On Mon, 2 Sep 2002, John wrote:
> I know, people have already said that. However, it yields
> results that are clearly wrong. Nobody would think version
> 0.001 was the same as version 0.1.
ehh??? If I am doing development, using machine assisted
numbering, and find versions with:
4.011 and
On Fri, 22 Feb 2002, John Summerfield wrote:
> When Rawhide was announced this was the designated list. One thing that
> bothers me about this list now is there are so many other lists
> (kickstart, tpm, anacaconda for example) that there are hardly enough
> development issues to sustain redha
On Sun, 23 Dec 2001, Hetz Ben Hamo wrote:
> Actually, Redhat like to stay very silent during development of their next
> version.
> > By the way, it's a pity that the only way to know where Red Hat's going is
> > to browse through heaps of rawhide rpms and spot interesting ones: "Oh,
> > reiser
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, David Fouts wrote:
> Do you know if the download is available yet...
Raw Hide is your friend.
___
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
https://listman.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-devel-list
On Mon, 30 Apr 2001, Tony Nugent wrote:
> If you are attempting to re-create the ISO installation images
> themselves from an install tree on a FAT32 filesystem, then you are
> p***ing in the wind.
> - And various other problems you'll need to overcome.
>
> Preparing redhat installation iso imag
On Mon, 26 Feb 2001, Tony Seward wrote:
> I can't find sftp in the Red Hat OpenSSH RPMs. Is there a reason that it is
> not included?
looks to be in Rawhide openssh-2.5.1p1-1.src.rpm ...
-- Russ Herrold
___
Redhat-devel-list mailing list
[EMAIL P
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Robert Soros wrote:
> Okay, you guys may find this interesting.. I'm not sure what it means or
> what is happening, maybe somebody here could shed some light on this
> weirdness. I restarted xinetd after all the changes and noticed this
> strangeness (also, i added debugging
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, R P Herrold wrote:
> ... uggh -- you've found a problem in the beta ... I'll verify
> and file a bugzilla -- they've omitted tcpdchk, looks like
> ...
UURK ... My bad ... I spoke too quickly ... the RH 7.0 cutover
to xinet changed things .
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Robert Soros wrote:
> Whats tcpdchk ? Dont have it and locate finds nothing (part of
> tcp_wrappers ? rpm -qil doesn't show it)...
It is a wrappers issue location tool.
Please run
> >echo "127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain" >> /etc/hosts
then:
telnet localhos
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Robert Soros wrote:
> Whats tcpdchk ? Dont have it and locate finds nothing (part of
> tcp_wrappers ? rpm -qil doesn't show it)...
[herrold@swampfox herrold]$ rpm -qf `which tcpdchk`
tcp_wrappers-7.6-9
... uggh -- you've found a problem in the beta ... I'll verify
and f
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Robert Soros wrote:
> Not that I can find any, but maybe this will help.. Been occuring since the
> host.allow change
>
> Feb 17 18:12:22 localhost xinetd[23255]: warning: /etc/hosts.allow, line 6:
> can't verify hostname: gethostbyname(localhost.localdomain) failed
Please r
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Robert Soros wrote:
> [root@soros rpms]# rpm -V `rpm -qf /usr/sbin/ipop3d`
> ...T c /etc/pam.d/pop
> S.5T c /etc/xinetd.d/ipop3
>
> No luck even after editing the hosts.allow file.. any other suggestions ?
hmmm ... there is the high security install option ... Is a
On Sat, 17 Feb 2001, Robert Soros wrote:
> running (used chkconfig --list to find out), the port is open and accepts
> the connection initially, but drop its due to this error.
>
> >>> Feb 17 17:10:05 localhost xinetd[22859]: execv( /usr/sbin/ipop3d )
> failed: Bad address (errno = 14)
Please re
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, db wrote:
> Or is it more of "query the rpms yourself" to
> find out what the current development status is.
... or run the 'mirror' package, and a mirror, and look at the
(perhaps weekly-- as I recall the RawHide archive is freshened
on Fridays) mirror run report, which lis
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Bernhard Rosenkraenzer wrote:
> No need to report this particular bug though, I've fixed it.
... well ... actually, one might report, and then annotate the
report with a comment like Bero's, and then close it. A
Reporter may do this ...
Why? Because Bugzilla entries, when
On Sat, 6 Jan 2001, Frank Heldt wrote:
> I thought bugzilla.redhat.com is not for rawhide, or was i wrong?
I believe you are incorrect.
I do not work for Red Hat, but ... if a package is listed in
Bugzilla, I file a report, with full version and patch level,
there.
.. Reports in email are too
On Thu, 30 Nov 2000, Svante Signell wrote:
> Is this an attack? Successful?
> Version: portmap-4.0-28
>
> Nov 30 00:47:05 em2 portmap[16190]: connect from 202.8.227.42 to dump(): request
>from unauthorized host
Yes a probe -- not successful from what you show here.
Either you lack a firesall,
After mirroring, in the second script, It looks as though all
that needs be done is to change one line to read:
UPDDIR=/home/ftp/pub/redhat/updates/7.0/${ARCH}
This is untested, but should work. Try it on a backup. Let
us know, please.
-- Russ
On Thu, 9 Nov 2000, Kevin Waterson wrote:
> >
On Sat, 21 Oct 2000, Deepak Gupta wrote:
> We want to debug Driver code in LINUX. can someone suggest we if there is a
> KERNEL DEBUGGER avialable for LINUX or not.
... This thread is in the archives of, and has been well
explained in the kernel devel mailing list (its PROPER venue
for discussio
LUG
mailing lists that while Red hat does not announce release
dates, it is straightforward to read a calendar and note the
prior timing of releases.
How happy can Red Hat, and EWT be, reflecting on the total
state of RPM? It shipped with the 'hack' of the website
docs, last time. In s
ving a boot floppy, and a
telephone line near the remote hosts greatly simplifies
matters when things fall apart.
--
end
==========
.-- -... ---.. ... -.- -.--
Copyright (C) 2000 R P Herrold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] NIC: RPH5 (US)
My words are not deathless prose,
Copyright (C) 2000 R P Herrold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] NIC: RPH5 (US)
My words are not deathless prose,
but they are mine.
Owl River Company 614 - 221 - 0695
"The World is Open to Linux (tm)"
... Open Source LINUX solutions ...
[EMAIL PR
d by strangers," so to speak.
--
end
==
.-- -... ---.. ... -.- -.--
Copyright (C) 2000 R P Herrold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] NIC: RPH5 (US)
My words are not deathless prose,
but they are mine.
Owl River Company 614 - 221 - 0695
"The World is Open to Linux (tm)"
... O
On Tue, 29 Feb 2000, Chris Abbey wrote:
> can anyone name a single release wherein this was not asked? anyone?
... I don't recall the question before 0.1 (Mother's Day)
-- Russ H
--
To unsubscribe:
mail -s unsubscribe [EMAIL PROTECTED] < /dev/null
=====
.-- -... ---.. ... -.- -.--
Copyright (C) 2000 R P Herrold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] NIC: RPH5 (US)
My words are not deathless prose,
but they are mine.
Owl River Company 614 - 221 - 0695
"The World is Open to Linux (tm)"
... Open Source LINUX solutio
as such; replacing the rc.local
> file once should be enough - it won't get changed on upgrades.
end
==
.-- -... ---.. ... -.- -.--
Copyright (C) 1999 R P Herrold
[EMAIL PROTECTED] NIC: RPH5 (US)
My words are not deathless prose,
but they are mine.
On Sat, 9 Oct 1999, John Summerfield wrote:
> I'm trying to build this source rpm on my RHL 4.2 system as part of my
> upgrade-by-stealth program. Unfortunately, it dies thus:
> gcc -static -O2 -m486 -fno-strength-reduce -o insmod.static insmod.o
> logger.o ../obj/libobj.a ../util/libutil.a
>
27 matches
Mail list logo
