On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote:
>> On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury
>>> wrote:
>
>> Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
>> comp
Hi,
I've connected a Nokia 6310i Cellphone via the USB Port to an ESXi 4.1
Host and added it to a CentOS 5.6 64Bit server. The problem is, that I
wont get an suitable tty device (/dev/ttyACM0) like I get when I use
Debian.. here is the output of the log files:
dmesg:
usbcore: registered new dr
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others.
>
> Past numbers debunks this myth:
>
> CentOS 4.0 took 23 days
>
> CentOS 5.0 took 28 days
>
> CentOS 6.0 is not released
On Monday 16 May 2011 06:19:49 David Mehler wrote:
> Hello,
> I've got apache running on a centos 5.6 machine. All of my users have
> a umask of 077 set in /etc/bashrc. I'm now wanting to give several of
> them permission to write to a web area so they can place content
> visible to the web server.
Marian Marinov wrote:
> On Monday 16 May 2011 06:19:49 David Mehler wrote:
>> Hello,
>> I've got apache running on a centos 5.6 machine. All of my users have
>> a umask of 077 set in /etc/bashrc. I'm now wanting to give several of
>> them permission to write to a web area so they can place content
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others.
Past numbers debunks this myth:
CentOS 4.0 took 23 days
CentOS 5.0 took 28 days
On 05/16/2011 02:44 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>> On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote:
>>> On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury
wrote:
>>
>>> Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:32:15AM +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
> >Why constantly cast CentOS in the darkest possible light?
>
> I don't think that's what I am doing. I commended Johnny for his
> very quick CentOS 4.9 release, but I honestly can not praise
On Mon, 16 May 2011, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
> This would give apache write access to the site contents, which is bad
> practice.
>
> It also won't solve the umask issue.
> Since the OP wants all members of webdev1 to have write access to site1,
> he needs the setgid bit active on site1/ . And
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
> Marian Marinov wrote:
>> On Monday 16 May 2011 06:19:49 David Mehler wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> I've got apache running on a centos 5.6 machine. All of my users have
>>> a umask of 077 set in /etc/bashrc. I'm now wanting to give several of
>>> them permission to write to a
On 05/16/2011 04:32 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Mon, 16 May 2011, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:44 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 May 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
The ZERO release is always going to take longer than the others.
>>>
>>> Past numbers debunks this myt
On 05/15/2011 05:12 PM, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> The process around building CentOS has traditionally been very
> secretive, which makes the name "*Community* Enterprise OS" seem very inapt.
The community in CentOS that you write about was NEVER about building
CentOS.
We have never said that anyo
Hello John,
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 01:43 -0500, John J. Boyer wrote:
> ../libtool: line 1136: X-I.: command not found
> ../libtool: line 1136: X-I../../gnulib: No such file or directory
> ../libtool: line 1136: X-I../liblouis: No such file or directory
> ../libtool: line 1136: X-g: command not foun
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:21 AM, Nataraj wrote:
> On 05/15/2011 05:56 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> > On 05/15/11 5:00 PM, Miguel Medalha wrote:
> >> http://routerboard.com/pricelist.php?showProduct=98
> >>
> >> 13 Gigabit ports
> > note 10 of those ports are on ethernet switches, so the actual rout
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 12:32 AM, John J. Boyer
wrote:
> I have a CentOS virtual private server from 1and1.com If I checkout or
> pull something from a repository, it will contain an autogen.sh file
> Running this and then configure seems to work. However, when I run make
> I get a lot of error me
> Can you take this off-list? I am REALLY tired of reading
> non-CentOS stuff.
Please keep it here. CentOS vs SL and CentOS vs Ubuntu are as on-topic
as anything else.
Since TUV stopped supporting my non-PAE processors, I am obliged to find
a new home.
Ubuntu is one of the options.
Insert spiff
Hi all,
I've setup a ethernet bond on my centos 5.6 server , when i do a reboot
the bond does come up but cleared all the slaves
and i've to manually re-add them with ifenslave.
does anyone know a solution to this? am i missing something? offcourse i
can add it to my rc.local but there must be a
On Monday, May 16, 2011 09:11 PM, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
>> Can you take this off-list? I am REALLY tired of reading
>> non-CentOS stuff.
>
> Please keep it here. CentOS vs SL and CentOS vs Ubuntu are as on-topic
> as anything else.
> Since TUV stopped supporting my non-PAE processors, I am obli
> pci is a shared bus with a max of 2 gigabits. you'll see a gigabit but
> never see two or more.
32bits * 33MHz = 1,056,000,000 bps. PCI is an arbitrated bus with one
talker at a time (half-duplex), so it's only capable of half the data
rate of a 1Gbps (full duplex) network.
In practice, I've
On 5/16/2011 5:05 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> We have never said that anyone but the project would build it.
But you also didn't say that the project would lack the resources to do
it in a timely manner or handle concurrent updates. In fact, I thought
the project used to post goals for timelin
On May 15, 2011, at 3:52 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> You're leaving out release 4.9. You're also leaving out the fact that
> two major holidays occurred during the time *frame* that these three
> releases needed to be built. You're also leaving out the fact (as
> mentioned by one of the developers)
On 5/16/2011 11:11 AM, Craig White wrote:
>
> but you're leaving out a very important distinction - SL released all the
> updates so the lack of a 5.6 release by SL is merely the installer disc's
> which is significant only to people who are looking to install SL on hardware
> that is newly supp
On 05/16/2011 10:41 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 5/16/2011 5:05 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
>> We have never said that anyone but the project would build it.
>
> But you also didn't say that the project would lack the resources to do
> it in a timely manner or handle concurrent updates. In fact,
> I have a CentOS virtual private server from 1and1.com
This may be a non-issue but have you tried compiling stuff before on
this machine? Most of the VPS system's I've seen in operation have
stripped out the build tools for performance & security reasons.
--
Drew
"Nothing in life is to be fea
Hello,
I'm using fail2ban to block bots in conjunction with existing iptables
rules. Here's a few rules from my iptables configuration:
#
# Set up a temporary pass rule so we don't lock ourselves out when
#doing remote ssh
iptables -P INPUT ACCEPT
#
# flush the current rules
iptables -F
#
# Allo
On 5/16/2011 12:27 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> The point is that we do not have a system built that can track that sort
> of stuff ... and we can either build packages or design systems to track
> stuff.
You don't really have to design a system for build automation/tracking
since there are sever
On 5/16/2011 1:05 PM, Drew wrote:
>> I have a CentOS virtual private server from 1and1.com
>
> This may be a non-issue but have you tried compiling stuff before on
> this machine? Most of the VPS system's I've seen in operation have
> stripped out the build tools for performance& security reasons.
On 16/05/11 19:16, David Mehler wrote:
> Hello,
> I'm using fail2ban to block bots in conjunction with existing iptables
> rules. Here's a few rules from my iptables configuration:
>
> #
> # Set up a temporary pass rule so we don't lock ourselves out when
> #doing remote ssh
> iptables -P INPUT ACC
On 05/16/11 11:24 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> it is somewhat unsettling to think that the
> project itself considers that to be a problem.
consider what might happen if a core build server for a project as
widely used as centos gets penetrated and carefully targetted to slip
trojans unnoticed into
On 05/16/2011 01:24 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 5/16/2011 12:27 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
>> The point is that we do not have a system built that can track that sort
>> of stuff ... and we can either build packages or design systems to track
>> stuff.
>
> You don't really have to design a syste
Hello Everyone, I'm making an load balance ,on output packages IP from
my firewall to Internet, with netfilter connmark and statistic match
modules. it's necessary those two modules togethers to do the load
balance on connection state.
well I'm using CentOS 5.6 and I've searching on Internet but
on 5/16/2011 11:47 AM Johnny Hughes spake the following:
> Can't you ungrateful bastards take the free software I make by following
> the licensing requirements and be happy with that?
I hear ya Johnny... The only hurry I am in over 6 getting out is that FINALLY
some of the whining will stop... Fo
On 5/16/2011 1:47 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>>
>> Agreed on the security comment, hence the concern about timely updates.
>>It is pretty much a given that any public site will be hit with all
>> known exploit attempts, but it is somewhat unsettling to think that the
>> project itself considers
On 5/16/2011 1:43 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 05/16/11 11:24 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> it is somewhat unsettling to think that the
>> project itself considers that to be a problem.
>
> consider what might happen if a core build server for a project as
> widely used as centos gets penetrated and
On 05/16/11 12:38 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> I believe that by making
> the process and its problems public, someone will help solve those
> problems as they do in many, many other projects where the work is open.
a very wise man[1] once said adding more bodies to a late project just
makes it late
On 05/16/2011 02:46 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 5/16/2011 1:43 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 05/16/11 11:24 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> it is somewhat unsettling to think that the
>>> project itself considers that to be a problem.
>>
>> consider what might happen if a core build server for a proj
Greetings
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:50 PM, wessel van der aart
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> ifcfg-bond0:
> DEVICE=bond0
> IPADDR=xxx.xx.x.xx
> NETMASK=255.255.255.0
> NETWORK=xxx.xx.x.xx
> BROADCAST=xxx.xx.x.xx
> GATEWAY=
> ONBOOT=yes
> BOOTPROTO=none
> USERCTL=no
> BONDING_MODULE_OPTS='mode=802.3ad miim
On 5/16/2011 2:52 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 05/16/11 12:38 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> I believe that by making
>> the process and its problems public, someone will help solve those
>> problems as they do in many, many other projects where the work is open.
>
> a very wise man[1] once said addin
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> There is not a server in the world that I could not break into if I was
> on the same subnet ... and I am not even that smart.
maybe but you have the distinct advantage of having your private trojans
in every centos system out there ;-)
_
Who cares? I find it amazing that these guys still keep on building and
providing considering how their "users" treat them.
Team CentOS, keep your heads up. For me, you are still the best thing
that happened since sliced bread.
Come on, community, where is your love?
My 2 pence,
Janne "Janski"
On Mon, 2011-05-16 at 19:40 +0100, Janne TH. Nyman wrote:
> Who cares? I find it amazing that these guys still keep on building and
> providing considering how their "users" treat them.
>
> Team CentOS, keep your heads up. For me, you are still the best thing
> that happened since sliced bread.
>
On 05/16/11 1:18 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Yes, but whatever can't be automated here should benefit from doing the
> trial-and-error in parallel. And the potential improvements might come
> in the automation process as much as the grunge work - you can't really
> predict how an open project will
On 5/16/2011 3:38 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 05/16/11 1:18 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Yes, but whatever can't be automated here should benefit from doing the
>> trial-and-error in parallel. And the potential improvements might come
>> in the automation process as much as the grunge work - you
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Yes, but whatever can't be automated here should benefit from doing the
> trial-and-error in parallel. And the potential improvements might come
> in the automation process as much as the grunge work - you can't really
> predict how an open
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Janne TH. Nyman wrote:
> Who cares? I find it amazing that these guys still keep on building and
> providing considering how their "users" treat them.
>
> Team CentOS, keep your heads up. For me, you are still the best thing
> that happened since sliced bread.
>
>
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Janne TH. Nyman wrote:
> Who cares? I find it amazing that these guys still keep on building and
> providing considering how their "users" treat them.
>
> Team CentOS, keep your heads up. For me, you are still the best thing
> that happened since sliced bread.
>
>
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> No, but I'm not the only member of the public. And your suggestion of
> starting by reproducing someone else's work from scratch instead of
> building on it would be like Linus telling everyone to just write their
> own unix-like kernel befo
On 05/16/2011 11:50 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 5/16/2011 3:38 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 05/16/11 1:18 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> Yes, but whatever can't be automated here should benefit from doing the
>>> trial-and-error in parallel. And the potential improvements might come
>>> in the au
On 05/16/11 1:51 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:18 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> Yes, but whatever can't be automated here should benefit from doing the
>> trial-and-error in parallel. And the potential improvements might come
>> in the automation process as much as the grung
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 03:51:22PM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
> You know Les, you're talking in hypotheticals. Johnny and the other
> CentOS developers are actually *doing* the work. Everything is "easy"
> when you're not actually doing it. If you know so much about *how* it
> should be done, wh
On May 16, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Now, not only do I need to bust my ass to provide it to you for free,
> but I also need to do other things for you to. I need to provide you
> access to stuff and I need to track things in a different way and I need
> to setup elaborate system
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Brian Mathis
> These kind of ass-kissing posts are even worse than the flame wars.
> The flame wars at least usually start with some sort of reasonable
> criticism of the project, and have the *potential* to result in a
> discussion that ultimately improves the pro
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 04:59:42PM -0400, Brian Mathis wrote:
>
> Flame wars only start once Johnny or some sycophant tells everyone to
> fuck off, thereby derailing any potential for a constructive
> discussion. At that point you're left with lots of very smart, very
> angry people who feel like
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
> The main "fear" the developers have is that somebody could steal their
> work and come up with
> another RHEL clone easily if they release their build system & scripts.
> I think this is obvious by now.
> It is also pretty obvious that the
On 05/16/2011 04:10 PM, Craig White wrote:
>
> On May 16, 2011, at 11:47 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>> Now, not only do I need to bust my ass to provide it to you for free,
>> but I also need to do other things for you to. I need to provide you
>> access to stuff and I need to track things in a
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 02:10:28PM -0700, Craig White wrote:
>
> can't say that in all the years I've been using FOSS/Linux that I've
> ever seen the maintainers have such open disdain for their users.
You're missing the point. The disdain, if that's truly what Johnny is
feeling, is only dir
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Craig White wrote:
>> can't say that in all the years I've been using FOSS/Linux that I've ever
>> seen the maintainers have such open disdain for their users. Clearly they
>> have gotten a massive code base for free and though the cost of assembling
>> it into
on 5/16/2011 11:40 AM Janne TH. Nyman spake the following:
> Who cares? I find it amazing that these guys still keep on building and
> providing considering how their "users" treat them.
>
> Team CentOS, keep your heads up. For me, you are still the best thing
> that happened since sliced bread.
>
On 05/17/2011 12:15 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
>
>> The main "fear" the developers have is that somebody could steal their
>> work and come up with
>> another RHEL clone easily if they release their build system& scripts.
>> I think this is ob
> on 5/16/2011 11:40 AM Janne TH. Nyman spake the following:
>> Who cares? I find it amazing that these guys still keep on building and
>> providing considering how their "users" treat them.
>>
>> Team CentOS, keep your heads up. For me, you are still the best thing
>> that happened since sliced br
On Mon, 16 May 2011 13:47:30 -0500
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Can't you ungrateful bastards take the free software I make by
> following the licensing requirements and be happy with that?
Johnny please don't take this personally. I don't know who came with
the expression:
"When you fight with a pig
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 5:11 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 3:59 PM, Brian Mathis
>> These kind of ass-kissing posts are even worse than the flame wars.
>> The flame wars at least usually start with some sort of reasonable
>> criticism of the project, and have the *potential* to
On 05/16/11 2:41 PM, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
> I never said I want to do it.
ah, so what DID you say? you want someone unspecified to do a
better/different job for you than someone else is already doing for free ?
man, its easy to volunteer other people from the comfort of your desk.
--
john r
On 05/17/2011 12:47 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 05/16/11 2:41 PM, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
>> I never said I want to do it.
> ah, so what DID you say? you want someone unspecified to do a
> better/different job for you than someone else is already doing for free ?
>
> man, its easy to volunteer oth
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:41:23AM +0300, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
> On 05/17/2011 12:15 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> > What a load of undiluted crap.
> Please keep this for yourself.
Why when it's the truth. Does the truth hurt?
> I never said I want to do it. I only said what the devs are obviously
On 05/17/2011 12:51 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:41:23AM +0300, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
On 05/17/2011 12:15 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
What a load of undiluted crap.
Please keep this for yourself.
Why when it's the truth. Does the truth hurt?
It may be the truth from you
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 12:55:59AM +0300, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
> If some of you can't say anything smarter than "crap", then please
Please do the rest of us a favor and take your own advice.
John
--
People learn something every day, and a lot of
On Tue, 17 May 2011, Radu Gheorghiu wrote:
> The main "fear" the developers have is that somebody could
> steal their work and come up with another RHEL clone easily
> if they release their build system & scripts.
> I think this is obvious by now.
'obvious' to you or not, such is not the case
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 06:08:47PM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> other RPM based, upstream derived, rebuild projects out there
> as well, that a person has to look closely, and know the
> history, or read the sources, to see where they came from
And then there's commercial projects, such as Citrix
On 05/15/2011 06:10 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Where is Ubuntu telling people exactly where they stand on producing a
> their new releases.
>
> What about Red Hat ... how about Fedora.
I don't know about Ubuntu, I don't use it.
Fedora, on the other hand publishes their schedule:
http://fedoraproj
On 05/15/2011 07:00 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> So, when you take 5.6 out of the mix (taking into account the three
> releases at once), the average time from Red Hat 5.x release to CentOS
> 5.x release is 41.5 days. And 5.5 was 44 days. Your point?
There is a general trend toward longer delays betw
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Brian Mathis
> The constant "drip drip drip", as you put it, is generated from the
> disrespect shown to the users, not the other way around. Anyone who
> asks how much longer or how they can help is immediately slapped down
> and told to go away.
Bullcrap. I've
Janne TH. Nyman wrote:
> Who cares? I find it amazing that these guys still keep on building and
> providing considering how their "users" treat them.
>
> Team CentOS, keep your heads up. For me, you are still the best thing
> that happened since sliced bread.
>
> Come on, community, where is you
Well, not to take away too much from the tinderbox, but I'd like to point
everyone's attention to:
http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/microsofts-open-source-love-expands-centos-li
Headline:
"Microsoft's open source love-in expands with CentOS Linux support"
Short version: Microsoft now s
Gordon Messmer wrote:
> On 05/15/2011 06:10 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> Where is Ubuntu telling people exactly where they stand on producing a
>> their new releases.
>>
>> What about Red Hat ... how about Fedora.
>
> I don't know about Ubuntu, I don't use it.
>
> Fedora, on the other hand publish
Same weekly/bi-monthly BS.
YAA
It always circles back to a#$holes and elbows.
- aurf
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 6:37 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> Well, not to take away too much from the tinderbox, but I'd like to point
> everyone's attention to:
> http://www.networkworld.com/community/blog/microsofts-open-source-love-expands-centos-li
>
> Headline:
> "Microsoft's open source love-in exp
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:17 PM, wrote:
> Same weekly/bi-monthly BS.
>
> YAA
>
> It always circles back to a#$holes and elbows.
This is the main reason I want CentOS 6 to come out. I'm hoping for a
lull in the whining.
--
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6
___
On May 16, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:17 PM, wrote:
>> Same weekly/bi-monthly BS.
>>
>> YAA
>>
>> It always circles back to a#$holes and elbows.
>
> This is the main reason I want CentOS 6 to come out. I'm hoping for a
> lull in the whining.
I know
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:25 PM, wrote:
> On May 16, 2011, at 5:22 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
>> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:17 PM, wrote:
>>> Same weekly/bi-monthly BS.
>>>
>>> YAA
>>>
>>> It always circles back to a#$holes and elbows.
>>
>> This is the main reason I want CentOS 6 to come
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 7:03 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:46 PM, Brian Mathis
>
>> The constant "drip drip drip", as you put it, is generated from the
>> disrespect shown to the users, not the other way around. Anyone who
>> asks how much longer or how they can help is imme
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 8:46 PM, Brian Mathis
> People don't complain just for the fun of it (if that's the world you
> live in, I feel sorry for you), they complain because something is
> bothering them. In this case, it is the very real and measurable
> delays in releases that seem to be gettin
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 10:37 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> And, by the way, not directed specifically at you, but reading between
> the lines it appears that one issue may be that some contractors are
> selling cheap "Red Hat" to their customers and then, when the
> customers ask "Where's the update
As the OP for this thread, it saddens me to see that the thread I started has
now been used as a forum for behavior of the worst kind seen in professional
circles.
I'm a longtime user of CentOS and merely wanted to know of users' past
experiences transitioning between SL and CentOS. My first e
On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 11:17 PM, Benjamin Smith
wrote:
> The choices are clear, however:
>
> 1) Stick w/CentOS, get a high quality, highly compatible release at
> little/no cost, with an uncertain release date.
I would say the "uncertain release date" is pretty much moot now, as
CentOS has reac
How do I pass xargs input one line at a time to subsequent command?
For example I want to install rubygems by reading a text file as shown
below, however the arguments are getting passed all at once to the
'gem install' command. I hace tried -L (max-lines) and -n (max args)
options, but it didn't w
On Tuesday, May 17, 2011 12:17 PM, Benjamin Smith wrote:
> I wish option #4 was not so commonly exercised here. It really might be
> a good time to consider moderation. Anybody want to volunteer as a
> moderator?
The Centos ML does quite well without a moderator imho. No need to go
draconian lik
On 5/17/11 12:36 AM, neubyr wrote:
> How do I pass xargs input one line at a time to subsequent command?
> For example I want to install rubygems by reading a text file as shown
> below, however the arguments are getting passed all at once to the
> 'gem install' command. I hace tried -L (max-lines)
Les,
I installed the development tools and development libraries, as you
suggested. I even tried to install packages x*.x86_64 There were some
unresolved dependencies in the latter, so I used --skip-broken with yum.
There was a report of conflicting files, so i don't know how much was
actually
89 matches
Mail list logo
