On 2011/10/06 17:22, Yasha Karant wrote:
On 10/06/2011 04:37 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Yasha Karant wrote:
On 10/06/2011 04:19 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Ai
Hello again everyone!
After quite a bit of reading and thought I came to the conclusion that
no matter how I did this project, I am stuck with having multiple
subnets on one group of switches (I can't easily pull those apart). This
means that I am going to have to maintain a list of MAC
addresses/
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 1:34 AM, Urs Beyerle wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On 10/04/2011 11:34 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Sean Nelson wrote:
>>
>>> Hello, I just installed SL6 from the Live CD and I'm having two post
>>> install issues.
>>>
>>> 1) I am unable to complete my initial update
On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 6:01 PM, William Scott wrote:
> On 5 October 2011 20:27, Kevin Wood wrote:
>> This came up a while ago.
>
> Full saga is here...
>
> http://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1108&L=SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS&D=0&I=-3&P=11276
Hmm. Did you try simply excluding NetworkManage
On 10/06/2011 04:37 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Yasha Karant wrote:
On 10/06/2011 04:19 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> > > On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, D
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 00:58 +0100, Alan Bartlett wrote:
> As you know, the recommended reading for those persons starts with the
> following Red Hat policy regarding the backporting of security fixes
> --
>
> http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/backporting/
>
Perhaps it's a tribute to the rise
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 01:19 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> It's quite hard to release before Adobe.
>
The way I understand it from pre 64-bit Flash, Adobe weren't responsible
for the 64-bit Flash development and it came with the caveat that it
won't be updated from their repo.
This meant that you only
On 7 October 2011 00:37, Dag Wieers wrote:
> Do you have proof that this is a security fix. Because I track the RHEL
> packages and no such update has come through their channels. It seems as if
> the release was simply their official Flash Player 11 release, rather than a
> security fix.
>
> If
On Fri, 7 Oct 2011, JR van Rensburg wrote:
On Fri, 2011-10-07 at 01:19 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
It's quite hard to release before Adobe.
The way I understand it from pre 64-bit Flash, Adobe weren't responsible
for the 64-bit Flash development and it came with the caveat that it
won't be upda
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Yasha Karant wrote:
On 10/06/2011 04:19 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> > > On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > > > > RPMforge pr
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Yasha Karant wrote:
On 10/06/2011 10:08 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
>
> > RPMforge provides already the (beta) 64bit flash-plugin, so there's no
> > need to wait for it. In this case the
On 10/06/2011 04:19 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
> > > RPMforge provides already the (beta) 64bit flash-plugin, so
there's >
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
>
> > RPMforge provides already the (beta) 64bit flash-plugin, so there's
> > no
> > need to wait for it. In
On 2011/10/06 13:12, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
RPMforge provides already the (beta) 64bit flash-plugin, so there's no
need to wait for it. In this case the 64bit i
On 2011/10/06 07:38, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Vladimir Mosgalin wrote:
On 2011.10.06 at 05:05:05 -0700, jdow wrote next:
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 05:05:05 -0700
From: jdow
To: scientific-linux-us...@fnal.gov
X-Original-To: mosgalin@localhost
Subject: Flash plugin
User-Agent: Mozil
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
RPMforge provides already the (beta) 64bit flash-plugin, so there's no
need to wait for it. In this case the 64bit is installed, so there is no
reason to install th
On 10/05/2011 07:34 AM, Urs Beyerle wrote:
Hi,
On 10/04/2011 11:34 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:
On Tue, 4 Oct 2011, Sean Nelson wrote:
Hello, I just installed SL6 from the Live CD and I'm having two post
install issues.
1) I am unable to complete my initial update. Whenever I run 'sudo
yum update
On Thu, 2011-10-06 at 19:08 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
> So, why would one replace a 64bit flash-plugin with a 32bit one ?
>
> If the 64bit version was used, it simply would have worked.
>
I originally installed the 32 bit version from adobe and then updated to
the 64 bit from the repo.
Now, every
On 10/06/2011 10:08 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
RPMforge provides already the (beta) 64bit flash-plugin, so there's no
need to wait for it. In this case the 64bit is installed, so there is no
reason to install th
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
RPMforge provides already the (beta) 64bit flash-plugin, so there's no
need to wait for it. In this case the 64bit is installed, so there is no
reason to install the 32bit. Unless you want to replace the
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Dag Wieers wrote:
RPMforge provides already the (beta) 64bit flash-plugin, so there's no need
to wait for it. In this case the 64bit is installed, so there is no reason to
install the 32bit. Unless you want to replace the 64bit by the 32bit.
Hmm. Unless I am using an out o
Hello,
The distribution servers are back on line now. We apologize for the
unexpected extra downtime on ftp1.scientificlinux.org.
Pat
On 10/04/2011 10:02 AM, Patrick Riehecky wrote:
Hello,
The distribution servers rsync.scientificlinux.org,
ftp.scientificlinux.org, ftp1.scientificlinux.org
Hi Dag Wieers!
On 2011.10.06 at 16:38:04 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote next:
> >There is no flash plugin in elrepo. You seem to have one from rpmforge
> >installed. Either wait until x86_64 package appears in rpmforge, or
> >uninstall it, then install official adobe yum repository and install
> >flash
I did encounter a problem with the official adobe repo yesterday - it
wanted to install the i386 version over the x86_64 version, so bombed
with a file conflict.
Deleting the adobe yum config rpms and relying on Dag made things work
here.
--
Alec Habig, University of Minnesota Dulut
On Thu, 6 Oct 2011, Vladimir Mosgalin wrote:
On 2011.10.06 at 05:05:05 -0700, jdow wrote next:
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 05:05:05 -0700
From: jdow
To: scientific-linux-us...@fnal.gov
X-Original-To: mosgalin@localhost
Subject: Flash plugin
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1)
Hi jdow!
On 2011.10.06 at 05:05:05 -0700, jdow wrote next:
> Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 05:05:05 -0700
> From: jdow
> To: scientific-linux-us...@fnal.gov
> X-Original-To: mosgalin@localhost
> Subject: Flash plugin
> User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929
>
I have the elrepo 64 bit beta flash plugin installed. A 32 bit flash update
is being forced on my system. Here are the error messages.
Transaction Check Error:
file /usr/share/applications/flash-player-properties.desktop from install of
flash-plugin-11.0.1.152-release.i386 conflicts with file
Hi all,
Somebody knows how can I configure up gnome toolbar to show the
hostname near sound and clock preferencies?? (It is a SL6.1 laptop).
Thanks.
--
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com
Hi, i use dnsmasq for a simple LAN to provide dhcp and dns, to start
with it did not work as i did not open the correct ports in the
firewall. UDP 67 and 68, as mentioned in the FAQ. I also have the
trusted DNS service 53/tcp and 53/udp enabled i not sure if this is
necaccery.
http://www.thekelleys
29 matches
Mail list logo
