Re: Why all fedora core 6.90 are wrong?

On Tue, 2007-02-06 at 03:15 +, 宋健能 wrote: > Hi all, > I have a question. > I have downloaded fedora core 6.90 for test, but why the serial number > are all wrong when i verify the iso with md5? > Could anybody give me a link for the download? > b/c they aren't md5sums. They're sha1sums. :) -

Re: Fedora Legacy shutting down

On Mon, 2007-01-01 at 20:54 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Monday 01 January 2007 20:42, Jesse Keating wrote: > > It wouldn't take space > > Correction, wouldn't take huge amounts of space. It's 63GB in total. -sv -- fedora-legacy-list mailing list fedora-legacy-list@redhat.com https://www.r

Re: Fedora Legacy shutting down

On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 17:16 +0100, D.Terweij | NTG-Support wrote: > > > >> In case any of you are not aware, the Fedora Legacy project is in the > > > >> process of shutting down. > > > > > > > > Does have anyone a rscync line for me to get the whole FC3 tree to my > > > > local hdd? > > > > I am s

Re: Fedora Legacy shutting down

On Sat, 2006-12-30 at 16:38 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> In case any of you are not aware, the Fedora Legacy project is in the > >> process of shutting down. > > > > Does have anyone a rscync line for me to get the whole FC3 tree to my > > local hdd? > > I am still using some FC3 boxes, and

Re: Announcing End of Life times (Fedora Core 1, 2, Red Hat Linux 7.3, 9)

On Sat, 2006-08-05 at 12:15 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote: > Erik Forsberg wrote: > > [snip] > > > Now, if I still need to have some RHL7.3 machines running, are there > > any commercial alternatives available to fedora legacy for security > > updates? I haven't any, but perhaps my Google luck is not

Re: FL repositories down?

On Sun, 2006-07-30 at 14:47 +0200, Nils Breunese wrote: > Hi all, > > My servers are currently unable to run yum update because the Fedora > Legacy repositories seem unavailable. I also can't get to http:// > download.fedoralegacy.org/fedora/3 in my browser. Is this known > downtime or is the

Re: Friday Flames - What to do with RHL7.3/9 and FC1/2

On Wed, 2006-06-14 at 10:08 -0700, Tim Thome wrote: > My last words on the subject... > > The RH9 GA Release, as far as I can tell, was 03/31/03. Putting RH's > timeline for life-cycle, maintenance should be carried on for a > minimum of 5 years. > > I think this is probably unreasonable, as

Re: Friday Flames - What to do with RHL7.3/9 and FC1/2

On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 21:24 -0700, Tim Thome wrote: > There needs to be an end for 7.3, along with Fedora Core Releases 1 > and 2, but there are non-hobby people and organizations that need > extended legacy support for RH9. I'll translate this as "I use rh9, still" Is that a good translati

Re: Friday Flames - What to do with RHL7.3/9 and FC1/2

On Fri, 2006-06-09 at 23:53 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > As we approach FC6 Test2, we should make a decision wrt RHL7.3/9 and > FC1/2. We've been supporting these releases for a while now, and > they've grown pretty long in the tooth, even by Legacy standards. Our > lifetime policy would dictate

Re: connection refused to download.fedoralegacy.org

On Tue, 2006-05-23 at 08:41 -0400, Jason Edgecombe wrote: > Hi, > > I'm receiving "connection refused" errors when trying to contact > download.fedoralegacy.org. I got the error on two machines using both > yum and wget. > > Does anyone have any info on this? I do - box was rebooted yesterday

Re: Question about yum.conf for fc2

On Thu, 2006-03-23 at 07:37 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > Greetings; > > Yum is rather continuously erroring out on fedora extras, both branches > recently. Do I need to edit that line and send it someplace else now? you need to tell us what the error is. -sv -- fedora-legacy-list mailing l

Re: FC3 yum instructions

> >> 5) Some other reason or reasons? > > > > To further make our selves seem as a project of the same level as the > > Extras or Documentation project, by existing in the same spaces that > > they do. > > I personally think we are lowering ourselves to their level, but so be it. > Not my call.

RE: EOL planning

On Wed, 2006-01-04 at 11:46 -0500, Lawrence 'The Dreamer' Chen wrote: > Well, my previous employer probably wants RH7.3 to go on forever now. > > I had made all the important servers RH7.3 -- 2 NIS servers, NFS server and > CVS > server. The NIS servers were 7.2, but I upgraded them to 7.3 short

Re: [vendor-sec] New Fetchmail issue

On Wed, 2005-12-21 at 00:05 -0500, Gene Heskett wrote: > On Tuesday 20 December 2005 16:40, Jesse Keating wrote: > >On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 12:22 -0800, Josh Bressers wrote: > >> http://fetchmail.berlios.de/fetchmail-SA-2005-03.txt > >> > >> Just a DoS, nothing to cause a panic before the holiday :)

Re: mock/rh73

On Tue, 2005-12-20 at 14:11 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > John Dalbec wrote: > > Mach/apt is no longer supported > > Mach/yum doesn't work unless yum is at least the FC3 version > > Speaking of rh73... I've been trying to get mock/rh73 working (hosted on > an rhel4 box), but have gotten stuck(*). A

Re: Old yum? New yum? Re: Typo in yum instructions

> Yes, that is what I am saying here. It is not a great feat to write > a script which runs from cron and does "if status is not zero then > download packages from this list". Of course when '--download-only' > option was available you did not have to write that script. > If you want to use -

Re: Old yum? New yum? Re: Typo in yum instructions

> Also, the URL reported in the yum package on my system is > . When I go to that wep-page, it looks > like a Duke University Linux Users' Group moinmoin wiki page: > > "yum > > "This page does not exist yet. You can create a new empty page, >

Re: dependency hell, version 2,197,386.1

On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 15:56 +1000, Stuart Low wrote: > Hey, > > > How can I go about convincing yum to update the iptables install on my > > old firewall box when it reports this: > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] etc]# yum update iptables > > package iptables needs kernel that has been excluded > > package i

Re: Move to new wiki

On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 12:29 -0500, Eric Rostetter wrote: > Quoting Jeff Sheltren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > I think that the new wiki is well enough along that we should start > > linking to it from the main fedoralegacy site. > > Done. Let me know if I missed (or messed up) anything. > > Also,

Re: metadata for legacy repositories

> > Feel like maybe commenting on this a bit further? > Sure - but honestly I didn't do too much. I get the feeling you > weren't expecting it to work? not exactly, no. I was expecting the rpmdb to explode on itself. But then again we're only ever touching it from the outside so it should be ok

Re: metadata for legacy repositories

On Tue, 2005-08-02 at 15:24 -0700, Jeff Sheltren wrote: > On Aug 2, 2005, at 2:37 PM, Jeff Sheltren wrote: > > > > So far everything seems to work. I've tested out cfengine and a > > couple other packages. I'll put up my configs somewhere and write > > up a wiki page with the step-by-step det

Re: metadata for legacy repositories

> I have mock working with rh73, rh9, fc1 & fc2, and I was thinking of > writing some documentation on the wiki for it, however it requires > the use of the newer metadata, so I wasn't sure if I would just be > confusing people if the repositories don't actually have the > metadata. I woul

Re: Wiki Permissions

On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 11:02 -0700, Jeff Sheltren wrote: > On Jul 20, 2005, at 10:40 AM, Eric Rostetter wrote: > > > Quoting Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > > > >> On Wed, 2005-07-20 at 09:27 -0700, Jeff Sheltren wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> Great! Anything I can do to help? > >>> > >> > >> Wh