Comaptiable with Fedora 6?

19 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1 Sun, 11/05/2006 - 10:41
MichaelConnors

Comaptiable with Fedora 6?

Can I use Fedora 6 with the Virtualmin installer 3.26?

Sun, 11/05/2006 - 10:50
Joe
Joe's picture

Hey Michael,

Not yet. I'm working on FC6 support as we speak. It takes a few days to get everything built and tested.

--

Check out the forum guidelines!

Sun, 11/05/2006 - 11:00
MichaelConnors

Great news.

How long will it be till the new version for 6 be ready?

Sun, 11/05/2006 - 11:08
MichaelConnors

What I mean to say is, Should I go with Fedora 5. I don't want to rush you.

Sun, 11/05/2006 - 11:19
Joe
Joe's picture

Hey Michael,

Probably another day or two for FC6. Fedora is among the easiest to support (I can use mock to build the packages, yum is among the best package managers and handles deps well, and the way Fedora handles various configuration is consistent across all versions). I pretty much just have to build a few packages and upload them. Everything else usually just works.

--

Check out the forum guidelines!

Sun, 11/05/2006 - 12:15
MichaelConnors

Great.. Will install Fedora 6 and wait till you give me the OK! :)

Sun, 11/12/2006 - 07:54
JohnnyRamos

Was the 3.28 version that came out for FC6?

Sun, 11/12/2006 - 11:26 (Reply to #7)
Joe
Joe's picture

Hey Johnny,

Fedora Core 6 on i386 is now supported, and I'll be building the x86_64 packages today and tomorrow.

BTW-The 3.28 version is for the Virtualmin Virtual Servers module, which isn't related to the install process or the packages--sometimes no actual changes are needed to any of our code (as is true of Fedora Core 6--almost any version in the past six months would work, if packages are available). But new package builds are always required for every new OS supported. For example, our custom Apache, ClamAV, etc. Those packages are now available in the FC6 repo. I also like to test some on the new OS before announcing support!

--

Check out the forum guidelines!

Thu, 11/30/2006 - 21:22
ah...lifes...good

Hi Joe,

I am contemplating upgrading our server from Fedora Core 5 to Fedora Core 6.

What do you reckon? Is it a good idea? Or should I wait for another month or so to see if there are any more issues with the FC6-VirtualminPro combination?

Thanks mate.

Thu, 11/30/2006 - 22:59 (Reply to #9)
Joe
Joe's picture

FC6 is running reasonably well, and I haven't gotten many bug reports about it--but folks are probably still poking at it. About three weeks after Debian/Ubuntu releases came out is when I actually started getting a lot of bug reports (all at once!), so it might be a few more days before they start rolling in for Fedora 6.

Not a lot of difference between it and FC5 on a server, however...A few slightly newer packages, but no major new features in any of them.

So, I'd say give it a week or two, unless there's something in FC6 that you really like the looks of. They call it the bleeding edge for a reason. ;-)

--

Check out the forum guidelines!

Sun, 12/03/2006 - 00:48
ah...lifes...good

Thanks Joe. I will take you advice and wait a little while more.

Cheers.

Tue, 02/06/2007 - 08:56
ah...lifes...good

Hi Joe,

Is Virtualmin cool with Fedora Core 6 yet?

I am eager to upgrade my server to FC6 and operationalise Virtualmin Pro on it.

Thanks.

Tue, 02/06/2007 - 14:17 (Reply to #12)
Joe
Joe's picture

Yep. FC6 has been supported for quite some time now. (Fedora is the easiest of all of our platforms to support and update...so it tends to get pretty rapid support.)

If you run into any problems, let us know in the bug tracker.

--

Check out the forum guidelines!

Thu, 02/15/2007 - 01:35 (Reply to #13)
JohnFord

newbie... well, new paying newbie...

just installed fedora6 and virtualmin by install.sh - don't know if this is a bug or even a error to take notice of... there were three rpm paks that were not matched.

two, (that I thought might have been for another version of RedHat as the script works for several OS) were rh-postgresql and rh-postgresql-server - it found postgresql without the "rh-" in front so it appeared redundant and as I said proabably for another system.

but the last one that I'm wondering if it is important and was not found is... php-domxl

I did a search in the forum and found no post that mentions this php-domxl so I am wondering if no one else has a problem with this or just what if anything I should be concerned about. But again... my install.sh did not find the three paks mentioned above.

I have used webmin for several years and want to thank you guys for all the hard work. I really do appreciate what you have done.

Thu, 02/15/2007 - 11:02 (Reply to #14)
Joe
Joe's picture

Hi John,

You're assumptions are correct--the missing packages are merely dependencies for other Fedora or Red Hat Enterprise versions. They all have so much in common that I didn't see a strong need to break them out into independent dependency lists (and the errors are harmless). I've been toying with a new version of the install script that does use separate dep files for each OS, but I'm kind of torn on whether the added management cost and increased potential for mistakes (it's much easier to make a mistake if I'm adding deps to ten files instead of just one).

php-domxl is only needed with PHP version 4 packages--it is part of the core php package in newer versions.

We will be making some improvements to the install.sh in the coming weeks to make it a bit less grouchy. It is, by far, the most rotten piece of code in our product...but it gets neglected in favor of stuff that people see more often. ;-)

--

Check out the forum guidelines!

Mon, 04/02/2007 - 11:12
ah...lifes...good

I probably should update my experience here...

Having done a fresh install of FC6 and VMpro on our server, I could unequivocally declare that VMpro works well on FC6.

I have also experienced the 3 error messages that John Ford mentioned above during the install process. But everything works fine regardless.

Mon, 04/02/2007 - 11:56
ah...lifes...good

Refer to discussion:

Preferred OS for Virtualmin?
http://www.virtualmin.com/forums/message-view?message%5fid=106834

Joe: "Fedora...with an 18 month life cycle, it's simply not a viable option for large-scale hosting. If you've got one server running it, you'll probably be fine. But when you start talking about dozens of servers, you simply can't plan to upgrade them every year.

We're developing more on CentOS and Ubuntu because those are now the best platforms for hosting."

Tue, 04/03/2007 - 15:52 (Reply to #17)
Joe
Joe's picture

Yep, things change. I still like Fedora best of all distros, and it's on my desktop machine. But I'd feel downright guilty recommending it for servers now that Fedora Legacy is dead. I've got servers that have been in service for over five years and upgrading them remotely is painful and scary (what if the new OS fails to boot?).

So, CentOS with five years and Ubuntu with three/five years for Ubuntu LTS versions on the desktop/server (thus the reason we only officially support 6.06, until there's an LTS release of another version--the non-LTS releases are only 12-18 month cycles) get the nod. Mandriva seems to have a five year life cycle, too, and I'm spending more time with it lately. Mandriva 2006 was simply horrible...but 2007 looks really solid. The Connectiva merger seems to have done them some good on processes and QC. And I've been surprised to find that urpmi is actually a really nice package manager. And they have more packages than you can shake a stick at.

And, as for Dan's mention of Slack. It has a different problem that makes it really uncomfortable in a server environment...no package management to speak of. Volkerding has declared them evil, due to the difficulty of implementing them well...but just because a problem is really, really, really hard to solve well does not mean it isn't a problem that should be solved. I'll concede that most package management systems have horrible flaws, but they're mostly good enough for most cases and certainly better than nothing.

FreeBSD has a great life cycle and has almost all of the components of a great server OS (stability, lots of packages, etc.). I'm not fond of its package management, but given its popularity I'll have to swallow my pride and get the release for it wrapped up soon.

Gentoo has a similarly stupid package management system, but is otherwise a good looking OS (their religious adherence to choice on all things is also a bit uncomfortable--it's really hard to support a system that has five different incompatible syslog replacement packages that the user can choose from, and that's just the tip of the iceberg...it's also really easy to end up with a crappy system by choosing really bleeding edge packages for everything).

I do ramble on, don't I? Y'all stop talking about Operating Systems. You just get me riled up.

--

Check out the forum guidelines!

Tue, 04/03/2007 - 07:16
DanLong

Joe got me away from my Slackware Linux which, though more configurable, was a bear to link up more than 3 boxes. CentOS (Community Enterprise Operating Sytem) is by design setup for enterprise hosting environments.

And as the thread goes, I wear too many hats here to be upgrading all the boxes so often.