Re: [CentOS] Prevent network setup from changing the hostname

[Scott Robbins]

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 08:08:49PM -0500, Robert Nichols wrote:


> >What about this:
> >
> >hostnamectl set-hostname whateveryouwant
> 
> # which hostnamectl
> /usr/bin/which: no hostnamectl in 
> (/usr/lib64/qt-3.3/bin:/usr/local/sbin:/usr/local/bin:/sbin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/usr/bin:/root/bin)
> # yum provides \*/hostnamectl
>   '''
> No Matches found
> 

> Apparently does not exist for CentOS 6.

No, it's a systemd thing, I think, started with RHEL7.

I've always used /etc/sysconfig/network for the hostname entry, which works
through CentOS-6.x
-- 
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

Re: [CentOS] Centos security update

[Venkateswara Rao Dokku]

Thanks for the replies. The tool that we used for testing the security
vulnerability is "Nessus".

I have glibc version 2.17-78.el7, I saw that CVE-2015-0235 (Ghost) is fixed
in this version and I want to apply patch for the vulnerbailities
CVE-2015-1472 & CVE-2015-1473. Can you please help me in finding the right
version that has fixes for these?

Thanks

On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 1:05 AM,  wrote:

> John R Pierce wrote:
> > On 4/24/2015 12:14 PM, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
> >> Am 24.04.2015 um 11:21 schrieb Venkateswara Rao Dokku:
> >>> I was using CentOS 7 and when I ran some custom commercial security
> >>> scan on
> >>> my machine, I found about 122 vulnerabilities.
> >>
> >> That's why those scans are wasted money. From a security management
> >> point of view they neither help you nor your manager.
> >
> > I call it 'security by bullet list'
>
> I would be more interested if the OP had mentioned *what* "custom
> commercial security scan" tool they'd used.
>
>
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>



-- 
Thanks & Regards,
Venkateswara Rao Dokku.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Gordon Messmer  wrote:

> I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with 
> /bin/sh.  I interpret your statement to mean that if a user is using ksh 
> and enters the path to such a script, it would also run in ksh.  That 
> would only be true if you "sourced" the script from your shell.

The historical way is: there is only one shell and all scripts are Bourne Shell 
scripts.

Then csh came out and some people really thought is was a good idea to write 
csh scripts. So someone decided to mark csh scripts with an initial "#".
Note that at that time, the Bourne Shell did not support "#" as a comment sign
and thus scripts with an inital "#" have been illegal Bourne Shell scripts.

Later BSD came out with #!name and all but AT&T adopted to this.

In the mid 1980s, AT&T introduced an initial ":" to mark Bourne Shell scripts.

In 1989, with the beginning of SVr4, even AT&T introduced #!name, but the AT&T 
variant of the OS did not correct their scripts, so if you are on a UnixWare 
installation, you will have fun.

Unfortunately, POSIX cannot standardize #!name. This is because POSIX does not 
standardize PATHs and because the scripts marked that way would need to be 
scripts that call the POSIX shell. The official method to get a POSIX shell is 
to call this:

sh  # to make sure you have a Bourne Shell alike
PATH=`getconf PATH` # to get a POSIX compliant PATH
sh  # to get a POSIX shell, that muust be the first
# 'sh' in the POSIX PATH

/bin/sh definitely does not start a POSIX shell.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

John R Pierce  wrote:

> oh fun, just did some tests (using c6.latest).   if you're in bash, 
> ./script (sans shebang) runs it in bash.  if you're in dash or csh, 
> ./script runs it in sh.if you're in ksh, it runs it in ksh.

See my other mail.

The scripts (unless marked) are run by the current interpreter. Csh
runs unmarked scripts by "sh".

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Boot message of a modprobe.d conf file that does not exist

[Leon Fauster]

Am 26.04.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Tim :
> Hi all,
> 
> I got a message at boot:
> dracut-pre-udev: libkmod: kmod_config_parse:
> /etc/modprobe.d/thinkpad_battery.conf line 2: ignoring bad line starting
> with 'options'
> 
> I have had this file to load modules for my thinkpad (acpi_call &
> tp_smapi) but I removed it after recompiling the modules for a new
> kernel and using "make install load".
> 
> My question is, why this nonexistent file is still demanded.


did you rebuild the initramfs?


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

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Valeri Galtsev  wrote:

>
> 
> #!/bin/sh
>
> readlink /proc/$$/file
> 
>
> ( note that that "file" is because I'm using FreeBSD /proc, for Linux you
> may need to replace the line with something like:
>
> readlink /proc/$$/exe

And on a platform that implements a correct procfs-2, you should look at:

/proc/self/path/a.out
or
/proc/$$/path/a.out

This seems to be unknown e.g. to people from the FSF, so many autoconf tests 
are wrong.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Stephen Harris  wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 10:38:25AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> > Fascinating. As I'd been in Sun OS, and started doing admin work when it
> > became Solaris, I'd missed that bit. A question: did the license agreement
> > include payment, or was it just restrictive on distribution?
>
> In 1990, when I started using ksh88, it was totally commercial.  Binaries
> were $$$ and source was .  We bought the source and compiled it for
> SunOS, Ultrix and various SYSVr[23] machines (one machine was so old it
> didn't understand #! and so needed it placed as /bin/sh).

But around 1991 1992, the first Solaris-2.x (SunOS-5.1) came out and this 
included the Korn Shell for no additional costs.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Stephen Harris  wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 09:47:24AM -0700, Gordon Messmer wrote:
> > On 04/24/2015 03:57 AM, Pete Geenhuizen wrote:
> > >if you leave it out the script will run in whatever environment it
> > >currently is in.
> > 
> > I'm reasonably certain that a script with no shebang will run with 
> > /bin/sh.  I interpret your statement to mean that if a user is using ksh 
>
> "It depends".
>
> On older Unix-type systems which didn't understand #! then the shell
> itself did the work.  At least csh did (sh didn't necessary).  If the
> first character was a # then csh assumed it was a csh script, otherwise
> it assumed a sh script.  That's why a lot of real old scripts began with :

As mentioned in the other mail, nearly all UNIX versions did support #! in the
mid-1980s. The only exception was AT&T.

Even the first (realtime) UNIX clone UNOS added support for #! in 1985, but 
this support was not in the kernel but in the standard command interpreter.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

 wrote:

> Ah. I don't remember if I was using csh, or ksh, and didn't realize about
> bash. I *think* I vaguely remember that sh seemed to be more capable than
> I remembered.

If you like to check what the Bourne Shell did support in the late 1980s, I 
recommend you to fetch recent Schily tools from:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/

compile and install and test "osh".

This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been 
added with Svr4:

-   multibyte character support. In the 1980s, the Bourne Shell was just
8-bit clean.

-   job-control. If you do not call "jsh", or if you switch off jobcontrol
via "set +m" in a job shell, you have the job-control related builtins
but there is no processgroup management.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Les Mikesell  wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 24, 2015 at 3:04 PM,   wrote:
> > >
> > My first RH was 5, late nineties. First time I looked at linux and
> > installed, it was '95, and slack. (We'll ignore the Coherent that I
> > installed on my beloved 286 in the late 80's).
> > 
>
> You mean you missed all the fun with Xenix on Radio Shack Model 16's
> and SysV on AT&T's weird 3b machines?

You do not neet to ;-)

I started with UNOS in 1982 as my first UNIX like. UNOS in fact was the first 
UNIX clone and it was a real time OS.

In February 1985, I switched to a Sunthe first Sun that made it to Europe.



Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Warren Young]

On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling 
 wrote:
> 
> This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has been 
> added with Svr4:

Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell?

  http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html

I see that you already wrote up the differences between osh and bosh in an 
earlier post.  Is there a good reason why these comparisons are not on the 
Schily Tools web page already? :)
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Warren Young  wrote:

> On Apr 27, 2015, at 4:38 AM, Joerg Schilling 
>  wrote:
> > 
> > This is the SVr4 Bourne Shell, so you need to take into account what has 
> > been 
> > added with Svr4:
>
> Is there any difference between your osh and the Heirloom Bourne Shell?
>
>   http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/sh.html

Heirloom did make quick and dirty ports and then stopped working.

Heirloom e.g. did make the same attempt to port to platforms that may cause 
problems with own malloc() implemenetaions:

-   add a private malloc for sh internal use based on mmap().

This however caused problems with some Linux distros that have been reported 
against my old Bourne Shell port, so I assume the same problems exist with 
Heirloom.

Heirloom added support for uname -S and for some linux ulimit extensions but 
then stopped working on the code after a few months

You still cannot get a working Bourne Shell from heirloom that behaves exactly 
like the Solaris shell.

My code added a lot more new features and it converted the code cleanly to use 
malloc() from libc. My code also allows all the modifications to be disabled 
via #ifdef's. This happens with "osh".

My code is actively maintained and fixed _all_ documented historic bugs, see:

http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/bourne/



> I see that you already wrote up the differences between osh and bosh in an 
> earlier post.  Is there a good reason why these comparisons are not on the 
> Schily Tools web page already? :)

The schily tools act as a container to publish the current code state. There is 
no such maintained web page. Given the fact that Sven Maschek wrote down a lot, 
it seems the information is still here.

I would be interested to understand why Heirloom seems to so well known and my 
portability attempts seem to be widely unknown.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Les Mikesell]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Joerg Schilling
 wrote:
> >
> I would be interested to understand why Heirloom seems to so well known and my
> portability attempts seem to be widely unknown.
>

Not sure why it matters with a standalone application like sh, but I
think a lot of people have been put off by the GPL incompatibility
with your tools.   If you want popularity - and usability, a
dual-license would work as perl shows.

-- 
Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Lamar Owen]

On 04/27/2015 06:43 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
I started with UNOS in 1982 as my first UNIX like. UNOS in fact was 
the first UNIX clone and it was a real time OS. In February 1985, I 
switched to a Sunthe first Sun that made it to Europe. Jörg 


Charles River UNOS was actually Tandy's first non-TRSDOS choice for the 
Model 16; Microsoft won the platform to Xenix by threatening to withhold 
BASIC and Multiplan for all other Tandy platforms if Tandy went UNOS 
[1].  Xenix on the 16 in 1987 was my first Un*x system (starring out a 
letter in Unix was to keep from trademark violations..) and 3B1 
Convergent-written AT&T-labeled SVR2 was the second, with the oddball 
Apollo Domain/OS (change an environment variable and change the system 
from 4.2BSD to SVR3!) the third.  A QIC-120 packaging of SLS by Mac's 
Place BBS was my fourth [2], and I've used Linux in some form ever since.


How is this related to CentOS?  Peripherally only, in that there was 
once a Project-16 newsletter post to comp.sys.tandy about the 16B made 
by one John M. Hughes (bang-path e-mail address of 
noao!coyote!moondog!proj16) back in January of 1991 [3]...I would 
love to come across a collection of these, as my main box at that time 
(running C-News) was a T6K with a pair of Rodime 70MB drives and a 
Maxtor XT-1140 140MB drive for the news spool.


[1]: Post to comp.sys.tandy by Frank Durda IV on November 13, 2001, 
archived at http://www.dogpatch.com/misc/tandy_xenix_history.html among 
other places.  A fun and grin-inducing read.
[2]: Posting by John McNamara to comp.os.linux on April 6, 1993 subject: 
"Linux free by mail" (search on google groups for it)
[3]: Posting to comp.sys.tandy by John Hughes, January 9, 1991 subject: 
"Project 16 - Tandy 16/6000 Newsletter and Mailing List"

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

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Warren Young]

On Apr 27, 2015, at 9:07 AM, Joerg Schilling 
 wrote:
> 
> Heirloom added support for uname -S and for some linux ulimit extensions but 
> then stopped working on the code after a few months

Ah.  I had no idea it was in a state of disrepair.

>> I see that you already wrote up the differences between osh and bosh in an 
>> earlier post.  Is there a good reason why these comparisons are not on the 
>> Schily Tools web page already? :)
> 
> The schily tools act as a container to publish the current code state. There 
> is 
> no such maintained web page.

I was referring to the summary on the SourceForge page, where you just list the 
contents of the package without explaining why one would want to download it.

> I would be interested to understand why Heirloom seems to so well known and 
> my 
> portability attempts seem to be widely unknown.

I can think of several explanations:

1. The Heirloom pages explain what features each download provides, rather than 
just give a list of program names.

If you tell me that I can download “bsh”, I have no idea why I want bsh based 
solely on its name.  If you tell me that I can download “od”, I reply that I 
already have a functioning version of od, thank you very much. :)

2. Many of those who might be interested in your osh are already well served by 
the Ancient Unix V7 + SIMH combination:

  http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/ancient/

You are left with the subset of people who want to run something other than the 
shells that come with their OS, and who want it to run natively.

I should point out that a lot of people using the Ancient Unix images actually 
don’t want old bugs fixed.

3. It’s not clear from the files I’ve peeked into in your source distribution 
when bsh first became available in an OSI-approved form, but it seems to be 
sometime in the 2005-2007 range.

If that is true, then bsh is several years late to fill a gap already filled by 
ash, in the same way that the prior existence of bash makes the open-source 
version of ksh93 uninteresting to most people.

This is why you need a web page to sell your project: to explain why someone 
should abandon bash, zsh, ash, dash, posh, ksh93u+, mksh…

4. CDDL annoys a lot of people.  Yes, I know, GPL annoys a lot of people, too.  
But again, you’re going up against ash, which is BSD, which annoys almost no 
one. :)
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Les Mikesell  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:07 AM, Joerg Schilling
>  wrote:
> > >
> > I would be interested to understand why Heirloom seems to so well known and 
> > my
> > portability attempts seem to be widely unknown.
> >
>
> Not sure why it matters with a standalone application like sh, but I
> think a lot of people have been put off by the GPL incompatibility
> with your tools.   If you want popularity - and usability, a
> dual-license would work as perl shows.

??? There is nothing different with heirloom.

And the problem is the GPL. I recommend you to work on making all GPL code 
freely combinable with other OSS.

My code is fully legal and there is absolutely no license problem with it.

Just do not follow the false claims from some OSS enemies...and believe the 
lawyers that checked my code ;-)

My code was audited by "Sun legal", "Oracle legal" and by the legal department 
from SuSe. 

Question: when will RedHat follow the legal audits from these companies?

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Fwd: Cross Building Tcl using Mingw32-gcc (4.9.2)

[Robert Heller]

I posted this to the comp.lang.tcl newsgroup, but it might relate to a
possible bug in the Mingw32 cross-build environment under CentOS 6 (or EPEL).

Forwarded Message:

From: Robert Heller 
Subject: Cross Building Tcl using Mingw32-gcc (4.9.2)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.tcl
Message-ID: 
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 10:32:01 -0500


I am trying to cross-build Tcl (8.5.8) and I have encounted two problems:

One I easily hacked the sources (wrapped the offending lines with #ifdefs):

./../generic/tclPosixStr.c:347:5: error: duplicate case value
 case EPFNOSUPPORT: return "EPFNOSUPPORT";
 ^
./../generic/tclPosixStr.c:290:5: error: previously used here
 case ENOPROTOOPT: return "ENOPROTOOPT";
 ^
./../generic/tclPosixStr.c: In function 'Tcl_ErrnoMsg':
./../generic/tclPosixStr.c:795:5: error: duplicate case value
 case EPFNOSUPPORT: return "protocol family not supported";
 ^
./../generic/tclPosixStr.c:738:5: error: previously used here
 case ENOPROTOOPT: return "bad protocol option";
 ^

The other I am not sure how to fix:

i686-w64-mingw32-gcc -c -O2 -fomit-frame-pointer -Wall  -I"../../generic" 
-DTCL_TOMMATH -DMP_PREC=4 -I"../../libtommath" -I".." -DPACKAGE_NAME=\"\" 
-DPACKAGE_TARNAME=\"\" -DPACKAGE_VERSION=\"\" -DPACKAGE_STRING=\"\" 
-DPACKAGE_BUGREPORT=\"\" -DSTDC_HEADERS=1 -DHAVE_NO_SEH=1 
-DHAVE_NO_LPFN_DECLS=1 -DHAVE_ALLOCA_GCC_INLINE=1 -DHAVE_CAST_TO_UNION=1 
-DTCL_CFGVAL_ENCODING=\"cp1252\" -DHAVE_SYS_TYPES_H=1 -DHAVE_SYS_STAT_H=1 
-DHAVE_STDLIB_H=1 -DHAVE_STRING_H=1 -DHAVE_MEMORY_H=1 -DHAVE_STRINGS_H=1 
-DHAVE_INTTYPES_H=1 -DHAVE_STDINT_H=1 -DHAVE_UNISTD_H=1 -DTCL_CFG_OPTIMIZED=1 
-DTCL_CFG_DEBUG=1   -DBUILD_tcl "../tclWin32Dll.c" -o tclWin32Dll.o
./tclWin32Dll.c:65:3: error: conflicting types for 'EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION'
 } EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION;
   ^
In file included from 
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/minwindef.h:146:0,
 from /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/windef.h:8,
 from /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/windows.h:69,
 from ../tclWinPort.h:72,
 from ../../generic/tclPort.h:25,
 from ../../generic/tclInt.h:3946,
 from ../tclWinInt.h:17,
 from ../tclWin32Dll.c:16:
/usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/include/winnt.h:3554:43: note: previous 
declaration of 'EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION' was here
 typedef EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION_RECORD EXCEPTION_REGISTRATION;
   ^

Is there a solution possible?  This looks like internal inconsistency with the 
header files that are part of the build toolchain.



-- 
Robert Heller -- 978-544-6933
Deepwoods Software-- Custom Software Services
http://www.deepsoft.com/  -- Linux Administration Services
hel...@deepsoft.com   -- Webhosting Services
  
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Les Mikesell]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Joerg Schilling
 wrote:
> >
> And the problem is the GPL. I recommend you to work on making all GPL code
> freely combinable with other OSS.

Of course the problem it the GPL.  Glad you recognize that.  It's
whole point is the restriction against linking with anything with an
incompatible license which obviously prevents a lot of best-of-breed
combinations.

> My code is fully legal and there is absolutely no license problem with it.

Umm, no.  Larry Wall clearly understood this eons ago.

> Just do not follow the false claims from some OSS enemies...and believe the
> lawyers that checked my code ;-)
>
> My code was audited by "Sun legal", "Oracle legal" and by the legal department
> from SuSe.

Sure, there is nothing 'wrong' with your licence as long as it isn't
mixed with anything with different restrictions.   Just don't act
surprised that the code doesn't get used in projects that have to
accommodate GPL restrictions.

> Question: when will RedHat follow the legal audits from these companies?

Question:  If _you_ believe that it is OK to mix your code with GPL'd
code, why not add the dual licensing statement  that would make it
clear for everyone else?   It doesn't take anything away - unless you
really don't want it to be used in other projects.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Warren Young  wrote:

> > The schily tools act as a container to publish the current code state. 
> > There is 
> > no such maintained web page.
>
> I was referring to the summary on the SourceForge page, where you just list 
> the contents of the package without explaining why one would want to download 
> it.

I thought I don't need to make advertizing for well known software.

I manage the only actively maintained portable Bourne Shell and I do so
as well for SCCS.


> > I would be interested to understand why Heirloom seems to so well known and 
> > my 
> > portability attempts seem to be widely unknown.
>
> I can think of several explanations:
>
> 1. The Heirloom pages explain what features each download provides, rather 
> than just give a list of program names.

The problem is that the developes page cannot contain much information and in 
general, I prefer to code than to write advertizing.


> If you tell me that I can download ?bsh?, I have no idea why I want bsh based 
> solely on its name.  If you tell me that I can download ?od?, I reply that I 
> already have a functioning version of od, thank you very much. :)

Bsh is mainly in schily tools to show people how the first shell with an 
interactive editable history did look like. Bsh != Bourne Shell.
It was named bsh because I implemented my history editor at H. Berthold AG
while working on a depanded page variant of UNOS.

> 2. Many of those who might be interested in your osh are already well served 
> by the Ancient Unix V7 + SIMH combination:
>
>   http://www.in-ulm.de/~mascheck/various/ancient/
>
> You are left with the subset of people who want to run something other than 
> the shells that come with their OS, and who want it to run natively.
>
> I should point out that a lot of people using the Ancient Unix images 
> actually don?t want old bugs fixed.
>
> 3. It?s not clear from the files I?ve peeked into in your source distribution 
> when bsh first became available in an OSI-approved form, but it seems to be 
> sometime in the 2005-2007 range.
>
> If that is true, then bsh is several years late to fill a gap already filled 
> by ash, in the same way that the prior existence of bash makes the 
> open-source version of ksh93 uninteresting to most people.
>
> This is why you need a web page to sell your project: to explain why someone 
> should abandon bash, zsh, ash, dash, posh, ksh93u+, mksh?

I am not interested in working against ksh93, as this is much closer to POSIX 
than the current Bourne Shell. The Bourne Shell however is a nice idea for the 
system shell in /bin/sh because it is faster than bash and as fast as ksh93 but 
much smaller (if you use the UNIX linker, you can implement lazy linking that 
causes it to be only 80 kB when interpreting scripts). See:

http://schillix.sourceforge.net/man/man1/ld.1.html

for the UNIX linker man page, -zlazyload


> 4. CDDL annoys a lot of people.  Yes, I know, GPL annoys a lot of people, 
> too.  But again, you?re going up against ash, which is BSD, which annoys 
> almost no one. :)

The CDDL does not annoy people, this is just a fairy tale from some OSS enemies.
BTW: I am of course not against ash, I just support the Bourne Shell.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Les Mikesell  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Joerg Schilling
>  wrote:
> > >
> > And the problem is the GPL. I recommend you to work on making all GPL code
> > freely combinable with other OSS.
>
> Of course the problem it the GPL.  Glad you recognize that.  It's
> whole point is the restriction against linking with anything with an
> incompatible license which obviously prevents a lot of best-of-breed
> combinations.

You should read the GPL and get help to understand it. The GPL does not forbid 
this linking. In contrary, the GPOL allows any GPLd program to be linked 
against any library under and license. If this was not thecase, you could not 
legally distribute binaries from GPLd programs.


> > My code is fully legal and there is absolutely no license problem with it.
>
> Umm, no.  Larry Wall clearly understood this eons ago.

???

> > Just do not follow the false claims from some OSS enemies...and believe the
> > lawyers that checked my code ;-)
> >
> > My code was audited by "Sun legal", "Oracle legal" and by the legal 
> > department
> > from SuSe.
>
> Sure, there is nothing 'wrong' with your licence as long as it isn't
> mixed with anything with different restrictions.   Just don't act
> surprised that the code doesn't get used in projects that have to
> accommodate GPL restrictions.


Again, don't follow the agitation from OSS enemies. You are of course wrong!


> > Question: when will RedHat follow the legal audits from these companies?
>
> Question:  If _you_ believe that it is OK to mix your code with GPL'd
> code, why not add the dual licensing statement  that would make it
> clear for everyone else?   It doesn't take anything away - unless you
> really don't want it to be used in other projects.

Why should I do something that is not needed?

But before you like to discuss things with me, I recommend you to first inform 
yourself correctly.

I if course _don't_ mix CDDLd code with GPLd code. 

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Les Mikesell]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Joerg Schilling
 wrote:
> >
> You should read the GPL and get help to understand it. The GPL does not forbid
> this linking. In contrary, the GPOL allows any GPLd program to be linked
> against any library under and license. If this was not thecase, you could not
> legally distribute binaries from GPLd programs.

You can't distribute GPLd programs unless 'the work as a whole' is
covered by the GPL.   There can't be a distinction between binary and
source since one is derived from the other.

>> > My code is fully legal and there is absolutely no license problem with it.
>>
>> Umm, no.  Larry Wall clearly understood this eons ago.
>
> ???

Odd, I expected you to be as smart as him.  He started with only the
'Artistic' license but quickly understood the issues when you need
part of the 'work as a whole' to include, say, linking in a
proprietary database driver as one component and GPL'd readline as
another, along with the code he wanted to be generally usable.  And he
did something about it.

>>
>> Sure, there is nothing 'wrong' with your licence as long as it isn't
>> mixed with anything with different restrictions.   Just don't act
>> surprised that the code doesn't get used in projects that have to
>> accommodate GPL restrictions.
>
>
> Again, don't follow the agitation from OSS enemies. You are of course wrong!

You don't have to 'follow' anything - just read the phrase 'work as a whole'.

>> Question:  If _you_ believe that it is OK to mix your code with GPL'd
>> code, why not add the dual licensing statement  that would make it
>> clear for everyone else?   It doesn't take anything away - unless you
>> really don't want it to be used in other projects.
>
> Why should I do something that is not needed?

My question is 'why not do it?'.   You don't lose anything but the
restrictions that you pretend aren't there since a dual license allows
you to choose the terms of the other if you prefer.  I don't like the
GPL restrictions either, but I just say so instead of pretending
otherwise.   A dual license is clearly needed unless your point is to
make people choose between either using your code or anything that is
GPL'd.

> But before you like to discuss things with me, I recommend you to first inform
> yourself correctly.
>
> I if course _don't_ mix CDDLd code with GPLd code.

So, you really don't want your code to be used?Then why ask why it
isn't popular?

-- 
 Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Warren Young]

On Apr 27, 2015, at 10:10 AM, Joerg Schilling 
 wrote:
> 
> Warren Young  wrote:
> 
>> I was referring to the summary on the SourceForge page, where you just list 
>> the contents of the package without explaining why one would want to 
>> download it.
> 
> I thought I don't need to make advertizing for well known software.

I first learned of its existence last week, and then only by coincidence to the 
present discussion.

I immediately disregarded it for the reasons I’ve already given.

If it wasn’t for this thread, I’d still be ignorant of the reasons why I should 
care about the existence of Schily Tools.

> the developes page cannot contain much information

SourceForge gives you a way to link to a page on another site.

> I prefer to code than to write advertizing.

Well, there’s your diagnosis, then.  Successful software requires advertising, 
whether F/OSS or not.

The original Bourne shell was advertised through the pages of CACM, in books, 
etc.  A search for “Schilling” on linuxjournal.com turns up nothing except for 
some references to cdrecord.

So, why do you expect that I should have stumbled across Schily Tools before 
now?

>> If you tell me that I can download ?bsh?, I have no idea why I want bsh 
>> based solely on its name.  If you tell me that I can download ?od?, I reply 
>> that I already have a functioning version of od, thank you very much. :)
> 
> Bsh is mainly in schily tools to show people how the first shell with an 
> interactive editable history did look like. Bsh != Bourne Shell.

Yes, I realize that osh is closer to the original Bourne shell.  My point is 
that you can’t expect people to just know, without having been told, why they 
want bsh, or osh, bosh, or smake, or…

Most of these tools compete with tools that are already in CentOS.  If you want 
people to use these instead, you’re not going to persuade many people with a 
tarball.

As for the tools that do not have equivalents in CentOS, the file name is not 
an explanation.

You can’t expect people to just blindly download the tarball, build it, install 
it, and then start reading man pages.  You have to entice people first.

This thread is accomplishing that to some extent.  I just think your time would 
be better spent writing such thoughts up on a web page somewhere, then linking 
to that from the SourceForge page.  You will reach many more people that way.

>> 4. CDDL annoys a lot of people.
> 
> The CDDL does not annoy people, this is just a fairy tale from some OSS 
> enemies.

The following irritates me, I am a “people,” and I am not an OSS enemy:

  http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue

> BTW: I am of course not against ash, I just support the Bourne Shell.

Like it or not, your shells are in competition against all the other shells 
that became available earlier than yours.  There is only so much free time in 
the world.  You can’t expect people to stop using something they’re already 
successfully using without some amount of persuasion.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Les Mikesell]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Warren Young  wrote:
> >
>>> 4. CDDL annoys a lot of people.
>>
>> The CDDL does not annoy people, this is just a fairy tale from some OSS 
>> enemies.
>
> The following irritates me, I am a “people,” and I am not an OSS enemy:
>
>   http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue

It is really the GPL that has the restriction preventing
'best-of-breed' components being combined, but it doesn't matter, it
isn't going to change.   I can see Sun being irritated with Linux
(and for good reason...) but isn't it time to let it go?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
  lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Les Mikesell  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:16 AM, Joerg Schilling
>  wrote:
> > >
> > You should read the GPL and get help to understand it. The GPL does not 
> > forbid
> > this linking. In contrary, the GPOL allows any GPLd program to be linked
> > against any library under and license. If this was not thecase, you could 
> > not
> > legally distribute binaries from GPLd programs.
>
> You can't distribute GPLd programs unless 'the work as a whole' is
> covered by the GPL.   There can't be a distinction between binary and
> source since one is derived from the other.

Now you just need to understand what "as a whole" means

Try to be clever and try to inform yourself before sending more fals claims as 
you did already.

Maybe you are a native english speaker and thus lazy with reading the GPL.
If you carefully read the GPL, you of course understand that it is _very_ 
careful 
about what parts the GPL applies to. It definitely does _not_ apply to the 
"complete source". 

If you have problems to understand the GPL, read one of the various comments 
from lawyers, but avoid Mr. Moglen - he is well known for intentionally writing 
false claims in the public and only uses correct lawful interpretations if he 
is in a private discussion.

> >> > My code is fully legal and there is absolutely no license problem with 
> >> > it.
> >>
> >> Umm, no.  Larry Wall clearly understood this eons ago.
> >
> > ???
>
> Odd, I expected you to be as smart as him.  He started with only the
> 'Artistic' license but quickly understood the issues when you need
> part of the 'work as a whole' to include, say, linking in a
> proprietary database driver as one component and GPL'd readline as
> another, along with the code he wanted to be generally usable.  And he
> did something about it.

The fact that there is GNU readline verifies that some people at FSF are in 
fact hostile against OSS. 

BTW: I don't need GNU readline as I have my owm history editor since August 
1984 ;-)

And fortunately, Larry didn't publish "patch" under GPL, so I was able to write 
a non-GPLd POSIX compliant patch (note that gpatch is not POSIX compliant).


> > Again, don't follow the agitation from OSS enemies. You are of course wrong!
>
> You don't have to 'follow' anything - just read the phrase 'work as a whole'.

You need to _understand_ the GPL and avoid to just lazyly read it as you did 
before. The GPL does _not_  apply to _everything_. The GPL just applies to the 
"work" that is under GPL. For the rest, you just need to include it under _any_ 
license and if you did ever carefully read the GPL, you of course did know that 
already.

There are parts in the GPL that read similar to: "under the terms and 
conditions of this license". These parts apply to GPL code only, but enforce 
all GPL rules.

There are other parts in th GPL that read similar to: "under the terms and 
conditions of paragraph xxx". And these parts just require you to follow the 
rules in the named part of the GPL but not to more! These parts apply to what 
the GPL addresses when speaking about the "complete source".

Fazit: The GPL does not require you to put everything under GPL. It just 
requires you to include makefiles, scripts and libraries under any license that 
permits redistribution.

> >> Question:  If _you_ believe that it is OK to mix your code with GPL'd
> >> code, why not add the dual licensing statement  that would make it
> >> clear for everyone else?   It doesn't take anything away - unless you
> >> really don't want it to be used in other projects.
> >
> > Why should I do something that is not needed?
>
> My question is 'why not do it?'.   You don't lose anything but the
> restrictions that you pretend aren't there since a dual license allows
> you to choose the terms of the other if you prefer.  I don't like the
> GPL restrictions either, but I just say so instead of pretending
> otherwise.   A dual license is clearly needed unless your point is to
> make people choose between either using your code or anything that is
> GPL'd.

If I did add the GPL to my code, I would not win anything, because antisocial 
people would still prevent it from being included in Debian or RedHat.

I would however risk that people send interesting patches as GPL only and this 
way prevent the freedom to use it by anybody.


> > But before you like to discuss things with me, I recommend you to first 
> > inform
> > yourself correctly.
> >
> > I if course _don't_ mix CDDLd code with GPLd code.
>
> So, you really don't want your code to be used?Then why ask why it
> isn't popular?

Please explain me why people believe RedHat or Centos is a good choice when 
there are people inside that write false claims on the GPL because they did not 
read it in a way that would allow them to understand the GPL?

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogsp

[CentOS] Find installed yum groups?

[Les Mikesell]

Is there an 'after the fact' way to find what yum groups are
installed, including ones that were added with 'yum groupinstall'
instead of the initial anaconda install?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
  lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos security update

[Jonathan Billings]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 02:39:30PM +0530, Venkateswara Rao Dokku wrote:
> Thanks for the replies. The tool that we used for testing the security
> vulnerability is "Nessus".
> 
> I have glibc version 2.17-78.el7, I saw that CVE-2015-0235 (Ghost) is fixed
> in this version and I want to apply patch for the vulnerbailities
> CVE-2015-1472 & CVE-2015-1473. Can you please help me in finding the right
> version that has fixes for these?

You have the latest glibc package available.

Checking upstream, Red Hat has their CVE information here:

https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2015-1472
https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2015-1473

If you look at the CVE page for the Ghost vulnerability
(https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2015-0235) it links to any
security advisories which would include an update.  Both 1472 and 1473
are marked as 'Low' impact so I suspect there won't be any updated
package to address it until later.

I would STRONGLY suggest against attempting to build your own glibc.

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

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Warren Young  wrote:

> Yes, I realize that osh is closer to the original Bourne shell.  My point is 
> that you can?t expect people to just know, without having been told, why they 
> want bsh, or osh, bosh, or smake, or?
>
> Most of these tools compete with tools that are already in CentOS.  If you 
> want people to use these instead, you?re not going to persuade many people 
> with a tarball.

Could you explain me why people did write gmake even though smake did exist 5 
years eralier already?

> > The CDDL does not annoy people, this is just a fairy tale from some OSS 
> > enemies.
>
> The following irritates me, I am a ?people,? and I am not an OSS enemy:
>
>   http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue

This is of course completely wrong.

I recommend you to read the GPL book from the Lawyers from Harald Welte.
They explain why a filesystem is not a derived work of the Linux kernel.

This of course in special true for ZFS as ZFS was not written for Linux and 
works without Linux already.

http://www.fokus.fraunhofer.de/usr/schillingftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Les Mikesell  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Warren Young  wrote:
> > >
> >>> 4. CDDL annoys a lot of people.
> >>
> >> The CDDL does not annoy people, this is just a fairy tale from some OSS 
> >> enemies.
> >
> > The following irritates me, I am a ?people,? and I am not an OSS enemy:
> >
> >   http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatAboutTheLicensingIssue
>
> It is really the GPL that has the restriction preventing
> 'best-of-breed' components being combined, but it doesn't matter, it
> isn't going to change.   I can see Sun being irritated with Linux
> (and for good reason...) but isn't it time to let it go?

We had much less problems is the people that use the GPL would understand the 
GPL.

If you combine ZFS and Linux, you create a permitted "collective work" and the 
GPL cannot extend it's rules to the CDDLd separate and independend work ZFS of 
course. 

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos security update

[Gordon Messmer]

On 04/27/2015 02:09 AM, Venkateswara Rao Dokku wrote:

Can you please help me in finding the right
version that has fixes for these?


Start by accessing Red Hat's CVE database:

https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/

If errata have been published for a CVE entry, they will be listed along 
with other details.

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

Re: [CentOS] Centos security update

[Valeri Galtsev]

On Mon, April 27, 2015 12:01 pm, Jonathan Billings wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 02:39:30PM +0530, Venkateswara Rao Dokku wrote:
>> Thanks for the replies. The tool that we used for testing the security
>> vulnerability is "Nessus".
>>
>> I have glibc version 2.17-78.el7, I saw that CVE-2015-0235 (Ghost) is
>> fixed
>> in this version and I want to apply patch for the vulnerbailities
>> CVE-2015-1472 & CVE-2015-1473. Can you please help me in finding the
>> right
>> version that has fixes for these?
>
> You have the latest glibc package available.
>
> Checking upstream, Red Hat has their CVE information here:
>
> https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2015-1472
> https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2015-1473
>
> If you look at the CVE page for the Ghost vulnerability
> (https://access.redhat.com/security/cve/CVE-2015-0235) it links to any
> security advisories which would include an update.  Both 1472 and 1473
> are marked as 'Low' impact so I suspect there won't be any updated
> package to address it until later.
>
> I would STRONGLY suggest against attempting to build your own glibc.
>

This reminds me about old times when RedHat was backporting security
patches to older versions of software (whenever applicable) thus keeping
the system secure, yet keeping all relying on software internals (which
may change with version) still working. This kind of makes "security
analyzers" relying on software versions more misleading than helpful.
Especially if the sysadmin does his job (sometimes we had to keep older
version in place working around some vulnerability to have our system not
vulnerable - e.g. turned off ciphers in case of "poodle"). I am not saying
anything about Nessus which I never used.

Having a good system, fully updated ( unnecessary services turned of, etc.
all done according to securing system checklist) would be the best thing
to have. Those security tools... I wish none of good sysadmins has less
knowledgeable supervisor armed with one or few of these vulnerability
checkers ;-)

Valeri


Valeri Galtsev
Sr System Administrator
Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics
Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics
University of Chicago
Phone: 773-702-4247

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

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Les Mikesell]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Joerg Schilling
 wrote:
> >>
>> You can't distribute GPLd programs unless 'the work as a whole' is
>> covered by the GPL.   There can't be a distinction between binary and
>> source since one is derived from the other.
>
> Now you just need to understand what "as a whole" means

Apparently we live in different universes.  Or at least countries -
where meanings are relative.  But it doesn't matter how either of us
understand it, what matters are how the legal system understands it in
our native countries.

> Try to be clever and try to inform yourself before sending more fals claims as
> you did already.
>
> Maybe you are a native english speaker and thus lazy with reading the GPL.
> If you carefully read the GPL, you of course understand that it is _very_ 
> careful
> about what parts the GPL applies to. It definitely does _not_ apply to the
> "complete source".

Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete.  And the normal
interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same
process at runtime unless there is an alternate interface-compatible
component with the same feature set.

> If you have problems to understand the GPL, read one of the various comments
> from lawyers, but avoid Mr. Moglen - he is well known for intentionally 
> writing
> false claims in the public and only uses correct lawful interpretations if he
> is in a private discussion.

No one is interested in setting themselves up for a legal challenge
with opposing views by experts.

> And fortunately, Larry didn't publish "patch" under GPL, so I was able to 
> write
> a non-GPLd POSIX compliant patch (note that gpatch is not POSIX compliant).

Larry is a nice guy.  He doesn't want to cause trouble for anyone.
Apparently that's not universal

>>
>> You don't have to 'follow' anything - just read the phrase 'work as a whole'.
>
> You need to _understand_ the GPL and avoid to just lazyly read it as you did
> before. The GPL does _not_  apply to _everything_. The GPL just applies to the
> "work" that is under GPL. For the rest, you just need to include it under 
> _any_
> license and if you did ever carefully read the GPL, you of course did know 
> that
> already.

It applies to everything copyright law applies to since it is really
copyright law that restricts distribution and the GPL simply provides
the exceptions.  There's a valid case for linked components to be
considered derivative works of each other if they require the other
for the work as a whole to be functional.

> Fazit: The GPL does not require you to put everything under GPL. It just
> requires you to include makefiles, scripts and libraries under any license 
> that
> permits redistribution.

Those are mentioned separately because they wouldn't be included as a
derivative work otherwise.

>> My question is 'why not do it?'.   You don't lose anything but the
>> restrictions that you pretend aren't there since a dual license allows
>> you to choose the terms of the other if you prefer.  I don't like the
>> GPL restrictions either, but I just say so instead of pretending
>> otherwise.   A dual license is clearly needed unless your point is to
>> make people choose between either using your code or anything that is
>> GPL'd.
>
> If I did add the GPL to my code, I would not win anything, because antisocial
> people would still prevent it from being included in Debian or RedHat.

Beg your pardon?   You lost me here.  If you remove the reason for
exclusion, what evidence do you have that the work would still be
excluded, other than perhaps your long history of keeping it from
being usable?

> I would however risk that people send interesting patches as GPL only and this
> way prevent the freedom to use it by anybody.

And that would be different howYou can't use them now.  And
worse, you've severely restricted the number of people who might offer
patches regardless of the license.

>> > But before you like to discuss things with me, I recommend you to first 
>> > inform
>> > yourself correctly.
>> >
>> > I if course _don't_ mix CDDLd code with GPLd code.
>>
>> So, you really don't want your code to be used?Then why ask why it
>> isn't popular?
>
> Please explain me why people believe RedHat or Centos is a good choice when
> there are people inside that write false claims on the GPL because they did 
> not
> read it in a way that would allow them to understand the GPL?

How do you imagine such a 'false claim' affects anyone's use of
released code and source or why it would be a factor in their choice?
Personally I can't reconcile RedHat's restriction on redistributing
binaries with the GPL's prohibition on additional restrictions, but
Centos makes that a non-issue.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
   lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Les Mikesell]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Joerg Schilling
 wrote:
> >
> If you combine ZFS and Linux, you create a permitted "collective work" and the
> GPL cannot extend it's rules to the CDDLd separate and independend work ZFS of
> course.

Which countries' copyright laws would permit that explicitly even when
some of the components' licenses prohibit it?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
  lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Route traffic through private IP for only certain hosts

[Gordon Messmer]

Thanks for providing a lot of information.  My first guess is that the 
remote hosts you're trying to reach don't have the routes that they 
require to use the IPSec tunnel.  You demonstrated that server 2 has the 
route it needs to reach the remote network, and that server 1 appears to 
be routing those packets properly.  All of the same setup has to exist 
on the other side.

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

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Les Mikesell  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Joerg Schilling
>  wrote:
> > >
> > If you combine ZFS and Linux, you create a permitted "collective work" and 
> > the
> > GPL cannot extend it's rules to the CDDLd separate and independend work ZFS 
> > of
> > course.
>
> Which countries' copyright laws would permit that explicitly even when
> some of the components' licenses prohibit it?

Fortunately, Europe and the USA declare the same parts of the GPL void, these
parts would prevent such a combination.

In the USA, the GPL is a legal construct called "license" for customer 
protection and a "license" is limited to only make claims that are listed in:
US Copyright law title 17 paragraph 106

The GPL makes claims that are in conflict with the law because these claims are 
not amongst what the list in the law permits and that are thus void.

The same parts of the GPL are void in the EU because they are writen in an 
ambiguous way. For customer protection, the rules for "general conditions" and 
these rules permit the customer to select the interpretation that is best for 
the customer in such a case.

Both legal systems have the same results: They prevent the GPL from using it's 
own interpretation os what a derivative work is and the rules from the laws 
apply instead. These rules make many combinations a "collective work" that is 
permitted. The cdrtools and ZFS on Linux match these rules - well, I assume 
that the ZFS integration code follows the rules that are needed for a clean 
collective work.

Cdrtools follow these rules:

-   No code from CDDL and GPL is mixed into a single file

-   Non-GPL code used in a colective work was implemented independently
from the GPLd parts and form a separate work that may be used without
the GPLd code as well.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Les Mikesell  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Joerg Schilling
>  wrote:
> > >>
> >> You can't distribute GPLd programs unless 'the work as a whole' is
> >> covered by the GPL.   There can't be a distinction between binary and
> >> source since one is derived from the other.
> >
> > Now you just need to understand what "as a whole" means
>
> Apparently we live in different universes.  Or at least countries -
> where meanings are relative.  But it doesn't matter how either of us
> understand it, what matters are how the legal system understands it in
> our native countries.

NO, you just still do not understand the legal rules that apply. I recommend 
you to inform yourself about the rules that apply. Fortunately all serious 
lawyers basically say the same here...


> > Maybe you are a native english speaker and thus lazy with reading the GPL.
> > If you carefully read the GPL, you of course understand that it is _very_ 
> > careful
> > about what parts the GPL applies to. It definitely does _not_ apply to the
> > "complete source".
>
> Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete.  And the normal
> interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same
> process at runtime unless there is an alternate interface-compatible
> component with the same feature set.

You of yourse need to understand what this means in a legal context and not in 
kitchen english...

> > If you have problems to understand the GPL, read one of the various comments
> > from lawyers, but avoid Mr. Moglen - he is well known for intentionally 
> > writing
> > false claims in the public and only uses correct lawful interpretations if 
> > he
> > is in a private discussion.
>
> No one is interested in setting themselves up for a legal challenge
> with opposing views by experts.

So could you please explain why all distros that asked specialized lawyers ship 
the original cdrtools and thos distros that do not did never ask a lawyer?

> > And fortunately, Larry didn't publish "patch" under GPL, so I was able to 
> > write
> > a non-GPLd POSIX compliant patch (note that gpatch is not POSIX compliant).
>
> Larry is a nice guy.  He doesn't want to cause trouble for anyone.
> Apparently that's not universal

I am also a nice guy who in interested in collaboration amongst OSS projects. 

BTW: I could relicense mkisofs to CDDL if I remove the apple HFS filesystem 
support. This is why the code originally from Eric Youngdale did drop much 
below 50%, it is even below 10%. I am a nice guy and leave things as they are 
as long as possible after I asked specialized lawyers. 

If you ask a lawyer, you will learn that you believed the wrong people before.

> > You need to _understand_ the GPL and avoid to just lazyly read it as you did
> > before. The GPL does _not_  apply to _everything_. The GPL just applies to 
> > the
> > "work" that is under GPL. For the rest, you just need to include it under 
> > _any_
> > license and if you did ever carefully read the GPL, you of course did know 
> > that
> > already.
>
> It applies to everything copyright law applies to since it is really
> copyright law that restricts distribution and the GPL simply provides
> the exceptions.  There's a valid case for linked components to be
> considered derivative works of each other if they require the other
> for the work as a whole to be functional.

Read the GPL, to learn that the GPL does not include the term "linking". The 
law applies instead and the law is related to the term "work" - not linking.

I explained already, that every part of the GPL that uses GPLs own definition 
of a derivative work is void because it is in conflict with the law.

BTW: It seems to be a progress that you now admit that parts that are usable 
separately are independend works. This applies to the cdrtools. You just need 
to check the cdrtools instead of listening to the false claims from the 
anti-social people at Debian.



> >> My question is 'why not do it?'.   You don't lose anything but the
> >> restrictions that you pretend aren't there since a dual license allows
> >> you to choose the terms of the other if you prefer.  I don't like the
> >> GPL restrictions either, but I just say so instead of pretending
> >> otherwise.   A dual license is clearly needed unless your point is to
> >> make people choose between either using your code or anything that is
> >> GPL'd.
> >
> > If I did add the GPL to my code, I would not win anything, because 
> > antisocial
> > people would still prevent it from being included in Debian or RedHat.
>
> Beg your pardon?   You lost me here.  If you remove the reason for
> exclusion, what evidence do you have that the work would still be
> excluded, other than perhaps your long history of keeping it from
> being usable?

There _never_ was any reason for exclusion.

You should verify that you are serious with your claims and include the 
original cdrtools now since there is no reason for exclusion: the claimed 
problems

[CentOS] CentOS 7.1 How to change panel background

[Globe Trotter]

Hi,
I just installed CentOS and have been trying to change the desktop panel 
background (in gnome classic) to black. How do I do this? Holding the alt 
button while right-clicking on the mouse does not seem to do anything. 

I do not have anything installed (other than what came with the LiveCD).
Many thanks!

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

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Always Learning]

On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 12:32 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:57 AM, Joerg Schilling
>  wrote:
> >
> > Now you just need to understand what "as a whole" means


> Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete.  And the normal
> interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same
> process at runtime unless there is an alternate interface-compatible
> component with the same feature set.

That may be the USA interpretation but on the other, European, side of
the Atlantic I believe

"as a whole" means generally BUT allowing for exceptions.


-- 
Regards,

Paul.
England, EU.  Je suis Charlie.


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

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Les Mikesell]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Joerg Schilling
 wrote:
> >
> The GPL makes claims that are in conflict with the law because these claims 
> are
> not amongst what the list in the law permits and that are thus void.

The GPL is all that  gives you permission to distribute.  If it is
void then you have no permission at all to distribute any covered
code.

> Both legal systems have the same results: They prevent the GPL from using it's
> own interpretation os what a derivative work is and the rules from the laws
> apply instead.

So apply copyright law without a license.  You can't distribute.   I
agree that the FSF interpretation about distributing source with the
intention that the end user does the link with other components is
pretty far off the wall, but static binaries are clearly one 'work as
a whole' and dynamic linkage is kind of fuzzy.US juries are
supposed to focus on intent and are pretty unpredictable - I wouldn't
want to take a chance on what they might decide.

> These rules make many combinations a "collective work" that is
> permitted. The cdrtools and ZFS on Linux match these rules - well, I assume
> that the ZFS integration code follows the rules that are needed for a clean
> collective work.

Can you point out a reference to case where this has been validated?
That is, a case where the only licence to distribute  a component of
something is the GPL and distribution is permitted by a court ruling
under terms where the GPL does not apply to the 'work as a whole'?

> Cdrtools follow these rules:
>
> -   No code from CDDL and GPL is mixed into a single file

How is 'a file' relevant to the composition of the translated binary
where the copyright clearly extends?   And why do you have any rules
if you think the GPL doesn't pose a problem with combining components?
  More to the point, why don't you eliminate any question about that
problem with a dual license on the code you control?

> -   Non-GPL code used in a colective work was implemented independently
> from the GPLd parts and form a separate work that may be used without
> the GPLd code as well.

How 'you' arrange them isn't the point.  Or even any individual who
builds something that isn't intended for redistribution.   But for
other people to consider them generally usable as components in
redistributable projects  there's not much reason to deal with the
inability to   combine with other widely used components.   What's the
point - and what do you have against the way perl handles it?

-- 
 Les Mikesell
   lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Find installed yum groups?

[Matthew Miller]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:58:08AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Is there an 'after the fact' way to find what yum groups are
> installed, including ones that were added with 'yum groupinstall'
> instead of the initial anaconda install?

Yes. "yum grouplist" will tell you the groups that are currently in the
installed state. Worth reading the manpage to see exactly what yum
thinks that "installed" means:

 Groups are marked as "installed" if all mandatory packages are
 installed, or if a group doesn’t have any mandatory packages then
 it is installed if any of the optional or default package are
 installed. [...]

-- 
Matthew Miller

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

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Les Mikesell]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Always Learning  wrote:
>
>> Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete.  And the normal
>> interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same
>> process at runtime unless there is an alternate interface-compatible
>> component with the same feature set.
>
> That may be the USA interpretation but on the other, European, side of
> the Atlantic I believe
>
> "as a whole" means generally BUT allowing for exceptions.

OK, great.  That clears it up then.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Les Mikesell  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:02 PM, Joerg Schilling
>  wrote:
> > >
> > The GPL makes claims that are in conflict with the law because these claims 
> > are
> > not amongst what the list in the law permits and that are thus void.
>
> The GPL is all that  gives you permission to distribute.  If it is
> void then you have no permission at all to distribute any covered
> code.

Fortunately judges know better than you

If you read the reasoning from judgements, you would know that judges just look 
at the parts of the GPL that are not in conflict with the law. Judges know that 
making the GPL void as a whole would be a desaster.


> > Both legal systems have the same results: They prevent the GPL from using 
> > it's
> > own interpretation os what a derivative work is and the rules from the laws
> > apply instead.
>
> So apply copyright law without a license.  You can't distribute.   I
> agree that the FSF interpretation about distributing source with the
> intention that the end user does the link with other components is
> pretty far off the wall, but static binaries are clearly one 'work as
> a whole' and dynamic linkage is kind of fuzzy.US juries are
> supposed to focus on intent and are pretty unpredictable - I wouldn't
> want to take a chance on what they might decide.

Given the fact that there is not a single trustworthy lawjer in the US that 
writes about the GPL and that follows your interpreation, I am relaxed.

> > These rules make many combinations a "collective work" that is
> > permitted. The cdrtools and ZFS on Linux match these rules - well, I assume
> > that the ZFS integration code follows the rules that are needed for a clean
> > collective work.
>
> Can you point out a reference to case where this has been validated?
> That is, a case where the only licence to distribute  a component of
> something is the GPL and distribution is permitted by a court ruling
> under terms where the GPL does not apply to the 'work as a whole'?

There was no court case, but VERITAS published a modifed version of gtar where 
additional code was added by binary only libraries from VERITAS. The FSF did 
never try to discuss this is public even though everybody did know about the 
existence. As long as the FSF does not try to sue VERITAS, we are safe - 
regardless what intentional nonsense you can read on the FSF webpages.

> > Cdrtools follow these rules:
> >
> > -   No code from CDDL and GPL is mixed into a single file
>
> How is 'a file' relevant to the composition of the translated binary
> where the copyright clearly extends?   And why do you have any rules
> if you think the GPL doesn't pose a problem with combining components?
>   More to the point, why don't you eliminate any question about that
> problem with a dual license on the code you control?

???

I completely follow the claims from both licenses, so there is no need to 
follow your wishes.

> > -   Non-GPL code used in a colective work was implemented independently
> > from the GPLd parts and form a separate work that may be used 
> > without
> > the GPLd code as well.
>
> How 'you' arrange them isn't the point.  Or even any individual who
> builds something that isn't intended for redistribution.   But for
> other people to consider them generally usable as components in
> redistributable projects  there's not much reason to deal with the
> inability to   combine with other widely used components.   What's the
> point - and what do you have against the way perl handles it?

You are of course wrong and you ignore everything I explained you before.

If your idesyncratic GPL interpretation was true, your whole Linux distro would 
be illegal. When do you withdraw your Linux distro?

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Chris Adams]

Can we take the license wanking off the list please?  I don't think
either of the people arguing are actually lawyers, so it has no
relevance.
-- 
Chris Adams 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Always Learning]

On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 14:21 -0500, Chris Adams wrote:

> Can we take the license wanking off the list please?  I don't think
> either of the people arguing are actually lawyers, so it has no
> relevance.

Relevance is not dependent on being, or not being, a lawyer. Relevance
for inclusion on the mailing list is a close connection to
Centos/RHEL :-)

-- 
Regards,

Paul.
England, EU.  Je suis Charlie.


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

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Les Mikesell  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:46 PM, Always Learning  wrote:
> >
> >> Yes, in english, 'work as a whole' does mean complete.  And the normal
> >> interpretation is that it covers everything linked into the same
> >> process at runtime unless there is an alternate interface-compatible
> >> component with the same feature set.
> >
> > That may be the USA interpretation but on the other, European, side of
> > the Atlantic I believe
> >
> > "as a whole" means generally BUT allowing for exceptions.
>
> OK, great.  That clears it up then.

Maybe this helps:

The BSD license does not permit to relicense the code, so you cannot put BSD 
code under the GPL. This was e.g. explained by Theo de Raath some years ago 
already. The result was that Linux people did remove the GPL header from all 
BSDd Linux source files that have not been 100% written by the same person that 
added the GPL header.

The BSD license permits to mix a source file under BSD license with some lines 
under a different license if you document this. But this is not done in all 
cases I am aware of.

Up to now, nobody could explain me how a mixture of GPL and BSD can be legal as 
this would require (when following the GPL) to relicense the BSD code under GPL
in order to make the whole be under GPL.

In other words, if you can legally combine BSD code with GPL code, you can do 
with GPL and CDDL as well.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[m . roth]

Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Les Mikesell  wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 12:10 PM, Joerg Schilling
>>  wrote:
>> > >
>> > If you combine ZFS and Linux, you create a permitted "collective
work" and the GPL cannot extend it's rules to the CDDLd separate and
independend
>> > work ZFS of course.
>>
>> Which countries' copyright laws would permit that explicitly even when
some of the components' licenses prohibit it?
>
> Fortunately, Europe and the USA declare the same parts of the GPL void,
these parts would prevent such a combination.

First, I was not aware that the US had declared any part of the GPL null
and void. Second, just to play Eris... which *version* of the GPL are you
talking about in this arguement, 1.x, 2.x, or 3.x?

mark



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

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

 wrote:

> First, I was not aware that the US had declared any part of the GPL null

Just ask US lawyers. one of them sits on the other side of the corridor of 
my office, another is the well known Lawrence Rosen.

For Europe check the reasoning of the cases from Harald Welte. One of them is 
very obvious when mentioning that the judge intentionally did look only at a 
single sentence from the GPL in order not to endanger the rights of Harald 
Welte.

> and void. Second, just to play Eris... which *version* of the GPL are you
> talking about in this arguement, 1.x, 2.x, or 3.x?

Add GPL-v0 for the GCC from 1986.

You should know what GPL version we are talking if you understand what we 
discuss.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Les Mikesell]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
 wrote:
>
>> The GPL is all that  gives you permission to distribute.  If it is
>> void then you have no permission at all to distribute any covered
>> code.
>
> Fortunately judges know better than you
>
> If you read the reasoning from judgements, you would know that judges just 
> look
> at the parts of the GPL that are not in conflict with the law. Judges know 
> that
> making the GPL void as a whole would be a desaster.

There is nothing in conflict with law about prohibiting distribution.
 And you cant' just unilaterally pick parts of the licence that
permits distribution that you like and ignore the rest.

>> So apply copyright law without a license.  You can't distribute.   I
>> agree that the FSF interpretation about distributing source with the
>> intention that the end user does the link with other components is
>> pretty far off the wall, but static binaries are clearly one 'work as
>> a whole' and dynamic linkage is kind of fuzzy.US juries are
>> supposed to focus on intent and are pretty unpredictable - I wouldn't
>> want to take a chance on what they might decide.
>
> Given the fact that there is not a single trustworthy lawjer in the US that
> writes about the GPL and that follows your interpreation, I am relaxed.

It's not 'my' interpretation.  Nor does my interpretation matter much.
It is the owners of the GPL licensed code that would be allowed to
claim damages if the GPL terms are not followed.  And what they have
published is that all of the runtime linked components are included in
the 'work as a whole' specification.I assume you are familiar with
RIPEM and the reason it could not be distributed until there was a
non-GNU implementation of  gmp.
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/gnu.misc.discuss/4RcHL5Jg14o[1-25]


>> Can you point out a reference to case where this has been validated?
>> That is, a case where the only licence to distribute  a component of
>> something is the GPL and distribution is permitted by a court ruling
>> under terms where the GPL does not apply to the 'work as a whole'?
>
> There was no court case, but VERITAS published a modifed version of gtar where
> additional code was added by binary only libraries from VERITAS. The FSF did
> never try to discuss this is public even though everybody did know about the
> existence. As long as the FSF does not try to sue VERITAS, we are safe -
> regardless what intentional nonsense you can read on the FSF webpages.

Hardly.  One instance by one set of code owners has nothing to do with
what some other code owner might do under other circumstances. If you
could quote a decision that set a precedent it might be a factor.

>> > Cdrtools follow these rules:
>> >
>> > -   No code from CDDL and GPL is mixed into a single file
>>
>> How is 'a file' relevant to the composition of the translated binary
>> where the copyright clearly extends?   And why do you have any rules
>> if you think the GPL doesn't pose a problem with combining components?
>>   More to the point, why don't you eliminate any question about that
>> problem with a dual license on the code you control?
>
> ???
>
> I completely follow the claims from both licenses, so there is no need to
> follow your wishes.

Unless, of course, you actually wanted the code to be used by others
or included as components of best-of-breed projects.

>> > -   Non-GPL code used in a colective work was implemented independently
>> > from the GPLd parts and form a separate work that may be used 
>> > without
>> > the GPLd code as well.
>>
>> How 'you' arrange them isn't the point.  Or even any individual who
>> builds something that isn't intended for redistribution.   But for
>> other people to consider them generally usable as components in
>> redistributable projects  there's not much reason to deal with the
>> inability to   combine with other widely used components.   What's the
>> point - and what do you have against the way perl handles it?
>
> You are of course wrong and you ignore everything I explained you before.

And likewise you ignore the fact that you would not lose anything with
a dual license other than the reason for frequent arguments.  And my
only question is 'why not'?

> If your idesyncratic GPL interpretation was true, your whole Linux distro 
> would
> be illegal. When do you withdraw your Linux distro?

How so?   Which process links GPL and non-GPL-compatible licensed code
into a single work?   No one has suggested that it is a problem to
distribute separate differently-licensed works together on the same
medium or run them on the same box.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Centos security update

[Johnny Hughes]

On 04/27/2015 04:09 AM, Venkateswara Rao Dokku wrote:
> Thanks for the replies. The tool that we used for testing the security
> vulnerability is "Nessus".
> 
> I have glibc version 2.17-78.el7, I saw that CVE-2015-0235 (Ghost) is fixed
> in this version and I want to apply patch for the vulnerbailities
> CVE-2015-1472 & CVE-2015-1473. Can you please help me in finding the right
> version that has fixes for these?
> 
> Thanks


I don't know how Nessus works, BUT it seems you need to load all the
CentOS Plugins to get it to understand the checks:

http://www.tenable.com/plugins/index.php?view=all&family=CentOS+Local+Security+Checks

I have NO IDEA if those are correct or how up2date they are, etc.  But
if you are not loading them, you have no chance of it understanding the
backporting that redhat does.

> 
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2015 at 1:05 AM,  wrote:
> 
>> John R Pierce wrote:
>>> On 4/24/2015 12:14 PM, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
 Am 24.04.2015 um 11:21 schrieb Venkateswara Rao Dokku:
> I was using CentOS 7 and when I ran some custom commercial security
> scan on
> my machine, I found about 122 vulnerabilities.

 That's why those scans are wasted money. From a security management
 point of view they neither help you nor your manager.
>>>
>>> I call it 'security by bullet list'
>>
>> I would be more interested if the OP had mentioned *what* "custom
>> commercial security scan" tool they'd used.




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Find installed yum groups?

[Johnny Hughes]

On 04/27/2015 01:47 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:58:08AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Is there an 'after the fact' way to find what yum groups are
>> installed, including ones that were added with 'yum groupinstall'
>> instead of the initial anaconda install?
> 
> Yes. "yum grouplist" will tell you the groups that are currently in the
> installed state. Worth reading the manpage to see exactly what yum
> thinks that "installed" means:
> 
>  Groups are marked as "installed" if all mandatory packages are
>  installed, or if a group doesn’t have any mandatory packages then
>  it is installed if any of the optional or default package are
>  installed. [...]
> 

But, I think that is a YUM database and not based on the RPM database,
so it is possible that you can have all the RPMs for a group installed
and not actually have it listed as installed.

At least I sometimes find myself in that position.  But I also wipe out
/var/cache/yum/ sometimes.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Les Mikesell]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joerg Schilling
 wrote:
> > >
>> > "as a whole" means generally BUT allowing for exceptions.
>>
>> OK, great.  That clears it up then.
>
> Maybe this helps:
>
> The BSD license does not permit to relicense the code, so you cannot put BSD
> code under the GPL.

Yes, if you mean what is described here as 'the original 4-clause'
license, or BSD-old:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

> The BSD license permits to mix a source file under BSD license with some lines
> under a different license if you document this. But this is not done in all
> cases I am aware of.

But you can't add the 'advertising requirement' of the 4-clause BSD to
something with a GPL component because additional restrictions are
prohibited.

> Up to now, nobody could explain me how a mixture of GPL and BSD can be legal 
> as
> this would require (when following the GPL) to relicense the BSD code under 
> GPL
> in order to make the whole be under GPL.
>
> In other words, if you can legally combine BSD code with GPL code, you can do
> with GPL and CDDL as well.

You can't do either if you are talking about the BSD-old license
(which also isn't accepted as open source by the OSI).   Fortunately,
the owners of the original/official BSD were nice guys and removed the
GPL incompatible clause, with the Revised BSD License being recognized
as both open source and GPL-compatible.   But that hasn't - and
probably can't - happen with CDDL, so the only working option is dual
licensing.

-- 
Les Mikesell
  lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Les Mikesell  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Joerg Schilling
>  wrote:
> > > >
> >> > "as a whole" means generally BUT allowing for exceptions.
> >>
> >> OK, great.  That clears it up then.
> >
> > Maybe this helps:
> >
> > The BSD license does not permit to relicense the code, so you cannot put BSD
> > code under the GPL.
>
> Yes, if you mean what is described here as 'the original 4-clause'
> license, or BSD-old:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades?


> > The BSD license permits to mix a source file under BSD license with some 
> > lines
> > under a different license if you document this. But this is not done in all
> > cases I am aware of.
>
> But you can't add the 'advertising requirement' of the 4-clause BSD to
> something with a GPL component because additional restrictions are
> prohibited.
>
> > Up to now, nobody could explain me how a mixture of GPL and BSD can be 
> > legal as
> > this would require (when following the GPL) to relicense the BSD code under 
> > GPL
> > in order to make the whole be under GPL.
> >
> > In other words, if you can legally combine BSD code with GPL code, you can 
> > do
> > with GPL and CDDL as well.
>
> You can't do either if you are talking about the BSD-old license
> (which also isn't accepted as open source by the OSI).   Fortunately,
> the owners of the original/official BSD were nice guys and removed the
> GPL incompatible clause, with the Revised BSD License being recognized
> as both open source and GPL-compatible.   But that hasn't - and
> probably can't - happen with CDDL, so the only working option is dual
> licensing.

It seems that you are not interested in a sesrious discussion.

The 4-clause BSD license is not a valid OSS license and all original BSD code 
was converted by addict of the president of UC-Berleley.

So you claim that there is 4-clause BSD code in the Linux kernel?
You are kidding :-(


Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Find installed yum groups?

[Les Mikesell]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 1:47 PM, Matthew Miller  wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 11:58:08AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Is there an 'after the fact' way to find what yum groups are
>> installed, including ones that were added with 'yum groupinstall'
>> instead of the initial anaconda install?
>
> Yes. "yum grouplist" will tell you the groups that are currently in the
> installed state. Worth reading the manpage to see exactly what yum
> thinks that "installed" means:
>
>  Groups are marked as "installed" if all mandatory packages are
>  installed, or if a group doesn’t have any mandatory packages then
>  it is installed if any of the optional or default package are
>  installed. [...]

Interesting, but it seems to _only_ show groups that weren't  included
in the anaconda install.   For example where the saved anaconda-ks-cfg
shows @gnome-desktop and @development, 'yum grouplist' only shows
'MATE Desktop' which was installed later.

What I am looking for is a succinct way to duplicate the full
installed package list that exists on an organically-developed
developed system (that is, where people added things until it all
worked), so equivalent systems can be created by a minimal install
followed by a scripted
yum install 'big list of stuff'.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Les Mikesell  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
>  wrote:
> >
> >> The GPL is all that  gives you permission to distribute.  If it is
> >> void then you have no permission at all to distribute any covered
> >> code.
> >
> > Fortunately judges know better than you
> >
> > If you read the reasoning from judgements, you would know that judges just 
> > look
> > at the parts of the GPL that are not in conflict with the law. Judges know 
> > that
> > making the GPL void as a whole would be a desaster.
>
> There is nothing in conflict with law about prohibiting distribution.
>  And you cant' just unilaterally pick parts of the licence that
> permits distribution that you like and ignore the rest.

There is no doubt that the GPL is on conflict with 

US Copyright law title 17 paragraph 106

if you believe that this makes the GPL void as a whole, verify that you are 
trying to be serious and stop shipping your Linux distro immediately!

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Les Mikesell]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Joerg Schilling
 wrote:
>>>
>> Yes, if you mean what is described here as 'the original 4-clause'
>> license, or BSD-old:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
>
> Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades?

The only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a
dual license to make your code as usable and probably as ubiquitous as
perl.   And you have not mentioned anything about how that might hurt
you.

>> > In other words, if you can legally combine BSD code with GPL code, you can 
>> > do
>> > with GPL and CDDL as well.
>>
>> You can't do either if you are talking about the BSD-old license
>> (which also isn't accepted as open source by the OSI).   Fortunately,
>> the owners of the original/official BSD were nice guys and removed the
>> GPL incompatible clause, with the Revised BSD License being recognized
>> as both open source and GPL-compatible.   But that hasn't - and
>> probably can't - happen with CDDL, so the only working option is dual
>> licensing.
>
> It seems that you are not interested in a sesrious discussion.

Not unless it is about how you or anyone else would be hurt by a dual
license.   Anything else is just ranting on both our parts.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
  lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Les Mikesell  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:04 PM, Joerg Schilling
>  wrote:
> >>>
> >> Yes, if you mean what is described here as 'the original 4-clause'
> >> license, or BSD-old:
> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses
> >
> > Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades?
>
> The only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a
> dual license to make your code as usable and probably as ubiquitous as
> perl.   And you have not mentioned anything about how that might hurt
> you.

I explained this to you in vast details. If you ignore this explanation, I 
cannot help you.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Les Mikesell]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joerg Schilling
 wrote:
> > >
>> > Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades?
>>
>> The only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a
>> dual license to make your code as usable and probably as ubiquitous as
>> perl.   And you have not mentioned anything about how that might hurt
>> you.
>
> I explained this to you in vast details. If you ignore this explanation, I
> cannot help you.

No, you posted some ranting misconceptions about why you don't see a
need for it.   But if you actually believed any of that yourself, then
you would see there was no harm in adding a dual license to make it
clear to everyone else.   It clearly has not hurt the popularity of
perl or BSD code to become GPL-compatible, nor has it forced anyone to
use that code only in GPL-compatible ways.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Find installed yum groups?

[Matthew Miller]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 03:45:16PM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> But, I think that is a YUM database and not based on the RPM database,
> so it is possible that you can have all the RPMs for a group installed
> and not actually have it listed as installed.
> At least I sometimes find myself in that position.  But I also wipe out
> /var/cache/yum/ sometimes.

I think the info of "what's in a group" comes from the yum cache, but
yum uses the actual state of the system (the rpm database) for what's
installed.

That's what I think. I guess we could look. :)

-- 
Matthew Miller

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

Re: [CentOS] Find installed yum groups?

[Matthew Miller]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 04:04:41PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Interesting, but it seems to _only_ show groups that weren't  included
> in the anaconda install.   For example where the saved anaconda-ks-cfg
> shows @gnome-desktop and @development, 'yum grouplist' only shows
> 'MATE Desktop' which was installed later.

Does the "hidden" flag help here?


-- 
Matthew Miller

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

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Joerg Schilling]

Les Mikesell  wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:19 PM, Joerg Schilling
>  wrote:
> > > >
> >> > Do you like to discuss things or do you like to throw smoke grenades?
> >>
> >> The only thing I'd like to discuss is your reason for not adding a
> >> dual license to make your code as usable and probably as ubiquitous as
> >> perl.   And you have not mentioned anything about how that might hurt
> >> you.
> >
> > I explained this to you in vast details. If you ignore this explanation, I
> > cannot help you.
>
> No, you posted some ranting misconceptions about why you don't see a
> need for it.   But if you actually believed any of that yourself, then
> you would see there was no harm in adding a dual license to make it
> clear to everyone else.   It clearly has not hurt the popularity of
> perl or BSD code to become GPL-compatible, nor has it forced anyone to
> use that code only in GPL-compatible ways.

Cdrtools are fully legal as they strictly follow all claims from the related 
licenses.

What problem do you have with fully legal code?

I explained that because cdrtools is legally distributable as is (see legal 
reviews from Sun, Oracle and Suse), there is no need to dual license anything.

I also explained that a dual licensed source will cause problems if people send 
e.g. a GPL only patch.

If you continue to claim not to have an answer from me, I need to assume that 
you are not interested in a serious discussion.

Conclusion: dual licensing is not helpful and it even has disadvantages.

Jörg

-- 
 EMail:jo...@schily.net(home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
   joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: 
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.org/private/ 
http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/'
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Les Mikesell]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Joerg Schilling
 wrote:
> >>
>> No, you posted some ranting misconceptions about why you don't see a
>> need for it.   But if you actually believed any of that yourself, then
>> you would see there was no harm in adding a dual license to make it
>> clear to everyone else.   It clearly has not hurt the popularity of
>> perl or BSD code to become GPL-compatible, nor has it forced anyone to
>> use that code only in GPL-compatible ways.
>
> Cdrtools are fully legal as they strictly follow all claims from the related
> licenses.
>
> What problem do you have with fully legal code?

The problem is that it can't be used as a component of a larger work
if any other components are GPL-covered.  As you know very well.

> I explained that because cdrtools is legally distributable as is (see legal
> reviews from Sun, Oracle and Suse), there is no need to dual license anything.

Unless you would like it to be used more widely, and available as
component in best-of-breed works.

> I also explained that a dual licensed source will cause problems if people 
> send
> e.g. a GPL only patch.

So, not being able to accept patches from people who aren't sending
patches now - and probably aren't even aware of your work - would
somehow be a problem.   That's ummm, imaginative...

> If you continue to claim not to have an answer from me, I need to assume that
> you are not interested in a serious discussion.

I haven't seen any serious discussion yet.Maybe we could discuss
how badly perl has suffered from not being able to accept those GPL'd
patches that you fear so much.

> Conclusion: dual licensing is not helpful and it even has disadvantages.

Wrong conclusion.   Remind we why you asked about your code not being used.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Find installed yum groups?

[Les Mikesell]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Matthew Miller  wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 04:04:41PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Interesting, but it seems to _only_ show groups that weren't  included
>> in the anaconda install.   For example where the saved anaconda-ks-cfg
>> shows @gnome-desktop and @development, 'yum grouplist' only shows
>> 'MATE Desktop' which was installed later.
>
> Does the "hidden" flag help here?

Well it's different, but still doesn't seem right.   That shows:
Installed environment groups:
   MATE Desktop
and
Installed groups:
   Core
   Dial-up Networking Support
   Fonts
   Guest Desktop Agents
   Input Methods
   MATE
   Multimedia
but still no mention of development or gnome.

-- 
  Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Gordon Messmer]

On 04/27/2015 12:28 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:

Up to now, nobody could explain me how a mixture of GPL and BSD can be legal as
this would require (when following the GPL) to relicense the BSD code under GPL
in order to make the whole be under GPL.


The GPL doesn't require that you relicense any non-GPL parts of the 
whole.  It requires that the whole "be licensed ... at no charge to all 
third parties under the terms of this License"


The whole, containing portions which are BSD licensed, does not place 
any additional restrictions or responsibilities upon recipients, and 
therefore satisfies the requirements of GPL2 section 2.b.



In other words, if you can legally combine BSD code with GPL code, you can do
with GPL and CDDL as well.


No, you can't.  Section 6 of the GPL states that "You may not impose any 
further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted 
herein."  CDDL however, does contain additional restrictions.


Moreover, the exclusion is mutual.  Section 3.4 of the CDDL states "You 
may not offer or impose any terms on any Covered Software in Source Code 
form that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License or 
the recipients' rights hereunder."  The GPL2 restricts the recipients 
rights in ways that the CDDL does not.


I'm not able to find any information about actual court decisions about 
compatibility between GPL 2 or 3 and CDDL or MPL 1.1 (upon which CDDL 
was based).  The FSF regards MPL 1.1 and CDDL as incompatible with GPL. 
 If you and your lawyers disagree, you might end up as the first to 
establish a court precedent.  Only you can decide for yourself if that 
is a risk you would like to undertake, and if the value of testing that 
notion is worth the costs.  Until then, any claim that the two are 
compatible is naive.

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

Re: [CentOS] Real sh? Or other efficient shell for non-interactive scripts

[Les Mikesell]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Joerg Schilling
 wrote:
> Les Mikesell  wrote:
>
> There was no court case, but VERITAS published a modifed version of gtar where
> additional code was added by binary only libraries from VERITAS. The FSF did
> never try to discuss this is public even though everybody did know about the
> existence. As long as the FSF does not try to sue VERITAS, we are safe -
> regardless what intentional nonsense you can read on the FSF webpages.

I just remembered a counterpoint to this.  Back in the Windows 3.0
days when windows had no tcp networking of its own, I put together a
DOS binary built from gnutar and the wattcp stack so you could back up
a windows or dos box to a unix system via rsh.And when I tried to
give it away I was contacted and told that I couldn't distribute it
because even though wattcp was distributed in source, it had other
conflicts with the GPL.  As a side effect of getting it to build on a
DOS compiler, I prototyped the tar code and contributed that and some
bugfixes.  Someone else's version was accepted instead but at least my
name is still in a comment somewhere.  Probably the only thing still
being distributed...

-- 
   Les Mikesell
 lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Find installed yum groups?

[Les Mikesell]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:52 PM, Les Mikesell  wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 4:34 PM, Matthew Miller  wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 04:04:41PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> Interesting, but it seems to _only_ show groups that weren't  included
>>> in the anaconda install.   For example where the saved anaconda-ks-cfg
>>> shows @gnome-desktop and @development, 'yum grouplist' only shows
>>> 'MATE Desktop' which was installed later.
>>
>> Does the "hidden" flag help here?
>
> Well it's different, but still doesn't seem right.   That shows:
> Installed environment groups:
>MATE Desktop
> and
> Installed groups:
>Core
>Dial-up Networking Support
>Fonts
>Guest Desktop Agents
>Input Methods
>MATE
>Multimedia
> but still no mention of development or gnome.
>

And I guess the other piece of this would be finding individual
packages that are not encompassed by the groups - or pulled in by
dependencies.Is there some database-like approach to take the full
list of packages, then reduce it to the minimal list of groups and
top-level packages to pull the rest in?   It probably will work to
hand the raw list to yum but  I'd like to make an understandable list
in a script even if the packages had been added piecemeal in the first
place as someone noticed the need for them.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
  lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Folding At Home OT

[Mark LaPierre]

On 04/22/15 21:05, Mark LaPierre wrote:
> Can someone recommend a good video card to use with CentOS 6.6 that has
> a GPU, or two, or more, that will work with the Folding At Home project.
> 
> I built a killer machine primarily for contributing to the FAH effort
> but the video card, NVIDIA Corporation G94 [GeForce 9600 GT], I had on
> hand is not getting any assignments.  I'm using the proprietary NVIDIA
> driver.  I've got a pcie 16X socket to plug it into.
> 

The underwelming response to my question leaves me wondering:

Am I to gather that there are no CentOS FAH users here?

or

Am I to understand that none of the CentOS FAH users have a GPU that
works with FAH?

-- 
_
   °v°
  /(_)\
   ^ ^  Mark LaPierre
Registered Linux user No #267004
https://linuxcounter.net/

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

Re: [CentOS] Folding At Home OT

[Fred Smith]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 06:51:31PM -0400, Mark LaPierre wrote:
> On 04/22/15 21:05, Mark LaPierre wrote:
> > Can someone recommend a good video card to use with CentOS 6.6 that has
> > a GPU, or two, or more, that will work with the Folding At Home project.
> > 
> > I built a killer machine primarily for contributing to the FAH effort
> > but the video card, NVIDIA Corporation G94 [GeForce 9600 GT], I had on
> > hand is not getting any assignments.  I'm using the proprietary NVIDIA
> > driver.  I've got a pcie 16X socket to plug it into.
> > 
> 
> The underwelming response to my question leaves me wondering:
> 
> Am I to gather that there are no CentOS FAH users here?
> 
> or
> 
> Am I to understand that none of the CentOS FAH users have a GPU that
> works with FAH?

Yes, I'm a Centos Folder. I'm one of 3 or 4 currently active on 
Team Centos

However, I've been unable to get GPU folding working, so I just
dedicate all six cores to it.

You may want to ask your original question on the forums at the
FAH site, also.

Fred

-- 
---
Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as
the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain
letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers
of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online
community.
 --Roger Ebert, December, 1996
- The Boulder Pledge -
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Folding At Home OT

[Tom Bishop]

On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 6:24 PM, Fred Smith 
wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 06:51:31PM -0400, Mark LaPierre wrote:
> > On 04/22/15 21:05, Mark LaPierre wrote:
> > > Can someone recommend a good video card to use with CentOS 6.6 that has
> > > a GPU, or two, or more, that will work with the Folding At Home
> project.
> > >
> > > I built a killer machine primarily for contributing to the FAH effort
> > > but the video card, NVIDIA Corporation G94 [GeForce 9600 GT], I had on
> > > hand is not getting any assignments.  I'm using the proprietary NVIDIA
> > > driver.  I've got a pcie 16X socket to plug it into.
> > >
> >
> > The underwelming response to my question leaves me wondering:
> >
> > Am I to gather that there are no CentOS FAH users here?
> >
> > or
> >
> > Am I to understand that none of the CentOS FAH users have a GPU that
> > works with FAH?
>
> Yes, I'm a Centos Folder. I'm one of 3 or 4 currently active on
> Team Centos
>
> However, I've been unable to get GPU folding working, so I just
> dedicate all six cores to it.
>
> You may want to ask your original question on the forums at the
> FAH site, also.
>
> Fred
>
> SNIP


+1
Another long time folder, I don't however do GPU folding just run it on my
C7 24 core monster :)
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Folding At Home OT

[Mark LaPierre]

On 04/27/15 19:24, Fred Smith wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 27, 2015 at 06:51:31PM -0400, Mark LaPierre wrote:
>> On 04/22/15 21:05, Mark LaPierre wrote:
>>> Can someone recommend a good video card to use with CentOS 6.6 that has
>>> a GPU, or two, or more, that will work with the Folding At Home project.
>>>
>>> I built a killer machine primarily for contributing to the FAH effort
>>> but the video card, NVIDIA Corporation G94 [GeForce 9600 GT], I had on
>>> hand is not getting any assignments.  I'm using the proprietary NVIDIA
>>> driver.  I've got a pcie 16X socket to plug it into.
>>>
>>
>> The underwelming response to my question leaves me wondering:
>>
>> Am I to gather that there are no CentOS FAH users here?
>>
>> or
>>
>> Am I to understand that none of the CentOS FAH users have a GPU that
>> works with FAH?
> 
> Yes, I'm a Centos Folder. I'm one of 3 or 4 currently active on 
> Team Centos
> 
> However, I've been unable to get GPU folding working, so I just
> dedicate all six cores to it.
> 
> You may want to ask your original question on the forums at the
> FAH site, also.
> 
> Fred
> 

Hey Fred,

Thanks for the tip.  I googled the FAH Hardware Forum.  They recommend
the NVIDIA 970 or 960 as their first choice.

-- 
_
   °v°
  /(_)\
   ^ ^  Mark LaPierre
Registered Linux user No #267004
https://linuxcounter.net/

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

[CentOS] CentOS 6.6 x86_64, rpm error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# ...

[carlh04426]

Hi All,

I had some health issues for a few months and I barely recall dealing
with Heartbleed ... it's all just a blur. Now I'm getting back up to
speed, but I have a pair of CentOS 6.6 x86_64 + Virtualmin 4.13 GPL
servers which no longer seem to be picking up available updates.

'yum check' ran for about 25 minutes this evening on one of them and
returned nothing useful.

rpm -qa --last is returning this (lines intentionally split):

error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# 259 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 \
Signature, key ID c105b9de: BAD

error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h#   4 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 \
Signature, key ID c105b9de: BAD

error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h#1028 Header V3 RSA/SHA1 \
Signature, key ID c105b9de: BAD

- - - - 8< snipped for brevity, continuing to end - - - - ->8 - - - -

error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h#1019 Header V3 RSA/SHA1 \
Signature, key ID c105b9de: BAD

gpg-pubkey-fe837f6f-4e0fd77eThu 17 Jul 2014 12:00:11 AM EDT
gpg-pubkey-ef1d6db8-4e0fd7f0Thu 17 Jul 2014 12:00:11 AM EDT
gpg-pubkey-d0ff3d16-4e0fd442Thu 17 Jul 2014 12:00:11 AM EDT
gpg-pubkey-a0bdbcf9-42d1d837Thu 17 Jul 2014 12:00:11 AM EDT
gpg-pubkey-11f63c51-3c7dc11dThu 17 Jul 2014 12:00:11 AM EDT
gpg-pubkey-c105b9de-4e0fd3a3Tue 15 Jul 2014 02:32:15 AM EDT
gpg-pubkey-0608b895-4bd22942Mon 14 Jul 2014 07:59:25 PM EDT
gpg-pubkey-6b8d79e6-3f49313dMon 14 Jul 2014 07:57:56 PM EDT

I'd be extremely grateful for any guidance or ideas you may wish to
share.

TIA & regards,

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

Re: [CentOS] Route traffic through private IP for only certain hosts

[Ashish Yadav]

Hi,

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 4:36 PM, Ian  wrote:

> Hi
>
> I am having a weird problem which I cant figure out - so I was hoping
> someone here could give me a hand.
>
> First off the end goal is that a specific server in my network runs an
> IPSEC connection to another company and I want all other servers to route
> traffic for the IP on that network through this single server.
>
> Server 1 in this example is the server that runs the IPSEC connection.
> (CentOS 6.6)
>
> Server 2 in this example is an app server that would route traffic for only
> that specific IP through server 1. (CentOS 6.5)


You can follow below link to setup the IPsec site to site VPN tunnel
between two GW.

<
http://www.enterprisenetworkingplanet.com/netsysm/article.php/3845966/Build-an-IPSEC-VPN-Without-Losing-Your-Mind.htm
>

After that you have to open up the following port is your Firewall and add
route on both gateway for communicating to respective LAN,

iptables -A input_rule -p esp -j ACCEPT
iptables -A input_rule -p udp --dport 500 -j ACCEPT
iptables -A input_rule -p udp --dport 4500 -j ACCEPT

--Regards
Ashishkumar S. Yadav
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 6.6 x86_64, rpm error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# ...

[Ashish Yadav]

Hi,


On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 10:37 AM,  wrote:

> Hi All,
>
> I had some health issues for a few months and I barely recall dealing
> with Heartbleed ... it's all just a blur. Now I'm getting back up to
> speed, but I have a pair of CentOS 6.6 x86_64 + Virtualmin 4.13 GPL
> servers which no longer seem to be picking up available updates.
>
> 'yum check' ran for about 25 minutes this evening on one of them and
> returned nothing useful.
>
> rpm -qa --last is returning this (lines intentionally split):
>
> error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# 259 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 \
> Signature, key ID c105b9de: BAD
>
> error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h#   4 Header V3 RSA/SHA256 \
> Signature, key ID c105b9de: BAD
>
> error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h#1028 Header V3 RSA/SHA1 \
> Signature, key ID c105b9de: BAD
>
> - - - - 8< snipped for brevity, continuing to end - - - - ->8 - - - -
>
> error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h#1019 Header V3 RSA/SHA1 \
> Signature, key ID c105b9de: BAD
>
> gpg-pubkey-fe837f6f-4e0fd77eThu 17 Jul 2014 12:00:11 AM EDT
> gpg-pubkey-ef1d6db8-4e0fd7f0Thu 17 Jul 2014 12:00:11 AM EDT
> gpg-pubkey-d0ff3d16-4e0fd442Thu 17 Jul 2014 12:00:11 AM EDT
> gpg-pubkey-a0bdbcf9-42d1d837Thu 17 Jul 2014 12:00:11 AM EDT
> gpg-pubkey-11f63c51-3c7dc11dThu 17 Jul 2014 12:00:11 AM EDT
> gpg-pubkey-c105b9de-4e0fd3a3Tue 15 Jul 2014 02:32:15 AM EDT
> gpg-pubkey-0608b895-4bd22942Mon 14 Jul 2014 07:59:25 PM EDT
> gpg-pubkey-6b8d79e6-3f49313dMon 14 Jul 2014 07:57:56 PM EDT
>
> I'd be extremely grateful for any guidance or ideas you may wish to
> share.
>

have you tried to rebuild the RPM database using below command,

# rpm --rebuilddb


--Regards
Ashishkumar S. Yadav
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] [SOLVED] Re: CentOS 6.6 x86_64, rpm error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# ...

[carlh04426]

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:47:32 +0530
Ashish Yadav wrote:

> have you tried to rebuild the RPM database using below command,
> 
> # rpm --rebuilddb

Hi Ashish, and thank you for your reply. I contemplated doing that but
felt I needed to better understand the problem, first. As it happens, I
refined my search phrase a few more times and ultimately discovered the
problem ... and the fix:



Both servers are behaving properly now. Thanks again for your kind
reply & regards,

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

Re: [CentOS] [SOLVED] Re: CentOS 6.6 x86_64, rpm error: rpmdbNextIterator: skipping h# ...

[Ashish Yadav]

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 11:00 AM,  wrote:

> On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 10:47:32 +0530
> Ashish Yadav wrote:
>
> > have you tried to rebuild the RPM database using below command,
> >
> > # rpm --rebuilddb
>
> Hi Ashish, and thank you for your reply. I contemplated doing that but
> felt I needed to better understand the problem, first. As it happens, I
> refined my search phrase a few more times and ultimately discovered the
> problem ... and the fix:
>

I am glad that you found the solution for your problem.

--Regards
Ashishkumar S. Yadav
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Boot message of a modprobe.d conf file that does not exist

[Tim]

Hey Leon,

that did the trick. Thank you!

Regards
Tim

Am 27. April 2015 11:39:56 MESZ, schrieb Leon Fauster 
:
>Am 26.04.2015 um 11:55 schrieb Tim :
>> Hi all,
>> 
>> I got a message at boot:
>> dracut-pre-udev: libkmod: kmod_config_parse:
>> /etc/modprobe.d/thinkpad_battery.conf line 2: ignoring bad line
>starting
>> with 'options'
>> 
>> I have had this file to load modules for my thinkpad (acpi_call &
>> tp_smapi) but I removed it after recompiling the modules for a new
>> kernel and using "make install load".
>> 
>> My question is, why this nonexistent file is still demanded.
>
>
>did you rebuild the initramfs?
>
>
>--
>LF
>___
>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