Re: [CentOS] C6: ssh X-forwarding does not work
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Lorenzo Martínez Rodríguez wrote: > > oop my fail! I have mistyped one character :( > > [root@Carmen tmp]# rpm -qa| grep -i xorg-x11-xauth > xorg-x11-xauth-1.0.2-7.1.el6.x86_64 > [root@Carmen tmp]# rpm -qa|grep -i xorg-x11-auth > [root@Carmen tmp]# > > So, yes,.. I have that packet installed! Sorry for the misunderstood. > Just the lack of one "x" started the flame. Do some of the checkbox installs omit it? I just ran into this on a system where I chose the 'web server' install, then wanted to run gparted remotely. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C6: ssh X-forwarding does not work
oop my fail! I have mistyped one character :( [root@Carmen tmp]# rpm -qa| grep -i xorg-x11-xauth xorg-x11-xauth-1.0.2-7.1.el6.x86_64 [root@Carmen tmp]# rpm -qa|grep -i xorg-x11-auth [root@Carmen tmp]# So, yes,.. I have that packet installed! Sorry for the misunderstood. Just the lack of one "x" started the flame. El 29/10/11 00:56, Lorenzo Martínez Rodríguez escribió: > El 28/10/11 10:30, John Hodrien escribió: >> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Steve Brooks wrote: >> >>> I have a few "sl6.1" worstations that do not have "xorg-x11-xauth" >>> installed and it does *not* seem to appear in the repos. Yet >>> X11-Forwarding works fine. >> It's in the base repos for SL, so it definitely should be appearing. Without >> a functioning xauth, I've never seen functional X forwarding. >> >> I would be interested to know what ssh -Yv that-host-without-xauth shows. >> Without xauth I get: >> >> debug1: Remote: No xauth program; cannot forward with spoofing. > I execute next command and, without xorg-x11-xauth packet installed, it > works perfectly. > > ssh -X -C -c blowfish-cbc,arcfour -Y -l root 192.168.52.133 > > >> jh >> ___ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@centos.org >> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> >> > -- Lorenzo Martinez Rodriguez Visit me: http://www.lorenzomartinez.es Mail me to: lore...@lorenzomartinez.es My blog: http://www.securitybydefault.com My twitter: @lawwait PGP Fingerprint: 97CC 2584 7A04 B2BA 00F1 76C9 0D76 83A2 9BBC BDE2 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C6: ssh X-forwarding does not work
El 28/10/11 10:30, John Hodrien escribió: > On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Steve Brooks wrote: > >> I have a few "sl6.1" worstations that do not have "xorg-x11-xauth" >> installed and it does *not* seem to appear in the repos. Yet >> X11-Forwarding works fine. > It's in the base repos for SL, so it definitely should be appearing. Without > a functioning xauth, I've never seen functional X forwarding. > > I would be interested to know what ssh -Yv that-host-without-xauth shows. > Without xauth I get: > > debug1: Remote: No xauth program; cannot forward with spoofing. I execute next command and, without xorg-x11-xauth packet installed, it works perfectly. ssh -X -C -c blowfish-cbc,arcfour -Y -l root 192.168.52.133 > jh > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > -- Lorenzo Martinez Rodriguez Visit me: http://www.lorenzomartinez.es Mail me to: lore...@lorenzomartinez.es My blog: http://www.securitybydefault.com My twitter: @lawwait PGP Fingerprint: 97CC 2584 7A04 B2BA 00F1 76C9 0D76 83A2 9BBC BDE2 ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 Bug Fix Announcements
On Friday, October 28, 2011 05:55:06 PM Karanbir Singh wrote: > We should have all the announcements out and caught up by the middle of > next week. FWIW, announcements or no announcements, I've been pretty happy to see the updates coming through CR, and I thank you and the team for this. Back when it was first mentioned I wasn't actually too enthralled with the idea, but what a difference a few months makes. If it weren't for the legwork in making CR a reality the lag in getting 6.1 out would be very difficult to rationalize. The 6.0 to 6.1 anaconda changes alone must be giving you guys fits; from what I've gathered, both in actually installing C6.0 versus RHEL 6.1 as well as in the upstream release notes, there were fairly extensive fixes implemented in anaconda. I've not looked at the beta 6.2 release notes yet ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6 Bug Fix Announcements
hi Ian, On 10/28/2011 03:01 PM, Ian Stirling wrote: > Are there going to be any CentOS 6 announcements made about bug fixes > etc made to CentOS Announce mailing list ? yes. > CentOS 6 has been around for a while now, has many fixes available, yet > I haven't seen a single announcement. Perhaps I am just not subscribed > to the correct list . Everything in CR will get announced to the centos-announce-cr list. We should have all the announcements out and caught up by the middle of next week. - KB ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > >> That logic depends on a very strange interpretation of the term >> "restriction". The GPL doesn't narrowly define it narrowly as legal >> actions, it says you may not impost any further restrictions. > > True, and that is why it is a loophole. You can interpret the word > "restriction" in more than one way. IIUC, RH's interpretation is that > "restriction" is something that is "against the law" if violated, in the sense > that you can get sued by someone if you redistribute RH's code. There are no > restrictions by RH, in that sense. > > Whether or not this interpretation was meant when GPL was designed is an > entirely different matter. IMHO, the FSF should have been more specific about > what "restriction" means in the text of the GPL. But they weren't, and now RH > has used this room to manouver around. Whether something is legal or not is always open to interpretation. But it would take a valid copyright holder to challenge their right to redistribute under those terms. My name might still be mentioned somewhere in comments in the distribution but I can't claim ownership of any particular line of code, so that leaves me out. > But I don't see it as a bad thing, all in all. If you want support from RH, > pay for it. If not, use CentOS or some other clone. It's a bad thing if you think clones should exist at all. Realistically, we would all probably be better off jumping ship the day of the fedora/EL split, but I've just been too lazy to learn to spell "apt-get". -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On Friday 28 October 2011 20:45:16 Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > > But RH did not add restrictions. Whatever you get from them, you are free > > to redistribute, in accord with GPL. There can be *no* *legal* *action* > > against you if you do so. OTOH, it is their choice whether or not to > > give you anything else in the future. GPL is not broken by the choice > > they make. > > That logic depends on a very strange interpretation of the term > "restriction". The GPL doesn't narrowly define it narrowly as legal > actions, it says you may not impost any further restrictions. True, and that is why it is a loophole. You can interpret the word "restriction" in more than one way. IIUC, RH's interpretation is that "restriction" is something that is "against the law" if violated, in the sense that you can get sued by someone if you redistribute RH's code. There are no restrictions by RH, in that sense. Whether or not this interpretation was meant when GPL was designed is an entirely different matter. IMHO, the FSF should have been more specific about what "restriction" means in the text of the GPL. But they weren't, and now RH has used this room to manouver around. But I don't see it as a bad thing, all in all. If you want support from RH, pay for it. If not, use CentOS or some other clone. If they fall behind in providing updates, that amounts to the price that you didn't pay for RH's support. I think that's fair, given that RH developers are the ones doing the most of the heavyweight work. Best, :-) Marko ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote: > > But RH did not add restrictions. Whatever you get from them, you are free to > redistribute, in accord with GPL. There can be *no* *legal* *action* against > you if you do so. OTOH, it is their choice whether or not to give you anything > else in the future. GPL is not broken by the choice they make. That logic depends on a very strange interpretation of the term "restriction". The GPL doesn't narrowly define it narrowly as legal actions, it says you may not impost any further restrictions. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On Friday 28 October 2011 18:54:25 Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Ned Slider wrote: > >> The question is, how can a contract containing restrictions on what > >> you can do with GPL covered content not invalidate your own right to > >> redistribute, given that the GPL prohibits additional restrictions? > > > > As I understand, Red Hat's AUP is more about protecting content other > > than sources and binaries that resides on RHN (yes, RHN is far more than > > just a distribution channel for SRPMs/RPMs). Such content and material > > is vital in supporting it's customers, and I believe the likes of Oracle > > and Suse were leveraging such content to try to sell support to existing > > RHEL customers. This is what Red Hat presumably seeks to stop. > > OK, but then it should have specific exceptions for GPL content > already 'protected' from such proprietary behavior and restrictions. > What is the point of the GPL existing if companies are allowed to add > restrictions when they redistribute? But RH did not add restrictions. Whatever you get from them, you are free to redistribute, in accord with GPL. There can be *no* *legal* *action* against you if you do so. OTOH, it is their choice whether or not to give you anything else in the future. GPL is not broken by the choice they make. Of course it is a form of a blackmail --- "don't redistribute or we'll cut off future support" --- but that is not in contradiction with the GPL, due to the word "future". Rather, it seems to be a loophole in the GPL itself, and a pretty nifty one, if you ask me. :-) Also, the essential idea of the GPL (that source should be free) is preserved --- you can always take whatever has been given to you through RHN and fork a project, without legal worry. In addition, it appears that the business strategy of RH is essentially based on this loophole, and now they are just pushing it to the extreme, thanks to the challange from Oracle. It's a good business strategy, and personally I agree with it --- RH has found a way to fight other companies from stealing their work and customers, while upholding the GPL and giving a lot back to the community through upstream patches and support of Fedora. Of course, there are some collateral damage side-effects for the clones like CentOS and SL, but then that's life, nobody is perfect... ;-) Best, :-) Marko ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Ned Slider wrote: > >> The question is, how can a contract containing restrictions on what >> you can do with GPL covered content not invalidate your own right to >> redistribute, given that the GPL prohibits additional restrictions? >> > > As I understand, Red Hat's AUP is more about protecting content other > than sources and binaries that resides on RHN (yes, RHN is far more than > just a distribution channel for SRPMs/RPMs). Such content and material > is vital in supporting it's customers, and I believe the likes of Oracle > and Suse were leveraging such content to try to sell support to existing > RHEL customers. This is what Red Hat presumably seeks to stop. > OK, but then it should have specific exceptions for GPL content already 'protected' from such proprietary behavior and restrictions. What is the point of the GPL existing if companies are allowed to add restrictions when they redistribute? -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Upgrading MySQL
Hi; Upon trying to run django, I get this error: ImproperlyConfigured: MySQLdb-1.2.1p2 or newer is required; you have 1.2.1 If I run yum update mysql I don't upgrade (expected). What do? TIA, Jack ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On 28/10/11 18:31, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Patrick Lists > wrote: >> >>> How is, say, being >>> required to pay a license fee as a consequence different from losing >>> something you have already contracted and paid for? >> >> It would surprise me if Red Hat would not refund the customer or let >> them ride out the term of what they have already paid for. And didn't >> the customer agree to Red Hat's terms (AUP) when they signed the contract? > > The question is, how can a contract containing restrictions on what > you can do with GPL covered content not invalidate your own right to > redistribute, given that the GPL prohibits additional restrictions? > As I understand, Red Hat's AUP is more about protecting content other than sources and binaries that resides on RHN (yes, RHN is far more than just a distribution channel for SRPMs/RPMs). Such content and material is vital in supporting it's customers, and I believe the likes of Oracle and Suse were leveraging such content to try to sell support to existing RHEL customers. This is what Red Hat presumably seeks to stop. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Patrick Lists wrote: > >> How is, say, being >> required to pay a license fee as a consequence different from losing >> something you have already contracted and paid for? > > It would surprise me if Red Hat would not refund the customer or let > them ride out the term of what they have already paid for. And didn't > the customer agree to Red Hat's terms (AUP) when they signed the contract? The question is, how can a contract containing restrictions on what you can do with GPL covered content not invalidate your own right to redistribute, given that the GPL prohibits additional restrictions? -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On 10/28/2011 06:53 PM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: >> Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers. >>> >>> With _no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution. >> >> Losing access to RHN does not in any way restrict my redistribution of >> source I already have in my possession. > > Errr, what? What _is_ a restriction if not a penalty applied as a > consequence of doing the restricted thing? Disclaimer: IANAL It seems the GPL requirements are met so then there is no GPL related restriction. If you exercise your GPL induced rights and redistribute the RHN src then there is nothing wrong with Red Hat deciding to no longer want you as a customer. You still got to exercise your rights. But once you are no longer a customer and thus no longer receiving RHN binaries from Red Hat then Red Hat is under no obligation to share with you anything from RHN anymore. How is, say, being > required to pay a license fee as a consequence different from losing > something you have already contracted and paid for? It would surprise me if Red Hat would not refund the customer or let them ride out the term of what they have already paid for. And didn't the customer agree to Red Hat's terms (AUP) when they signed the contract? Regards, Patrick ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > >> > >> > Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers. >> >> With _no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution. > > Losing access to RHN does not in any way restrict my redistribution of source > I already have in my possession. Errr, what? What _is_ a restriction if not a penalty applied as a consequence of doing the restricted thing? How is, say, being required to pay a license fee as a consequence different from losing something you have already contracted and paid for? > But none of that helps when you need access to binaries to verify binary > compatibility, and the AUP for the place you get your binaries interferes, > even if you're paying for access to those binaries. And arguing about GPL > won't help, since the GPL does not in any way cover all of the distribution. That's true, but at least in the past, RH apparently thought GPL compliance and openness would win customers. If those customers leave, it might make a difference. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On Friday, October 28, 2011 11:29:52 AM Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > > > > Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers. > > With _no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution. Losing access to RHN does not in any way restrict my redistribution of source I already have in my possession. 'Restricting distribution' is popping a DMCA takedown notice to the operator of a site redistributing the source and getting it removed; they can't do that (I'm neither going to comment on nor am I going to speculate about binaries). But they can (and will) choose to not distribute anything to you in the future should you redistribute what you've received through RHN. I could (hypothetically) give you everything I've gotten from RHN; I won't (and the GPL doesn't make me) because I want future access to RHN, but if that access were to be removed for whatever reason I have complete freedom to distribute any and all source I've gotten up to that point. And, really, it now makes absolutely perfect business sense why they give public access to their sources: they can cut off RHN to a user who hasn't downloaded the source from RHN and point to the public ftp and say, in effect, 'now get your source there, but no more RHN for you.' And that meets the letter of the GPL, which is all about source code access to those who have binaries. At least in my opinion, and assuming that all GPL-covered source is actually available on the public site. But none of that helps when you need access to binaries to verify binary compatibility, and the AUP for the place you get your binaries interferes, even if you're paying for access to those binaries. And arguing about GPL won't help, since the GPL does not in any way cover all of the distribution. What will help is figuring out how someone with access to RHN AUP covered information can 'clean room' only the information required to confirm binary compatibility to the 'binary compatibility verifier' without violating the AUP. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] read failed after messages of non existing harddisks
Just reread your post again Actually, "cat /proc/partitions", if the said partitions/disks are still being seen by kernel, you will need some sort of system scan to get rid of them, or a reboot. I have a SAN, and qlogic card as HBA, qlogic has a tool for scanning for non-existent partitions and remove them... http://filedownloads.qlogic.com/files/ms/56615/readme_dynamic_lun_22.html and with qlogic, I could have removed the non-existent LUNs via the option refresh: -r, --refresh To refresh, that is remove LUNs that are lost use the options "-r|--refresh". This will remove the LUNs which no more exist. How were these disks attached to your system? - Original Message - From: Philippe Naudin To: CentOS mailing list Cc: Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 9:26 AM Subject: Re: [CentOS] read failed after messages of non existing harddisks Le ven 28 oct 2011 14:08:50 CEST, Götz Reinicke a écrit: > Hi, > > some time ago I removed some physical disks from a server and now I'm > still getting dmesg messages like: > > sd 0:2:2:0: SCSI error: return code = 0x00040001 > end_request: I/O error, dev sdc, sector 0 > > And all lvm tools still grumbel about that disks too: > > /dev/sdb: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 0: Eingabe-/Ausgabefehler > /dev/sdb: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 1746969493504: > Eingabe-/Ausgabefehler > > > How may I tell the lvm and the system, that it is ok that this disk do > not exist any more? If a software RAID has been removed, don't forget : mdadm --misc --zero-superblock /dev/sdX where sdX is every disk that was part of the RAID. -- Philippe Naudin UMR MISTEA : Mathématiques, Informatique et STatistique pour l'Environnement et l'Agronomie INRA, bâtiment 29 - 2 place Viala - 34060 Montpellier cedex 2 tél: 04.99.61.26.34, fax: 04.99.61.29.03, mél: nau...@supagro.inra.fr ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] read failed after messages of non existing harddisks
Before you physically removed the disk, you were supposed to have done pvremove. you can try pvdisplay/pvscan and see if these disks are displayed there, before trying a pvremove on them again. I assume the said disks were properly remove from any lv,vg that you had. - Original Message - From: Götz Reinicke To: CentOS mailing list Cc: Sent: Friday, October 28, 2011 8:08 AM Subject: [CentOS] read failed after messages of non existing harddisks Hi, some time ago I removed some physical disks from a server and now I'm still getting dmesg messages like: sd 0:2:2:0: SCSI error: return code = 0x00040001 end_request: I/O error, dev sdc, sector 0 And all lvm tools still grumbel about that disks too: /dev/sdb: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 0: Eingabe-/Ausgabefehler /dev/sdb: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 1746969493504: Eingabe-/Ausgabefehler How may I tell the lvm and the system, that it is ok that this disk do not exist any more? Thnaks for hints and suggestion . Götz -- Götz Reinicke IT-Koordinator Tel. +49 7141 969 420 Fax +49 7141 969 55 420 E-Mail goetz.reini...@filmakademie.de Filmakademie Baden-Württemberg GmbH Akademiehof 10 71638 Ludwigsburg www.filmakademie.de Eintragung Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB 205016 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Jürgen Walter MdL Staatssekretär im Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg Geschäftsführer: Prof. Thomas Schadt ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On Friday, October 21, 2011 02:22:26 PM Les Mikesell wrote: > Which is explicitly imposing additional restrictions. Which is > explicitly prohibited in section 6. I don't see any exceptions > relating to what the consequences of those restrictions might be. The RHN AUP simply says that if you redistribute information from RHN you lose access to RHN. It does not restrict your right to redistribute anything; it restricts access to future information distributions from RHN. I know that's splitting hairs, but it does seem to meet the letter of the license. After all, RHN access is not required except for updates; if I really wanted to do so I could redistribute everything I have from RHN at this point in time and upstream has no legal recourse against that distribution that I know of (but I am neither a lawyer nor a paralegal; Russ on the other hand knows of what he speaks). They can, however, choose to not distribute anything else to me in the future, and nothing in the GPL or any other license used by upstream forces them to distribute anything new to me. And that's the gestalt of the RHN AUP; it states under what conditions RHN will distribute the compiled binary code (treated specially by GPL and not as a derived work) to you, its customer. Once you have received the binary of a particular version you have the right, under GPL and only for GPL-covered packages, to receive the source code for that particular version of that package. Upstream is very gracious (in my opinion, at least) and distributes all of its source, not just GPL source and not just to customers but to the public at large (I say all; I haven't personally verified that all source in any given RHN channel is indeed available publicly on ftp.redhat.com, primarily because I don't have access to all channels). They could distribute only the source that they legally have to under those licenses that require it, but not for the source covered under other licenses that do not require redistribution of source plus modifications. But just because I have version 1.2.3 of a package does not give me a guaranteed right under GPL to get 1.2.4 from them. And just because I can get the source to the 1.2.4 package they distribute does not give me an automatic right to the corresponding binary as the GPL does treat the compiled code specially. If you get the binary, you have the right to the source; if you have the source it is assumed you can generate the binary yourself (as is proven by the various EL rebuilds). The level of difficulty required to generate the binary is not specified or even addressed by the GPL, nor does the GPL guarantee your ability to generate the exact same binary as someone else distributes. nor is the distributor of the binary restricted at all in how difficult generating their exact binary, or a 100% compatible binary, can be. This seems to be the current holdup with C6.1, in my opinion; you can build *a* binary but will it work just like *the* binary? Upstream can make it even more difficult than they already have (and I know it's currently very frustrating to the CentOS team just from reading this thread!). Russ, is that summary even close to accurate in your opinion? These are the facts of life for an EL rebuild distribution user. If you want a primary access distribution (rather than a secondary rebuild) you need to find one that meets your needs, either by paying up for upstream or by going to something else (and there are really only two suitable enterprise choices for 'something else' in this case (and in my opinion): OpenSuSE or Debian Stable). I'm evaluating Debian Stable on IA64 myself, as Debian Stable is the only actively maintained enterprise-grade distribution (again, in my opinion) freely available for IA64 (yes, upstream's EL5 is still available and is still maintained, but it costs six arms and eight legs to purchase for the machines I have; SLES likewise). And I don't really currently have the time to rebuild C6 for IA64 myself. I'd love to, and I've had conversations with like-minded people, and I don't really want to go to Debian on it since I really want the IA64 boxes to work like all the other servers here which are running upstream EL rebuilds. But I have more important and necessary things to do with my time at the moment than to get into the game of maintaining a private rebuild for IA64 (I say private; even if I had time to maintain the build I don't have time to deal with the 'issues' of a public build!). ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On 10/28/11 8:29 AM, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: >> > >> >Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers. > With_no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution. redhat's threat of disabling RHN access for redistributing RHN GPL sources seems to be in direct violation of this... -- john r pierceN 37, W 122 santa cruz ca mid-left coast ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Lamar Owen wrote: > > Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers. With _no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution. -- Les Mikesell lesmikes...@gmail.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
On Friday, October 21, 2011 10:17:18 AM Giles Coochey wrote: > It appears that this is not the case, and my only option is to take my > servers down the beta route to Centos 6.1 Release Candidates. This is one area in which CentOS and Scientific Linux are different (and it's interesting, reading the SL lists, how that some of the folks that went SL a few months ago are confused about SL's direction, even to the point of calling it a waste of resources). This is just one area, by the way. So on Scientific Linux you can indeed 'stay with SL 6.0' and still get security updates only (as best as can be provided without other package updates) for the full length of the support period. There are and have been exceptions, but that was and is one of the primary goals, it appears, of SL. However, the speed at which SL has put out 6.1 seems to imply that they aren't quite as picky about binary compatibility (library linked versions, and all of the other things that 'binary compatibility' means) as CentOS seems to be. (I say 'seems' in both cases because I do not have inside knowledge of either projects' binary compatibility tests). And it appears that the 'binary compatibility' piece coupled with upstream's new acceptable use policy (which, since it has changed, might be something to ask FSF about anew) is the primary reason for the slowdown of CentOS, along with the secondary reason that there are packages in upstream's EL6 that aren't distributed on any media at all. I haven't looked closely enough to check if there are source packages in an RHN channel that don't exist on the public FTP. But GPL does not cover the entire distribution; PostgreSQL, just to pull one of many packages out of thin air, is not GPL and thus source redistribution is not required, even to customers. Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C6: ssh X-forwarding does not work
On Friday, October 28, 2011 04:10:05 AM Steve Brooks wrote:
> I have a few "sl6.1" worstations that do not have "xorg-x11-xauth"
> installed and it does *not* seem to appear in the repos. Yet
> X11-Forwarding works fine.
That's mighty strange, as a basically scratch SL6.1 install here shows:
[root@pe1600sc-2 ~]# repoquery --qf "%-20{repoid} %{name}" xorg-x11-xauth
sl xorg-x11-xauth
[root@pe1600sc-2 ~]# cat /etc/issue
Scientific Linux release 6.1 (Carbon)
Kernel \r on an \m
[root@pe1600sc-2 ~]#
On a CentOS 6.0+CR VM here:
[root@z1-c6 ~]# repoquery --qf "%-20{repoid} %{name}" xorg-x11-xauth
base xorg-x11-xauth
[root@z1-c6 ~]# cat /etc/issue
CentOS Linux release 6.0 (Final)
Kernel \r on an \m
[root@z1-c6 ~]#
I did absolutely nothing special to either of these two boxes (just a basic
installation that included GNOME and other server things (these boxes get used
as remote desktop servers in addition to other duties, so GUI is required), and
X forwarding works fine. I typically use X forwarding to run a few GUI
programs that are mighty handy, such as palimpsest (GNOME Disk Utility) which
puts all in one place lots and lots of useful information about your disk
devices that would otherwise require many command line invocations to grab.
Both boxes have xorg-x11-xauth installed.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] You suggestion for 'big' filesystem management Best Practice?
On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 10:34 +0200, Götz Reinicke wrote: > we plan to set up a big file storage for media files like uncompressed > movies from student film projects, dvd images etc. > It should be some sort of archive and will not bee accessed by more than > may be 5 people at the same time. > The iSCSI RAID we have is about 26TB netto and I'm again faced with the > question: How many partitions, which filesystem, which mount options etc.= > For the User it would be the most simpel thing, to have one big > filesystem she/he could fill with all the data and dont has to search > e.g. on multiple volumes. Use LVM. Divide it into numerous partitions. Initialize the partitions as Physical Volumes. Create a Volume Group containing the Physical Volumes. Then create the volumes you allocate storage as using Logical Volumes. Your LV can span as many, or as few, PVs as you like. To the SAN each PV is a partition, you can move it, delete it, etc.. In the OS you can move data between PVs, migrate LVs between PVs, etc.. Even connect to another SAN, attach PVs there to you volume group, and migrate the LVs to those PVs - this migrating data from one SAN to another. Then drop the PVs on the old SAN from the VG. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] CentOS 6 Bug Fix Announcements
Are there going to be any CentOS 6 announcements made about bug fixes etc made to CentOS Announce mailing list ? CentOS 6 has been around for a while now, has many fixes available, yet I haven't seen a single announcement. Perhaps I am just not subscribed to the correct list . Ian ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Duplicated packages in CR repo?
On 10/28/2011 02:31 PM, Tom Brown wrote: > do you have a list of the bad packages so that i can remove them from > our spacewalk before they cause us an issue? sure, here is the list I removed : ./x86_64/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-Xnest-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.x86_64.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-Xdmx-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.x86_64.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/corosynclib-devel-1.2.3-36el6_1.3.i686.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-source-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.noarch.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-devel-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.x86_64.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-Xephyr-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.x86_64.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-devel-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.i686.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/corosync-1.2.3-36el6_1.3.x86_64.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-common-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.x86_64.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/corosynclib-1.2.3-36el6_1.3.i686.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/corosynclib-devel-1.2.3-36el6_1.3.x86_64.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/rsyslog-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.x86_64.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/rsyslog-gnutls-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/corosynclib-1.2.3-36el6_1.3.x86_64.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/rsyslog-relp-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/rsyslog-gssapi-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/rsyslog-mysql-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-Xvfb-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.x86_64.rpm ./x86_64/RPMS/rsyslog-pgsql-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm ./i386/RPMS/rsyslog-gssapi-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.i686.rpm ./i386/RPMS/rsyslog-relp-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.i686.rpm ./i386/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-Xorg-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.i686.rpm ./i386/RPMS/corosynclib-devel-1.2.3-36el6_1.3.i686.rpm ./i386/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-source-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.noarch.rpm ./i386/RPMS/rsyslog-mysql-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.i686.rpm ./i386/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-devel-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.i686.rpm ./i386/RPMS/rsyslog-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.i686.rpm ./i386/RPMS/corosynclib-1.2.3-36el6_1.3.i686.rpm ./i386/RPMS/rsyslog-gnutls-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.i686.rpm ./i386/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-Xdmx-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.i686.rpm ./i386/RPMS/corosync-1.2.3-36el6_1.3.i686.rpm ./i386/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-Xephyr-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.i686.rpm ./i386/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-Xvfb-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.i686.rpm ./i386/RPMS/rsyslog-pgsql-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.i686.rpm ./i386/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-common-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.i686.rpm ./i386/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-Xnest-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.i686.rpm ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Duplicated packages in CR repo?
> fixed. Apologies for this getting through. I've done the rm's manually, > but we need a test to make sure this does not happen again. do you have a list of the bad packages so that i can remove them from our spacewalk before they cause us an issue? thanks ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] read failed after messages of non existing harddisks
Le ven 28 oct 2011 14:08:50 CEST, Götz Reinicke a écrit: > Hi, > > some time ago I removed some physical disks from a server and now I'm > still getting dmesg messages like: > > sd 0:2:2:0: SCSI error: return code = 0x00040001 > end_request: I/O error, dev sdc, sector 0 > > And all lvm tools still grumbel about that disks too: > > /dev/sdb: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 0: Eingabe-/Ausgabefehler > /dev/sdb: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 1746969493504: > Eingabe-/Ausgabefehler > > > How may I tell the lvm and the system, that it is ok that this disk do > not exist any more? If a software RAID has been removed, don't forget : mdadm --misc --zero-superblock /dev/sdX where sdX is every disk that was part of the RAID. -- Philippe Naudin UMR MISTEA : Mathématiques, Informatique et STatistique pour l'Environnement et l'Agronomie INRA, bâtiment 29 - 2 place Viala - 34060 Montpellier cedex 2 tél: 04.99.61.26.34, fax: 04.99.61.29.03, mél: nau...@supagro.inra.fr ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Duplicated packages in CR repo?
On 10/28/2011 08:38 AM, Patrick Hurrelmann wrote: > Corosync also exists with a correct name in the repo, but > xorg-x11-server does not. > > Maybe someone can have a look on this or am I overreacting? fixed. Apologies for this getting through. I've done the rm's manually, but we need a test to make sure this does not happen again. - KB ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] read failed after messages of non existing harddisks
Hi, some time ago I removed some physical disks from a server and now I'm still getting dmesg messages like: sd 0:2:2:0: SCSI error: return code = 0x00040001 end_request: I/O error, dev sdc, sector 0 And all lvm tools still grumbel about that disks too: /dev/sdb: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 0: Eingabe-/Ausgabefehler /dev/sdb: read failed after 0 of 4096 at 1746969493504: Eingabe-/Ausgabefehler How may I tell the lvm and the system, that it is ok that this disk do not exist any more? Thnaks for hints and suggestion . Götz -- Götz Reinicke IT-Koordinator Tel. +49 7141 969 420 Fax +49 7141 969 55 420 E-Mail goetz.reini...@filmakademie.de Filmakademie Baden-Württemberg GmbH Akademiehof 10 71638 Ludwigsburg www.filmakademie.de Eintragung Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB 205016 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Jürgen Walter MdL Staatssekretär im Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg Geschäftsführer: Prof. Thomas Schadt ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] You suggestion for 'big' filesystem management Best Practice?
2011/10/28 Götz Reinicke > The iSCSI RAID we have is about 26TB netto and I'm again faced with the > question: How many partitions, which filesystem, which mount options etc. > My vote goes to XFS, if only one server needs acces to the LUN's; and GPFS (not GFS) if you need a cluster filesystem. BR Bent (130 TB in one XFS installation, and 600 TB in one gpfs cluster) > For the User it would be the most simpel thing, to have one big > filesystem she/he could fill with all the data and dont has to search > e.g. on multiple volumes. > > On the other hand, if one big filesystem crashes or has do be checked it > will destroy a lot of data or the check will take hours ... > > > Any suggestions pro or cons are welcome! :-) > > My favourite for now is 3 to 4 filesystems with the default ext4 > settings. (Redhat EL 5.7, may be soon 6.1) > > Thanks and best regards. Götz > -- > Götz Reinicke > IT-Koordinator > > Tel. +49 7141 969 420 > Fax +49 7141 969 55 420 > E-Mail goetz.reini...@filmakademie.de > > Filmakademie Baden-Württemberg GmbH > Akademiehof 10 > 71638 Ludwigsburg > www.filmakademie.de > > Eintragung Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB 205016 > > Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: > Jürgen Walter MdL > Staatssekretär im Ministerium für Wissenschaft, > Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg > > Geschäftsführer: > Prof. Thomas Schadt > > > > > ___ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] You suggestion for 'big' filesystem management Best Practice?
From: Götz Reinicke > The iSCSI RAID we have is about 26TB netto and I'm again faced with the > question: How many partitions, which filesystem, which mount options etc. > For the User it would be the most simpel thing, to have one big > filesystem she/he could fill with all the data and dont has to search > e.g. on multiple volumes. > On the other hand, if one big filesystem crashes or has do be checked it > will destroy a lot of data or the check will take hours ... Splitting the space, if you have the option, has advantages... You already mentioned fsck. You could assign different partitions to different groups of people. You could, depending on your RAID level, create several arrays on different drives to limit disk contention (but you will lose either some space and/or some speed)... JD ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] You suggestion for 'big' filesystem management Best Practice? Max Ext4 sizes
Greetings, 2011/10/28 Götz Reinicke : > > Thx. Yes I'l usually go with 64 bit only. > > BTW 3. So far I found the information, that the 1EB ist the theory, but > the usertools for managing the ext4 are limited to 16TB for safety > reasons... > Another important consideration would be, if and when the organisation needs support and are ready to pay for it, say, only for production systems, Redhat has always been there. -- Regards, Rajagopal ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] You suggestion for 'big' filesystem management Best Practice? Max Ext4 sizes
Am 28.10.11 11:58, schrieb Rajagopal Swaminathan: > Greetings, > > 2011/10/28 Götz Reinicke : >> >> BTW 2 . I thought, the max. filesystemsize is 1EB and not 16TB. >> >> The max FILEsize should be 16TB ... >> > > Apologies for missing to give you the link > > http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/ > > Check under "Filesystems and Storage Limits" section. > > An one more thing: forget 32 bit here. Use 64 bit only. Thx. Yes I'l usually go with 64 bit only. BTW 3. So far I found the information, that the 1EB ist the theory, but the usertools for managing the ext4 are limited to 16TB for safety reasons... regards . Götz -- Götz Reinicke IT-Koordinator Tel. +49 7141 969 420 Fax +49 7141 969 55 420 E-Mail goetz.reini...@filmakademie.de Filmakademie Baden-Württemberg GmbH Akademiehof 10 71638 Ludwigsburg www.filmakademie.de Eintragung Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB 205016 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Jürgen Walter MdL Staatssekretär im Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg Geschäftsführer: Prof. Thomas Schadt ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] You suggestion for 'big' filesystem management Best Practice? Max Ext4 sizes
Greetings, 2011/10/28 Götz Reinicke : > > BTW 2 . I thought, the max. filesystemsize is 1EB and not 16TB. > > The max FILEsize should be 16TB ... > Apologies for missing to give you the link http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/ Check under "Filesystems and Storage Limits" section. An one more thing: forget 32 bit here. Use 64 bit only. HTH -- Regards, Rajagopal ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] You suggestion for 'big' filesystem management Best Practice? Max Ext4 sizes
Am 28.10.11 11:11, schrieb Rajagopal Swaminathan: > Greetings, > > 2011/10/28 Götz Reinicke : >> Hi, >> >> >> The iSCSI RAID we have is about 26TB netto and I'm again faced with the >> question: How many partitions, which filesystem, which mount options etc. >> >> My favourite for now is 3 to 4 filesystems with the default ext4 >> settings. (Redhat EL 5.7, may be soon 6.1) >> > > > You should seriously consider XFS (supported natively in RHEL and > hence Centos 6) for any single filesystem >16TB. (EXT4 supports only > upto 16TB) BTW 2 . I thought, the max. filesystemsize is 1EB and not 16TB. The max FILEsize should be 16TB ... http://kernelnewbies.org/Ext4 and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ext4 /Götz -- Götz Reinicke IT-Koordinator Tel. +49 7141 969 420 Fax +49 7141 969 55 420 E-Mail goetz.reini...@filmakademie.de Filmakademie Baden-Württemberg GmbH Akademiehof 10 71638 Ludwigsburg www.filmakademie.de Eintragung Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB 205016 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Jürgen Walter MdL Staatssekretär im Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg Geschäftsführer: Prof. Thomas Schadt ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] You suggestion for 'big' filesystem management Best Practice?
Am 28.10.11 11:11, schrieb Rajagopal Swaminathan: > Greetings, > > 2011/10/28 Götz Reinicke : >> Hi, >> >> >> The iSCSI RAID we have is about 26TB netto and I'm again faced with the >> question: How many partitions, which filesystem, which mount options etc. >> >> My favourite for now is 3 to 4 filesystems with the default ext4 >> settings. (Redhat EL 5.7, may be soon 6.1) >> > > > You should seriously consider XFS (supported natively in RHEL and > hence Centos 6) for any single filesystem >16TB. (EXT4 supports only > upto 16TB) > > If you are going to have an RHCS for HA, then GFS2. But I cant comment > on its performance for streaming applications etc. > Thanks for your suggestions! I'll have a look at XFS. BTW: We will not use that storage for streaming! It is 'just' a big space for files with ftp and smb access. Regards . Götz -- Götz Reinicke IT-Koordinator Tel. +49 7141 969 420 Fax +49 7141 969 55 420 E-Mail goetz.reini...@filmakademie.de Filmakademie Baden-Württemberg GmbH Akademiehof 10 71638 Ludwigsburg www.filmakademie.de Eintragung Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB 205016 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Jürgen Walter MdL Staatssekretär im Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg Geschäftsführer: Prof. Thomas Schadt ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] You suggestion for 'big' filesystem management Best Practice?
Greetings, 2011/10/28 Götz Reinicke : > Hi, > > > The iSCSI RAID we have is about 26TB netto and I'm again faced with the > question: How many partitions, which filesystem, which mount options etc. > > My favourite for now is 3 to 4 filesystems with the default ext4 > settings. (Redhat EL 5.7, may be soon 6.1) > You should seriously consider XFS (supported natively in RHEL and hence Centos 6) for any single filesystem >16TB. (EXT4 supports only upto 16TB) If you are going to have an RHCS for HA, then GFS2. But I cant comment on its performance for streaming applications etc. -- Regards, Rajagopal ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] You suggestion for 'big' filesystem management Best Practice?
Hi, we plan to set up a big file storage for media files like uncompressed movies from student film projects, dvd images etc. It should be some sort of archive and will not bee accessed by more than may be 5 people at the same time. The iSCSI RAID we have is about 26TB netto and I'm again faced with the question: How many partitions, which filesystem, which mount options etc. For the User it would be the most simpel thing, to have one big filesystem she/he could fill with all the data and dont has to search e.g. on multiple volumes. On the other hand, if one big filesystem crashes or has do be checked it will destroy a lot of data or the check will take hours ... Any suggestions pro or cons are welcome! :-) My favourite for now is 3 to 4 filesystems with the default ext4 settings. (Redhat EL 5.7, may be soon 6.1) Thanks and best regards. Götz -- Götz Reinicke IT-Koordinator Tel. +49 7141 969 420 Fax +49 7141 969 55 420 E-Mail goetz.reini...@filmakademie.de Filmakademie Baden-Württemberg GmbH Akademiehof 10 71638 Ludwigsburg www.filmakademie.de Eintragung Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRB 205016 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats: Jürgen Walter MdL Staatssekretär im Ministerium für Wissenschaft, Forschung und Kunst Baden-Württemberg Geschäftsführer: Prof. Thomas Schadt ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C6: ssh X-forwarding does not work
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Steve Brooks wrote: > I have a few "sl6.1" worstations that do not have "xorg-x11-xauth" > installed and it does *not* seem to appear in the repos. Yet > X11-Forwarding works fine. It's in the base repos for SL, so it definitely should be appearing. Without a functioning xauth, I've never seen functional X forwarding. I would be interested to know what ssh -Yv that-host-without-xauth shows. Without xauth I get: debug1: Remote: No xauth program; cannot forward with spoofing. jh ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] C6: ssh X-forwarding does not work
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, John Hodrien wrote: On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Lorenzo Martínez Rodríguez wrote: Hi, I have a working configuration with CentOS 6. Can you try to set next lines in /etc/ssh/sshd_config and restart SSH server please? #X11Forwarding no X11Forwarding yes #X11DisplayOffset 10 X11UseLocalhost yes In fact I do not have xorg-x11-auth rpm installed: [root@Carmen ~]# rpm -qa|grep -i xorg-x11-auth [root@Carmen ~]# and it works... He meant xorg-x11-xauth and I'm 99% certain you *need* that installed on the target machine for ssh forwarding to work. I have a few "sl6.1" worstations that do not have "xorg-x11-xauth" installed and it does *not* seem to appear in the repos. Yet X11-Forwarding works fine. Steve___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Duplicated packages in CR repo?
Hi all, during upgrades of my systems via spacewalk and the continuous release repository, I encountered a problem with the rsyslog packages. It seems that the last update was build twice. Once with a correct name and once with a broken one (missing dot in the name before el6). On CR-repo mirrors: rsyslog-4.6.2-3.el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm 19-Oct-2011 13:04 rsyslog-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm 19-Oct-2011 13:04 rsyslog-gnutls-4.6.2-3.el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm 19-Oct-2011 13:04 rsyslog-gnutls-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm 19-Oct-2011 13:04 rsyslog-gssapi-4.6.2-3.el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm 19-Oct-2011 13:04 rsyslog-gssapi-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm 19-Oct-2011 13:04 rsyslog-mysql-4.6.2-3.el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm 19-Oct-2011 13:04 rsyslog-mysql-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm19-Oct-2011 13:04 rsyslog-pgsql-4.6.2-3.el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm 19-Oct-2011 13:04 rsyslog-pgsql-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm19-Oct-2011 13:04 rsyslog-relp-4.6.2-3.el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm19-Oct-2011 13:04 rsyslog-relp-4.6.2-3el6_1.4.x86_64.rpm 19-Oct-2011 13:04 The same is true for several other packages uploaded to CR repo on 19-Oct-2011: - corosync - xorg-x11-server Corosync also exists with a correct name in the repo, but xorg-x11-server does not. Maybe someone can have a look on this or am I overreacting? I successfully fixed my broken updates by a manual downgrade followed by an update with the correctly named package. Best regards Patrick ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
