Matt Wilson wrote:
>
> Could you mail me ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) the results of
> sh -x ./updboots /root/Canon /root/Canon/Canon/RPMS 2.2.15-22
I seems the problem here was between the keyboard and the chair.
I had run the updates script and used the incorrect kernel version.
Then my cd-rw died, fin
Am I the only one who's tried to rebuild unzip-5.40-2.src.rpm?
I don't have a clue how the original srpm managed to get generated with
a broken spec file (zipgrep is no longer built it seems). And the old
spec file wasn't portable anymore (i386 specific), but I fixed that too.
Patch for spec fi
I have a network card that is supported by linux but is not supported
by redhat 6.0 bootnet.img. The reason is that the driver source for
"tulip" based cards in the kernel is extremely out of date. I have looked
at kernel 2.2.10 and the last update to this was in 1998. I fixed this
when I ha
> The utmp, xfs, and any other UID/GIDs that landed in the 100-500 range
> were a mistake. We're still working out how to correct this for the
> next release. The general idea is to leave any existing broken
> UID/GIDs that may have been created in 6.0 upgrades/installs but
> correct the UID/GID
The utmp, xfs, and any other UID/GIDs that landed in the 100-500 range
were a mistake. We're still working out how to correct this for the
next release. The general idea is to leave any existing broken
UID/GIDs that may have been created in 6.0 upgrades/installs but
correct the UID/GID creation
> | The only written tradition I can find is putting system users,groups below
> | 100. I've not seen the other stuff you describe
>
> Is there a chance we can get RH to go back to supporting this?
I would hope they do, but its not my decisions.
> I take it from your postings that you, Alan, ar
| From: Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
| The only written tradition I can find is putting system users,groups below
| 100. I've not seen the other stuff you describe
Is there a chance we can get RH to go back to supporting this?
I've got UIDs that are in the 100's that have been stable since 1982
When we built the majority of our Unix systems, well before Linux had
made any real headway, the number of system defined users and groups was
minimal, but to be "careful" we moved our ids into the 100's (some 85+
above the range at the time).
Today the number of system defined ids still isn't m
> > Thanks again to RedHat for taking the time to make this clear. A
> > brilliant product, with a great support team. Keep up the good work
> > guys, it's appreciated. Live long and prosper :)
> >
>
> Unfortunately, it seems RedHat has forgotten that there is a need for a
> set of GIDs that
