similar to: Re: centos] Re: Demonizing generic Linux issues as Fedora Core-only issues -- WAS: Hi, Bryan

From: Dag Wieers <dag at wieers.com> > I have a real problem with this thread. It seems as if, according to some, > someone can only be with or against Red Hat. Yes, that was my major complaint too. > I'm sure Red Hat has made stupid decisions, has adopted buggy software and > are responsible for some of the headaches people have had. And I'm sure > even Red Hat

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> > We would not build and distribute either of these things if they were > not released via the GPL. The RPMS/SRPMS that we are distributing are > indeed GPL. We firmly agree with RedHat on this issue (that only GPL > things should be distributed). The problem is that many distros are statically building MySQL 4 with some

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > Thanks - as you probably know, the long-winded discussion isn't > really about CIPE specifically so much as the philosophy behind > bundling a few thousand things together and then trying to > please anyone with a blanket policy about maintaining backwards > compatibility vs bug fixes vs new features. You just can't

From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com> > This is not really true. We will probably never have everything that FC > has as added features ... but CentOS-4 has several added features and we > have been out for only a 3 months (so, not required to wait a year). Oh, sorry, I should have clarified. What I meant by "wait a year" was the time from the first .0 or

From: Collins Richey <crichey at gmail.com> > It's a little more than that. I find few people who consider RedHat to > be a Demon Evil or that they can't do anything right, but I can > understand the concern about some of their decisions which have made > life difficult for (granted) a few, and it's not really helpful to > demonize those who complain, as Bryan has

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > No, I am looking for a solution that provides what a typical user needs, > not what a particular vendor feels like supporting this week. I didn't > really want this to be about motives for vendor's business decisions but > I think Johnny Hughes nailed it in saying the push for 2.6 was because > SLES 9 had it. Their

Even I've left this thread. I guess we're all waiting for Lee to turn Blue. ;-> Or is it Red (Hat)? ;-> Okay Lee, we all agree, Red Hat makes stupid decisions, adopts buggy software - especially the kernel and Red Hat is to blame for the decisions in the kernel, and also stupidly backports fixes instead of adopting newer versions with the fixes. And there is absolutely no need for

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > I'm still wondering about that... If anyone except Linus himself > even suggested that changing kernel interfaces in a way that would > break device drivers was a good thing, I can't imagine the reaction. > I could see that the changes through 2.4 were improving things, but > is there anything that is measurably better in

There has been a notice of a breach (see: CVE-2007-4752) as to some binary content upstream of CentOS. I do not address that matter here beyond stating that the CentOS team have responded to the matter, and will continue this review process: updated 22 Aug 2008 CentOS acknowledge CVE-2007-4752 and are reviewing our build and signing processes and hosts for signs of tampering subsequent

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > Yes, but... whose choice was it to ship 2.6 with lots of broken > and omitted stuff when 2.4 works better for many things? Again, 2-2-2, 6-6-6 At some point, Red Hat has to start the new series for "early adopters." That means being the first to adopt the new GLibC, GCC, kernel, etc... Looking at just the GLibC 2+ generations

From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > Agreed. But note that the standards are set long before that... ??? By "standard" what do you mean. ??? Linux's history has been notorious for variance from ANSI, NIST, POSIX and GNU standards. Yes, far less than Microsoft and even some UNIX vendors, but there are still major issues today with this. When developers try

Thanks. Here are my results for the commands you list: > which pdflatex /bin/pdflatex > rpm -qf /usr/bin/pdflatex texlive-latex-bin-bin-svn14050.0-43.20130427_r30134.el7.noarch > cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS Linux release 7.7.1908 (Core) > rpm -qi texlive-latex-bin-bin-svn14050.0-43.20130427_r30134.el7.noarch Name : texlive-latex-bin-bin Epoch : 2 Version :

On 4/26/10 21:45:55 R P Herrold wrote: > Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:45:55 -0400 (EDT) > From: R P Herrold<herrold at owlriver.com> > To: Marshall Feldman<marsh at uri.edu> > Cc:r-help at r-project.org > Subject: [R] Upgrading R using the "global library folder" strategy -, > what do you think about it? > Message-ID:<alpine.LRH.2.00.1004262141510.25472

You're definitely missing bits of texlive. Lots of "missing file: mf" in your debug logs. I think you need to start with installing texlive-metafont. Alternately, there are pre-built R 3.6.2 packages for EL-7 here: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1421894 I cannot push them as official updates to EPEL because of the catch-22 created by R's dependency on

I responded to a post in the Dell poweredge mailing list earlier today. My answer was off the top of my head, with a bit of experimentation. The content may be useful in the Cenyos context as well to admin's looking to strip the size of an install to the bare bones. Comment welcomed. Can anyone see any packages which I have missed? -- Russ Herrold ---------- Forwarded message

2011/3/23 R P Herrold <herrold at owlriver.com> > This comes and goes, and really there is no substitute for actually > 'doing' rather than > talking in the cloister > > as i see it, the problem is while the users expectation has grown, the work became harder. so i believe the real question is: how can we help the CentOS project? how can we unload the developers so

I seem to be having network and email issues tonight; please excuse any duplication -- Russ herrold -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 HTML dump on Thu Jul 30 00:30:33 EDT 2009 http://www.centos.org/ Open Letter to Lance Davis July 30, 2009 04:39 UTC This is an Open Letter to Lance Davis from fellow CentOS Developers It is regrettable that we are forced

"Bzzzt wrong --- yada" is contentious, we don't need it. Please. 2: It's not rpm, it's the packager => "The killer is innocent, the *gun* killed the victim" " the gun didn't kill him, the *bullet* did" "no, the wound did!" "no, the loss of blood did" "no, dying did". *jeesh* Brian Brunner brian.t.brunner at

cAos and CentOS administration 20 March 2005 1 Executive Summary The cAos project, and the CentOS project are being separated into two trees; Changes which facilitate DNS and mirror master administration process for easier load management are already complete. 2 Announcement In the past two years, the concept of truly community based, locally rebuildable distributions,

cAos and CentOS administration 20 March 2005 1 Executive Summary The cAos project, and the CentOS project are being separated into two trees; Changes which facilitate DNS and mirror master administration process for easier load management are already complete. 2 Announcement In the past two years, the concept of truly community based, locally rebuildable distributions,