Search Results

Search found 6 results on 1 pages for 'user52874'.

Page 1/1 | 1 

• Office 2013 OCT unhandled exception when saving .RSP

  - by user52874

  I'm trying to prepare a deployment of office 2013 pro plus. If I deploy an existing .rsp file that was left behind by the old analyst (typing from the client): PS C: \\deploybox\software\Office2013\setup.exe /adminfile \\deploybox\software\Office2013\SWKS.MSP Things seem to deploy just fine. if I make any changes to the .rsp file by doing (all from the client): PS C: \\deploybox\software\Office2013\setup.exe /admin * Open SWKS.MSP * Make changes * Save under a different name SWKS1.MSP I get the following errorbox: Unhandled Exception: MsiGetSummaryInformation call failed. And if I try to deploy the new SWKS1.MSP, PS C: \\deploybox\software\Office2013\setup.exe /adminfile \\deploybox\software\Office2013\SWKS1.MSP it fails with the message: Path or file specified with /adminfile did not contain any customization patches that apply to this product or platform. If I even open the old known good .rsp file SWKS.MSP, and immediately save it as a new name SWKS1.MSP, making no changes, then the same thing happens. So what stupid newbie mistake am I making here? Thanks!

  Read the article

• email dropbox between two mutually untrusted sites

  - by user52874

  I've an interesting problem that I thought was straightforward, but turns out I think I'm whistling down the wrong path. It has to do with (shudder) email. I thought I was done with needing to know about email guts ten years ago; I was wrong. Anyway. Simply put, I need to figure out how to relay outgoing email that is not targetted in our domain from our domain into a 'dropbox' in a DMZ, and the Other Guys can retrieve that email from their side of the DMZ and distribute it accordingly, even out to the public internet if need be. There will be no [un-established] traffic coming back to Our side from anywhere; any attempts to do so are dropped with malicious prejudice. Our side is postfix running on scilinux6.1. The DMZ boxes are redhat5.4. The Other Guys are M$ Exchange. The firewalls are set up such that data can go from Our Side downsec to the DMZ, but not upsec from the DMZ into Our Side. Same for the Other Guys. My first thinking was simply to set up postfix on a box in the DMZ and tell them to set up fetchmail or whatever the M$ equivalent is, but then I started remembering that postfix wants to actively relay email onwards, rather than hold it and wait for someone to 'reach in' and retrieve it. I'm not sure I've explained this well, but hopefully it's clear enough that someone can point me in the right direction. I seem to remember having done this before, but it was a looong time ago. thanks!

  Read the article

• mrepo and grouplist/groupinstall?, mrepo not working as expected with group

  - by user52874

  All, I'm trying to set up mrepo so we can have internal repositories. After quite the slog, things seem to be working as expected EXCEPT for groups. From man createrepo: EXAMPLES Here is an example of a repository with a groups file. Note that the groups file should be in the same directory as the rpm packages (i.e. /path/to/rpms/comps.xml). createrepo -g comps.xml /path/to/rpms So here's what I'm doing: wget -c http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6/x86_64/os/repodata/comps-sl6-x86_64.xml cp comps-sl6-x86_64.xml /var/mrepo/SL6-x86_64/os/Packages/comps-sl6-x86_64.xml createrepo -g comps-sl6-x86_64.xml /var/mrepo/SL6-x86_64/os/Packages/ lots of output, no apparent errors or warnings BUT.. from a client: yum grouplist Loaded plugins: refresh-packagekit Setting up Group Process Error: No group data available for configured repositories Here's /etc/mrepo.conf: ### Configuration file for mrepo ### The [main] section allows to override mrepo's default settings ### The mrepo-example.conf gives an overview of all the possible settings [main] srcdir = /var/mrepo wwwdir = /var/www/mrepo confdir = /etc/mrepo.conf.d arch = x86_64 mailto = root@localhost smtp-server = localhost pxelinux = /usr/lib/syslinux/pxelinux.0 tftpdir = /tftpboot #rhnlogin = username:password ### Any other section is considered a definition for a distribution ### You can put distribution sections in /etc/mrepo.conf.d ### Examples can be found in the documentation. Here's /etc/mrepo.conf.d/sl6.mrepo: ### Scientific Linux 6 [SL6] name = Scientific Linux 6 release = 6 arch = x86_64 metadata = repomd repoview os = rsync://rsync.scientificlinux.org/scientific/$release/$arch/os/ updates = rsync://rsync.scientificlinux.org/scientific/$release/$arch/updates/ security = rsync://rsync.scientificlinux.org/scientific/$release/$arch/updates/security/ fastbugs = rsync://rsync.scientificlinux.org/scientific/$release/$arch/updates/fastbugs/

  Read the article

• trying to connect to non-standard port over esxi guest network

  - by user52874

  I've got an exsi 5.5 box that has a redhat 6.5 guest and a win7 guest. The guest nics are connected on a vsphere standard switch. There is no connection from the vswitch to an outside physical nic. I can ping between the two boxes, each way. I can successfully psping redhat:22 from the win7 box. I can successfully tcping win7:139 from the redhat box. All firewalls are down on both boxes. I cannot connect from the win7 box to redhat:8003, either via psping redhat:8003, nor telnet redhat 8003, nor by the application client itself. sudo netstat -patn | grep 8003 on the redhat box shows that it's listening on 0.0.0.0. Any thoughts? suggestions?

  Read the article

• kvm -net only passing broadcast, multicast, and guest destination traffic

  - by user52874

  Figured this out just last week, but I can't find it now. Even printed it out. Can't find that either. Frustrating...so...help! Configured a 'monitoring' nic on a kvm guest (running 'Security Onion, if it matters). I read (somewhere) that the default nic configuration for a kvm guest is to only pass broadcast traffic, multicast traffic, and traffic with the guest's mac as a destination. There is an option to override this behaviour, and pass all traffic. It's something like --mac-filtering=no, or --mac-restriction=no, or something like that. Worked beautifully. Does this look at all familiar to anyone who can clue me in to the exact option syntax? thx.

  Read the article

• powershell vs GPO for installation, configuration, maintenance

  - by user52874

  My question is about using powershell scripts to install, configure, update and maintain Windows 7 Pro/Ent workstations in a 2008R2 domain, versus using GPO/ADMX/msi. Here's the situation: Because of a comedy of cumulative corporate bumpfuggery we suddenly found ourselves having to design, configure and deploy a full Windows Server 2008R2 and Windows 7 Pro/Enterprise on very short notice and delivery schedule. Of course, I'm not a windows expert by any means, and we're so understaffed that our buzzword bingo includes 'automate' and 'one-button' and 'it needs to Just Work'. (FWIW, I started with DEC, then on to solaris and cisco, then linux of various flavors with a smattering of BSD nowadays. I use Windows for email and to fill out forms). So we decided to bring in a contractor to do this for us. and they met the deadline. The system is up and mostly usable, and this is good. We would not have been able to do this. But it's the 'mostly' part that is proving to be the PIMA now, and I'm having to learn Microsoft stuff anyway until/if we can get a new contract with these guys for ongoing operations. Here's my question. The contractor used powershell almost exclusively for deployment, configuration and updating. My intensive reading over the last week leads me to think that the generally accepted practices for deployment, configuration and updating microsoft stuff uses elements of GPOs and ADMX templates, along with maybe some third party stuff like PolicyPak. Are there solid reasons that I've not found yet that powershell scripts would be preferred over the GPO methods? I'm going to discuss this with the contractor lead when he gets back from his vacation, and he'll be straight with me (nor do I think they set us up). But I can also see this might be a religious issue, so I would still like some background on this. Thoughts? or weblinks? Thanks!

  Read the article

1