Re: White Box released
> On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 07:10:29AM -0800, Josh Hildebrand alleged: >> Today was the first day I heard about this.. but go here for a RHEL 3 >> rebuild named "White Box" >> >> http://www.beau.org/~jmorris/linux/whitebox/ Why doesn't caos just grab the work whitebox has done and use it as the base for their release? Whitebox already has an iso for install, so why not just grow on what whitebox has? --Luke rhel-rebuild mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria
Re: White Box released
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 07:40:08PM +0100, Michael Redinger alleged: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Garrick Staples wrote: > > > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 07:10:29AM -0800, Josh Hildebrand alleged: > > > Today was the first day I heard about this.. but go here for a RHEL 3 > > > rebuild named "White Box" > > > > > > http://www.beau.org/~jmorris/linux/whitebox/ > > > > Two of the claims on that site: > > > > "But RHEL's openssl package doesn't produce a /lib/libssl.so.4 > > linked with the kerberos libraries..." > > > > I found this to be the case the first time I built openssl, but after > > installing the newly built kerberos and openssl, the second openssl > > build was correct. I think the reason why the diff didn't show anything > > was because it was build order that caused the fedora package to > > succeed. > > I did not encounter this problem with this with RHEL 3 AS as build host. The difference is that you used RHE3 as the build host, I used RHE3 beta. Perhaps there's some bug in the beta's kerberos libs. -- Garrick Staples, Linux/HPCC Administrator University of Southern California pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: White Box released
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 13 Nov 2003, Garrick Staples wrote: > On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 07:10:29AM -0800, Josh Hildebrand alleged: > > Today was the first day I heard about this.. but go here for a RHEL 3 > > rebuild named "White Box" > > > > http://www.beau.org/~jmorris/linux/whitebox/ > > Two of the claims on that site: > > "But RHEL's openssl package doesn't produce a /lib/libssl.so.4 > linked with the kerberos libraries..." > > I found this to be the case the first time I built openssl, but after > installing the newly built kerberos and openssl, the second openssl > build was correct. I think the reason why the diff didn't show anything > was because it was build order that caused the fedora package to > succeed. I did not encounter this problem with this with RHEL 3 AS as build host. > "The rpm for at won't build correctly, so ..." > > This was one of the rpms that _eventually_ built correctly; after, I > think, installing the newly built glibc. Same here. I still have to find why it finally worked. I did not install a newly built glibc. I will have to check maybe 30 packages that I installed between the two build reports. I will eventually update the mini-HOWTO for RHEL 3. I hope I can manage this within the next one or two weeks. Michael - -- Michael Redinger Zentraler Informatikdienst (Computer Centre) Universitaet Innsbruck Technikerstrasse 13 Tel.: ++43 512 507 2335 6020 Innsbruck Fax.: ++43 512 507 2944 Austria Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] BB98 D2FE 0F2C 2658 3780 3CB1 0FD7 A9D9 65C2 C11D http://www.uibk.ac.at/~c102mr/mred-pubkey.asc -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/s9ALD9ep2WXCwR0RAmC+AJ9v4rg5v4R4TC8DWyYYGjhQ48ZSYwCcCnAU 1NEs8VnU5z7yRMNh/T9y00c= =TlSL -END PGP SIGNATURE- rhel-rebuild mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria
Re: White Box released
On Thu, Nov 13, 2003 at 07:10:29AM -0800, Josh Hildebrand alleged: > Today was the first day I heard about this.. but go here for a RHEL 3 > rebuild named "White Box" > > http://www.beau.org/~jmorris/linux/whitebox/ Two of the claims on that site: "But RHEL's openssl package doesn't produce a /lib/libssl.so.4 linked with the kerberos libraries..." I found this to be the case the first time I built openssl, but after installing the newly built kerberos and openssl, the second openssl build was correct. I think the reason why the diff didn't show anything was because it was build order that caused the fedora package to succeed. "The rpm for at won't build correctly, so ..." This was one of the rpms that _eventually_ built correctly; after, I think, installing the newly built glibc. -- Garrick Staples, Linux/HPCC Administrator University of Southern California pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
RE: White Box released
I like the enterprise logo on the box <-: __ Lewis [EMAIL PROTECTED] College of Literature, Science, & Arts 1007 East Huron, Room 201,BetaID:243340 Cell: (734) 323-8776 Ann Arbor,MI 48104-1690 www.umich.edu/~donofrio Fax: (734) 647-8333 > -Original Message- > From: Josh Hildebrand [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:10 AM > To: rhel-rebuild list > Subject: White Box released > > Today was the first day I heard about this.. but go here for > a RHEL 3 rebuild named "White Box" > > http://www.beau.org/~jmorris/linux/whitebox/ > > You can download it via BitTorrent. Which is a great way for > cAos to be distributed, too! > rhel-rebuild mailing list > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria > rhel-rebuild mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hosted at the University of Innsbruck, Austria
