Re: I gotta ask this ...
by Fezzik Giant
Hi Michael,
On the face of it, you'd think that -- and I'm normally a pretty patient
person. However I've seen several requests go unanswered over the last few
weeks, which made me wonder.
As for googling, yeah I did that. For a few days. Nothing concrete came up.
Certainly nothing as good as the information I've accumulated from the posts
last night.
Perhaps I'm not adept at googling but I tried several variations of searchs.
And, if people are tired of answer this question -- well theres a good entry
for a FAQ :)
In any case, thanks for the suggestions.
F
>From: Michael Schwendt <ms-nospam-0306(a)arcor.de>
>Reply-To: fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>To: fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>Subject: Re: I gotta ask this ...
>Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 23:32:52 +0100
>
>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:26:01 +0000, Fezzik Giant wrote:
>
> > I have seen several posts in the past where someone asks about building
> > Fedora ISO images. I have yet to see a response.
> >
> > Surely _someone_ must know how this is done. Why is there never a
>response?
> > Is this knowledge a 'secret sauce' that nobody wishes to share?
>
>Let me guess. Those who know how to do it and who are subscribed here
>either will answer later or are tired of re-posting information that can be
>found in the various list archives or via Google.
>
>
>--
>Casting "minor flame-shield"...
><< attach3 >>
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/photos&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2f...
20 years, 4 months
Re: FC2 and general LDAP Support
by Nils O. Selåsdal
On Thu, 2003-11-27 at 01:50, Ulrich Drepper wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Lengthy thread, but I still want to add my 2¢.
>
> Making LDAP the default is overkill for a lot of people. Centralized
> administration is useful in larger networks and maybe even in some home
> networks. My home network certainly qualifies as not-small but I still
> wouldn't want it since I have different configurations on the different
> machines. LDAP must be introduced on demand, and not forced upon one.
>
> BTW: it's not only the LDAP daemon which is needed, every machine in the
> network would also have to use nscd. Without it LDAP can be, ehm, slow.
>
>
> What I completely agree with is that the LDAP integration into the
> distribution isn't as good as it could get (euphemism). Every time I
> have to install it I do something wrong and it ends up costing me hours.
>
> So, what I'd suggest as a first step is writing some meta RPMs which do
> the conversion for you. This Sun jvm RPM which has been repeatedly
> mentioned here is a splendid idea: don't distribute the code, just a way
> to make it work. Make the code a dependency.
>
> Same can be done for the LDAP stuff. Make an RPM which requires all the
> LDAP components which then does all or parts of this list:
>
> ~ create a key for the server
> ~ run the migration scripts
> ~ make the ldap nss module used locally
> ~ make sure nscd is running
> ~ eventually replace programs like useradd with useradd.ldap
> ~ create a script the admin can run on the other machines in the network
> ~ etc etc
Authconfig allows you to do atleast half of this. Atleast most things
needed at the client side. What is more needed is an administration
application. Capable of doing what gq does today, but also more
specialized features such as initializing the ldap server.
--
Vennlig hilsen/Best Regards
Nils Olav Selåsdal
System Engineer
UtelSystems a/s
w w w . u t e l s y s t e m s . c o m
20 years, 4 months
Re: FC2 and general LDAP Support
by Nils O. Selåsdal
On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 14:08, Aurelien Bompard wrote:
> > I'd very much like to see a fullu featured ldap administration console
> > thoug, with specific tools for unix account management and similar. (gq
> > is to general)
>
> You might want to have a look at :
> https://bugzilla.fedora.us/show_bug.cgi?id=499
... which is to narrow again ;) Atleast the last time I tried it, it
did only users and groups.
A fully featured administrator app should do what gq does, but have
specialized features, like e.g. the app in question here, initialization
wizards for setting up the ldap server, etc.
--
Vennlig hilsen/Best Regards
Nils Olav Selåsdal
System Engineer
UtelSystems a/s
w w w . u t e l s y s t e m s . c o m
20 years, 4 months
Re: evolution problems (filters)
by Nils O. Selåsdal
On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 18:38, Stan Bubrouski wrote:
> Another problem is duplicating messages. For example, I subscribe to
> the Linux Kernel Mailing list. I have two filters for it, one that just
> moves all mail with the Mailing-List header linux-kernel to a
> linux-kernel folder. I filter certain people to a folder called trusted
> (for instance messages from Linus and Andrew so I can see when new test
> kernels are released). Evolution thinks its funny, to often times not
> put people's messages who should be going into trusted into linux-kernel
> (the trusted rule is above linux-kernel in the filter list), and not
> only this but sometime it copies the persons message into BOTH folders,
> and I've checked and rechecked and even gone over my filters.xml with a
> fine tooth comb, there are no logic errors in the filtering setup, so
> these have to be evolution bugs, right?
Be sure you have a "Stop Processing" rule after your "Move Message to
.." or similar. If you don't have that, the message will be matched
against several rules, and potentionally copied for each match.
--
Vennlig hilsen/Best Regards
Nils Olav Selåsdal
System Engineer
UtelSystems a/s
w w w . u t e l s y s t e m s . c o m
20 years, 4 months
Re: AIDE versus Tripwire Re: Tripwire news
by Michael Schwendt
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 01:14:42 +0100 (CET), unspawn wrote:
> //O.T.; Michael I hope you will join the Aide mailinglist to help iron out
> whatever is wrong or submit a bugreport, TIA.
My last series of bug report submissions is three weeks old. They are
still open. I always appreciate feedback on bug reports.
Since memory leaks (and Valgrind leak-checks) have been discussed on one
of the mailing-lists before, I didn't report them again separately when I
contributed fixes for some leaks two months ago. There are still several
memory leaks. My comment in SF.net request ID 803001 explains why I think
some of the remaining leaks may be more difficult to fix.
--
20 years, 4 months
Re: I gotta ask this ...
by Fezzik Giant
Alan,
Thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions. I'll give these
ideas a shot and let you know :)
As for the co-ordinator -- hopefully they'll see my messages and contact me.
Cheers!
>From: Alan Cox <alan(a)redhat.com>
>Reply-To: fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>To: fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>Subject: Re: I gotta ask this ...
>Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 18:45:06 -0500
>
[ snipage ]
>
>Not sure who is co-ordinating that
>
_________________________________________________________________
The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=dept/bcomm&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fjoin....
20 years, 4 months
Re: I gotta ask this ...
by Fezzik Giant
Thanks Alan!
Build all the packages: well how, exactly, does one do this? Say I'm at RH9
and I want to build the Fedora Core from source. When I build the RPMs then
the result will overwrite my RH9 binaries, will it not?
What I'm looking for is a documented sequence of steps, like "Linux From
Scratch" that will result in an ISO of Fedora Core. Starting with the source
RPMs, of course :)
As for the Todo list item, is this actively being worked on? Who would I
contact to offer my help?
Fez
>From: Alan Cox <alan(a)redhat.com>
>Reply-To: fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>To: fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>Subject: Re: I gotta ask this ...
>Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 17:30:52 -0500
>
> > I have seen several posts in the past where someone asks about building
> > Fedora ISO images. I have yet to see a response.
> >
> > Surely _someone_ must know how this is done. Why is there never a
>response?
> > Is this knowledge a 'secret sauce' that nobody wishes to share?
>
>Not really secret sauce. Build all the packages, boot the result, build
>all the packages again with it, figure out how to fit it all and the
>installer
>on the CD images and burn.
>
>Lots of this is currently done by the Red Hat internal build systems and
>those are tied to a lot of Red Hat specific baggage you really don't want.
>
>An external build system is on the todo list for Fedora
>
>
>--
>fedora-devel-list mailing list
>fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus&pgmarket=en-ca&RU=http%3a%2f%2fj...
20 years, 4 months
Re: I gotta ask this ...
by Fezzik Giant
Hi Vincent,
kickstart seems to be a tool for building a disto once you have the source
RPMs built, is it not? I'm trying to get to the stage where I can build the
source RPMs into a disto.
Thanks for the help! That's a great pointer ...
Gil
>From: Vincent <pros-n-cons(a)bak.rr.com>
>Reply-To: fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>To: fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>Subject: Re: I gotta ask this ...
>Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 14:39:41 -0800
>
>On Wed, 26 Nov 2003 21:26:01 +0000
>Fezzik Giant <iamfezzik(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > I have seen several posts in the past where someone asks about building
> > Fedora ISO images. I have yet to see a response.
> >
> > Surely _someone_ must know how this is done. Why is there never a
>response?
> > Is this knowledge a 'secret sauce' that nobody wishes to share?
>
>kickstart
>
>
>--
>fedora-devel-list mailing list
>fedora-devel-list(a)redhat.com
>http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
_________________________________________________________________
Is there a gadget-lover on your gift list? MSN Shopping has lined up some
good bets! http://shopping.msn.com
20 years, 4 months
yum tries to update gpgme03 with gpgme?
by Michael Schwendt
Following scenario:
# rpm -e gpgme
# rpm -qa 'gpgme*'
gpgme03-0.3.15-0.fdr.2.1
# rpm -q --whatrequires gpgme03
sylpheed-gpg-0.9.7-0.fdr.1
# yum -y install gpgme
[...]
Resolving dependencies
.package sylpheed-gpg needs libgpgme.so.6 (not provided)
package sylpheed-gpg needs gpgme03 >= 0:0.3.10 (not provided)
What did happen there? What does that error mean? Did Yum want to upgrade
gpgme03 with gpgme? The following makes me think that might be true:
# rpm -q --provides gpgme03 | grep ^gpg
gpgme = 0:0.3.15-0.fdr.2.1
gpgme03 = 0:0.3.15-0.fdr.2.1
# rpm -q --provides gpgme | grep ^gpg
gpgme = 0:0.4.3-0.fdr.2
When I let it install both packages at once, it succeeds:
# rpm -e gpgme03 --nodeps
# yum -y install gpgme03 gpgme
[...]
Resolving dependencies
Dependencies resolved
I will do the following:
[install: gpgme 0.4.3-0.fdr.2.i386]
[install: gpgme03 0.3.15-0.fdr.2.1.i386]
Running test transaction:
Test transaction complete, Success!
gpgme03 100 % done 1/2
gpgme 100 % done 2/2
Installed: gpgme 0.4.3-0.fdr.2.i386 gpgme03 0.3.15-0.fdr.2.1.i386
Transaction(s) Complete
--
20 years, 4 months