On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 5:59 PM, Lorenzo Martínez Rodríguez
wrote:
>
> oop my fail! I have mistyped one character :(
>
> [root@Carmen tmp]# rpm -qa| grep -i xorg-x11-xauth
> xorg-x11-xauth-1.0.2-7.1.el6.x86_64
> [root@Carmen tmp]# rpm -qa|grep -i xorg-x11-auth
> [root@Carmen tmp]#
>
> So,
oop my fail! I have mistyped one character :(
[root@Carmen tmp]# rpm -qa| grep -i xorg-x11-xauth
xorg-x11-xauth-1.0.2-7.1.el6.x86_64
[root@Carmen tmp]# rpm -qa|grep -i xorg-x11-auth
[root@Carmen tmp]#
So, yes,.. I have that packet installed! Sorry for the misunderstood.
Just the lack of
El 28/10/11 10:30, John Hodrien escribió:
> On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Steve Brooks wrote:
>
>> I have a few "sl6.1" worstations that do not have "xorg-x11-xauth"
>> installed and it does *not* seem to appear in the repos. Yet
>> X11-Forwarding works fine.
> It's in the base repos for SL, so it definitel
On Friday, October 28, 2011 05:55:06 PM Karanbir Singh wrote:
> We should have all the announcements out and caught up by the middle of
> next week.
FWIW, announcements or no announcements, I've been pretty happy to see the
updates coming through CR, and I thank you and the team for this. Back w
hi Ian,
On 10/28/2011 03:01 PM, Ian Stirling wrote:
> Are there going to be any CentOS 6 announcements made about bug fixes
> etc made to CentOS Announce mailing list ?
yes.
> CentOS 6 has been around for a while now, has many fixes available, yet
> I haven't seen a single announcement. Per
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
>
>> That logic depends on a very strange interpretation of the term
>> "restriction". The GPL doesn't narrowly define it narrowly as legal
>> actions, it says you may not impost any further restrictions.
>
> True, and that is why it is a lo
On Friday 28 October 2011 20:45:16 Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > But RH did not add restrictions. Whatever you get from them, you are free
> > to redistribute, in accord with GPL. There can be *no* *legal* *action*
> > against you if you do so. O
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
>
> But RH did not add restrictions. Whatever you get from them, you are free to
> redistribute, in accord with GPL. There can be *no* *legal* *action* against
> you if you do so. OTOH, it is their choice whether or not to give you anything
>
On Friday 28 October 2011 18:54:25 Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> >> The question is, how can a contract containing restrictions on what
> >> you can do with GPL covered content not invalidate your own right to
> >> redistribute, given that the GPL proh
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>
>> The question is, how can a contract containing restrictions on what
>> you can do with GPL covered content not invalidate your own right to
>> redistribute, given that the GPL prohibits additional restrictions?
>>
>
> As I understand, Red Ha
Hi;
Upon trying to run django, I get this error:
ImproperlyConfigured: MySQLdb-1.2.1p2 or newer is required; you have 1.2.1
If I run yum update mysql I don't upgrade (expected). What do?
TIA,
Jack
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.c
On 28/10/11 18:31, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Patrick Lists
> wrote:
>>
>>> How is, say, being
>>> required to pay a license fee as a consequence different from losing
>>> something you have already contracted and paid for?
>>
>> It would surprise me if Red Hat would
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Patrick Lists
wrote:
>
>> How is, say, being
>> required to pay a license fee as a consequence different from losing
>> something you have already contracted and paid for?
>
> It would surprise me if Red Hat would not refund the customer or let
> them ride out the
On 10/28/2011 06:53 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>
Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers.
>>>
>>> With _no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution.
>>
>> Losing access to RHN does not in any wa
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers.
>>
>> With _no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution.
>
> Losing access to RHN does not in any way restrict my redistribution of source
> I already
On Friday, October 28, 2011 11:29:52 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> >
> > Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers.
>
> With _no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution.
Losing access to RHN does not in any
Just reread your post again
Actually, "cat /proc/partitions", if the said partitions/disks are still being
seen by kernel, you will need some sort of system scan to get rid of them, or a
reboot.
I have a SAN, and qlogic card as HBA, qlogic has a tool for scanning for
non-existent partitions
Before you physically removed the disk, you were supposed to have done pvremove.
you can try pvdisplay/pvscan and see if these disks are displayed there, before
trying a pvremove on them again.
I assume the said disks were properly remove from any lv,vg that you had.
- Original Message
On Friday, October 21, 2011 02:22:26 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
> Which is explicitly imposing additional restrictions. Which is
> explicitly prohibited in section 6. I don't see any exceptions
> relating to what the consequences of those restrictions might be.
The RHN AUP simply says that if you re
On 10/28/11 8:29 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> >
>> >Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers.
> With_no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution.
redhat's threat of disabling RHN access for redistribut
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers.
With _no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing
On Friday, October 21, 2011 10:17:18 AM Giles Coochey wrote:
> It appears that this is not the case, and my only option is to take my
> servers down the beta route to Centos 6.1 Release Candidates.
This is one area in which CentOS and Scientific Linux are different (and it's
interesting, readin
On Friday, October 28, 2011 04:10:05 AM Steve Brooks wrote:
> I have a few "sl6.1" worstations that do not have "xorg-x11-xauth"
> installed and it does *not* seem to appear in the repos. Yet
> X11-Forwarding works fine.
That's mighty strange, as a basically scratch SL6.1 install here shows:
[r
On Fri, 2011-10-28 at 10:34 +0200, Götz Reinicke wrote:
> we plan to set up a big file storage for media files like uncompressed
> movies from student film projects, dvd images etc.
> It should be some sort of archive and will not bee accessed by more than
> may be 5 people at the same time.
> The
Are there going to be any CentOS 6 announcements made about bug fixes
etc made to CentOS Announce mailing list ?
CentOS 6 has been around for a while now, has many fixes available, yet
I haven't seen a single announcement. Perhaps I am just not subscribed
to the correct list .
Ian
_
On 10/28/2011 02:31 PM, Tom Brown wrote:
> do you have a list of the bad packages so that i can remove them from
> our spacewalk before they cause us an issue?
sure, here is the list I removed :
./x86_64/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-Xnest-1.7.7-29el6_1.2.x86_64.rpm
./x86_64/RPMS/xorg-x11-server-Xdmx-1.7.
> fixed. Apologies for this getting through. I've done the rm's manually,
> but we need a test to make sure this does not happen again.
do you have a list of the bad packages so that i can remove them from
our spacewalk before they cause us an issue?
thanks
___
Le ven 28 oct 2011 14:08:50 CEST, Götz Reinicke a écrit:
> Hi,
>
> some time ago I removed some physical disks from a server and now I'm
> still getting dmesg messages like:
>
> sd 0:2:2:0: SCSI error: return code = 0x00040001
> end_request: I/O error, dev sdc, sector 0
>
> And all lvm tools st
On 10/28/2011 08:38 AM, Patrick Hurrelmann wrote:
> Corosync also exists with a correct name in the repo, but
> xorg-x11-server does not.
>
> Maybe someone can have a look on this or am I overreacting?
fixed. Apologies for this getting through. I've done the rm's manually,
but we need a test to m
Hi,
some time ago I removed some physical disks from a server and now I'm
still getting dmesg messages like:
sd 0:2:2:0: SCSI error: return code = 0x00040001
end_request: I/O error, dev sdc, sector 0
And all lvm tools still grumbel about that disks too:
/dev/sdb: read failed after 0 of 4096 at
2011/10/28 Götz Reinicke
> The iSCSI RAID we have is about 26TB netto and I'm again faced with the
> question: How many partitions, which filesystem, which mount options etc.
>
My vote goes to XFS, if only one server needs acces to the LUN's; and GPFS
(not GFS) if you need a cluster filesystem.
From: Götz Reinicke
> The iSCSI RAID we have is about 26TB netto and I'm again faced with the
> question: How many partitions, which filesystem, which mount options etc.
> For the User it would be the most simpel thing, to have one big
> filesystem she/he could fill with all the data and dont has
Greetings,
2011/10/28 Götz Reinicke :
>
> Thx. Yes I'l usually go with 64 bit only.
>
> BTW 3. So far I found the information, that the 1EB ist the theory, but
> the usertools for managing the ext4 are limited to 16TB for safety
> reasons...
>
Another important consideration would be, if and when
Am 28.10.11 11:58, schrieb Rajagopal Swaminathan:
> Greetings,
>
> 2011/10/28 Götz Reinicke :
>>
>> BTW 2 . I thought, the max. filesystemsize is 1EB and not 16TB.
>>
>> The max FILEsize should be 16TB ...
>>
>
> Apologies for missing to give you the link
>
> http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/
Greetings,
2011/10/28 Götz Reinicke :
>
> BTW 2 . I thought, the max. filesystemsize is 1EB and not 16TB.
>
> The max FILEsize should be 16TB ...
>
Apologies for missing to give you the link
http://www.redhat.com/rhel/compare/
Check under "Filesystems and Storage Limits" section.
An one more t
Am 28.10.11 11:11, schrieb Rajagopal Swaminathan:
> Greetings,
>
> 2011/10/28 Götz Reinicke :
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> The iSCSI RAID we have is about 26TB netto and I'm again faced with the
>> question: How many partitions, which filesystem, which mount options etc.
>>
>> My favourite for now is 3 to 4 fi
Am 28.10.11 11:11, schrieb Rajagopal Swaminathan:
> Greetings,
>
> 2011/10/28 Götz Reinicke :
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> The iSCSI RAID we have is about 26TB netto and I'm again faced with the
>> question: How many partitions, which filesystem, which mount options etc.
>>
>> My favourite for now is 3 to 4 fi
Greetings,
2011/10/28 Götz Reinicke :
> Hi,
>
>
> The iSCSI RAID we have is about 26TB netto and I'm again faced with the
> question: How many partitions, which filesystem, which mount options etc.
>
> My favourite for now is 3 to 4 filesystems with the default ext4
> settings. (Redhat EL 5.7, may
Hi,
we plan to set up a big file storage for media files like uncompressed
movies from student film projects, dvd images etc.
It should be some sort of archive and will not bee accessed by more than
may be 5 people at the same time.
The iSCSI RAID we have is about 26TB netto and I'm again faced
On Fri, 28 Oct 2011, Steve Brooks wrote:
> I have a few "sl6.1" worstations that do not have "xorg-x11-xauth"
> installed and it does *not* seem to appear in the repos. Yet
> X11-Forwarding works fine.
It's in the base repos for SL, so it definitely should be appearing. Without
a functioning xau
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, John Hodrien wrote:
On Wed, 26 Oct 2011, Lorenzo Martínez Rodríguez wrote:
Hi,
I have a working configuration with CentOS 6. Can you try to set next
lines in /etc/ssh/sshd_config and restart SSH server please?
#X11Forwarding no
X11Forwarding yes
#X11DisplayOffset 1
Hi all,
during upgrades of my systems via spacewalk and the continuous release
repository, I encountered a problem with the rsyslog packages. It seems
that the last update was build twice. Once with a correct name and once
with a broken one (missing dot in the name before el6).
On CR-repo mirrors
42 matches
Mail list logo
