[CentOS] Dovecot rpms: requesting a minor enhancement

[Max Pyziur]

Greetings,

What's the process for requesting minor enhancements to packages?

Currently, CentOS dovecot rpms ship w/o having tcp_wrappers enabled; to 
have dovecot compiled with tcp_wrappers requires adding one directive to 
the to the dovecot.spec file in the srpm.

If the directive isn't there, then any dovecot upgrades via YUM/RPM 
require first to have the RPMs recompiled before doing the upgrade.

Am I the only barking for this change, or could there be others?

Thanks,

Max Pyziur
p...@brama.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Dovecot rpms: requesting a minor enhancement

[Alexander Dalloz]

Am 13.04.2013 15:17, schrieb Max Pyziur:
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> What's the process for requesting minor enhancements to packages?

[ ... ]

> Max Pyziur
> p...@brama.com

You will have to file an RFE with upstream (Red Hat).

Alexander

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] RAID 6 - opinions

[Michael Schumacher]

hi,

> yeah, until a disk fails on a 40 disk array and the chassis LEDs on the
> backplane don't light up to indicate which disk it is and your 
> operations monkey pulls the wrong one and crash the whole raid.

that is why I put a label on every drive tray that is visible without
pulling the disk. That label carries the serial number, so that the
monkey can double check the disk serial before pulling it. In fact, I
was the silly monkey once, so I am careful now :-)


best regards
---
Michael

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Dovecot rpms: requesting a minor enhancement

[Ned Slider]

On 13/04/13 15:15, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> Am 13.04.2013 15:17, schrieb Max Pyziur:
>>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> What's the process for requesting minor enhancements to packages?
>
> [ ... ]
>
>> Max Pyziur
>> p...@brama.com
>
> You will have to file an RFE with upstream (Red Hat).
>

This could also be a change for the centosplus repo, similar to the 
modified Postfix packages already released by the project.


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Dovecot rpms: requesting a minor enhancement

[Max Pyziur]

On Sat, 13 Apr 2013, Ned Slider wrote:

> On 13/04/13 15:15, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
>> Am 13.04.2013 15:17, schrieb Max Pyziur:
>>>
>>> Greetings,
>>>
>>> What's the process for requesting minor enhancements to packages?
>>
>> [ ... ]
>>
>>> Max Pyziur
>>> p...@brama.com
>>
>> You will have to file an RFE with upstream (Red Hat).
>>
>
> This could also be a change for the centosplus repo, similar to the
> modified Postfix packages already released by the project.

This becomes appealing and doable for me.

To enable tcp_wrappers, all I did was add
 --with-libwrap  \
at the appropriate point in the .spec file.

That suits me, but I suspect that a few other alterations to the spec file 
would be 
required to make sure the centosplus release is distinguishable 
(metadata and otherwise) from the standard CentOS 6 updates.

Also, how do I build both x86_64 and i*86 rpms? Again, for my own purposes 
I only built x86_64 rpms.

Thanks,

MP
p...@brama.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] centos 6.3 ipv6 default gateway

[Michael H. Warfield]

On Fri, 2013-04-12 at 11:38 +0800, Jaze Lee wrote:
> 2013/4/12 Michael H. Warfield 

Big snip...

> > You are, none the less, not suppose to use addresses in that block for
> > ANYTHING.  The fc00::/7 block is intended for what you want to do.  Even
> > if they happen to work, they are not guaranteed to work and may cause
> > other problems (like reverse DNS lookup traffic).

>Currently, i just use those ipv6 address to set up my testing
> environment. One day
>they will be replaced by global ipv6 address. And i do not have any
> global ipv6 address right now,
>i have to use some thing like 1:2:3::4. They truely work on ubuntu
> 12.04, so i think they should work on
>centos.

That last statement is incorrect.  Just because they work on Ubuntu
doesn't guarantee they will work on CentOS, Scientific Linux, Fedora, or
Redhat Enterprise, if they do not adhere to the proper standards.  You
are in an area that should be considered "undefined behavior" where it
might work or it might not but, if it doesn't, it's your fault not that
of the system.  Although, in this case, this seems to have been more of
a configuration error/confusion issue between how the systems are
configured.

> But now, i realize i am wrong, what about i change the
> 1:2:3:4/64 to fc:2:3::4/64 ?
>Is that ok?

No.  Strictly speaking, it should be fc00:2:3::4/64.  The prefix for
local unicast is fc00:: or fd00::, not fc::.  It's fc00 not fc.

> > > Must i change ipv6 address to some thing like 2000::/3, even i just want
> > to
> > > use ipv6 for private?
> >
> > No, you should change them to FC00:/7 for private use.  That's what that
> > block was allocated for.  Use it.  Don't just dream up stuff.
> >
> > You will need static routes on each of your two routers for your two
> > client routes.
> >

>   I change ipv6 address to this:

> DEVICE="eth2"   -> in centosv0
> BOOTPROTO="static"
> HWADDR="60:A4:4C:23:2F:4F"
> NM_CONTROLLED="yes"
> ONBOOT="yes"
> TYPE="Ethernet"
> #UUID="97d250ea-74db-47ae-bd8c-6682f57f9add"
> IPV6INIT=yes
> IPV6ADDR=fc00:2:3::5/64
> IPV6_DEFAULTGW=fc00:2:3::4

> DEVICE="eth1" -> in centosv0
> BOOTPROTO="static"
> HWADDR="60:A4:4C:23:2F:4E"
> NM_CONTROLLED="yes"
> ONBOOT="yes"
> TYPE="Ethernet"
> #UUID="f7f020e9-36a4-4f55-9ed2-81acc2dbd92f"
> IPV6INIT=yes
> IPV6ADDR=fc00:2:3:5::1/64

> DEVICE="eth1"  ---> in centosv1
> BOOTPROTO="static"
> HWADDR="60:A4:4C:23:2F:6E"
> NM_CONTROLLED="yes"
> ONBOOT="yes"
> TYPE="Ethernet"
> #UUID="3597af05-199b-4eef-9a24-610c2872f313"
> IPV6INIT=yes
> IPV6ADDR=fc00:2:3:4::1/64

> DEVICE="eth2" ---> in centosv1
> BOOTPROTO=static
> HWADDR="60:A4:4C:23:2F:6F"
> NM_CONTROLLED="yes"
> ONBOOT="yes"
> TYPE="Ethernet"
> #UUID="0ddcf499-878f-4ac7-9d1a-c27f85d2bccf"
> IPV6INIT=yes
> IPV6ADDR=fc00:2:3::4/64
> IPV6_DEFAULTGW=fc00:2:3::5

> and restart the network:
> [root@centosv0 network-scripts]# /etc/init.d/network restart
> Shutting down interface eth1:  [  OK  ]
> Shutting down interface eth2:  [  OK  ]
> Shutting down interface eth3:  [  OK  ]
> Shutting down loopback interface:  [  OK  ]
> Bringing up loopback interface:[  OK  ]
> Bringing up interface eth1:[  OK  ]
> Bringing up interface eth2:[  OK  ]
> Bringing up interface eth3:[  OK  ]

> It work now, thanks a lot, lot, lot

Great!  Good to see you've made progress!

> Now, why ubuntu 12.04 and centos 6.3 are so different?
> Is that because ubunutu 12.04 uses 3.5 kernel, and centos uses 2.6.32 ?

No.  Actually I suspect it's more in the supporting scripts and
infrastructure.  The RedHat base distros (RH, Fedora, CentOS, SL, NST,
etc) and the Debian based distros (Ubuntu, Knoppix, Backtrack, etc) have
based their network support on different paradigms (and is probably the
PRIMARY reason why I dislike Debian, Knoppix and Ubuntu in their network
code).

Historically, the RH based system is (VERY) loosely based on some of the
ideas that evolved out of the AT&T SYSV system with separate
configuration files, the classical init scripts are still referred to as
the sysv-init stuff, and what not.  NetworkManager aka NetworkMangler
and systemd are throwing all that for a loop lately with some
improvements and some abject debacles.

OTOH, Debian was more in-line with the BSD (Berkeley Software
Distribution) philosophy and their network interfaces and a common init
configuration file.

The RH derivative scripts for IPv6 support are largely based on the work
of Peter Bieringer in the ipv6init scripts (to which I had some minor
input and contributions).  I honestly don't know what Debian / Ubuntu is
using but there are some very significant deviations in behavior and
filter

[CentOS] phpmyadmin location

[Bruce Whealton]

Hello all,
 So, I installed phpmyadmin from the yum package manager.  I am not
sure where it would be installed.  In other words, I don't know how to reach
it in my browser.  
Can someone help me, please,
Thanks,
Bruce

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] phpmyadmin location

[Alexander Dalloz]

Am 13.04.2013 19:33, schrieb Bruce Whealton:
> Hello all,
>  So, I installed phpmyadmin from the yum package manager.  I am not
> sure where it would be installed.  In other words, I don't know how to reach
> it in my browser.  
> Can someone help me, please,
> Thanks,
> Bruce

rpm -qlv phpmyadmin | less

Alexander

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] New Trojan Backdoor Malware Targets Mac OS X And Linux, Steals Passwords And Keystrokes - Forbes

[ken]

First appeared in August of last year.  Is there perhaps a newer version 
of this around?


___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] phpmyadmin location

[Scott Robbins]

On Sat, Apr 13, 2013 at 01:33:10PM -0400, Bruce Whealton wrote:
> Hello all,
>  So, I installed phpmyadmin from the yum package manager.  I am not
> sure where it would be installed.  In other words, I don't know how to reach
> it in my browser.  
> Can someone help me, please,
> Thanks,
> Bruce

You'd be better off googling for a phpmyadmin tutorial.  I would look in
/etc/init.d to see if there's a new service in there.o 

Ah, putting phpmyadmin on CentOS into google comes up with 


http://www.cyberciti.biz/faq/centos-fedora-redhat-linux-installing-phpmyadmin-webtool/

on the very first hit. 

Apparently, you then edit a conf.d file and take it from there.


-- 
Scott Robbins
PGP keyID EB3467D6
( 1B48 077D 66F6 9DB0 FDC2 A409 FA54 EB34 67D6 )
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys EB3467D6

___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos