[CentOS] PXE ValueError: new value non-existent xfs filesystem is not valid as a default fs type

2020-01-16 Thread Ralf Prengel 

Hallo,
has anyone a working Centos 8.1 PXE Installation?

This is my problem
http://realtechtalk.com/Centos_PXEBoot_NetInstall_Failure__Pane_is_dead-2012-articles

These hints and other don t work here.

Thanks
Ralf

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

Re: [CentOS] Limiting what devices can pair over Bluetooth?

2020-01-16 Thread Leon Fauster via CentOS 

Am 15.01.20 um 15:02 schrieb James Pearson:

Phil Perry wrote:


What is the threat you're trying to mitigate, specifically?  I don't 
see
how pairing a tablet would allow file transfers.  An unauthorized 
device

can't unilaterally pair with your system.

If you enable Bluetooth on a workstation (by starting the 'bluetooth'
service), then a normal user on the workstation can (for example)
transfer files to/from a mobile phone - which is something we don't 
allow


Users don't have to have any special perms to do this - users can pair
with any Bluetooth devices they want

i.e. it isn't possible to control what a user can and can't do with
Bluetooth - so it isn't possible to allow pairing with just particular
(or classes of) Bluetooth devices


Is it possible to control behaviour with udev rules?


No idea - I haven't found anything that allows you to 'control' 
Bluetooth - including any mention of udev rules


I have no idea if udev could be used in this way - nor where to start in 
creating possible udev rules :-)


I asked my original question on the linux-bluetooth email list - and the 
only suggestion was hacking the Bluetooth kernel modules to 'filter 
connection requests at the PSM level' ...




Whats the bus that your BT is connected to, USB?

--
Leon


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

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8: several packages have unresolved dependencies after "dnf update all "

2020-01-16 Thread Philippe Piot 
David,
  When I run the command with --allowerasing the following packages where
removed due to unavailable dependencies:

  annobin-8.64-1.el8.x86_64
glibc-headers-2.28-42.el8.1.x86_64
  libdrm-devel-2.4.96-2.el8.x86_64
 boost-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64
  boost-openmpi-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64
boost-static-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64
  gcc-8.2.1-3.5.el8.x86_64
 gcc-c++-8.2.1-3.5.el8.x86_64
  gcc-gdb-plugin-8.2.1-3.5.el8.x86_64
gcc-gfortran-8.2.1-3.5.el8.x86_64
  glibc-devel-2.28-42.el8.1.x86_64
 hdf5-devel-1.10.5-4.el8.x86_64
  hdf5-openmpi-devel-1.10.5-4.el8.x86_64
 hdf5-openmpi-static-1.10.5-4.el8.x86_64
  hdf5-static-1.10.5-4.el8.x86_64
libquadmath-devel-8.2.1-3.5.el8.x86_64
  libtool-2.4.6-25.el8.x86_64
libxcrypt-devel-4.1.1-4.el8.x86_64
  mesa-libEGL-devel-18.3.1-5.el8_0.x86_64
mesa-libGL-devel-18.3.1-5.el8_0.x86_64
  openmpi-devel-3.1.2-5.el8.x86_64
 poppler-qt5-devel-0.66.0-11.el8_0.12.x86_64
  qscintilla-qt5-devel-2.11.2-6.el8.x86_64
 qt5-doctools-5.11.1-5.el8.x86_64
  qt5-qtbase-devel-5.11.1-5.el8.x86_64
 qt5-qtscript-devel-5.11.1-2.el8.x86_64
  qt5-qttools-devel-5.11.1-5.el8.x86_64
qt5-qttools-static-5.11.1-5.el8.x86_64
  qt5-rpm-macros-5.11.1-2.el8.noarch
 systemtap-4.0-7.el8.x86_64
  systemtap-devel-4.0-7.el8.x86_64

  I think I will downsgrade some of the needed dependencies to be able to
reinstall the critical one g++, and the openmpi ones.

  All the best,  -- Philippe.

Philippe Piot,
https://www.niu.edu/advanced-accelerator-randd/

Northern Illinois University, Dept of Physics and
Northern Illinois Center for Accelerator & Detector Development
DeKalb, IL 60115, USA
Tel: 815 753 6473, Web:  http://www.physics.niu.edu/physics/

Argonne National Laboratory, Advanced Photon Source
Accelerator System Division
Lemont, IL 60439, USA
Tel: 630 252 2415, Web:
https://www.aps.anl.gov/Accelerator-Systems-Division


On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 2:01 AM David Hrbáč  wrote:

> Philippe,
>
> What's the output with '--allowerasing' switch?
>
> We are experiencing a similar issue, dnf update:
> ...
>  Problem 53: problem with installed package
> perl-Encode-devel-4:2.97-3.el8.x86_64
>   - package perl-Encode-devel-4:2.97-3.el8.x86_64 requires
> perl-Encode(x86-64) = 4:2.97-3.el8, but none of the providers can be
> installed
>
>   - package perl-Encode-4:2.97-3.el8.x86_64 requires
> libperl.so.5.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - cannot install both
> perl-libs-4:5.24.4-398.module_el8.0.0+50+c3b345cd.x86_64 and
> perl-libs-4:5.26.3-416.el8.x86_64
>   - cannot install both perl-libs-4:5.26.3-416.el8.x86_64 and
> perl-libs-4:5.24.4-398.module_el8.0.0+50+c3b345cd.x86_64
>   - package
> perl-Text-Tabs+Wrap-2013.0523-395.module_el8.0.0+50+c3b345cd.noarch
> requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.4), but none of the providers can be
> installed
>
>   - cannot install the best update candidate for package
> perl-Text-Tabs+Wrap-2013.0523-395.el8.noarch
>   - package perl-libs-4:5.24.4-404.module_el8.1.0+229+cd132df8.x86_64 is
> excluded
>  Problem 54: problem with installed package
> perl-IO-Compress-2.081-1.el8.noarch
>
>
>   - package perl-IO-Compress-2.081-1.el8.noarch requires
> perl(Compress::Raw::Zlib) >= 2.081, but none of the providers can be
> installed
>   - package perl-Compress-Raw-Zlib-2.081-1.el8.x86_64 requires
> libperl.so.5.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - cannot install both
> perl-libs-4:5.24.4-398.module_el8.0.0+50+c3b345cd.x86_64 and
> perl-libs-4:5.26.3-416.el8.x86_64
>   - cannot install both perl-libs-4:5.26.3-416.el8.x86_64 and
> perl-libs-4:5.24.4-398.module_el8.0.0+50+c3b345cd.x86_64
>
>
>   - package perl-Thread-Queue-3.13-1.module_el8.0.0+50+c3b345cd.noarch
> requires perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.24.4), but none of the providers can be
> installed
>
>   - cannot install the best update candidate for package
> perl-Thread-Queue-3.13-1.el8.noarch
>   - package perl-libs-4:5.24.4-404.module_el8.1.0+229+cd132df8.x86_64 is
> excluded
>  Problem 55: problem with installed package perl-Git-2.18.1-3.el8.noarch
>   - package perl-Git-2.18.2-1.el8_1.noarch requires git = 2.18.2-1.el8_1,
> but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package git-2.18.2-1.el8_1.x86_64 requires perl(Term::ReadKey), but
> none of the providers can be installed
>   - package perl-TermReadKey-2.37-7.el8.x86_64 requires
> libperl.so.5.26()(64bit), but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package perl-Git-2.18.1-3.el8.noarch requires git = 2.18.1-3.el8, but
> none of the providers can be installed
>
>
>   - package perl-Git-2.18.1-4.el8.noarch requires git = 2.18.1-4.el8, but
> none of the providers can be installed
>
>
>   - cannot install both
> perl-libs-4:5.24.4-398.module_el8.0.0+50+c3b345cd.x86_64 and
> perl-libs-4:5.26.3-416.el8.x86_64
>   - cannot install both perl-libs-4:5.26.3-416.el8.x86_64 and
> perl-libs-4:5.24.4-398.module_el8.0.0+50+c3b345cd.x86_64
>   - package git-2.18.1-3.el8.x86_64 requires git-core-do

Re: [CentOS] Limiting what devices can pair over Bluetooth?

2020-01-16 Thread James Pearson 

Leon Fauster via CentOS wrote:


Is it possible to control behaviour with udev rules?


No idea - I haven't found anything that allows you to 'control'
Bluetooth - including any mention of udev rules

I have no idea if udev could be used in this way - nor where to start in
creating possible udev rules :-)

I asked my original question on the linux-bluetooth email list - and the
only suggestion was hacking the Bluetooth kernel modules to 'filter
connection requests at the PSM level' ...



Whats the bus that your BT is connected to, USB?


I'm testing on a laptop that has built-in BT - although lsusb lists:

 Bus 002 Device 003: ID 0cf3:e005 Qualcomm Atheros Communications

which I believe is the BT controller

James Pearson
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS Linux 8 (1911)

2020-01-16 Thread Peter 

On 16/01/20 4:14 am, Brian Stinson wrote:

Release for CentOS Linux 8 (1911)

We are pleased to announce the general availability of CentOS Linux 8.


CentOS 8 was released in September 2019.  Don't you mean 8.1?


Peter

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

[CentOS] CentOS-announce Digest, Vol 179, Issue 2

2020-01-16 Thread centos-announce-request 
Send CentOS-announce mailing list submissions to
centos-annou...@centos.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-announce
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
centos-announce-requ...@centos.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
centos-announce-ow...@centos.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of CentOS-announce digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Release for CentOS 8 (1911) on armhfp (Pablo Sebasti?n Greco)
   2. Release for CentOS Linux 8 (1911) (Brian Stinson)
   3. CESA-2020:0085 Critical CentOS 7 firefox Security Update
  (Johnny Hughes)


--

Message: 1
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2020 11:28:09 -0300
From: Pablo Sebasti?n Greco 
To: centos-annou...@centos.org
Subject: [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS 8 (1911) on armhfp
Message-ID: 
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed"

I am pleased to announce the general availability of CentOS 8 (1911) for 
armhfp. Effectively immediately, this is the current release for CentOS 
8 and is tagged as 1911, derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8.1.

As always, read through the Release Notes at: 
https://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS8.1911 - these notes 
contain important information about the release and details about some 
of the content inside the release from the CentOS QA team. These notes 
are updated constantly to include issues and incorporate feedback from 
the users.

--
Updates, Sources, and DebugInfos

Updates released since the upstream release are all posted. We strongly 
recommend every user apply all updates, including the content released 
today, on your existing CentOS 8 machine by just running 'yum update'.

As with all CentOS 8 components, this release was built from sources 
hosted at git.centos.org. In addition, SRPMs that are a byproduct of the 
build (and also considered critical in the code and buildsys process) 
are being published to match every binary RPM we release. Sources will 
be available from vault.centos.org in their own dedicated directories to 
match the corresponding binary RPMs. Since there is far less traffic to 
the CentOS source RPMs compared with the
binary RPMs, we are not putting this content on the main mirror network. 
If users wish to mirror this content they can do so using the reposync 
command available in the yum-utils package. All CentOS source RPMs are 
signed with the same key used to sign their binary counterparts. 
Developers and end users looking at inspecting and contributing patches 
to the CentOS distro will find the code hosted at git.centos.org far 
simpler to work against. Details on how to best consume those are 
documented along with a quick start at : http://wiki.centos.org/Sources

Debuginfo packages are also being signed and pushed. Yum configs shipped 
in the new release file will have all the context required for debuginfo 
to be available on every CentOS install.

Everything we ever release, is always available on the vault service for 
people still looking for and have a real need for it.

--
Special notes

For the release of CentOS 8.1905, we didn't make it in time with armhfp, 
but now we're on track, releasing all the arches on the same day. Thanks 
to everyone who has made this possible.
For CentOS 8, we don't have (yet) RaspberryPi specific kernels, we're 
working on a way to simplify the process, and to be able to move between 
kernels.
Also, we know that there are some rpms missing in our armhfp repos in 
relation to its x86_64 counterpart, we're working on releasing them as 
soon as possible.

--
Download

In order to conserve donor bandwidth, and to make it possible to get the 
mirror content sync'd out as soon as possible, we recommend using 
torrents to get your initial installer images:

Altarch images can be downloaded at :
http://mirror.centos.org/altarch/8/isos/

sha256sums for armhfp:
3978f364add87d829f0720a00564d09740f895764f91d6a8f5cf7f022be3a431
CentOS-Userland-8-armv7hl-generic-GNOME-1911-sda.raw.xz
397362cb30658b0fd1040f0bc1fef97be472ec265c0582fd17f080567ed613fe
CentOS-Userland-8-armv7hl-generic-Minimal-1911-sda.raw.xz


--
Getting Help

The CentOS ecosystem is sustained by community driven help and guidance.
The best place to start for new users is at
http://wiki.centos.org/GettingHelp

We are also on social media, you can find the project:
on Twitter at? : http://twitter.com/CentOSProject
on Facebook at : https://www.facebook.com/groups/centosproject/
on LinkedIn at : https://www.linkedin.com/groups/22405

And you will find the core team and a majority of the contributors on 
irc, on freenode.net in #centos and #centos-arm ; talking about the 
finer points of distribution engineering and platform enablement.
Also, please consider reading 
https://wiki.ce

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8: several packages have unresolved dependencies after "dnf update all "

2020-01-16 Thread Stephen John Smoogen 
On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 23:29, Philippe Piot  wrote:
>
> All,
>   While updating my package using dnf update all I allow dnf to clean some
> package with unresolved dependencies.
>   I would like to reinstall some of them but got an error message "but none
> of the providers can be installed" during the install process as dnf is
> trying to install the dependencies.
>

I think your system is getting mixed mirrors or something. Some of the
packages you are looking for are from CentOS-8.0.1905 and some seem to
be CentOS-8.1.1911. I am not sure what is causing that at the moment,
but I put a list of the versions I found in the mirror which should be
available.

>   This happens for some critical package like boost-openmpi-devel (see
> below for error). In fact the following package were removed and cannot be
> installed:
>   annobin-8.64-1.el8.x86_64
> glibc-headers-2.28-42.el8.1.x86_64
>   libdrm-devel-2.4.96-2.el8.x86_64
>  boost-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64
>   boost-openmpi-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64
> boost-static-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64
>   gcc-8.2.1-3.5.el8.x86_64
>  gcc-c++-8.2.1-3.5.el8.x86_64
>   gcc-gdb-plugin-8.2.1-3.5.el8.x86_64
> gcc-gfortran-8.2.1-3.5.el8.x86_64

The 8.1 versions and trees they should be in are

./AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/annobin-8.78-1.el8.x86_64.rpm
./AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/boost-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.i686.rpm
./AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/boost-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64.rpm
./AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/gcc-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64.rpm
./AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/gcc-gdb-plugin-8.3.1-4.5.el8.i686.rpm
./AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/gcc-gdb-plugin-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64.rpm
./AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/libdrm-devel-2.4.98-2.el8.x86_64.rpm
./AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/libdrm-devel-2.4.98-2.el8.i686.rpm
./AppStream/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/annobin-8.78-1.el8.x86_64.rpm
./AppStream/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/boost-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.i686.rpm
./AppStream/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/boost-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64.rpm
./AppStream/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/gcc-gdb-plugin-8.3.1-4.5.el8.i686.rpm
./AppStream/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/gcc-gdb-plugin-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64.rpm
./AppStream/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/gcc-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64.rpm
./AppStream/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/libdrm-devel-2.4.98-2.el8.x86_64.rpm
./AppStream/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/libdrm-devel-2.4.98-2.el8.i686.rpm
./BaseOS/x86_64/os/Packages/glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.i686.rpm
./BaseOS/x86_64/os/Packages/glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.x86_64.rpm
./BaseOS/x86_64/os/Packages/libgcc-8.3.1-4.5.el8.i686.rpm
./BaseOS/x86_64/os/Packages/libgcc-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64.rpm
./BaseOS/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.i686.rpm
./BaseOS/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.x86_64.rpm
./BaseOS/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/libgcc-8.3.1-4.5.el8.i686.rpm
./BaseOS/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/libgcc-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64.rpm
./PowerTools/x86_64/os/Packages/boost-static-1.66.0-6.el8.i686.rpm
./PowerTools/x86_64/os/Packages/boost-static-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64.rpm
./PowerTools/x86_64/os/Packages/boost-openmpi-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.i686.rpm
./PowerTools/x86_64/os/Packages/boost-openmpi-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64.rpm
./PowerTools/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/boost-openmpi-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.i686.rpm
./PowerTools/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/boost-openmpi-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64.rpm
./PowerTools/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/boost-static-1.66.0-6.el8.i686.rpm
./PowerTools/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/boost-static-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64.rpm

Since boost is not showing up I am guessing Powertools got turned off.



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8: several packages have unresolved dependencies after "dnf update all "

2020-01-16 Thread Philippe Piot 
Thanks, Stephen. Just for completeness, the repo I am currently pointing to
are

[piot@paris opal]$ sudo dnf update
CentOS-8 - AppStream
  775 kB/s | 5.8 MB 00:07
CentOS-8 - Base
798 kB/s | 4.0 MB 00:05
CentOS-8 - Extras
2.9 kB/s | 2.1 kB 00:00
CentOS-8 - PowerTools
   686 kB/s | 2.0 MB 00:02
ELRepo.org Community Enterprise Linux Repository - el8
59 kB/s |  93 kB 00:01
ELRepo.org Community Enterprise Linux Kernel Repository - el8 437
kB/s | 971 kB 00:02
Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux Modular 8 - x86_64
 11 kB/s |  10 kB 00:00
Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux 8 - x86_64
   768 kB/s | 5.2 MB 00:06
google-chrome
   13 kB/s | 3.5 kB 00:00
Dependencies resolved.
Nothing to do.
Complete!

Philippe Piot,
https://www.niu.edu/advanced-accelerator-randd/

Northern Illinois University, Dept of Physics and
Northern Illinois Center for Accelerator & Detector Development
DeKalb, IL 60115, USA
Tel: 815 753 6473, Web:  http://www.physics.niu.edu/physics/

Argonne National Laboratory, Advanced Photon Source
Accelerator System Division
Lemont, IL 60439, USA
Tel: 630 252 2415, Web:
https://www.aps.anl.gov/Accelerator-Systems-Division


On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 6:04 AM Stephen John Smoogen 
wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Jan 2020 at 23:29, Philippe Piot  wrote:
> >
> > All,
> >   While updating my package using dnf update all I allow dnf to clean
> some
> > package with unresolved dependencies.
> >   I would like to reinstall some of them but got an error message "but
> none
> > of the providers can be installed" during the install process as dnf is
> > trying to install the dependencies.
> >
>
> I think your system is getting mixed mirrors or something. Some of the
> packages you are looking for are from CentOS-8.0.1905 and some seem to
> be CentOS-8.1.1911. I am not sure what is causing that at the moment,
> but I put a list of the versions I found in the mirror which should be
> available.
>
> >   This happens for some critical package like boost-openmpi-devel (see
> > below for error). In fact the following package were removed and cannot
> be
> > installed:
> >   annobin-8.64-1.el8.x86_64
> > glibc-headers-2.28-42.el8.1.x86_64
> >   libdrm-devel-2.4.96-2.el8.x86_64
> >  boost-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64
> >   boost-openmpi-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64
> > boost-static-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64
> >   gcc-8.2.1-3.5.el8.x86_64
> >  gcc-c++-8.2.1-3.5.el8.x86_64
> >   gcc-gdb-plugin-8.2.1-3.5.el8.x86_64
> > gcc-gfortran-8.2.1-3.5.el8.x86_64
>
> The 8.1 versions and trees they should be in are
>
> ./AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/annobin-8.78-1.el8.x86_64.rpm
> ./AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/boost-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.i686.rpm
> ./AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/boost-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64.rpm
> ./AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/gcc-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64.rpm
> ./AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/gcc-gdb-plugin-8.3.1-4.5.el8.i686.rpm
> ./AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/gcc-gdb-plugin-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64.rpm
> ./AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/libdrm-devel-2.4.98-2.el8.x86_64.rpm
> ./AppStream/x86_64/os/Packages/libdrm-devel-2.4.98-2.el8.i686.rpm
> ./AppStream/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/annobin-8.78-1.el8.x86_64.rpm
> ./AppStream/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/boost-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.i686.rpm
> ./AppStream/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/boost-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64.rpm
> ./AppStream/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/gcc-gdb-plugin-8.3.1-4.5.el8.i686.rpm
>
> ./AppStream/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/gcc-gdb-plugin-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64.rpm
> ./AppStream/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/gcc-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64.rpm
> ./AppStream/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/libdrm-devel-2.4.98-2.el8.x86_64.rpm
> ./AppStream/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/libdrm-devel-2.4.98-2.el8.i686.rpm
> ./BaseOS/x86_64/os/Packages/glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.i686.rpm
> ./BaseOS/x86_64/os/Packages/glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.x86_64.rpm
> ./BaseOS/x86_64/os/Packages/libgcc-8.3.1-4.5.el8.i686.rpm
> ./BaseOS/x86_64/os/Packages/libgcc-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64.rpm
> ./BaseOS/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.i686.rpm
> ./BaseOS/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.x86_64.rpm
> ./BaseOS/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/libgcc-8.3.1-4.5.el8.i686.rpm
> ./BaseOS/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/libgcc-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64.rpm
> ./PowerTools/x86_64/os/Packages/boost-static-1.66.0-6.el8.i686.rpm
> ./PowerTools/x86_64/os/Packages/boost-static-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64.rpm
> ./PowerTools/x86_64/os/Packages/boost-openmpi-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.i686.rpm
> ./PowerTools/x86_64/os/Packages/boost-openmpi-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64.rpm
>
> ./PowerTools/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/boost-openmpi-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.i686.rpm
>
> ./PowerTools/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/boost-openmpi-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64.rpm
> ./PowerTools/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/boost-static-1.66.0-6.el8.i686.rpm
> ./PowerTools/x86_64/kickstart/Packages/boost-static-1.66.

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8: several packages have unresolved dependencies after "dnf update all "

2020-01-16 Thread Stephen John Smoogen 
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 07:24, Philippe Piot  wrote:
>
> Thanks, Stephen. Just for completeness, the repo I am currently pointing to
> are
>
> [piot@paris opal]$ sudo dnf update
> CentOS-8 - AppStream
>   775 kB/s | 5.8 MB 00:07
> CentOS-8 - Base
> 798 kB/s | 4.0 MB 00:05
> CentOS-8 - Extras
> 2.9 kB/s | 2.1 kB 00:00
> CentOS-8 - PowerTools
>686 kB/s | 2.0 MB 00:02
> ELRepo.org Community Enterprise Linux Repository - el8
> 59 kB/s |  93 kB 00:01
> ELRepo.org Community Enterprise Linux Kernel Repository - el8 437
> kB/s | 971 kB 00:02
> Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux Modular 8 - x86_64
>  11 kB/s |  10 kB 00:00
> Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux 8 - x86_64
>768 kB/s | 5.2 MB 00:06
> google-chrome
>13 kB/s | 3.5 kB 00:00
> Dependencies resolved.
> Nothing to do.
> Complete!
>

Are you trying to install the 'exact' versions of the software

dnf install boost-openmpi-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64

 or are you doing a

dnf install boost-openmpi-devel

-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8: several packages have unresolved dependencies after "dnf update all "

2020-01-16 Thread Philippe Piot 
I am doing a dnf install package_without_version for instance for g++:

[piot@paris opal]$ sudo dnf install gcc-c++
Last metadata expiration check: 0:01:06 ago on Thu 16 Jan 2020 06:45:59 AM
CST.
Error:
 Problem: package gcc-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64 requires glibc-devel >=
2.2.90-12, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package glibc-devel-2.28-72.el8.i686 requires glibc-headers, but none
of the providers can be installed
  - package glibc-devel-2.28-72.el8.i686 requires glibc-headers =
2.28-72.el8, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package glibc-devel-2.28-72.el8.x86_64 requires glibc-headers, but none
of the providers can be installed
  - package glibc-devel-2.28-72.el8.x86_64 requires glibc-headers =
2.28-72.el8, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package gcc-c++-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64 requires gcc = 8.3.1-4.5.el8, but
none of the providers can be installed
  - package glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.i686 requires kernel-headers, but
none of the providers can be installed
  - package glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.i686 requires kernel-headers >=
2.2.1, but none of the providers can be installed
  - package glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.x86_64 requires kernel-headers, but
none of the providers can be installed
  - package glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.x86_64 requires kernel-headers >=
2.2.1, but none of the providers can be installed
  - conflicting requests
  - package kernel-headers-4.18.0-147.0.3.el8_1.x86_64 is excluded
  - package kernel-headers-4.18.0-147.3.1.el8_1.x86_64 is excluded
  - package kernel-headers-4.18.0-147.el8.x86_64 is excluded
(try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest' to
use not only best candidate packages)

  All the best,  -- Philippe.


Philippe Piot,
https://www.niu.edu/advanced-accelerator-randd/

Northern Illinois University, Dept of Physics and
Northern Illinois Center for Accelerator & Detector Development
DeKalb, IL 60115, USA
Tel: 815 753 6473, Web:  http://www.physics.niu.edu/physics/

Argonne National Laboratory, Advanced Photon Source
Accelerator System Division
Lemont, IL 60439, USA
Tel: 630 252 2415, Web:
https://www.aps.anl.gov/Accelerator-Systems-Division


On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 6:37 AM Stephen John Smoogen 
wrote:

> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 07:24, Philippe Piot  wrote:
> >
> > Thanks, Stephen. Just for completeness, the repo I am currently pointing
> to
> > are
> >
> > [piot@paris opal]$ sudo dnf update
> > CentOS-8 - AppStream
> >   775 kB/s | 5.8 MB 00:07
> > CentOS-8 - Base
> > 798 kB/s | 4.0 MB 00:05
> > CentOS-8 - Extras
> > 2.9 kB/s | 2.1 kB 00:00
> > CentOS-8 - PowerTools
> >686 kB/s | 2.0 MB 00:02
> > ELRepo.org Community Enterprise Linux Repository - el8
> > 59 kB/s |  93 kB 00:01
> > ELRepo.org Community Enterprise Linux Kernel Repository - el8 437
> > kB/s | 971 kB 00:02
> > Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux Modular 8 - x86_64
> >  11 kB/s |  10 kB 00:00
> > Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux 8 - x86_64
> >768 kB/s | 5.2 MB 00:06
> > google-chrome
> >13 kB/s | 3.5 kB 00:00
> > Dependencies resolved.
> > Nothing to do.
> > Complete!
> >
>
> Are you trying to install the 'exact' versions of the software
>
> dnf install boost-openmpi-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64
>
>  or are you doing a
>
> dnf install boost-openmpi-devel
>
> --
> Stephen J Smoogen.
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] After upgrade to CentOS 8.1 default gateway missing

2020-01-16 Thread Asle Ommundsen 

Hi,

Tonight I upgraded two CentOS 8 boxes to CentOS 8.1 (1911). Then after a  
reboot of the first server the network was unavailable. In IPMI console  
everything except the network was looking good. Network was unreachable.  
No errors in NetworkManager. I also restarted NetworkManager, but it did  
not help. Then I discovered that the default gateway suddenly was missing.


Then I rebooted the server one more time, but network was still down.

Then both myself and a technician in my datcenter was debugging this (I  
had to wake him up in the middle of the night, costing me a lot of money),  
without finding any reason for why the default gateway was missing after  
reboot.


Then we rebooted the server a third time, and all of a sudden the problem  
was gone and the default gateway was back.


Then, after this, I also upgraded my second CentOS 8 server to CentOS 8.1  
and did a reboot. And the very same thing happened to this server after  
reboot! The default gateway was missing after reboot, and network was  
down. Then I did a extra reboot of this server also, and when it came back  
up everything was working correct and the default gateway was back.


So the first server I needed to reboot two extra times to have the default  
gateway back and network working. And the second server I needed to reboot  
only one extra time for the problem to be solved.


The two boxes is not VPSs or anything, but bare metal dedicated servers.

Also prior to upgrading to CentOS 8.1, these two boxes has been rebooted  
serveral times previously, without any problems at all. Only after  
upgrading to CentOS 8.1 this happened on both of them for the first time.


I can't believe I am the only one that experience this? My guess is that  
this is a unknown random intermittent bug in CentOS 8.1 that kicked in. I  
just hope this does not continue to happen in the future. If you  
experienced the same, please share it with a reply. Thank you!


Kind regards,
Asle Ommundsen
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] openldap-servers missing from PowerTools in CentOS 8.1

2020-01-16 Thread Dario Pilori 
Dear all,

after the upgrade to CentOS 8.1.1911, the package openldap-servers is not
anymore included in the PowerTools. However, if I look into:
https://koji.mbox.centos.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=4971 I can see that
this package have been build.

Do you know in which repo I can find such package?

Thanks in advance,
Dario

-- 
Dario Pilori, PhD
I.N.Ri.M. - Istituto Nazionale di Ricerca Metrologica
Sistemi Informatici
Strada delle Cacce, 91 - 10135 - Torino - Italy
Ph: +39 011 3919 459
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8: several packages have unresolved dependencies after "dnf update all "

2020-01-16 Thread Philippe Piot 
Also just to be more specific I am running CentOS 8.1. So the issue I
encounter were after upgrading to 8.1. Thank you! -- Philippe.


On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 6:48 AM Philippe Piot  wrote:

> I am doing a dnf install package_without_version for instance for g++:
>
> [piot@paris opal]$ sudo dnf install gcc-c++
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:01:06 ago on Thu 16 Jan 2020 06:45:59 AM
> CST.
> Error:
>  Problem: package gcc-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64 requires glibc-devel >=
> 2.2.90-12, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package glibc-devel-2.28-72.el8.i686 requires glibc-headers, but none
> of the providers can be installed
>   - package glibc-devel-2.28-72.el8.i686 requires glibc-headers =
> 2.28-72.el8, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package glibc-devel-2.28-72.el8.x86_64 requires glibc-headers, but
> none of the providers can be installed
>   - package glibc-devel-2.28-72.el8.x86_64 requires glibc-headers =
> 2.28-72.el8, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package gcc-c++-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64 requires gcc = 8.3.1-4.5.el8, but
> none of the providers can be installed
>   - package glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.i686 requires kernel-headers, but
> none of the providers can be installed
>   - package glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.i686 requires kernel-headers >=
> 2.2.1, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.x86_64 requires kernel-headers, but
> none of the providers can be installed
>   - package glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.x86_64 requires kernel-headers >=
> 2.2.1, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - conflicting requests
>   - package kernel-headers-4.18.0-147.0.3.el8_1.x86_64 is excluded
>   - package kernel-headers-4.18.0-147.3.1.el8_1.x86_64 is excluded
>   - package kernel-headers-4.18.0-147.el8.x86_64 is excluded
> (try to add '--skip-broken' to skip uninstallable packages or '--nobest'
> to use not only best candidate packages)
>
>   All the best,  -- Philippe.
>
>
> Philippe Piot,
> https://www.niu.edu/advanced-accelerator-randd/
> 
> Northern Illinois University, Dept of Physics and
> Northern Illinois Center for Accelerator & Detector Development
> DeKalb, IL 60115, USA
> Tel: 815 753 6473, Web:  http://www.physics.niu.edu/physics/
>
> Argonne National Laboratory, Advanced Photon Source
> Accelerator System Division
> Lemont, IL 60439, USA
> Tel: 630 252 2415, Web:
> https://www.aps.anl.gov/Accelerator-Systems-Division
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 6:37 AM Stephen John Smoogen 
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 07:24, Philippe Piot  wrote:
>> >
>> > Thanks, Stephen. Just for completeness, the repo I am currently
>> pointing to
>> > are
>> >
>> > [piot@paris opal]$ sudo dnf update
>> > CentOS-8 - AppStream
>> >   775 kB/s | 5.8 MB 00:07
>> > CentOS-8 - Base
>> > 798 kB/s | 4.0 MB 00:05
>> > CentOS-8 - Extras
>> > 2.9 kB/s | 2.1 kB 00:00
>> > CentOS-8 - PowerTools
>> >686 kB/s | 2.0 MB 00:02
>> > ELRepo.org Community Enterprise Linux Repository - el8
>> > 59 kB/s |  93 kB 00:01
>> > ELRepo.org Community Enterprise Linux Kernel Repository - el8
>>  437
>> > kB/s | 971 kB 00:02
>> > Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux Modular 8 - x86_64
>> >  11 kB/s |  10 kB 00:00
>> > Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux 8 - x86_64
>> >768 kB/s | 5.2 MB 00:06
>> > google-chrome
>> >13 kB/s | 3.5 kB 00:00
>> > Dependencies resolved.
>> > Nothing to do.
>> > Complete!
>> >
>>
>> Are you trying to install the 'exact' versions of the software
>>
>> dnf install boost-openmpi-devel-1.66.0-6.el8.x86_64
>>
>>  or are you doing a
>>
>> dnf install boost-openmpi-devel
>>
>> --
>> Stephen J Smoogen.
>> ___
>> CentOS mailing list
>> CentOS@centos.org
>> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>
>
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] After upgrade to CentOS 8.1 default gateway missing

2020-01-16 Thread Stephen John Smoogen 
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 07:58, Asle Ommundsen  wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Tonight I upgraded two CentOS 8 boxes to CentOS 8.1 (1911). Then after a
> reboot of the first server the network was unavailable. In IPMI console
> everything except the network was looking good. Network was unreachable.
> No errors in NetworkManager. I also restarted NetworkManager, but it did
> not help. Then I discovered that the default gateway suddenly was missing.
>
> Then I rebooted the server one more time, but network was still down.
>
> Then both myself and a technician in my datcenter was debugging this (I
> had to wake him up in the middle of the night, costing me a lot of money),
> without finding any reason for why the default gateway was missing after
> reboot.
>
> Then we rebooted the server a third time, and all of a sudden the problem
> was gone and the default gateway was back.
>
> Then, after this, I also upgraded my second CentOS 8 server to CentOS 8.1
> and did a reboot. And the very same thing happened to this server after
> reboot! The default gateway was missing after reboot, and network was
> down. Then I did a extra reboot of this server also, and when it came back
> up everything was working correct and the default gateway was back.
>
> So the first server I needed to reboot two extra times to have the default
> gateway back and network working. And the second server I needed to reboot
> only one extra time for the problem to be solved.
>
> The two boxes is not VPSs or anything, but bare metal dedicated servers.
>
> Also prior to upgrading to CentOS 8.1, these two boxes has been rebooted
> serveral times previously, without any problems at all. Only after
> upgrading to CentOS 8.1 this happened on both of them for the first time.
>
> I can't believe I am the only one that experience this? My guess is that
> this is a unknown random intermittent bug in CentOS 8.1 that kicked in. I
> just hope this does not continue to happen in the future. If you
> experienced the same, please share it with a reply. Thank you!

In order to determine what is going on you need to give a lot more information.

1. How do these boxes get their network information? DHCP or static
2. If they are static, what controls the setting of ips:
NetworkManager or network-scripts
3. If they are static, how are they set in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/
4. Do the files in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts list a GATEWAY=
5. If you are using network-manager, what does nmtui or the graphical
tool say the gateway or default route is?


> Kind regards,
> Asle Ommundsen
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8: several packages have unresolved dependencies after "dnf update all "

2020-01-16 Thread Stephen John Smoogen 
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 08:27, Philippe Piot  wrote:
>
> Also just to be more specific I am running CentOS 8.1. So the issue I
> encounter were after upgrading to 8.1. Thank you! -- Philippe.
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 6:48 AM Philippe Piot  wrote:
>
> > I am doing a dnf install package_without_version for instance for g++:
> >
> > [piot@paris opal]$ sudo dnf install gcc-c++
> > Last metadata expiration check: 0:01:06 ago on Thu 16 Jan 2020 06:45:59 AM
> > CST.
> > Error:
> >  Problem: package gcc-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64 requires glibc-devel >=
> > 2.2.90-12, but none of the providers can be installed
> >   - package glibc-devel-2.28-72.el8.i686 requires glibc-headers, but none
> > of the providers can be installed

OK I see the problem.. arch difficulties entered in sometime. You have
some .i686 packages installed which got filtered into the compose at
some point when they shouldn't have been.

Please try adding --nobest --allowerasing to the install and see if it
gets past this.



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] CentOS 8: several packages have unresolved dependencies after "dnf update all "

2020-01-16 Thread Stephen John Smoogen 
On Thu, 16 Jan 2020 at 09:48, Philippe Piot  wrote:
>
> No it did not work; see:
> [piot@paris ~]$ sudo dnf install --nobest --allowerasing  gcc-c++
> Last metadata expiration check: 0:18:24 ago on Thu 16 Jan 2020 08:28:51 AM 
> CST.
> Error:
>  Problem: package gcc-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64 requires glibc-devel >= 2.2.90-12, 
> but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package glibc-devel-2.28-72.el8.i686 requires glibc-headers, but none of 
> the providers can be installed
>   - package glibc-devel-2.28-72.el8.i686 requires glibc-headers = 
> 2.28-72.el8, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package glibc-devel-2.28-72.el8.x86_64 requires glibc-headers, but none 
> of the providers can be installed
>   - package glibc-devel-2.28-72.el8.x86_64 requires glibc-headers = 
> 2.28-72.el8, but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package gcc-c++-8.3.1-4.5.el8.x86_64 requires gcc = 8.3.1-4.5.el8, but 
> none of the providers can be installed
>   - package glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.i686 requires kernel-headers, but none 
> of the providers can be installed
>   - package glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.i686 requires kernel-headers >= 2.2.1, 
> but none of the providers can be installed
>   - package glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.x86_64 requires kernel-headers, but 
> none of the providers can be installed
>   - package glibc-headers-2.28-72.el8.x86_64 requires kernel-headers >= 
> 2.2.1, but none of the providers can be installed


OK let us see if we can see what is on the system which is causing the
problem. It is either going to be an existing gcc-XXX which needs to
be removed or it is some other i686 item.
rpm -qa | egrep 'glibc|gcc'

rpm -qa | grep i686 # probably a big file so probably put it in a
paste/gist somewhere would be better

I just tested on an 8.0 box and was able to install gcc-c++ from 8.1

[root@li1064-117 ~]# yum install gcc-c++
Last metadata expiration check: 1:11:50 ago on 2020-01-16T16:41:09 UTC.
Dependencies resolved.
==
 Package  Arch
 Version
 RepositorySize
==
Installing:
 gcc-c++  x86_64
 8.3.1-4.5.el8
 AppStream 12 M
Upgrading:
 glibcx86_64
 2.28-72.el8
 BaseOS   3.5 M
 glibc-common x86_64
 2.28-72.el8
 BaseOS   811 k
 glibc-langpack-enx86_64
 2.28-72.el8
 BaseOS   818 k
 libgcc   x86_64
 8.3.1-4.5.el8
 BaseOS78 k
 libgomp  x86_64
 8.3.1-4.5.el8
 BaseOS   203 k
 libstdc++x86_64
 8.3.1-4.5.el8
 BaseOS   450 k
Installing dependencies:
 cpp  x86_64
 8.3.1-4.5.el8
 AppStream 10 M
 gcc  x86_64
 8.3.1-4.5.el8
 AppStream 23 M
 isl  x86_64
 0.16.1-6.el8
 AppStream841 k
 libmpc   x86_64
 1.0.2-9.el8
 AppStream 59 k
 libstdc++-devel  x86_64
 8.3.1-4.5.el8
 AppStream2.0 M
 glibc-devel  x86_64
 2.28-72.el8
 BaseOS   1.0 M
 glibc-headersx86_64
 2.28-72.el8
 BaseOS   469 k
 kernel-headers   x86_64
 4.18.0-147.3.1.el8_1
 BaseOS   2.7 M
 libxcrypt-devel  x86_64
 4.1.1-4.el8
 BaseOS25 k

Transaction Summary
==
Install  10 Packages
Upgrade   6 Packages

Total download size: 59 M
Is this ok

Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS Linux 8 (1911)

2020-01-16 Thread Lamar Owen 

On 1/16/20 6:49 AM, Peter wrote:

On 16/01/20 4:14 am, Brian Stinson wrote:

Release for CentOS Linux 8 (1911)

We are pleased to announce the general availability of CentOS Linux 8.


CentOS 8 was released in September 2019.  Don't you mean 8.1?
No, they mean CentOS 8 (1911).  This was hashed to death back in early 
CentOS 7 days, so shouldn't need rehashing again..


Yeah, I know most people are going to call it 8.1, or maybe even 
8.1.1911 (which is part of the name of the DVD ISO file), but officially 
it's CentOS 8 (1911).

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

Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS Linux 8 (1911)

2020-01-16 Thread Warren Young 
On Jan 16, 2020, at 12:06 PM, Lamar Owen  wrote:
> 
> ...or maybe even 8.1.1911 (which is part of the name of the DVD ISO file), 
> but officially it's CentOS 8 (1911).

$ lsb_release -a
LSB Version::core-4.1-amd64:core-4.1-noarch
Distributor ID: CentOS
Description:CentOS Linux release 8.1.1911 (Core) 
Release:8.1.1911
Codename:   Core

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

Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS Linux 8 (1911)

2020-01-16 Thread Lamar Owen 

On 1/16/20 2:07 PM, Warren Young wrote:

On Jan 16, 2020, at 12:06 PM, Lamar Owen  wrote:
...or maybe even 8.1.1911 (which is part of the name of the DVD ISO 
file), but officially it's CentOS 8 (1911). 
$ lsb_release -a LSB Version: :core-4.1-amd64:core-4.1-noarch 
Distributor ID: CentOS Description: CentOS Linux release 8.1.1911 
(Core) Release: 8.1.1911 Codename: Core
Sure; I said 'officially' not 'technically' and 'technically' it's 
8.1.1911.  That was part of the hashing back in the early days of C7.  
/etc/centos-release also contains the 'technical' release number.


(I had assumed my reply would have been more obviously tongue-in-cheek 
to anyone who's been around CentOS for any length of time.. :-)  
sorry I didn't make it clearer)


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

[CentOS] CentOS 8 - auto-loading kickstart from USB doesn't work

2020-01-16 Thread Chris Adams 
While updating my base kickstart for CentOS 8.1, I noticed it won't
auto-load from a USB device.  I'm testing in a VM, but usually add a USB
drive for the ks.cfg because my kickstart skips USB drives when picking
where to install.  If I leave the drive a virtio, or make it a CD, it
works.

I found https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770969 which then
references a RHEL-subscriber-only solution.

-- 
Chris Adams 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[CentOS] Need info on adobe flash player plugin 32 for CentOS7

2020-01-16 Thread Kay Schenk 

Hello all--

I kept getting messages that my old Flash Player 31 was obsolete so I 
went in search of an update.


I came across several references for getting flash plugin 32 that 
basically were the same as this page --


https://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2010/install-adobe-flash-player-10-on-fedora-centos-red-hat-rhel/

However, it seems the site --

|http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/ does NOT resolve. Does anyone have any 
insight into how to install Flash Player Plugin v 32 on CentOS 7? |



--

"And in the end, only kindness matters."
   -- Jewel, "Hands"
__
 MzK


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

Re: [CentOS] Need info on adobe flash player plugin 32 for CentOS7

2020-01-16 Thread Chris Adams 
Once upon a time, Kay Schenk  said:
> I kept getting messages that my old Flash Player 31 was obsolete so
> I went in search of an update.

Adobe stopped releasing Flash for Linux a while back.  IIRC the only
"supported" Flash on Linux is distributed as a part of Google Chrome
(and that's going away sometime soon too, Chrome on all platforms will
no longer support Flash).

-- 
Chris Adams 
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Need info on adobe flash player plugin 32 for CentOS7

2020-01-16 Thread Steve Clark 
On 01/16/2020 03:30 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kay Schenk  said:
>> I kept getting messages that my old Flash Player 31 was obsolete so
>> I went in search of an update.
> Adobe stopped releasing Flash for Linux a while back.  IIRC the only
> "supported" Flash on Linux is distributed as a part of Google Chrome
> (and that's going away sometime soon too, Chrome on all platforms will
> no longer support Flash).
>
Don't know about C7 but I just yum updated my C6 system.
adobe-linux-x86_64 | 2.9 kB 00:00

Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package flash-plugin.x86_64 0:32.0.0.255-release will be updated
---> Package flash-plugin.x86_64 0:32.0.0.314-release will be an update
--> Finished Dependency Resolution


Email Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this transmission 
may contain privileged and confidential and/or protected health information 
(PHI) and may be subject to protection under the law, including the Health 
Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, as amended (HIPAA). This 
transmission is intended for the sole use of the individual or entity to whom 
it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that 
any use, dissemination, distribution, printing or copying of this transmission 
is strictly prohibited and may subject you to criminal or civil penalties. If 
you have received this transmission in error, please contact the sender 
immediately and delete this email and any attachments from any computer. Vaso 
Corporation and its subsidiary companies are not responsible for data leaks 
that result from email messages received that contain privileged and 
confidential and/or protected health information (PHI).
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Need info on adobe flash player plugin 32 for CentOS7

2020-01-16 Thread me 

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020, Steve Clark wrote:


On 01/16/2020 03:30 PM, Chris Adams wrote:

Once upon a time, Kay Schenk  said:

I kept getting messages that my old Flash Player 31 was obsolete so
I went in search of an update.

Adobe stopped releasing Flash for Linux a while back.  IIRC the only
"supported" Flash on Linux is distributed as a part of Google Chrome
(and that's going away sometime soon too, Chrome on all platforms will
no longer support Flash).


Don't know about C7 but I just yum updated my C6 system.
adobe-linux-x86_64 | 2.9 kB 00:00

Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package flash-plugin.x86_64 0:32.0.0.255-release will be updated
---> Package flash-plugin.x86_64 0:32.0.0.314-release will be an update
--> Finished Dependency Resolution


And on Centos 7:

(tigger pts2) $ rpm -qi flash-plugin
Name: flash-plugin
Version : 32.0.0.314
Release : release
Architecture: x86_64
Install Date: Tue 14 Jan 2020 05:27:19 AM EST
Group   : Applications/Internet
Size: 21472196
License : Commercial
Signature   : DSA/SHA1, Mon 16 Dec 2019 06:38:35 PM EST, Key ID 3a69bd24f6777c67
Source RPM  : flash-plugin-32.0.0.314-release.src.rpm
Build Date  : Mon 16 Dec 2019 06:38:30 PM EST
Build Host  : sj1010005204073.corp.adobe.com
Relocations : (not relocatable)
Packager: Adobe Systems Inc.
Vendor  : Adobe Systems Inc.
URL : http://www.adobe.com/downloads/
Summary : Adobe Flash Player NPAPI
Description :
Adobe Flash Plugin 32.0.0.314

See if the following helps:

(tigger pts2) $ cat /etc/yum.repos.d/adobe-linux-x86_64.repo 
[adobe-linux-x86_64]

name=Adobe Systems Incorporated
baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/
enabled=1
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-adobe-linux

Regards,

--
Tom m...@tdiehl.org
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Need info on adobe flash player plugin 32 for CentOS7

2020-01-16 Thread J Martin Rushton via CentOS 

On 16/01/2020 20:37, Steve Clark wrote:

On 01/16/2020 03:30 PM, Chris Adams wrote:

Once upon a time, Kay Schenk  said:

I kept getting messages that my old Flash Player 31 was obsolete so
I went in search of an update.

Adobe stopped releasing Flash for Linux a while back.  IIRC the only
"supported" Flash on Linux is distributed as a part of Google Chrome
(and that's going away sometime soon too, Chrome on all platforms will
no longer support Flash).


Don't know about C7 but I just yum updated my C6 system.
adobe-linux-x86_64 | 2.9 kB 00:00

Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package flash-plugin.x86_64 0:32.0.0.255-release will be updated
---> Package flash-plugin.x86_64 0:32.0.0.314-release will be an update
--> Finished Dependency Resolution


It's still supported on C7:

$ yum list | grep flash
flash-plugin.x86_6432.0.0.314-release @adobe-linux-x86_64
...

--
J Martin Rushton MBCS
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS Linux 8 (1911)

2020-01-16 Thread Peter 

On 17/01/20 8:06 am, Lamar Owen wrote:

On 1/16/20 6:49 AM, Peter wrote:

On 16/01/20 4:14 am, Brian Stinson wrote:

Release for CentOS Linux 8 (1911)

We are pleased to announce the general availability of CentOS Linux 8.


CentOS 8 was released in September 2019.  Don't you mean 8.1?
No, they mean CentOS 8 (1911).  This was hashed to death back in early 
CentOS 7 days, so shouldn't need rehashing again..


No, the hashing ove back then had nothing to do with dropping the minor 
release number.  Doing that now is just making things way too confusing.


Back then the vast majority of the community showed disapproval for even 
that new naming scheme, but the wishes of the community were ignored and 
the new naming scheme went ahead anyways.  I doubt anything different 
will happen now.



Yeah, I know most people are going to call it 8.1,


That's because it *is* 8.1 and calling it 8 (1911) is just confusing and 
ridiculous.



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

[CentOS] Error in Centos 8 Linux 8.1.1911-x86_64 distro, syslinux 6.04 required vs. 6.03

2020-01-16 Thread here Fishy via CentOS 
The image file includes the wrong (outdated) syslinux 6.03 and requires 6.04 
per rufus. The fedora burner kept failing but rufus detected the issue and 
downloaded syslinux 6.04 files. Please update the distro.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Need info on adobe flash player plugin 32 for CentOS7

2020-01-16 Thread Kay Schenk 

A GREAT MYSTERY! See inline...


On 1/16/20 1:00 PM, m...@tdiehl.org wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020, Steve Clark wrote:


On 01/16/2020 03:30 PM, Chris Adams wrote:

Once upon a time, Kay Schenk  said:

I kept getting messages that my old Flash Player 31 was obsolete so
I went in search of an update.

Adobe stopped releasing Flash for Linux a while back.  IIRC the only
"supported" Flash on Linux is distributed as a part of Google Chrome
(and that's going away sometime soon too, Chrome on all platforms will
no longer support Flash).


Don't know about C7 but I just yum updated my C6 system.
adobe-linux-x86_64 | 2.9 kB 00:00

Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package flash-plugin.x86_64 0:32.0.0.255-release will be updated
---> Package flash-plugin.x86_64 0:32.0.0.314-release will be an update
--> Finished Dependency Resolution


And on Centos 7:

(tigger pts2) $ rpm -qi flash-plugin
Name    : flash-plugin
Version : 32.0.0.314
Release : release
Architecture: x86_64
Install Date: Tue 14 Jan 2020 05:27:19 AM EST
Group   : Applications/Internet
Size    : 21472196
License : Commercial
Signature   : DSA/SHA1, Mon 16 Dec 2019 06:38:35 PM EST, Key ID 
3a69bd24f6777c67

Source RPM  : flash-plugin-32.0.0.314-release.src.rpm
Build Date  : Mon 16 Dec 2019 06:38:30 PM EST
Build Host  : sj1010005204073.corp.adobe.com
Relocations : (not relocatable)
Packager    : Adobe Systems Inc.
Vendor  : Adobe Systems Inc.
URL : http://www.adobe.com/downloads/
Summary : Adobe Flash Player NPAPI
Description :
Adobe Flash Plugin 32.0.0.314

See if the following helps:

(tigger pts2) $ cat /etc/yum.repos.d/adobe-linux-x86_64.repo 
[adobe-linux-x86_64]

name=Adobe Systems Incorporated
baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/
enabled=1
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-adobe-linux


This did indeed help. The Adobe repo appears in my update list. I 
install NPAPI version. All LOOKS good at that point from the gnome 
software app gpk-application. I look at what's been installed etc.


Then, as soon as I leave this environment, and get back into the 
Software app, flash is no longer installed! I wish I was joking about 
this but I've done this 3 times and I'm not going to do it again. :(


I see that some Adobe entries in Firefox's current blocklist.xml. 
But...what is going on here? Are we absoluting FORBIDDEN in any way from 
using Flash? Any insights?




Regards,


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

Re: [CentOS] Need info on adobe flash player plugin 32 for CentOS7

2020-01-16 Thread James Pearson 

J Martin Rushton via CentOS wrote:


On 16/01/2020 20:37, Steve Clark wrote:

On 01/16/2020 03:30 PM, Chris Adams wrote:

Once upon a time, Kay Schenk  said:

I kept getting messages that my old Flash Player 31 was obsolete so
I went in search of an update.

Adobe stopped releasing Flash for Linux a while back.  IIRC the only
"supported" Flash on Linux is distributed as a part of Google Chrome
(and that's going away sometime soon too, Chrome on all platforms will
no longer support Flash).


Don't know about C7 but I just yum updated my C6 system.
adobe-linux-x86_64 | 2.9 kB 00:00

Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package flash-plugin.x86_64 0:32.0.0.255-release will be updated
---> Package flash-plugin.x86_64 0:32.0.0.314-release will be an update
--> Finished Dependency Resolution


It's still supported on C7:

$ yum list | grep flash
flash-plugin.x86_64    32.0.0.314-release @adobe-linux-x86_64
...


I think you'll find the latest releases won't run on CentOS 7:

% ldd libflashplayer.so
./libflashplayer.so: /lib64/libstdc++.so.6: version `GLIBCXX_3.4.21' not 
found (required by ./libflashplayer.so)


and hence Firefox won't load this version ...

The last version that runs on CentOS 7 is 32.0.0.270

See: https://tracker.adobe.com/#/view/FP-4199058

James Pearson


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

Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS Linux 8 (1911)

2020-01-16 Thread Gianluca Cecchi 
On Thu, Jan 16, 2020 at 11:08 PM Peter  wrote:

> On 17/01/20 8:06 am, Lamar Owen wrote:
> > On 1/16/20 6:49 AM, Peter wrote:
> >> On 16/01/20 4:14 am, Brian Stinson wrote:
> >>> Release for CentOS Linux 8 (1911)
> >>>
> >>> We are pleased to announce the general availability of CentOS Linux 8.
> >>
> >> CentOS 8 was released in September 2019.  Don't you mean 8.1?
> > No, they mean CentOS 8 (1911).  This was hashed to death back in early
> > CentOS 7 days, so shouldn't need rehashing again..
>
> No, the hashing ove back then had nothing to do with dropping the minor
> release number.  Doing that now is just making things way too confusing.
>
> Back then the vast majority of the community showed disapproval for even
> that new naming scheme, but the wishes of the community were ignored and
> the new naming scheme went ahead anyways.  I doubt anything different
> will happen now.
>
> > Yeah, I know most people are going to call it 8.1,
>
> That's because it *is* 8.1 and calling it 8 (1911) is just confusing and
> ridiculous.
>
>
> Peter
>

I think that the e-mail subject of the announcement could be a bit
misleading.
Also for 7.x the subject for the latest one, posted by Johnny, was:

"Release for CentOS Linux 7 (1908) on the x86_64  Architecture"

Actually at CentOS 7 time, after some discussions, developers accepted to
have both "numbers" inside release information.

For example on running systems you have

- for 7.x
On 7.6:
# cat /etc/centos-release
CentOS Linux release 7.6.1810 (Core)

# lsb_release -r
Release: 7.6.1810

On 7.7:
# cat /etc/centos-release
CentOS Linux release 7.7.1908 (Core)

# lsb_release -r
Release: 7.7.1908

And this has been maintained in 8.x too:
On 8.0:
# cat /etc/centos-release
CentOS Linux release 8.0.1905 (Core)

# lsb_release -r
Release: 8.0.1905

On the just released 8.1
# cat /etc/centos-release
CentOS Linux release 8.1.1911 (Core)

# lsb_release -r
Release: 8.1.1911

This is acceptable in my opinion from a final user point of view

I'm not sure but possibly the origin of the lng discussion thread was
this one from Karanbir, if interested:
https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2014-June/010444.html

HIH,
Gianluca
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Re: [CentOS] Need info on adobe flash player plugin 32 for CentOS7

2020-01-16 Thread Kay Schenk 

Hello again. All good now. I followed the instructions in

https://www.if-not-true-then-false.com/2010/install-adobe-flash-player-10-on-fedora-centos-red-hat-rhel/

to the letter using yum from root, and all good now. I was missing the 
PGP key and thus no TOTAL install.


"And in the end, only kindness matters."
   -- Jewel, "Hands"
__
 MzK


On 1/16/20 2:40 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:

A GREAT MYSTERY! See inline...


On 1/16/20 1:00 PM, m...@tdiehl.org wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jan 2020, Steve Clark wrote:


On 01/16/2020 03:30 PM, Chris Adams wrote:

Once upon a time, Kay Schenk  said:

I kept getting messages that my old Flash Player 31 was obsolete so
I went in search of an update.

Adobe stopped releasing Flash for Linux a while back.  IIRC the only
"supported" Flash on Linux is distributed as a part of Google Chrome
(and that's going away sometime soon too, Chrome on all platforms will
no longer support Flash).


Don't know about C7 but I just yum updated my C6 system.
adobe-linux-x86_64 | 2.9 kB 00:00

Resolving Dependencies
--> Running transaction check
---> Package flash-plugin.x86_64 0:32.0.0.255-release will be updated
---> Package flash-plugin.x86_64 0:32.0.0.314-release will be an update
--> Finished Dependency Resolution


And on Centos 7:

(tigger pts2) $ rpm -qi flash-plugin
Name    : flash-plugin
Version : 32.0.0.314
Release : release
Architecture: x86_64
Install Date: Tue 14 Jan 2020 05:27:19 AM EST
Group   : Applications/Internet
Size    : 21472196
License : Commercial
Signature   : DSA/SHA1, Mon 16 Dec 2019 06:38:35 PM EST, Key ID 
3a69bd24f6777c67

Source RPM  : flash-plugin-32.0.0.314-release.src.rpm
Build Date  : Mon 16 Dec 2019 06:38:30 PM EST
Build Host  : sj1010005204073.corp.adobe.com
Relocations : (not relocatable)
Packager    : Adobe Systems Inc.
Vendor  : Adobe Systems Inc.
URL : http://www.adobe.com/downloads/
Summary : Adobe Flash Player NPAPI
Description :
Adobe Flash Plugin 32.0.0.314

See if the following helps:

(tigger pts2) $ cat /etc/yum.repos.d/adobe-linux-x86_64.repo 
[adobe-linux-x86_64]

name=Adobe Systems Incorporated
baseurl=http://linuxdownload.adobe.com/linux/x86_64/
enabled=1
gpgcheck=1
gpgkey=file:///etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-adobe-linux


This did indeed help. The Adobe repo appears in my update list. I 
install NPAPI version. All LOOKS good at that point from the gnome 
software app gpk-application. I look at what's been installed etc.


Then, as soon as I leave this environment, and get back into the 
Software app, flash is no longer installed! I wish I was joking about 
this but I've done this 3 times and I'm not going to do it again. :(


I see that some Adobe entries in Firefox's current blocklist.xml. 
But...what is going on here? Are we absoluting FORBIDDEN in any way 
from using Flash? Any insights?




Regards,


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