no big differece from latest report of last month:
package latest rawhide ------- ------- ------- fetchmail 6.2.5 6.2.0 freetype 2.1.7 2.1.4 gettext 0.13.1 0.12.1 gkrellm 2.1.24 2.1.21 gnumeric 1.2.4 1.2.1 groff 1.19 1.18.1 jfsutils 1.1.4 1.1.3 ImageMagick 5.5.7-15 5.5.6 less 381 378 lilo 22.5.8 21.4.4 lvm* 1.0.8 1.0.3 man 1.5m2 1.5k openssh 3.7.1p2 3.6.1p2 openssl 0.9.7c 0.9.7a parted 1.6.6 1.6.3 squirrelmail 1.4.2 1.4.0 tcpdump 3.8.1 3.7.2 util-linux 2.12 2.11y
* Red Hat guys say that latest LVM has bugs [1] that they will eat your data but Sistina guys, now Red Hat, say that there is no bug [2]
[1] http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=89233 [2] http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-lvm&m=105099920124235&w=2
Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
no big differece from latest report of last month:
package latest rawhide
fetchmail 6.2.5 6.2.0 freetype 2.1.7 2.1.4 gettext 0.13.1 0.12.1 gkrellm 2.1.24 2.1.21 gnumeric 1.2.4 1.2.1 groff 1.19 1.18.1 jfsutils 1.1.4 1.1.3 ImageMagick 5.5.7-15 5.5.6 less 381 378 lilo 22.5.8 21.4.4 lvm* 1.0.8 1.0.3 man 1.5m2 1.5k openssh 3.7.1p2 3.6.1p2 openssl 0.9.7c 0.9.7a parted 1.6.6 1.6.3 squirrelmail 1.4.2 1.4.0 tcpdump 3.8.1 3.7.2 util-linux 2.12 2.11y
Please add netatalk to this list. Rawhide has 1.5.5-9, but latest is 1.6.x. 1.6.x implements the latest version of the AFP over TCP/IP protocol that MacOS X talks natively. It allows features like disconnect & automatic reconnect. Otherwise BAD THINGS happen to Mac clients when they disconnect & reconnect.
netatalk 1.6.x is ahead of both Microsoft and Novell's AFP over TCP/IP support. I had been using it at a school here for months and it works quite well.
Unfortuately the netatalk related kernel module has been added to kernel-unsupported last I checked, so does this mean that netatalk is set for deprecation? Contrary to what many non-Mac people think, AFP is NOT that weird old AppleTalk that didn't use TCP/IP. It is a modern protocol now that works quite well for Macs. In my experience, with the exception of AFP routing [1], netatalk is much easier to manage than Samba, and with far fewer problems.
Warren
[1] netatalk works OUT OF THE BOX for most people with full capability... unless you have multiple interfaces that you want it to talk on. Then it is extremely difficult to figure out because of its extremely poor documentation, and the fact that I know nothing about the AFP protocol. Anyhow...
netatalk 1.6.x is ahead of both Microsoft and Novell's AFP over TCP/IP support. I had been using it at a school here for months and it works quite well.
netatalk is updated since yesterday. Hope it is as stable as you mention it to be... (I personally don't use netatalk. ;-)
greetings,
Florian La Roche
Warren Togami wrote:
Please add netatalk to this list. Rawhide has 1.5.5-9, but latest is 1.6.x. 1.6.x implements the latest version of the AFP over TCP/IP protocol that MacOS X talks natively. It allows features like disconnect & automatic reconnect. Otherwise BAD THINGS happen to Mac clients when they disconnect & reconnect.
I saw that, but I thought that 1.6.x was an experimental release
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:16:46AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
Please add netatalk to this list. Rawhide has 1.5.5-9, but latest is 1.6.x. 1.6.x implements the latest version of the AFP over TCP/IP protocol that MacOS X talks natively. It allows features like
Nice
Unfortuately the netatalk related kernel module has been added to kernel-unsupported last I checked, so does this mean that netatalk is set for deprecation? Contrary to what many non-Mac people think, AFP is NOT that weird old AppleTalk that didn't use TCP/IP. It is a modern protocol now that works quite well for Macs. In my experience, with the exception of AFP routing [1], netatalk is much easier to manage than Samba, and with far fewer problems.
The kernel module deals with localtalk and ethertalk link layers primarily.
netatalk works OUT OF THE BOX for most people with full capability... unless you have multiple interfaces that you want it to talk on. Then it is extremely difficult to figure out because of its extremely poor documentation, and the fact that I know nothing about the AFP protocol.
Addison Wesley: Inside Appletalk
It doesnt cover the latest extensions but it covers the rest (for my sins I was involved in the netatalk port to Linux)
Alan
Le ven 09/01/2004 à 15:04, Alan Cox a écrit :
netatalk works OUT OF THE BOX for most people with full capability...
Most... I find Samba 3 easier to use to connect from my Mac OS X box to my Linux desktop.
It doesnt cover the latest extensions but it covers the rest (for my sins I was involved in the netatalk port to Linux)
The man is every where for Pete's sake!!!
Let me thank you now then, for going on 7 years when I have been the Linux box on several Mac LANs.
Netatalk was _the_ tool that convinced me to move to Linux from Mac OS back in 1997. It was the tool that has convinced my clients to buy Linux servers!
Cheers
Tony Grant
Tony Grant wrote:
netatalk works OUT OF THE BOX for most people with full capability...
Most... I find Samba 3 easier to use to connect from my Mac OS X box to my Linux desktop.
Well, Samba needs to maintain a separate username & password database than the rest of your system if you want to use encrypted passwords over the wire. Netatalk JUST WORKS with encrypted-passwords-over-wire and your regular system accounts. Very little extra hassle that way.
Warren
On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:16:46AM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
Unfortuately the netatalk related kernel module has been added to kernel-unsupported last I checked, so does this mean that netatalk is set for deprecation?
No. Moving modules into the unsupported directory (which in RHEL is packaged into a separate package, but not in Fedora except when we forgot to change it for a week or two) just means that we're trying to set expectations for maintenance. It is highly unlikely that Red Hat is going to make it a high priority to fix any bugs in one of those modules. If there's a serious security hole in one that would take a redesign to fix, we might disable it, but that would be a pretty extreme case that I can't recall seeing before, and I can't imagine being the case here.
michaelkjohnson
"He that composes himself is wiser than he that composes a book." Linux Application Development -- Ben Franklin http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad/
samba is 3.0.0 in rawhide. 3.0.1 has some bugfixes that are important to me -- specifically ntlm_auth vs. Windows 98. I packaged 3.0.1 myself, which was pretty trivial.
/Benny
Benny Amorsen wrote:
samba is 3.0.0 in rawhide. 3.0.1 has some bugfixes that are important to me -- specifically ntlm_auth vs. Windows 98. I packaged 3.0.1 myself, which was pretty trivial.
There are more outdated packages, but I listed the most important IMO and with a very old release in rawhide.
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:32:44 +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
package latest rawhide
parted 1.6.6 1.6.3
Probably due to heavy patching (10 patches with a total of ~100 KiB last time I had a look at a 1.6.3 package) and libparted's importance with regard to Anaconda (Disk Druid).
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:32:44 +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
parted 1.6.6 1.6.3
Probably due to heavy patching (10 patches with a total of ~100 KiB last time I had a look at a 1.6.3 package) and libparted's importance with regard to Anaconda (Disk Druid).
yeah, util-linux has also a lot of patches. But nodoby said that to be near of upstream would be easy ;-)
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:32:44 +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
parted 1.6.6 1.6.3
Probably due to heavy patching (10 patches with a total of ~100 KiB last time I had a look at a 1.6.3 package) and libparted's importance with regard to Anaconda (Disk Druid).
yeah, util-linux has also a lot of patches. But nodoby said that to be near of upstream would be easy ;-)
Something that external developers can help with right now is looking through packages and getting the patches back upstream. It really bugs me that patches sit in .rpm's without going upstream, but it takes too much time from higher-priority work for maintainers to do the merges very often.
Note though that sometimes patches can't go upstream because they reflect distribution-specific integration needs.
I have a util-linux-2.12pre package sitting in CVS that needs merging upstream before 2.12, doah! -- Elliot At the School of Hard Knocks, tuition is always high.
Michael Schwendt ms-nospam-0306@arcor.de writes:
On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 11:32:44 +0100, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote:
package latest rawhide
parted 1.6.6 1.6.3
Probably due to heavy patching (10 patches with a total of ~100 KiB last time I had a look at a 1.6.3 package) and libparted's importance with regard to Anaconda (Disk Druid).
I extracted the patches from RedHat's 1.6.3 (the tarball in the SRPM isn't pristine) last weekend, and successfully built a 1.6.6 by reapplying them; I just haven't got around to sticking all the pieces into bugzilla yet.
no big differece from latest report of last month:
package latest rawhide
[...]
util-linux 2.12 2.11y
Util-linux 2.12 adds built-in support for encrypted loopback filesystems. Along with the 2.6 kernel, which contains cryptoloop, upgrading to util-linux 2.12 would fix several bugzilla bugs related to creating/mounting cryptoloop volumes.
See bugzilla bug #56698 and its several duplicates.