Re: [CentOS] Glibc vulnerbality CVE-2015-1781

On Tue, Nov 24, 2015 at 10:41:42PM -0600, Frank Cox wrote: > On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:51:58 +0530 > Venkateswara Rao Dokku wrote: > > > In the link it is mentioned that, the CVE will not be fixed in Red-Hat 5 > > version. What does that mean? I mean, whether the RedHat 5 is vulnerable & > > fix is n

Re: [CentOS] Glibc vulnerbality CVE-2015-1781

On Wed, 25 Nov 2015 09:51:58 +0530 Venkateswara Rao Dokku wrote: > In the link it is mentioned that, the CVE will not be fixed in Red-Hat 5 > version. What does that mean? I mean, whether the RedHat 5 is vulnerable & > fix is not available or RedHat 5 is not vulnerable, hence the fix is not > give

Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources?

On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 1:34 PM, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: >>> >> De-ignorant me please: How does one discern the package name "EPEL" from >> mock? > > Oh, never mind. I see this is some "add-on" repo site. Like I said, a > little light will do :). It's not just 'some' third party repo - it has st

Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources?

> -Original Message- > From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf > Of Les Mikesell > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 6:02 PM > To: CentOS mailing list > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources? > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:47

Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources?

> -Original Message- > From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf > Of ANDY KENNEDY > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 1:32 PM > To: CentOS mailing list > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources? > > > -Original Message

Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources?

apologies for last top post :-( ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources?

Hi Andy, mock is part of EPEL and is almost certainly what you want to use. Kahlil (Kal) Hodgson GPG: C9A02289 Head of Technology (m) +61 (0) 4 2573 0382 DealMax Pty LtdGitHub: @tartansandal Suite 1416 401 Docklands Drive

Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources?

On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:47 PM, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: >> > How do I tell rpmbuild to build the i686 version of the library in place of > the x86_64? I've > done some looking around on the web and I have found something about: > > setarch i686 mock -r ... rebuild > > Not being able to find the "

Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources?

> Okay, thanks. I really don't need _EXACT_ match, but close. Again, my > aim is to equip GlibC with some logging facilities IF anyone is using the > gethostbyname(). Given the help from this list, I was able to rebuild > GlibC for CentOS and am testing my stuff now. > > I appreciate your help

Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources?

> > > The list of packages that were in the "mock build root" for our build of > the glibc-2.12-1.149.el6_6.5.x86_64.src.rpm is here: > > http://ur1.ca/ju24m > > To get close to an exact match, you need to use mock and use the > packages listed above (and only those versions) if you are tryin

Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources?

On 03/02/2015 11:00 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 03/02/2015 10:38 AM, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: I'm tasked with reconstructing the CentOS version of the GlibC library for testing with gethostbyname(). My mission is to show that we are not affected by the latest exploit for th

Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources?

On 03/02/2015 10:38 AM, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: >>> I'm tasked with reconstructing the CentOS version of the GlibC library for >>> testing with >>> gethostbyname(). My mission is to show that we are not affected by the >>> latest exploit for >>> the product we are shipping targeted for RHEL and Cent

Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources?

> On 28 February 2015 at 05:49, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: > > > I'm tasked with reconstructing the CentOS version of the GlibC library for > > testing with > > gethostbyname(). My mission is to show that we are not affected by the > > latest exploit for > > the product we are shipping targeted for RHE

Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources?

> > I'm tasked with reconstructing the CentOS version of the GlibC library for > > testing with > > gethostbyname(). My mission is to show that we are not affected by the > > latest exploit for > > the product we are shipping targeted for RHEL and CentOS. To do so, I want > > to equip > > geth

Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources?

On 28 February 2015 at 05:49, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: > I'm tasked with reconstructing the CentOS version of the GlibC library for > testing with > gethostbyname(). My mission is to show that we are not affected by the > latest exploit for > the product we are shipping targeted for RHEL and CentOS.

Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources?

On 02/27/2015 12:49 PM, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: > All, > > Please excuse any ignorance in this e-mail as I am not a RH/CentOS/Fedora > user and may > blunder my way through the correct terminology for my request. No problem. > I'm tasked with reconstructing the CentOS version of the GlibC library

Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources?

On Fri, 27 Feb 2015 18:49:23 + ANDY KENNEDY wrote: > Compiled on a Linux 2.6.32 system on 2015-01-27. >glibc-2.12-1.149.el6_6.5.src.rpm 27-Jan-2015 23:13 15M The date on that rpm matches the compiled on date that you posted. -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Real D 3D Digital Cinema ~ www

Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources?

On 27 February 2015 at 13:49, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: > All, > > Please excuse any ignorance in this e-mail as I am not a RH/CentOS/Fedora > user and may > blunder my way through the correct terminology for my request. > > I'm tasked with reconstructing the CentOS version of the GlibC library for > t

Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources?

On Fri, Feb 27, 2015 at 06:49:23PM +, ANDY KENNEDY wrote: > But, when looking through the source code for this version on the CentOS > servers I only see: > > [ ] glibc-2.12-1.149.el6_6.5.src.rpm27-Jan-2015 23:13 15M

Re: [CentOS] glibc update

Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 08/14/2012 08:21 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: >> Still too much blood in my caffeine stream IIRC, someone was asking >> about a problem with DNS queries and IPv6 yesterday. I just got a >> notification from RH this morning, about a glibc bugfix update, and >> wondered i

Re: [CentOS] glibc update

On 08/14/2012 08:21 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > Still too much blood in my caffeine stream IIRC, someone was asking > about a problem with DNS queries and IPv6 yesterday. I just got a > notification from RH this morning, about a glibc bugfix update, and > wondered if this might impact that pr

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On 04/26/2011 02:54 PM, Richard Mollel wrote: > Hi, > > Please note RHEL has just released a fix for this issue: > > http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0466.html > > > Lets hope it makes it into centos soon... > I started building it about 20 minutes ago ... it will be released in a coupl

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

Many thanks for the rpm's. I had some evolution stored documents that I really needed. I've applied them to two systems. Is it possible that the gnome panel problem is only on CRT's and not LEDs? Seems like one of my systems fixed itself when I changed monitors. -- M Reynolds McClatchey Jr

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:38:50PM -0400, Robert Heller wrote: > > *I* found a new X client that I *guess* is affected: xrdb (which I > suspect almost no one actually uses anymore). I get this error from > xrdb: > > sh: -c: line 0: unexpected EOF while looking for matching `"' > sh: -c: line 1:

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On 4/19/2011 11:38 AM, Robert Heller wrote: > >> >> I am using this gilbc on my x86_64 laptop with the proprietary NVIDIA >> drivers (Quadro FX 1800M video on a Dell M4500n laptop). I am not >> having any gnome-panel issues and I do not use Evolution, so not sure >> about that. >> >> There are no

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On 4/19/2011 7:12 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > >> Good question, and I'd be very surprised if there is no answer. Killing >> evolution and Gnome panel should be a very visible issue and CentOS has >> the dubious luxury of some time elapsing before updates are duplicated >> to become aware of any bad

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

At Tue, 19 Apr 2011 05:49:59 -0500 CentOS mailing list wrote: > > > > On 04/18/2011 10:48 PM, Robert Heller wrote: > > At Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:07:04 -0500 CentOS mailing list > > wrote: > > > >> > >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote: > >> > >>> There is a known issue wit

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 05:06:49 PM m.r...@5-cent.us wrote: > Ron Blizzard wrote: > > 2011/4/19 Peter Kjellström : > >> On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 02:07:04 AM Ron Blizzard wrote: > >>> For clarification, this bug is only known to be affecting Evolution > >>> and Gnome-Panel, correct? > >> > >>

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

Ron Blizzard wrote: > 2011/4/19 Peter Kjellström : >> On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 02:07:04 AM Ron Blizzard wrote: > >>> For clarification, this bug is only known to be affecting Evolution >>> and Gnome-Panel, correct? >> >> Those are the only known problems with this glibc version. We've been >> run

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On 04/16/2011 08:18 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote: > On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Leonard den Ottolander > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I woke up Saturday morning unable to boot my freshly upgraded 5.6 with >> grub hanging at "GRUB". After getting the boot loader fixed I >> experienced crashes in evolution. Dow

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On 04/18/2011 10:40 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 4/18/2011 10:18 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> >> Where is it (besides their bugzilla) that upstream warns customers of >> this known issue? I am all for fixing things and posting things and >> such, but CentOS (with no SLA) is now being held to a high

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On 18.4.2011 17:40, Les Mikesell wrote: > On 4/18/2011 10:18 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> >> Where is it (besides their bugzilla) that upstream warns customers of >> this known issue? I am all for fixing things and posting things and >> such, but CentOS (with no SLA) is now being held to a higher s

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On 04/19/2011 05:13 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> On 04/18/2011 07:51 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: >> >>> There is an update in QA at Redhat now to address these issues. >> >> Do you know a bug entry with the patch (and/or SRPM) that they

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 05:26:17AM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Robert Heller wrote: > > > Are only the nVidia chipsets + *proprietary* nVidia drivers?  And only > > Evolution and Gnome-Panel?  And is it 32-bit AND 64-bit or only 32-bit > > (or only 64-bit)? >

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On 04/18/2011 10:48 PM, Robert Heller wrote: > At Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:07:04 -0500 CentOS mailing list > wrote: > >> >> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote: >> >>> There is a known issue with one of the security updates on that >>> version of glibc. >>> >>> That said, it's still

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

2011/4/19 Peter Kjellström : > On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 02:07:04 AM Ron Blizzard wrote: >> For clarification, this bug is only known to be affecting Evolution >> and Gnome-Panel, correct? > > Those are the only known problems with this glibc version. We've been running > ~2000 servers with the u

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Robert Heller wrote: > Are only the nVidia chipsets + *proprietary* nVidia drivers?  And only > Evolution and Gnome-Panel?  And is it 32-bit AND 64-bit or only 32-bit > (or only 64-bit)? I can't say -- this is just my personal experience. The two machines that a

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:21 PM, fred smith wrote: > What works for me is, after I log in and find the panels are empty, > do CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE then log in again and the panels are working. > A fairly low-pain workaround. It is for me also (with the pkill gnome-panel work-around). The only reas

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 04/18/2011 07:51 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: > >>       There is an update in QA at Redhat now to address these issues. > > Do you know a bug entry with the patch (and/or SRPM) that they are using? This may not be what you're looking for

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 02:07:04 AM Ron Blizzard wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote: > > There is a known issue with one of the security updates on that > > version of glibc. > > > > That said, it's still *highly* recommended that you update. There are > > four CVEs c

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

At Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:07:04 -0500 CentOS mailing list wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote: > > > There is a known issue with one of the security updates on that > > version of glibc. > > > > That said, it's still *highly* recommended that you update. There are > >

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:25:58PM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: > > Do you know a bug entry with the patch (and/or SRPM) that they are using? No. I hit someone I know in Raleigh up about it on Saturday and he mentioned it was in QA.

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On 04/18/2011 07:51 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:07:04PM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote: >> >> At any rate, there are work-arounds -- for those who use Evolution, >> the SL update is probably the best. I'm kind of surprised that Red Hat >> has not issued a fix yet. > >

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:07:04PM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote: > > > There is a known issue with one of the security updates on that > > version of glibc. > > > > That said, it's still *highly* recommended that you update. There are > > four C

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:07:04PM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote: > > At any rate, there are work-arounds -- for those who use Evolution, > the SL update is probably the best. I'm kind of surprised that Red Hat > has not issued a fix yet. There is an update in QA at Redhat now to address thes

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Tom Sorensen wrote: > There is a known issue with one of the security updates on that > version of glibc. > > That said, it's still *highly* recommended that you update. There are > four CVEs closed by this glibc update, one of which is potentially a > remote priv

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

> > Except for a handful, all of my systems are on 5.5. I don't have to update > until this is fixed > Then you are probably vulnerable to the CVEs you do realise that '5.5' stopped getting updates when 5.6 was released? Apart from a specific costly situation upstream there is only '5' a

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

Tom Sorensen wrote: > On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:36 AM, wrote: >> Johnny Hughes wrote: >>> On 04/17/2011 09:52 AM, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: >> I would like to advice everyone to avoid this update by adding exclude=glibc*2.5-58.el5_6.2 nscd*2.5-58.el5_6.2 to their updates chan

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:36 AM, wrote: > Johnny Hughes wrote: >> On 04/17/2011 09:52 AM, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > >>> I would like to advice everyone to avoid this update by adding >>> exclude=glibc*2.5-58.el5_6.2 nscd*2.5-58.el5_6.2 >>> to their updates channel config - added it to bas

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On 4/18/2011 10:18 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > > Where is it (besides their bugzilla) that upstream warns customers of > this known issue? I am all for fixing things and posting things and > such, but CentOS (with no SLA) is now being held to a higher standard > than upstream (with paid customers)?

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 04/17/2011 09:52 AM, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: >> I would like to advice everyone to avoid this update by adding >> exclude=glibc*2.5-58.el5_6.2 nscd*2.5-58.el5_6.2 >> to their updates channel config - added it to base just to be sure - >> until upstream releases a fi

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On 04/17/2011 09:52 AM, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > Hi Akemi, > > On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 18:18 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote: >> See also: >> >> http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30939&forum=37 > > Please don't take this the wrong way, but not everybody reads the > forums. P

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > Please don't take this the wrong way, but not everybody reads the > forums. Perhaps it is possible to give a heads up about such breakage > via the CentOS general or announce mailing list before such a broken > package is released i

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

Leonard den Ottolander wrote on 04/17/2011 01:37 PM: >...It's a general request that if people are aware of > breakage in upcoming updates to report it to this list. Agree. I would advocate posting it to this list and making it part of the Announcement post as well. This issue was discussed on

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

Hello Rainer, On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 19:08 +0200, Rainer Traut wrote: > Please don't take it wrong but Akemi gave you the link because not > everyone reads the forums and the issue was discussed there. Which is highly appreciated, but it happened *after* I reported these issues, so it hardly coun

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

- Original Message - > From: "Eero Volotinen" > To: "CentOS mailing list" > Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 8:27:45 AM > Subject: Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken? > > 2011/4/17 Leonard den Ottolander : > > Hi Akemi, > > >

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

Am 17.04.2011 16:52, schrieb Leonard den Ottolander: > Hi Akemi, > > On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 18:18 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote: >> See also: >> >> http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30939&forum=37 > > Please don't take this the wrong way, but not everybody reads the > forums. Perh

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > Hi Akemi, > > On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 18:18 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote: >> See also: >> >> http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30939&forum=37 > > Please don't take this the wrong way, but not everybody reads the > f

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

Hello Eero, On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 18:27 +0300, Eero Volotinen wrote: > Does this also affects grub? if so, then this is very critical, it can > trash my rhel installations :/ Well I am not sure, it could be a coincidence, but on my Sempron (i686) system I had to fix a broken grub (hanging at "GRU

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

2011/4/17 Leonard den Ottolander : > Hi Akemi, > > On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 18:18 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote: >> See also: >> >> http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30939&forum=37 > > Please don't take this the wrong way, but not everybody reads the > forums. Perhaps it is possible

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

Hi Akemi, On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 18:18 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote: > See also: > > http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30939&forum=37 Please don't take this the wrong way, but not everybody reads the forums. Perhaps it is possible to give a heads up about such breakage via the

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 03:37:38AM +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > > Is this somehow related to how my grub got broken? Or is that a > different issue? Or just a coincidence :) ? That I don't know, sorry. I've not seen references to that particular problem being related to the glibc issue

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

Hello John, On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 20:19 -0500, John R. Dennison wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693882 > > I've heard from an OOB source that a fix is in QA at Redhat now. Is this somehow related to how my grub got broken? Or is that a different issue? Or just a coincidence

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 03:14:11AM +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > > I woke up Saturday morning unable to boot my freshly upgraded 5.6 with > grub hanging at "GRUB". After getting the boot loader fixed I > experienced crashes in evolution. Downgrading glibc to 2.5-58 seems to > fix these is

Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?

On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Leonard den Ottolander wrote: > Hi, > > I woke up Saturday morning unable to boot my freshly upgraded 5.6 with > grub hanging at "GRUB". After getting the boot loader fixed I > experienced crashes in evolution. Downgrading glibc to 2.5-58 seems to > fix these issue

Re: [CentOS] glibc++6.2?

If you have an RPM package with unmet dependencies, the way to install it is: yum localinstall Yum will resolve the dependencies using the available repositories. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/cento

Re: [CentOS] glibc++6.2?

On 2/2/2011 6:31 AM, Kai Schaetzl wrote: > looking for smarter questions on this list. This list is not a "where is" > list. Thanks. > > Kai > > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > Could

Re: [CentOS] glibc++6.2?

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html -- Drew "Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood." --Marie Curie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] glibc++6.2?

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html -- Drew "Nothing in life is to be feared. It is only to be understood." --Marie Curie ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] glibc++6.2?

On Wednesday, February 02, 2011 01:52:37 pm Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: > On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Hal Davison wrote: > > Greetings ALL... > > > > V 5.5 > > Gnome. Desktop > > > > Looking for glibc++6.2 and higher. The signal to noise ratio of this list is getting quite horrible. From the

Re: [CentOS] glibc++6.2?

On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 2:08 AM, Hal Davison wrote: > Greetings ALL... > > V 5.5 > Gnome. Desktop > > Looking for glibc++6.2 and higher. When looking for RPM's from CentOS and similar distributions, or for RPM's that can be ported to CentOS and RHEL, http://rpm.pbone.net/ is your dear, dar friend.

Re: [CentOS] glibc++6.2?

On 02/02/2011 07:08 AM, Hal Davison wrote: > Looking for glibc++6.2 and higher. Are you sure you have your version numbers right ? glibc lives in the 2.x version-space these days ( and has for many years now ) - KB ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos

Re: [CentOS] glibc++6.2?

looking for smarter questions on this list. This list is not a "where is" list. Thanks. Kai ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] glibc updates and rebooting

At Mon, 1 Feb 2010 09:49:24 -0800 (PST) CentOS mailing list wrote: > > R-Elists wrote: > > > > i forgot... > > > > is it necessary to reboot after glibc* yum updates on 4.x and 5.x or any > > centos for that matter... > > Should not be, but as with all library updates applications that > are r

Re: [CentOS] glibc updates and rebooting

R-Elists wrote: > > i forgot... > > is it necessary to reboot after glibc* yum updates on 4.x and 5.x or any > centos for that matter... Should not be, but as with all library updates applications that are running when the update is applied won't get the update until they are restarted. Often time

Re: [CentOS] glibc update RHBA-2009:1202 release?

On 08/13/2009 01:11 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote: > http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3775 > (originally asked in the CentOS forums) thanks, the glibc package needs a bit more attention. Will attempt to get this done tonight -- Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : 2522...@icq ___

Re: [CentOS] glibc update RHBA-2009:1202 release?

On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:04 AM, Tim Verhoeven wrote: > It is a new RHBA. I'm guessing it is in the pipeline and should appear soon. > > Regards, > Tim > > On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Rainer Traut wrote: >> Hi, >> >> will this update be released by centos? >> Or because it's no security update

Re: [CentOS] glibc update RHBA-2009:1202 release?

It is a new RHBA. I'm guessing it is in the pipeline and should appear soon. Regards, Tim On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 2:01 PM, Rainer Traut wrote: > Hi, > > will this update be released by centos? > Or because it's no security update it gets a lower priority in the queue? > > Thx > Rainer > _

Re: [CentOS] glibc

yes, absolute correct i386 been excluded ! Thanks On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 2:08 PM, Jim Perrin wrote: > On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Mad Unix wrote: >> Am having the following error: > > Run 'grep -ri exclude /etc/yum*' > > Usually when I see this error, it's because folks have excluded the

Re: [CentOS] glibc

On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 1:45 AM, Mad Unix wrote: > Am having the following error: Run 'grep -ri exclude /etc/yum*' Usually when I see this error, it's because folks have excluded the i386/i686 packages, but still have 1 or 2 installed. It's either that or a stale mirror as another already pointe

Re: [CentOS] glibc

Hi, On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 01:45, Mad Unix wrote: > [r...@intra.sdc:rescue]$yum update glibc > ... > Error: No Package Matching glibc.i686 I would say it's either a problem with your mirror, or with your local cache. Try "yum clean all" followed by the same update again. I tried it here (diff

RE: [CentOS] glibc error ???

On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 11:27 -0700, Robert - elists wrote: > So, since this box has been online for like 2 or 3 years, since like centos > 4.0 or 4.1 load with multiple yum updates, I am guessing a recompile of that > app should make the difference? No. You need to find out where the memory is bein

RE: [CentOS] glibc error ???

> > > I'd be looking at the application that triggered that error. > Apparently, it tried to 'free()' a memory block that wasn't malloc()'d > in the first place. > ___ Thank you John and Ignacio and others, So, since this box has been online for like

Re: [CentOS] glibc error ???

On Fri, 2008-03-21 at 11:11 -0700, Robert - elists wrote: > *** glibc detected *** free(): invalid pointer: 0xbffa11b8 *** > ... I am wondering if I > should be focusing on a certain glib area or in the application providing > the error in the error logs Application. This error happens when an ap

Re: [CentOS] glibc error ???

Robert - elists wrote: On a centos 4.6 box rpm -qa | grep glib glib-1.2.10-15 glibc-2.3.4-2.39 glibc-headers-2.3.4-2.39 glibc-common-2.3.4-2.39 dbus-glib-0.22-12.EL.9 glibc-kernheaders-2.4-9.1.100.EL glibc-devel-2.3.4-2.39 glib2-2.4.7-1 I am getting this type of error at times on a mail server

Re: [CentOS] glibc

You can. just install it in a different location. On Jan 23, 2008 8:44 AM, Centos <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello > > Can we have different version of glibc on the same server ? > > Thanks > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://li