dkms-ipw3945-1.1.0-2 doesn't produce any kernel modules

After installing dkms-ipw3945 I expected to find a .ko file next to the
ipw2100.ko and ipw2200.ko

However nothing appeared. I tried rebooting my computer, but that didn't
do anything.

The dkms package got correctly pulled in when I install dkms-ipw3945.

I am running fc6 with kernel-2.6.18-1.2798.fc6 (i686).

Is there any way I can manually tell dkms to rebuild the kernel module?
--

-- 
Mads Villadsen <maxx <at> krakoa.dk>

Re: dkms-ipw3945-1.1.0-2 doesn't produce any kernel modules

Mads Villadsen wrote:
> After installing dkms-ipw3945 I expected to find a .ko file next to the
> ipw2100.ko and ipw2200.ko
>
> However nothing appeared. I tried rebooting my computer, but that didn't
> do anything.
>
> The dkms package got correctly pulled in when I install dkms-ipw3945.
>
> I am running fc6 with kernel-2.6.18-1.2798.fc6 (i686).
>
> Is there any way I can manually tell dkms to rebuild the kernel module?
>   

[as previously posted]

Can you check your kernel and kernel-dev packages to make sure the right
(and matching) arch was installed?  Just run

rpm -qa --qf '%{NAME}\t%{ARCH}\n' kernel*

and make sure you have:

kernel-headers  i386
kernel-devel    i686
kernel  i686

There was a bug in the anaconda installer that installed the 586 kernel
w/ the 686 dev package on i686 machines.

Re: gnokii-0.6.13-1.fc5.rf incompatible with Fedora Extras

On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Rex Dieter wrote:

> Dag Wieers wrote:
> 
> > At least you could have said it was unfortunate that inconsistencies are
> > introduced within Fedora Extras that break things outside Fedora Extras.
> 
> That's mostly a given, but I'd argue that the inconsistencies you cite can
> (and do) come from any/all sides.  Collaboration discussions need to stay
> out of the blame game, and focus on how better to work together.
> 
> "outside of Fedora Extras" meaning what exactly?  rhel?  3rd party repos?

Rex, it would have been nice if the default policy of Fedora Extras 3 
years ago would have been: "look for existing packages in the Red 
Hat/Fedora realm (3rd party repos) and work to include something 
compatible".

For various reasons (politics, workload, competition, grow as big as fast 
as possible to name a few) this common sense idea and the 
implementation has alienated a lot of users and myself.

> If you meant rhel, then I can vouge that FESCo is working hard to expand
> Extras into that space.  There's a huge demand for that.

I can understand :) But then again, I don't see how Fedora is prepared for 
this. They never cared about it. 3 years ago I voiced my opinion many 
times. Fedora always said they were ONLY interested in Fedora so they 
didn't care about RHEL/CentOS. Now the effort for Fedora is much harder 
and complicated to support RHEL.

Re: dkms-ipw3945-1.1.0-2 doesn't produce any kernel modules

On Wed, 2006-11-01 at 00:15 -0800, Drew Bertola wrote:
> Can you check your kernel and kernel-dev packages to make sure the right
> (and matching) arch was installed?  Just run
> 
> rpm -qa --qf '%{NAME}\t%{ARCH}\n' kernel*
> 
> and make sure you have:
> 
> kernel-headers  i386
> kernel-devel    i686
> kernel  i686
> 
> There was a bug in the anaconda installer that installed the 586 kernel
> w/ the 686 dev package on i686 machines.

I actually thought I had fixed the i586 kernel on i686 hardware problem
- and I sort of had.

I had the i686 kernel with the i586 devel package.

yum removed kernel-devel and yum installed dkms-ipw3945, and now I have
the ipw3945 kernel module.

I have yet to check that I can actually connect to a wireless router,
but at least I have the kernel module now.

Thanks.
--

-- 
Mads Villadsen <maxx <at> krakoa.dk>

Re: Freshrpms for Rawhide?

Thomas J. Baker wrote :

> Is there a freshrpms rawhide repo? There seems to be one but it's empty.
> Maybe because rawhide hasn't really taken off yet after fc6?

It's mostly because it's pointless. I prefer dealing with the rebuild
issues shortly before the next Core release, and only release in the
"development" freshrpms directory builds that are required to work with
Rawhide. Nearly all the time, the FC6 packages will work just fine...
if they don't, just ping me and I'll rebuild the problematic packages
for Rawhide.

For instance right now I should check if any require libcurl since it's
been updated in Rawhide and might break some dependencies 

Matthias

--

-- 
Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/
Fedora Core release 6 (Zod) - Linux kernel 2.6.18-1.2798.fc6
Load : 0.27 0.32 0.27

Re: Firmware packages for Intel & redistribution

Axel Thimm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 10:28:19AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Troy Engel wrote:
>>>> I don't know about ipw3495, but with ipw2200 you can't get the firmware 
>>>> in an RPM package, you have to agree to the license and download it from 
>>> Incorrect. ATrpms offers a ready-to-use ipw2200 firmware RPM, I use it 
>>> myself on my Thinkpad at home.
>> Did you agree to the license conditions at 
>> [http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=7]? If not, then ATrpms 
>> is violating the firmware license.
> 
> I was pointed to ATrpms potentially violating the law :)

Isn't Intel violating SF's terms of service with the license on that page?

Re: Firmware packages for Intel & redistribution

On Fri, Nov 03, 2006 at 06:58:27PM -0300, jeff wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 10:28:19AM +0100, Chris Wilson wrote:
> >>On Mon, 16 Oct 2006, Troy Engel wrote:
> >>>>I don't know about ipw3495, but with ipw2200 you can't get the firmware 
> >>>>in an RPM package, you have to agree to the license and download it 
> >>>>from 
> >>>Incorrect. ATrpms offers a ready-to-use ipw2200 firmware RPM, I use it 
> >>>myself on my Thinkpad at home.
> >>Did you agree to the license conditions at 
> >>[http://ipw2200.sourceforge.net/firmware.php?fid=7]? If not, then ATrpms 
> >>is violating the firmware license.
> >
> >I was pointed to ATrpms potentially violating the law :)
> 
> Isn't Intel violating SF's terms of service with the license on that page?

No, I don't think so, but the usual IANAL stuff applies. The (closed)
firmware isn't placed on the sf.net resources only linked to it.
--

-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

gstreamer plugins

Fw: Totem is not working on FC6

Hi folks,

sorry for cross-posting, but it could be a packaging problem, so I
thought you guys could give me some hint... any help will be
appreciated.

TIA

Andre

--------------- Begin forwarded message ---------------

Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2006 12:30:36 -0300
From: Andre Costa <andre.ocosta <at> terra.com.br>
To: Fedora ML <fedora-list <at> redhat.com>
Subject: Totem is not working on FC6

Hi,

I can't use totem on FC6 to view MPEG movies, this is what happens:

(totem:10128): libgnomevfs-WARNING **: Cannot load module
`/usr/lib/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libdesktop.so' (/usr/lib/gnome-vfs-2.0/modules/libdesktop.so:
cannot open shared object file: No such file or directory) Segmentation
fault

gnome-vfs2 is installed, but indeed it doesn't provide libdesktop.so. 
I have /usr/lib/vfs/modules/libdesktop.so, but it is provided by
gnome-vfs, which is an _old_ package:

~ rpm -qi gnome-vfs
Name        : gnome-vfs                    Relocations: (not
relocatable) Version     : 1.0.5                             Vendor:
Red Hat, Inc. Release     : 21                            Build Date:
Wed 29 Sep 2004 04:49:52 PM BRT Install Date: Sun 05 Dec 2004 03:56:52
PM BRST      Build Host: tweety.build.redhat.com Group       : System
Environment/Libraries   Source RPM: gnome-vfs-1.0.5-21.src.rpm
Size        : 1249468                          License: LGPL
Signature   : DSA/SHA1, Wed 20 Oct 2004 03:29:37 PM BRT, Key ID
b44269d04f2a6fd2 Packager    : Red Hat, Inc.
<http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla> URL         :
http://www.gnome.org/ Summary     : The GNOME virtual file-system
libraries. Description : ...

So... anyone knows what's going on? Do I still need gnome-vfs around?
Where do I find libdesktop.so for gnome-vfs2? How do I make totem work?

BTW: I just upgraded from FC5 to FC6. I have been doing upgrades (i.e.
no clean installs) since FC1, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was
some garbage left behind (there's always some cleanup to do )...

TIA

Andre

-- 
Andre Oliveira da Costa

-- 
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list <at> redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

--------------- End forwarded message -----------------

--

-- 
Andre Oliveira da Costa

Error: Cannot find a valid baseurl for repo: freshrpms

After upgrading my T43 to FC6, I added yum-fastestmirror and FreshRPMS 
release. Now while working with yum (a lot of yum list/search/info 
commands) in the past couple days I intermittently keep getting this 
error; if I try over and over again it eventually connects to something 
and rolls along.

This didn't really happen with FC5 that I can remember; is anyone else 
getting it? Any suggestions on what might be amiss on my system?

thanks,
-te

--

-- 
Troy Engel | Systems Engineer
Fluid Inc. | http://www.fluid.com