Re: [CentOS] CentOS 4 Yum Update Warnings? libsmi

On Feb 9, 2008 10:21 PM, John Hinton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Installing: libsmi [ > 4/16]warning: user mockbuild does not exist > > Did somebody leave the wrong user set during the build process? This has been reported in the bug tracker: http://

[CentOS] CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 36, Issue 4

ia64.rpm -- Pasi Pirhonen - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://pasi.pirhonen.eu/ Top-postings silently ignored -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature Url : http://lists.centos.org/

Re: [CentOS] ESX Server 2.5 - Centos 5.1 guest

On Feb 10, 2008 9:44 AM, Tom Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi > > Anyone got a driver disk for a CentOS 5.1 install running on an ESX 2.5 > server ? > > When the install runs it seems it cant find any hdd's - In the past with > 4.x i have loaded a driver disk but i cant seem to find one for 5.

[CentOS] ESX Server 2.5 - Centos 5.1 guest

Hi Anyone got a driver disk for a CentOS 5.1 install running on an ESX 2.5 server ? When the install runs it seems it cant find any hdd's - In the past with 4.x i have loaded a driver disk but i cant seem to find one for 5.x Does anyone have this running? thanks __

Re: [CentOS] ESX Server 2.5 - Centos 5.1 guest

On Feb 10, 2008 10:06 AM, Tom Brown <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Did you use the LSI Logic SCSI adapter? CentOS5/RHEL5 does not > > include a driver for the BusLogic SCSI adapter. > > > thats the adapter yes - is there any work around available here or > something available from VMware ? Then

Re: [CentOS] ESX Server 2.5 - Centos 5.1 guest

Did you use the LSI Logic SCSI adapter? CentOS5/RHEL5 does not include a driver for the BusLogic SCSI adapter. thats the adapter yes - is there any work around available here or something available from VMware ? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS

Re: [CentOS] Apache2::Request on CentOS 5

On Feb 10, 2008 12:24 AM, Mag Gam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > Running mod_perl, and trying to get Apache2::Request installed. I can't seem > to find an RPM for it. Has anyone got this working on CentOS 5? I am not a perl expert, but since nobody else is commenting... Check out the cpan c

Re: [CentOS] ESX Server 2.5 - Centos 5.1 guest

Tom Brown wrote: > thats the adapter yes - is there any work around available here or > something available from VMware ? How about installing CentOS 4, and upgrading to 5, and make sure to keep the CentOS 4.x kernel. Or compiling your own CentOS 5 kernel with the appropriate drivers. Or upgrade

[CentOS] tar: no, the file did not change while you read it

CentOS 5.1, i686. I have a directory, say "foo", containing several hundred directories down to about six levels deep, and about 33,000 files. Periodically I make a tar archive of the whole lot: tar cf foo.tar foo and I often get from a few dozen to several hundreds of: tar:

[CentOS] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Hi, I seem to not be able to connect to the folding site and receive new work. Anyone else having this issue? Port 8080 is open as well as the other web ports on the firewall. I can ping the host but get nothing when I open a web browser to it. Anyone else having the same issues? Where can

[CentOS] upgrade perl 5.8.0 -> 5.8.1

Hello List, I have a few intel centos 3.9 boxes with perl-5.8.0-94.EL3 installed. This seems like a very early version of 5.8 perl. centos 4.6 has 5.8.1. Would it be sensible to just upgrade to this rpm? I want a stable platform for cgi. I suppose I could just try it, but these boxes are under a f

[CentOS] nmbd dead but pid file exists

I'm having a lot of problems with nmbd quitting while I'm working. 'service smb status' shows samba running, but 'nmbd dead but pid file exists'. Log files show lines like nmbd/nmbd.c:reload_interfaces(229) reload_interfaces: No subnets to listen to. Shutting down... Googling hasn't come up

Re: [CentOS] nmbd dead but pid file exists

On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 22:04 +, Anne Wilson wrote: > I'm having a lot of problems with nmbd quitting while I'm working. 'service > smb status' shows samba running, but 'nmbd dead but pid file exists'. Log > files show lines like > > nmbd/nmbd.c:reload_interfaces(229) > reload_interfaces:

[CentOS] Root exploit in the wild

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432251 Mentioned on Slashdot here: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/10/2011257 Fedora bug report here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432229 -- MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com ___

Re: [CentOS] Apache2::Request on CentOS 5

On Sun, 10 Feb 2008, Jeff Larsen wrote: On Feb 10, 2008 12:24 AM, Mag Gam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Hi, Running mod_perl, and trying to get Apache2::Request installed. I can't seem to find an RPM for it. Has anyone got this working on CentOS 5? I am not a perl expert, but since nobody else

Re: [CentOS] Root exploit in the wild

Frank Cox schrieb: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432251 Just to clarify it a little bit: These are *local* root exploits, so the enemy has to find a way to get a shell account on your box to escalate his privileges. I don't want to say that these exploits are harmless (well, t

[CentOS] NFS Exporting / not working ???

I'm fairly certain I'm not losing my mind, but I'm a very recent convert from fedora 7 to Centos 5. I had the / filesystem exported and it worked fine. Installed Centos, dropped the very same exports file I was using successfully into /etc, restarted nfs, and it won't allow anyone to access.

Re: [CentOS] Root exploit in the wild

Ralph Angenendt schrieb: looks interesting though - if you need a patch "at once". Or maybe not, there is a first report of the kernel throwing a general protection fault. If someone can test it - go ahead and report here ... Cheers,

Re: [CentOS] NFS Exporting / not working ???

On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 18:30 -0500, Michael W Cocke wrote: > I'm fairly certain I'm not losing my mind, but > > I'm a very recent convert from fedora 7 to Centos 5. I had the / > filesystem exported and it worked fine. Installed Centos, dropped the > very same exports file I was using success

Re: [CentOS] Root exploit in the wild

Ralph Angenendt schrieb: Warning: There's a "dexploit"-exploit out there (an exploit which looks if the kernel is exploitable and then disables vmsplice() - or at least tries to) - don't use that. It doesn't work on CentOS 5. The original exploit seems to crash xen-DomUs - the deexploit succeed

Re: [CentOS] Piranha vs HAProxy vs Something else

nate wrote: Todd Reed wrote: Does anyone have any success stories they can share and what type of load balancers they've used? All this needs to run on CentOS and be OpenSource. Well, almost fits your needs, but F5 BigIP runs on CentOS last I checked :) Works beautifully! You are kidding

Re: [CentOS] Root exploit in the wild

Frank Cox wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432251 Mentioned on Slashdot here: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/10/2011257 Fedora bug report here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=432229 Fix right here: http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/torva

[CentOS] Remember the unknown rootkit problem previously reported?

If the attacker could get a shell, the attacker could have used this local root exploit to get the necessary privileges to install the rootkit. One reason why there seem to be few RHEL reports is that RHEL5 is not that widely available yet but lots of vulnerable Fedora/Debian installations are

Re: [CentOS] Piranha vs HAProxy vs Something else

Les Mikesell wrote: Christopher Chan wrote: Haha. Yes, I know that more and more appliances are getting Linux based control systems but I am certainly very interested in how they got a box running a 2.4 version of Linux to perform like what I saw. I had upgraded the mailservers of the compan

Re: [CentOS] Piranha vs HAProxy vs Something else

nate wrote: Christopher Chan wrote: You are kidding right? Them expensive boxes run on Linux? There was a F5 box that was loaned to the company I worked for previously for testing and they had some really big claims about its ability to process emails and about its mail queue data integrity gua

Re: [CentOS] Piranha vs HAProxy vs Something else

Christopher Chan wrote: > You are kidding right? Them expensive boxes run on Linux? There was a F5 > box that was loaned to the company I worked for previously for testing > and they had some really big claims about its ability to process emails > and about its mail queue data integrity guarantees

Re: [CentOS] Piranha vs HAProxy vs Something else

Christopher Chan wrote: Haha. Yes, I know that more and more appliances are getting Linux based control systems but I am certainly very interested in how they got a box running a 2.4 version of Linux to perform like what I saw. I had upgraded the mailservers of the company to get a bit more p