joe 3.0!
by Matthew Miller
Wow -- joe 3.0 is out, after years and years since it looked like anything
was going to happen with my favorite text editor. (What can I say? I grew up
on Borland IDEs and their Wordstar keybindings.)
The coolest thing: it adds color syntax highlighting. The most important
thing for fedora, though, might be that it adds UTF8 support. Does "version
of app with UTF8 support" count as a post-freeze bugfix? :)
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
20 years
JPEG patent, removal from FC2?
by Laurent GUERBY
Will JPEG be removed from FC2? Since Red Hat chose to remove
some technologies where company were not actively seeking
royalties and litigation (eg: MS/ C# / mono), I assume that
there's some "chance" of Red Hat taking action on this:
<http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/zd/20040422/tc_zd/125185>
<<
Patent infringement issues surrounding the JPEG image standard
resurfaced on Thursday after a small software vendor filed lawsuits
against 31 companies ranging from Adobe Systems Inc. and Apple Computer
Inc. to IBM and Hewlett-Packard Co.
[...]
The patent, No. 4,689,672, was issued 1987, but Forgent began seeking
licenses to it about two years ago. In the middle of 2002 it reached a
$16 million licensing deal with Sony, Noonan said. In all, it has
reached deals with 30 companies totaling $90 million in licensing
revenue.
>>
Laurent
20 years
remove texi2html from tetex and add it as a package
by Patrice Dumas
Hi,
I think that texi2html should be left out of tetex, and packaged as an
independant package. It would be much cleaner and the version packaged is
fairly old, it is Olaf's version but he doesn't maintain it anymore.
The spec file I included with the version maintained at
http://texi2html.cvshome.org/
is targeted at fedora extras, but it can't be included since it conflicts
with the texi2html in tetex.
Pat
20 years
scp and ~/.bashrc errors, still around with Fedora
by Gavin Henry
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi all,
http://www.openssh.org/faq.html#2.9
i.e:
"This issue is dealt with in the OpenSSH FAQ! Check out
http://www.openssh.com/faq.html#2.9 . The problem is *NOT* with .bashrc
having too many lines, it's because something in your .bashrc is producing
output for non-interactive sessions. Perhaps you have a line with
"/usr/games/fortune" in your .bashrc, or something similar. Or maybe it's
something like /etc/motd (which you can't touch!). If you find that there is
something .bashrc producing output for non-interactive sessions, then comment
it out. If it's something you really need and can't chuck it, then use the
mv .bashrc{,-} trick. If it's not anything in your bashrc, it's time to call
your friendly neighbourhood sysadmin."
These errors, I think have been known since at elast 1999, according to
comp.security.ssh
How can we fix this with our /etc/bashrc and ~/.bashr? I have tried commenting
things out that echo and looked through the other relevant shell things.
Could we get this fixed for FC2?
- --
Kind Regards,
Gavin Henry.
Managing Director.
T +44 (0) 1224 587369
M +44 (0) 7930 323266
F +44 (0) 8707 060048
E ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com
Open Source. Open Solutions.
http://www.suretecsystems.com/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFAh9uoeWseh9tzvqgRAn2SAKCOmTRD/IoD5P3MWJeWq6FsC9XQOQCdG4bx
wThVnlc2OuodPJPRarPdGus=
=r4UB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
20 years
some rc.sysinit strangeness
by Brian Millett
Hello, I've got a couple of strange items I've noticed in the rc.sysinit.
selinux=0
Fedora Core release 1.92 (FC2 Test 3)
Linux mktg6nt 2.6.5-1.339 #1 Thu Apr 22 08:49:06 EDT 2004 i686 i686 i386
GNU/Linux
Ok,
1) why do I get this message since I boot with selinux disabled?:
cat: /proc/self/attr/current: Invalid argument
2) why do I get this message since I never setup, or are using LVM?
Setting up Logical Volume Management: FAILED
thanks.
--
Brian Millett
Enterprise Consulting Group "Shifts in paradigms
(314) 205-9030 often cause nose bleeds."
bpmATec-groupDOTcom Greg Glenn
20 years
postfix-2.1
by Florin Andrei
Is i too late to include Postfix-2.1 in FC2?
That "inspect mail before it is queued" thing looks really nice. ;-)
--
Florin Andrei
http://florin.myip.org/
20 years
http://fedora.redhat.com/ and GPG Signatures
by CJ Kucera
Hello, I've asked around a bit and apparently this is the best place
to send this through, so here goes:
On the Fedora website, in particular:
http://fedora.redhat.com/about/security/
Two links are given for the primary Fedora package signing key, one at
fedora.redhat.com, and the other at the public keyserver pgp.mit.edu.
I've been trying to figure out why the key I've been using hasn't
been validating RPMs properly, and as it turns out, the key being
given at pgp.mit.edu is *different* from the key at fedora.redhat.com.
This was a bit confusing, as both keys had the same datestamp and the
same ID, so I've been beating my head against the wall for some time
now. The one hosted at fedora.redhat.com works, the one at pgp.mit.edu
doesn't. Now obviously the one at pgp.mit.edu should probably be
updated somehow to be the correct key, but in the meantime it'd be
great if the website mentioned something along the lines of, "don't
grab the one at pgp.mit.edu because it won't work" and take that
link off of there, so that people like me who generally *only* use
public keyservers won't spend a lot of time confused. :)
Thanks!
-CJ
--
WOW: Kakistocracy | "The ships hung in the sky in much the same
apocalyptech.com/wow | way that bricks don't." - Douglas Adams,
fedora(a)apocalyptech.com | _The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy_
20 years
Re: AFS and Fedora and the 2.6 kernel
by Pete Zaitcev
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 10:48:31 -0400
Matthew Miller <mattdm(a)mattdm.org> wrote:
> We're heavy AFS users here at Boston University, and it's going to be a
> major blow to not have an AFS client available. OpenAFS, last I looked, said
> that it'd take them a year to properly develop a 2.6 version *if* they got
> some funding to do so -- and they don't. Arla doesn't seem to be going
> anywhere. [...]
Someone (other than Derek Atkins) announced a code to support 2.6 on
openafs-devel today.
-- Pete
20 years
postfix aliases file (in light of setup, sendmail, and exim)
by Matthew Miller
Since January or so, /etc/aliases has belonged to the 'setup' package
instead of to sendmail, and it's nicely shared between sendmail and exim.
This seems good.
Theoretically, the postfix file format is the same, too. However, the
contents of the current Fedora version are quite different. Perhaps most
importantly, it maps root's mail to user 'postfix', to keep it from
completely getting dropped on the floor (postfix doesn't like to deliver
mail to root directly, for security). But the postfix file also seems to be
missing a whole host of "standard" aliases that are defined in the
/etc/aliases version.
Should the postfix aliases file be merged with the main one (and removed
from the postfix package)? I'm inclined to think so.
Perhaps the issue of "what to do with root's mail" could be solved with an
:include: for the MTA-specific entries?
Or, there could be a more grandiose solution -- at BU, for example, we have
a little utility which autogenerates an include file from members of the
wheel group, and directs all of root's mail to them. We found it wasn't
getting read at all on _most_ machines otherwise -- and that's likely the
case with a lot of home Fedora users as well. Could be done in firstboot,
too (although I'm not a big fan of firstboot as an admin).
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
20 years