[This email is either empty or too large to be displayed at this time]
On Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:46:59 -0500, Douglas E. Warner <dwarner@ctinetworks.com> wrote:> From the release notes for RHEL 4, it looks as though howl was to be included. > Is this the case with CentOS4? Sorry if I missed part of the discussion > w/r/t howl. >http://www.google.com/search?&q=howl%20centos&sourceid=firefox http://mirror.centos.org/centos/4/docs/html/release-notes/as-x86/ Those say it should be included, but I can''t find the rpm file. I also couldn''t find it after a cursory look here: ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/4/ Greg
On Wednesday 23 March 2005 10:30, Greg Knaddison wrote:> http://www.google.com/search?&q=howl%20centos&sourceid=firefox > > http://mirror.centos.org/centos/4/docs/html/release-notes/as-x86/ > > Those say it should be included, but I can''t find the rpm file. >Yep, that''s exactly what I had done.> I also couldn''t find it after a cursory look here: > ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/4/I hadn''t tried that; good idea. It''s quite strange that they''re not included in the SRPMs. Is it possible it''s included in one of their ''workstation'' or ''advanced server'' compilations, but not in the general distribution? -Doug -- Douglas E. Warner <dwarner@ctinetworks.com> Network Engineer CTI Networks, Inc. http://www.ctinetworks.com +1 717 975 9000 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://lists.caosity.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050323/d95957b9/attachment.bin
On Wed, 2005-03-23 at 11:29 -0500, Douglas E. Warner wrote:> On Wednesday 23 March 2005 10:30, Greg Knaddison wrote: > > http://www.google.com/search?&q=howl%20centos&sourceid=firefox > > > > http://mirror.centos.org/centos/4/docs/html/release-notes/as-x86/ > > > > Those say it should be included, but I can''t find the rpm file. > > > > Yep, that''s exactly what I had done. > > > I also couldn''t find it after a cursory look here: > > ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/4/ > > I hadn''t tried that; good idea. It''s quite strange that they''re not included > in the SRPMs. > Is it possible it''s included in one of their ''workstation'' or ''advanced > server'' compilations, but not in the general distribution? > > -Doug >They were included in the RHEL4 beta2 ... but removed from RHEL-4 final. (so CentOS-4 beta and CentOS-4 final followed suit) sorry, not our decision :) compare... released RHEL-4 SRPMS: http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/4/en/os/i386/SRPMS/ and released RHEL-4Beta2 SRPMS: http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/beta/nahant-beta2/en/AS/i386/SRPMS/ -- Johnny Hughes <http://www.HughesJR.com/> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.caosity.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050323/e3c5d536/attachment.bin
On Wednesday 23 March 2005 14:04, Johnny Hughes wrote:> They were included in the RHEL4 beta2 ... but removed from RHEL-4 final. > (so CentOS-4 beta and CentOS-4 final followed suit) > > sorry, not our decision :)I''ve submitted a bug on this since I can''t seem to find any more info on why it was removed (and why it''s still in the release notes since it is removed). If anyone else is interested, the bug is here: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=152439 -Doug -- Douglas E. Warner <dwarner@ctinetworks.com> Network Engineer CTI Networks, Inc. http://www.ctinetworks.com +1 717 975 9000 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available Url : http://localhost.localdomain/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050329/479fcbb6/attachment.bin
Douglas E. Warner wrote:> I''ve submitted a bug on this since I can''t seem to find any more info on why > it was removed (and why it''s still in the release notes since it is removed). > If anyone else is interested, the bug is here: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=152439Actually, some time ago, I filled another bug report (#145188) complaining that it is almost impossible to remove howl from the machine, because if it is present in distribution, than half of the system depends on it. In Fedora (where howl is present), if you want to remove howl from the system (since you do not need it, and most people really do not need it), you must remove almost all GNOME packages, OpenOffice, Mozilla, Firefox, Thunderbird, ... (and the list goes on and on) to satisfy dependencies. My guess is they temporarely removed it until there is solution for dependency nightmare howl creates. Probably until it is modularized enough so that it really becomes an optional component that other components can easily live without. BTW, what is the big deal with howl? If you have static networking, you do not need it. If you do not have static networking, you are most likely using DHCP, so you get almost all that stuff from DHCP server anyhow... -- Aleksandar Milivojevic <amilivojevic@pbl.ca> Pollard Banknote Limited Systems Administrator 1499 Buffalo Place Tel: (204) 474-2323 ext 276 Winnipeg, MB R3T 1L7