Hi,
Please note RHEL has just released a fix for this issue:
http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0466.html
Lets hope it makes it into centos soon...
_Thanks
Richard Mollel
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On 04/26/2011 02:54 PM, Richard Mollel wrote:
Hi,
Please note RHEL has just released a fix for this issue:
http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-0466.html
Lets hope it makes it into centos soon...
I started building it about 20 minutes ago ... it will be released in a
couple of
Many thanks for the rpm's. I had some evolution stored
documents that I really needed. I've applied them to
two systems.
Is it possible that the gnome panel problem is only on CRT's and
not LEDs? Seems like one of my systems fixed itself when
I changed monitors.
--
M Reynolds McClatchey Jr
On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 02:07:04 AM Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Tom Sorensen tsoren...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a known issue with one of the security updates on that
version of glibc.
That said, it's still *highly* recommended that you update. There are
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
On 04/18/2011 07:51 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
There is an update in QA at Redhat now to address these issues.
Do you know a bug entry with the patch (and/or SRPM) that they are using?
This may not be what you're
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 7:21 PM, fred smith
fre...@fcshome.stoneham.ma.us wrote:
What works for me is, after I log in and find the panels are empty,
do CTRL-ALT-BACKSPACE then log in again and the panels are working.
A fairly low-pain workaround.
It is for me also (with the pkill gnome-panel
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com wrote:
Are only the nVidia chipsets + *proprietary* nVidia drivers? And only
Evolution and Gnome-Panel? And is it 32-bit AND 64-bit or only 32-bit
(or only 64-bit)?
I can't say -- this is just my personal experience. The
2011/4/19 Peter Kjellström c...@nsc.liu.se:
On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 02:07:04 AM Ron Blizzard wrote:
For clarification, this bug is only known to be affecting Evolution
and Gnome-Panel, correct?
Those are the only known problems with this glibc version. We've been running
~2000 servers
On 04/18/2011 10:48 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
At Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:07:04 -0500 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Tom Sorensen tsoren...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a known issue with one of the security updates on that
version of glibc.
That
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 05:26:17AM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:48 PM, Robert Heller hel...@deepsoft.com wrote:
Are only the nVidia chipsets + *proprietary* nVidia drivers? And only
Evolution and Gnome-Panel? And is it 32-bit AND 64-bit or only 32-bit
(or only
On 04/19/2011 05:13 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:25 PM, Johnny Hughes joh...@centos.org wrote:
On 04/18/2011 07:51 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
There is an update in QA at Redhat now to address these issues.
Do you know a bug entry with the patch (and/or SRPM) that
On 18.4.2011 17:40, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 4/18/2011 10:18 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Where is it (besides their bugzilla) that upstream warns customers of
this known issue? I am all for fixing things and posting things and
such, but CentOS (with no SLA) is now being held to a higher standard
On 04/18/2011 10:40 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 4/18/2011 10:18 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Where is it (besides their bugzilla) that upstream warns customers of
this known issue? I am all for fixing things and posting things and
such, but CentOS (with no SLA) is now being held to a higher
On 04/16/2011 08:18 PM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Leonard den Ottolander
leon...@den.ottolander.nl wrote:
Hi,
I woke up Saturday morning unable to boot my freshly upgraded 5.6 with
grub hanging at GRUB. After getting the boot loader fixed I
experienced crashes in
Ron Blizzard wrote:
2011/4/19 Peter Kjellström c...@nsc.liu.se:
On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 02:07:04 AM Ron Blizzard wrote:
For clarification, this bug is only known to be affecting Evolution
and Gnome-Panel, correct?
Those are the only known problems with this glibc version. We've been
On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 05:06:49 PM m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Ron Blizzard wrote:
2011/4/19 Peter Kjellström c...@nsc.liu.se:
On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 02:07:04 AM Ron Blizzard wrote:
For clarification, this bug is only known to be affecting Evolution
and Gnome-Panel, correct?
At Tue, 19 Apr 2011 05:49:59 -0500 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
wrote:
On 04/18/2011 10:48 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
At Mon, 18 Apr 2011 19:07:04 -0500 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Tom Sorensen tsoren...@gmail.com wrote:
On 4/19/2011 7:12 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Good question, and I'd be very surprised if there is no answer. Killing
evolution and Gnome panel should be a very visible issue and CentOS has
the dubious luxury of some time elapsing before updates are duplicated
to become aware of any bad
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 12:38:50PM -0400, Robert Heller wrote:
please trim your quotes
*I* found a new X client that I *guess* is affected: xrdb (which I
suspect almost no one actually uses anymore). I get this error from
xrdb:
sh: -c: line 0: unexpected EOF while looking for matching `'
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 9:52 AM, Leonard den Ottolander
leon...@den.ottolander.nl wrote:
Please don't take this the wrong way, but not everybody reads the
forums. Perhaps it is possible to give a heads up about such breakage
via the CentOS general or announce mailing list before such a broken
On 04/17/2011 09:52 AM, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
Hi Akemi,
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 18:18 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
See also:
http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30939forum=37
Please don't take this the wrong way, but not everybody reads the
forums. Perhaps it is
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 04/17/2011 09:52 AM, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
snip
I would like to advice everyone to avoid this update by adding
exclude=glibc*2.5-58.el5_6.2 nscd*2.5-58.el5_6.2
to their updates channel config - added it to base just to be sure -
until upstream releases a fix.
On 4/18/2011 10:18 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Where is it (besides their bugzilla) that upstream warns customers of
this known issue? I am all for fixing things and posting things and
such, but CentOS (with no SLA) is now being held to a higher standard
than upstream (with paid customers)?
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:36 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 04/17/2011 09:52 AM, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
snip
I would like to advice everyone to avoid this update by adding
exclude=glibc*2.5-58.el5_6.2 nscd*2.5-58.el5_6.2
to their updates channel config - added
Tom Sorensen wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 11:36 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 04/17/2011 09:52 AM, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
snip
I would like to advice everyone to avoid this update by adding
exclude=glibc*2.5-58.el5_6.2 nscd*2.5-58.el5_6.2
to their updates
snip
Except for a handful, all of my systems are on 5.5. I don't have to update
until this is fixed
Then you are probably vulnerable to the CVEs you do realise that
'5.5' stopped getting updates when 5.6 was released?
Apart from a specific costly situation upstream there is only '5'
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Tom Sorensen tsoren...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a known issue with one of the security updates on that
version of glibc.
That said, it's still *highly* recommended that you update. There are
four CVEs closed by this glibc update, one of which is potentially
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:07:04PM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
At any rate, there are work-arounds -- for those who use Evolution,
the SL update is probably the best. I'm kind of surprised that Red Hat
has not issued a fix yet.
There is an update in QA at Redhat now to address these
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:07:04PM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 4:16 PM, Tom Sorensen tsoren...@gmail.com wrote:
There is a known issue with one of the security updates on that
version of glibc.
That said, it's still *highly* recommended that you update. There are
On 04/18/2011 07:51 PM, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 07:07:04PM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
At any rate, there are work-arounds -- for those who use Evolution,
the SL update is probably the best. I'm kind of surprised that Red Hat
has not issued a fix yet.
There is
On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 10:25:58PM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
Do you know a bug entry with the patch (and/or SRPM) that they are using?
No. I hit someone I know in Raleigh up about it on Saturday and
he mentioned it was in QA.
Hi Akemi,
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 18:18 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
See also:
http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30939forum=37
Please don't take this the wrong way, but not everybody reads the
forums. Perhaps it is possible to give a heads up about such breakage
via the
2011/4/17 Leonard den Ottolander leon...@den.ottolander.nl:
Hi Akemi,
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 18:18 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
See also:
http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30939forum=37
Please don't take this the wrong way, but not everybody reads the
forums. Perhaps
Hello Eero,
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 18:27 +0300, Eero Volotinen wrote:
Does this also affects grub? if so, then this is very critical, it can
trash my rhel installations :/
Well I am not sure, it could be a coincidence, but on my Sempron (i686)
system I had to fix a broken grub (hanging at GRUB)
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 7:52 AM, Leonard den Ottolander
leon...@den.ottolander.nl wrote:
Hi Akemi,
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 18:18 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
See also:
http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30939forum=37
Please don't take this the wrong way, but not everybody
Am 17.04.2011 16:52, schrieb Leonard den Ottolander:
Hi Akemi,
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 18:18 -0700, Akemi Yagi wrote:
See also:
http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=30939forum=37
Please don't take this the wrong way, but not everybody reads the
forums. Perhaps it is
- Original Message -
From: Eero Volotinen eero.voloti...@iki.fi
To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2011 8:27:45 AM
Subject: Re: [CentOS] glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2.i686 broken?
2011/4/17 Leonard den Ottolander leon...@den.ottolander.nl:
Hi Akemi
Hello Rainer,
On Sun, 2011-04-17 at 19:08 +0200, Rainer Traut wrote:
Please don't take it wrong but Akemi gave you the link because not
everyone reads the forums and the issue was discussed there.
Which is highly appreciated, but it happened *after* I reported these
issues, so it hardly
Leonard den Ottolander wrote on 04/17/2011 01:37 PM:
...It's a general request that if people are aware of
breakage in upcoming updates to report it to this list.
Agree. I would advocate posting it to this list and making it part of
the Announcement post as well. This issue was discussed on
Hi,
I woke up Saturday morning unable to boot my freshly upgraded 5.6 with
grub hanging at GRUB. After getting the boot loader fixed I
experienced crashes in evolution. Downgrading glibc to 2.5-58 seems to
fix these issues. Anyone else seeing this?
Leonard.
--
mount -t life -o ro /dev/dna
On Sat, Apr 16, 2011 at 6:14 PM, Leonard den Ottolander
leon...@den.ottolander.nl wrote:
Hi,
I woke up Saturday morning unable to boot my freshly upgraded 5.6 with
grub hanging at GRUB. After getting the boot loader fixed I
experienced crashes in evolution. Downgrading glibc to 2.5-58 seems
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 03:14:11AM +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
I woke up Saturday morning unable to boot my freshly upgraded 5.6 with
grub hanging at GRUB. After getting the boot loader fixed I
experienced crashes in evolution. Downgrading glibc to 2.5-58 seems to
fix these issues.
Hello John,
On Sat, 2011-04-16 at 20:19 -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=693882
I've heard from an OOB source that a fix is in QA at Redhat now.
Is this somehow related to how my grub got broken? Or is that a
different issue? Or just a coincidence :)
On Sun, Apr 17, 2011 at 03:37:38AM +0200, Leonard den Ottolander wrote:
Is this somehow related to how my grub got broken? Or is that a
different issue? Or just a coincidence :) ?
That I don't know, sorry. I've not seen references to that particular
problem being related to the glibc issue
44 matches
Mail list logo
