similar to: RHEL 7 Beta is now public

On 04/02/2015 04:43 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Lamar Owen <lowen at pari.edu> wrote: > >> On 04/02/2015 10:59 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote: >> >>> It's not just the name of the ISO file. c.f. the VERSION_ID variable in >>> /etc/os-release >>> >> In that particular place it is actually rather important,

On 07/29/2015 04:53 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote: > the biggest blocker to going GA on the x86 build is the kernel; the > distro kernel we end up with isnt going to be the same as the upstream > x86_64 kernel configs. However, there hasent been a huge level of > feedback ( either positive or negative ) around those builds. So if you > are using it, or are interested in using it - do

On a fully patched C7 machine... % cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS Linux release 7.1.1503 (Core) % cat /etc/os-release NAME="CentOS Linux" VERSION="7 (Core)" ID="centos" ID_LIKE="rhel fedora" VERSION_ID="7" PRETTY_NAME="CentOS Linux 7 (Core)" ANSI_COLOR="0;31" CPE_NAME="cpe:/o:centos:centos:7"

Le 31/03/2015 20:30, Johnny Hughes a ?crit : >> I would have assumed that this release would be "7.1.1503", and the URL >> >>on at least one mirror has: >> >> >> >>http://mirror.fdcservers.net/centos/7.1.1503/ >> >> >> >>Guess if that's the new convention, I'll need to keep my ISO files >> >>sorted out

Elliott Mitchell writes ("[PATCH 12/12] Partially revert "Cross-compilation fixes.""): > This partially reverts commit 16504669c5cbb8b195d20412aadc838da5c428f7. Wow, that is an upsteam commit from 2005. However, I would like some kind of explanation. Is it in fact now false that | # These don't cross-compile ? Should this patch go upstream ? Ian. -- Ian Jackson

Le 02/04/2015 18:22, Les Mikesell a ?crit : >> Note that any CentOS machine, updated to the same point in time, >> >regardless of where and how it was privisioned should give you the same >> >functional package set. This is an important thing. > Yes, but how do you explain that relationship to someone who only has > a summary of the RH releases or where the Centos

Sorry about the lengthy post - I'm putting as much in here as I can in hopes that someone can help me ferret out the problem. Basic problem is that domain users can't successfully log into the linux box. I'm trying to set this box up as an ltsp server authenticating against our existing AD (although this is actually in a test lab - I didn't really want to trash anything real

Hi All, How to install and configure monitoring tools Nagios,lcinga,Zabbix and Ngnix on COS5 and COS6. -- *Thanks,* *Manikandan.C* *System Administrator*

Hi List Is there going to CentOS 7 for i686 architecture ? If yes , when will it be released ? Thanks Jatin

Bonjour, It seems that freeradius 3.0.1-6.el7 of centOS 7 don't work. When doing very simple authentification (PAP control of ssh login on a switch), I get a segmentation fault when the first accounting packet arrives on the server. Does anyone test succesfully this version of freeradius ? Thanks PS: no error with the compilation of the last source version of freeradius (3.0.7) --

Hi, I've been using pxe-enabled nic's with an lzpxe-etherboot image generated by rom-o-matic.net to boot a ltsp.org kernel, with dhcp 3 to use if statements to determine which filename option he gives to the pxe/etherboot dhcp client.Explained at http://www.ltsp.org/documentation/pxe.howto.html This works perfectly, except for the fact that you can't use 1 etherboot pxe image for

If you use the EPEL repository, please read https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/epel-announce/2014-November/000032.html TL;DR: There are a large number of orphaned/unmaintained packages in EPEL across the 5, 6, and 7 trees. These packages will be removed from EPEL unless they are picked up by a packager. Packages that *depend* on an orphaned package will be removed as well to ensure

Hi, ipconfig is used in ltsp (thin clients) initramfs. Some of the users have to have 2 dhcp servers in ltsp environments, so they hit on this problem: The first dhcp request is from the pxe rom boot code. This code ignores any dhcp offers that don't have a filename field. So they always get the correct address, from the ltsp server. The second dhcp request (in initramfs) is done by

Hello all, I have a customer that insists of using upstream vendor's diskless (system-config-netboot) rather than LTSP. The reason is that he wants to use a 100% packages from the vendor, not from LTSP or any other party. I try the vendor's diskless system, and although it's very simple to setup, it lacks the support and/or documentation whereas LTSP is very good in it. Another

Hi, I am thinking of settting up a thin client server setup. I would like to set it up to work with linux and windows. I was going to use Symbiont but it says it needs a different version of linux to install. Has anyone used it with Centos before? Would it be easier to just install LTSP and set it up. I would like to b have a small box that does the dhcp and then allows users to logon to

hi! ;;.)== i'm having a slight problem here: # uname -nrs FreeBSD aegis.terrabionic.lan 4.7-STABLE # wine setup.exe /usr/libexec/ld-elf.so.1: Shared object "libntdll.dll.so" not found # locate libntdll.dll.so /usr/local/lib/wine/libntdll.dll.so # cat /compat/linux/etc/ld.so.conf /usr/lib /usr/local/lib /usr/X11R6/lib # pkg_version | grep wine wine-2003.05.08

Hi All Can't connect WinXP (Remark: Group=SEC WinXP=M40G Samba Server=server.ltsp ipchains stop) # mount -t smbfs //M40G/Shared /mnt/WinXP/ params.c:Parameter() - Ignoring badly formed line in configuration file: 127.0.0.1 localhost localhost.localdomain params.c:Parameter() - Ignoring badly formed line in configuration file: 192.168.0.1 M40G params.c:Parameter() - Unexpected

Good morning everybody, I'm pretty new to syslinux & tftp-hpa, and so I'm not quite sure where my question belongs to, but I'll try it here first. I want to enhance the network services by offering a LTSP (just for the case the pc or laptop doesn't work for some reasons). And so, for testing, I added a second linux-based system (lets call it system-b). Currently the tftpd

Hello all, In the network there is already a W2K server serving as DHCP server for the network. Then we want to implement LTSP, so we need to setup another DHCP server, right? Due to unexpected reason (little by little migration of w98 clients to LTSP), we need to keep the W2K server running in that network. Can we then have 2 DHCP server in the same subnet, only serving pre-determine clients

Skipped content of type multipart/alternative