add to wish list: ucarp
by Florin Andrei
Can't edit the Wiki.
Please add ucarp to the wish list.
# rpm -qi ucarp
Name : ucarp Relocations: (not relocatable)
Version : 1.2 Vendor: Fedora Project
Release : 7.fc7 Build Date: Mon 05 Feb 2007
05:10:02 AM PST
Install Date: Thu 02 Aug 2007 06:51:01 PM PDT Build Host:
hammer2.fedora.redhat.com
Group : System Environment/Daemons Source RPM:
ucarp-1.2-7.fc7.src.rpm
Size : 67359 License: BSD
Signature : DSA/SHA1, Mon 21 May 2007 11:18:05 AM PDT, Key ID
b44269d04f2a6fd2
Packager : Fedora Project <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla>
URL : http://www.ucarp.org/
Summary : Common Address Redundancy Protocol (CARP) for Unix
Description :
UCARP allows a couple of hosts to share common virtual IP addresses in order
to provide automatic failover. It is a portable userland implementation
of the
secure and patent-free Common Address Redundancy Protocol (CARP, OpenBSD's
alternative to the patents-bloated VRRP).
Strong points of the CARP protocol are: very low overhead, cryptographically
signed messages, interoperability between different operating systems and no
need for any dedicated extra network link between redundant hosts.
Thanks,
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
16 years, 8 months
RHN software channels & EPEL
by Andrey KLYACHKIN
Hallo all,
how EPEL will deal with so called software channels in RHN? E.g., RHEL4
has channel Red Hat Web Application Stack and it contains httpd-2.0.55
(which replaces standard httpd-2.0.52 from RHEL4) and
mysql-connector-odbc-3.51.12 (there is no such package in the standard
RHEL4 distribution). Will EPEL packages be built without replacing
packages only from standard distribution or also from additional software
channels and Red Hat products (such as RHCS, GFS, ...)?
--
Sincerely yours,
Andrey Klyachkin
UNIX Systems Administrator, RaiffeisenBank Austria, Moscow
This message and any attachment are confidential and may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient any use, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately either by telephone or by e-mail and delete this message and any attachment from your system. Correspondence via e-mail is for information purposes only. ZAO Raiffeisenbank Austria neither makes nor accepts legally binding statements by e-mail unless otherwise agreed.
16 years, 8 months
yum update problem on CentOS 5
by Ron Yorston
Since I added the EPEL repository to my CentOS 4.5 system I've been
having trouble with 'yum update'. It reports:
--> Running transaction check
--> Processing Dependency: perl-libxml-enno >= 1.02 for package: foomatic
--> Processing Dependency: perl(XML::RegExp) for package: perl-XML-DOM
--> Restarting Dependency Resolution with new changes.
--> Populating transaction set with selected packages. Please wait.
---> Package perl-XML-RegExp.noarch 0:0.03-2.el4 set to be updated
--> Running transaction check
--> Processing Dependency: perl-libxml-enno >= 1.02 for package: foomatic
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Error: Missing Dependency: perl-libxml-enno >= 1.02 is needed by package foomatic
I can make it work either by disabling the EPEL repo (yum --disablerepo=epel
update) or by specifying explicitly what needs to be updated (yum update
tetex). But I shouldn't have to.
Apparently perl-XML-DOM (from EPEL) obsoletes perl-libxml-enno <= 1.02,
but CentOS has perl-libxml-enno-1.02-31 which is required by foomatic.
Result misery.
Ron
16 years, 8 months
Plan for tomorrows (20070801) EPEL SIG meeting
by Thorsten Leemhuis
Hi all,
find below the list of topics that are planed to come up in the next
EPEL SIG meeting which is scheduled for tomorrow, Wednesday at 17:00 UTC
in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.org.
EPEL announcement happened -- are we satisfied with how everything
worked out?
branch for EPEL if Fedora maintainer does not react -- dgilmore
new push scripts for pushing to testing, adjust mock configs to use
testing -- dgilmore
EPEL announcement happened -- what next?
You want something to be discussed? Send a note to the list in reply to
this mail and I'll add it to the schedule (I can't promise we will get
to it tomorrow, but we'll most likely will if we don't run out of time).
You can also propose topics at the end of the meeting itself.
If your name/nick is on above list please give a update. That way all
the interested parties know what up ahead of the meeting; that will
avoid long delays and "status update monologues in the meeting.
Thanks!
CU
knurd
16 years, 8 months
Log from EPEL Meeting (20070801)
by Dennis Gilmore
10:01 * nirik looks around for the EPEL meeting.
10:02 * dgilmore is here
10:02 < dgilmore> mmcgrath: Ping
10:02 < mmcgrath> pong
10:03 < _blah_> dgilmore: i'd say upload what you've got to the wiki, and if
people want to revise further we can.
10:04 -!- rayvd [i=rayvd(a)arthur.bludgeon.org] has joined #fedora-meeting
10:05 < dgilmore> done
10:05 < dgilmore> mmcgrath: meeting
10:05 < dgilmore> who else are we missing?
10:05 * mmcgrath is sort of here (also working on some infrastructure issues)
10:05 < mmcgrath> quaid: ping?
10:05 < mmcgrath> Jeff_S?
10:06 -!- notting [i=notting@redhat/notting] has joined #fedora-meeting
10:06 -!- Fabi [n=festifn@moinmoin/coreteam/florian] has joined
#fedora-meeting
10:06 < dgilmore> Well what did everyone think of how things have gone since
the announcement?
10:06 < notting> what sort of uptake do we have? do we have stats?
10:06 < mmcgrath> pretty good actually.
10:07 < warren> Is EPEL's homepage easy to find?
10:07 -!- nirik changed the topic of #fedora-meeting to: EPEL Meeting|EPEL
announcement happened -- are we satisfied with how everything worked out?
10:07 -!- giallu [n=giallu(a)81-174-26-126.static.ngi.it] has quit ["Leaving"]
10:07 * f13 peeks in
10:07 < mmcgrath> dgilmore: I saw a couple of articles done about epel
10:07 * _blah_ pushes f13 back to work on f8test1
10:07 < nirik> yeah, stats on repo usage would be nice... not sure how to
gather those tho...like fedora I suppose?
10:08 * quaid is here, had to do some stuff that ran over
10:08 < dgilmore> warren: we probably should have a link on the front page of
fp.o and fp.o/wiki
10:08 < mmcgrath> http://www.linux.com/feature/118304
10:08 < nirik> or perhaps a epel.fedoraproject.org cname?
10:08 < warren> redirect at least
10:08 < warren> too bad epel.org is taken
10:09 < dgilmore> nirik: that also
10:09 < dgilmore> mmcgrath: Red Hat's new Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux
(EPEL) repository might be an excellent place to go fishing.
10:09 < dgilmore> i dont much like that
10:10 < rsc> is there a chance for epel.redhat.com?
10:10 < dgilmore> its Fedora's not Red Hat's
10:10 < warren> rsc, better to brand it with Fedora
10:10 < dgilmore> rsc: i dont want to go down that route
10:10 < rsc> dgilmore, warren: Accepted.
10:12 < nirik> who updates http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Statistics ?
mspevack ? perhaps we could add a epel section there and add the same stats
for it?
10:12 < nirik> or do we collect the same data?
10:12 < warren> EPEL users are technically different from Fedora
10:12 < mmcgrath> nirik: we could collect that data, do we want epel in
general or both epel-5 and epel-4?
10:12 < warren> maybe we could add them both together
10:13 < nirik> it might be nice to see both epel4 and epel5... but I dont know
how hard it is to generate those stats...
10:13 < mmcgrath> nirik: those numbers actually come from -
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/cacti/graph.php?action=view&rra_id=all&lo...
10:13 < nirik> ah, from smolt?
10:13 < mmcgrath> nirik: its not hard but I think I'm the only one who
understands it.
10:13 < mmcgrath> well, some from smolt, some from grabbing ip's from the
logs.
10:14 < nirik> yeah, we don't have smolt data, but uniq ips would be nice to
know... better than nothing...
10:14 < dgilmore> anyone have anything else to add?
10:15 < nirik> (although, I suppose smolt could be built for epel4/epel5
barring missing dependencies, etc)
10:15 < mmcgrath> nirik: actually its already in epel5 :)
10:15 < dgilmore> nirik: its in epel5
10:15 < nirik> cool. I should install it and run it on my 5 machines. ;)
10:15 < mmcgrath> nirik: you should :)
10:16 < nirik> might be worth a mailing list post/blog mentioning that to let
people know its out there for epel5.
10:16 -!- daMaestro [n=jon@fedora/damaestro] has joined #fedora-meeting
10:16 < nirik> anyhow, nothing else on this topic for me.
10:16 < mmcgrath> <nod>
10:16 < mmcgrath> nothing else here. I think its gone well.
10:16 -!- alexxed [n=alex(a)dyn-89.136.44.20.tm.upcnet.ro] has joined
#fedora-meeting
10:16 -!- k0k [n=k0k@fedora/k0k] has joined #fedora-meeting
10:16 < _blah_> mmcgrath: are all dependencies resolved now that things have
been moved to testing?
10:16 * nirik sees 15 centos5 and 10 rhel5 entries in smolt.
10:17 -!- dgilmore changed the topic of #fedora-meeting to: EPEL Meeting|
branch for EPEL if Fedora maintainer does not react -- dgilmore
10:17 < mmcgrath> _blah_: I think some are left (though its not many, last
check it was 3 and the owners were notified).
10:17 < _blah_> dgilmore: i like the version you mailed and put into the wiki.
10:17 < mmcgrath> I think it was 2 in rhel4 and 1 in rhel5
10:17 < dgilmore> sorry it took so long i sent my proposal just before the
meeting
10:17 < mmcgrath> dgilmore: I think your suggestion is very reasonable.
10:18 < nirik> dgilmore: +1 from me on your proposal. We can modify later if
we need to.
10:18 < _blah_> for the record a link to the current version in the wiki is:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#head-00c9e731bb7...
10:18 < dgilmore> If there are no objections we will take that as accepted
10:19 -!- bpepple|lt [n=bpepple|(a)adsl-75-42-209-184.dsl.wotnoh.sbcglobal.net]
has quit ["Ex-Chat"]
10:20 -!- alexxed [n=alex(a)dyn-89.136.44.20.tm.upcnet.ro] has left
#fedora-meeting []
10:20 < nirik> shall we move on?
10:20 < dgilmore> I think so
10:20 -!- dgilmore changed the topic of #fedora-meeting to: new push scripts
for pushing to testing, adjust mock configs to use
10:20 -!- bpepple [n=bpepple(a)adsl-75-42-209-184.dsl.wotnoh.sbcglobal.net] has
joined #fedora-meeting
10:20 < dgilmore> i still need to do this
10:21 < dgilmore> I will do it tonight
10:21 < dgilmore> mmcgrath: can you remind me if i dont please
10:21 < nirik> so for security (if any) we are going to manually move packages
as needed?
10:21 < mmcgrath> will do
10:21 < dgilmore> yes
10:21 < dgilmore> security will need manual handling
10:22 < nirik> sounds good. Let me know if I can assist any with that.
10:22 < dgilmore> will do
10:22 -!- dgilmore changed the topic of #fedora-meeting to: EPEL Meeting: EPEL
announcement happened -- what next?
10:23 < mmcgrath> dgilmore: good question.
10:23 < mmcgrath> Things are going pretty well.
10:23 < dgilmore> OK what now?
10:23 < nirik> more packages, more maintainers, more users. ;)
10:23 -!- rwmjones [n=rwmjones(a)87.127.66.208] has quit ["Closed connection"]
10:23 < nirik> if we could move to koji at some point and bodhi that would be
good...
10:24 < dgilmore> that needs to be done but requires coders
10:24 < nirik> yeah. ;(
10:25 < dgilmore> does anyone have ideas on how to get more packages in EPEL
10:26 < nirik> I have some more I am going to do, but haven't had time...
hopefully soon I will get munin in and possibly will look at Xfce (matching
the
centos extra versions so we don't conflict if possible)
10:27 < dgilmore> i think xfce would be good to have
10:27 < dgilmore> i think silug has yet to build alot of his perl modules due
to missing deps
10:27 < mmcgrath> <nod>
10:28 < mmcgrath> There are a lot of things we'd like to branch that deps are
missing for
10:28 < nirik> just takes time to make sure things are branched and then work
right, etc...
10:29 < dgilmore> yep
10:29 < _blah_> i'd like to see rt3 and bugzilla 3 in there
10:29 < dgilmore> it would be nice for someone to see whats branched and not
built
10:30 < nirik> 11 open epel bugs... so we have some users at least. ;)
10:31 < nirik> shall we talk yum for epel4 ?
10:31 -!- rwmjones [n=rwmjones(a)87.127.66.208] has joined #fedora-meeting
10:31 < nirik> and move what next? to the mailing list?
10:33 < dgilmore> i think we should talk about yum on the list
10:34 < dgilmore> I personally think we provide the version thats in CentOS
but without a /etc/yum.conf file
10:34 < mmcgrath> dgilmore: do you agree with the 0. in release?
10:36 < dgilmore> mmcgrath: i see the point of it yeah
10:37 < nirik> yeah, it seems fine to me...
10:37 -!- AravindSeshadri [n=AravindS(a)0-11-43-71-59-38.ceat.okstate.edu] has
joined #fedora-meeting
10:38 < mmcgrath> I guess we want to ship yum with no yum configs.
10:38 < mmcgrath> maybe a /etc/yum.conf that contains a comment to note that
it shouldn't be used.
10:39 < nirik> yeah...
10:42 < dgilmore> yep
10:42 < dgilmore> that seems sane
10:42 < dgilmore> lets put it on the list get buy in from everyone
10:42 -!- dgilmore changed the topic of #fedora-meeting to: EPEL Meeting: Free
chat
10:42 < dgilmore> anyone have anything to add?
10:42 * mmcgrath has nothing
10:43 * dgilmore will close in 60
10:43 * dgilmore will close in 30
10:43 * dgilmore will close in 20
10:44 * dgilmore will close in 10
10:44 -!- notting [i=notting@redhat/notting] has left #fedora-meeting
["Ex-Chat"]
10:44 < dgilmore> ==== Meeting closed =====
16 years, 8 months