012-05-25 Thread Phil Schaffner
Bowie Bailey wrote on 05/25/2012 01:00 PM: > Is "Fedora Project" EPEL? Yes. Phil ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences

2012-05-25 Thread Bowie Bailey
On 5/25/2012 12:43 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:00 AM, John Doe wrote: >> From: Bowie Bailey >> >>> On a related note, I have a server that is using both the epel and >>> rpmforge repos. Is there a way to determine which packages came from >>> which repo? >> You could try

Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences

2012-05-25 Thread Jesus del Valle
> > > You could try something like this: > > rpm -qa --qf "%-30{NAME}%{VENDOR}\n" > > In 6.x, yum keeps track of where packages were installed from. > yum history packages-info packagename(s) > Hi. From http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=240877 yum list installed | grep repositoryname

Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences

2012-05-25 Thread Les Mikesell
On Fri, May 25, 2012 at 11:00 AM, John Doe wrote: > From: Bowie Bailey > >> On a related note, I have a server that is using both the epel and >> rpmforge repos.  Is there a way to determine which packages came from >> which repo? > > You could try something like this: >   rpm -qa --qf "%-30{NAME

Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences

2012-05-25 Thread John Doe
From: Bowie Bailey > On a related note, I have a server that is using both the epel and > rpmforge repos.  Is there a way to determine which packages came from > which repo? You could try something like this:   rpm -qa --qf "%-30{NAME}%{VENDOR}\n" See the man for more useful tags. JD _

Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences

2012-05-25 Thread Bowie Bailey
On 5/24/2012 8:00 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > I'll step out on a limb here and generalize somewhat; I would think that most > CentOS users use at least one third-party repository, if the traffic on this > list is any indication (and, again, I reserve the right to be wrong). So > knowing how to prop

Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)

2012-05-24 Thread Lamar Owen
On Thursday, May 24, 2012 03:26:02 PM Les Mikesell wrote: > But many, probably most of those cases are revs with forward/backward > compatibility. It's hard to generalize about that, though. Yep, it sure is. Forward/backward compatibility is almost entirely in the hands of the upstream projec

Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)

2012-05-24 Thread m . roth
Les Mikesell wrote: > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: >> >> Probably so, and I know how to do that, but I wasn't illustrating a >> specific workaround, just illustrating the problem. > > Yes, you are right to bring it up, but I don't think it should scare > people off. You just

Re: [CentOS] Third party repo differences (was: Re: Repositories in CentOS 5.8)

2012-05-24 Thread Les Mikesell
On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > > Probably so, and I know how to do that, but I wasn't illustrating a specific > workaround, just illustrating the problem. Yes, you are right to bring it up, but I don't think it should scare people off. You just have to pay attention. > T