headers
Casimiro de Almeida Barreto | 1 May 2004 01:07
Picon
Favicon

RHN Alert Notification Tool 2.1.7 behaves strangely...


I don't know if it is happening with someone else but rhn-antool
informs about "phantom" upgrades (like perl-NET-dns)...

Up2date also crashes when network load is high or DNS fails (I guess
that it should present proper messages instead of a dump of python,
not everybody works in SW development). Other problem is that
sometimes (or, to be true, quite frequently) up2date gives an error
message when we try to run it after a crash (the best way of avoiding
it is clearing /var/spool/up2date or either /var/spool/up2date and
/tmp/*.hdr).

Besides screwing about USB CD-recorders (and other devices), kernel
2.6.5-1.327 also have problems with my modem. As soon as I debug it
better I'll tell you about what's going on.

Regards,

Casimiro
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Per Bjornsson | 1 May 2004 01:50
Picon
Favicon

Re: Gnome 2.6.1 and FC2

On Fri, 2004-04-30 at 14:23, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Tue, 2004-04-20 at 16:36, David Wagoner wrote:
> > I was reading the Gnome release schedule and saw that
> > Gnome 2.6.1 is going to be released very soon with a
> > lot of bug fixes, some new translations and a few
> > performance improvements and was curious if it is
> > going to make it into FC2 or if a patched version of
> > Gnome 2.6.0 will be used.
> 
> It'll likely be 2.6.0 + some patches from cvs since we're frozen by now.

Since the stable Gnome release series really seem pretty regression-safe
(well, at least that's my impression of how the Gnome project is
managed), would it be possible to get releases in the stable series as
updates for FC2 even if they don't make it into the original release?

If the answer is "no", is it because of perceived destabilization or
because it takes time from new development? If it is the latter, would
it be possible for volunteer-packaged updates to be considered for
inclusion as official updates? (I believe that the FC2 Gnome is very
close to upstream, so it's likely that very little patch updating etc
would have to be done - is that a correct assumption? I can see that for
heavily patched packages would be more difficult for someone who is not
the original packager to package a sane update.)

/Per

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 20 comments |
headers
Matthew Miller | 1 May 2004 06:19
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: Gnome 2.6.1 and FC2

On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:50:59PM -0700, Per Bjornsson wrote:
> If the answer is "no", is it because of perceived destabilization or
> because it takes time from new development? If it is the latter, would
> it be possible for volunteer-packaged updates to be considered for
> inclusion as official updates? (I believe that the FC2 Gnome is very
> close to upstream, so it's likely that very little patch updating etc
> would have to be done - is that a correct assumption? I can see that for
> heavily patched packages would be more difficult for someone who is not
> the original packager to package a sane update.)

I think it's a bad idea to go down that road. Whole new Fedora Core releases
are planned to be quite frequent; within each one, the packages should be as
stable as possible.

-- 
Matthew Miller           mattdm <at> mattdm.org        <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux      ------>                <http://linux.bu.edu/>

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Alexandre Oliva | 1 May 2004 07:50
Picon
Favicon

Re: Help Needed: Missing Obsoletes cause upgrade trouble

On Apr 23, 2004, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora <at> leemhuis.info> wrote:

> Am Fr, den 23.04.2004 schrieb Michael Schwendt um 16:13:
>> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 02:22:56 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> [...]
>> >   alsa-driver ./. dev, MAKEDEV
>> >   alsa-lib, alsa-utils, all of alsa* because 1.0.4 > 1.0.3a!
>> 
>> Dangerous. In particular "alsa-driver", which contains many /dev files.

> What can I (as alsa-packager for fedora.us) do to solve this problem?
> Any hints?

IIRC the only conflict is with MAKEDEV.  How about getting your
alsa-driver to Require: the file provided by MAKEDEV, and split that
file out into a separate package, say alsa-driver-MAKEDEV?

-- 
Alexandre Oliva             http://www.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/
Red Hat Compiler Engineer   aoliva <at> {redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org}
Free Software Evangelist  oliva <at> {lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org}

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
Mark Page | 1 May 2004 11:06

MySQL on FC1 and AMD64

Hi,

has anyone successfully installed the MySQL AMD64 rpms from
www.mysql.com on Core1, specifically for version 4.0.18 or 4.1.1.? 

Regards, -Mark.

I get the following errors;

[root <at> prod1 mark]# rpm -i MySQL-server-4.1.1-1.x86_64.rpm
warning: MySQL-server-4.1.1-1.x86_64.rpm: V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key
ID 5072e1f5
mysqld got signal 11;
This could be because you hit a bug. It is also possible that this
binary
or one of the libraries it was linked against is corrupt, improperly
built,
or misconfigured. This error can also be caused by malfunctioning
hardware.
We will try our best to scrape up some info that will hopefully help
diagnose
the problem, but since we have already crashed, something is definitely
wrong
and this may fail.

key_buffer_size=0
read_buffer_size=131072
max_used_connections=0
max_connections=100
threads_connected=0
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Build System | 1 May 2004 13:31
Picon
Favicon

rawhide report: 20040501 changes


Updated Packages:

SysVinit-2.85-25
----------------
* Thu Apr 29 2004 Bill Nottingham <notting <at> redhat.com> 2.85-25

- fix build warning on make install (#121977)
- umount the SELinux filesystem on disabling it

anaconda-9.93-0.20040430011915
------------------------------
* Fri Apr 30 2004 Anaconda team <bugzilla <at> redhat.com>

- built new version from CVS

* Fri Apr 30 2004 Jeremy Katz <katzj <at> redhat.com>

- Update description, remove prereq on stuff that was only needed 
  for reconfig mode

* Tue Feb 24 2004 Jeremy Katz <katzj <at> redhat.com>

- buildrequire libselinux-devel

booty-0.36-1
------------
* Fri Apr 30 2004 Jeremy Katz <katzj <at> redhat.com> - 0.36-1

- some xfs fixes (#117968)
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Michael Schwendt | 1 May 2004 13:45
Favicon

Re: Help Needed: Missing Obsoletes cause upgrade trouble

On 01 May 2004 02:50:14 -0300, Alexandre Oliva wrote:

> On Apr 23, 2004, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora <at> leemhuis.xxx> wrote:
> 
> > Am Fr, den 23.04.2004 schrieb Michael Schwendt um 16:13:
> >> On Fri, 23 Apr 2004 02:22:56 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > [...]
> >> >   alsa-driver ./. dev, MAKEDEV
> >> >   alsa-lib, alsa-utils, all of alsa* because 1.0.4 > 1.0.3a!
> >> 
> >> Dangerous. In particular "alsa-driver", which contains many /dev files.
> 
> > What can I (as alsa-packager for fedora.us) do to solve this problem?
> > Any hints?
> 
> IIRC the only conflict is with MAKEDEV.  How about getting your
> alsa-driver to Require: the file provided by MAKEDEV, and split that
> file out into a separate package, say alsa-driver-MAKEDEV?

After analyzing the conflict in detail, an obvious suggestion [posted
off-list] has been to simply copy the conflicting file from MAKEDEV and
include it in the alsa-driver package, too. That would get rid of the
conflict.

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Stephen Smoogen | 1 May 2004 17:54

Re: Gnome 2.6.1 and FC2

On Sat, 1 May 2004, Matthew Miller wrote:

>On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:50:59PM -0700, Per Bjornsson wrote:
>> If the answer is "no", is it because of perceived destabilization or
>> because it takes time from new development? If it is the latter, would
>> it be possible for volunteer-packaged updates to be considered for
>> inclusion as official updates? (I believe that the FC2 Gnome is very
>> close to upstream, so it's likely that very little patch updating etc
>> would have to be done - is that a correct assumption? I can see that for
>> heavily patched packages would be more difficult for someone who is not
>> the original packager to package a sane update.)
>
>I think it's a bad idea to go down that road. Whole new Fedora Core releases
>are planned to be quite frequent; within each one, the packages should be as
>stable as possible.

I think that people who want 2.6.1 can make the packages and put them in 
fedora.us for cooking.

-- 
Stephen John Smoogen		smoogen <at> lanl.gov
Los Alamos National Lab  CCN-5 Sched 5/40  PH: 4-0645
Ta-03 SM-1498 MailStop B255 DP 10S  Los Alamos, NM 87545
-- You should consider any operational computer to be a security problem --

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
ByteEnable | 1 May 2004 20:17
Picon

Compiling digikam I get -lselinux lib errors with Test3

Compiling digikam gives me -lselinux ld errors.

Byte

--

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list <at> redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Permalink | Reply | 6 comments |
headers
Chris Chabot | 1 May 2004 20:47

Re: Gnome 2.6.1 and FC2

Oh while building gnome 2.6.1 packages (for my own use really, process 
is easy enough, update .spec and download new .tar.bz2's) i noticed that 
the current fedora gnome 2.6.0 already has a lot of patches downported 
from 2.6.1 (and a few of the 2.6.1 patches actually come from fedora 
development)

The difference between 'fedora gnome 2.6.0' and 'gnome 2.6.1' isnt as 
big as you would/might think.

    -- Chris

Stephen Smoogen wrote:

>On Sat, 1 May 2004, Matthew Miller wrote:
>
>  
>
>>On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 04:50:59PM -0700, Per Bjornsson wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>If the answer is "no", is it because of perceived destabilization or
>>>because it takes time from new development? If it is the latter, would
>>>it be possible for volunteer-packaged updates to be considered for
>>>inclusion as official updates? (I believe that the FC2 Gnome is very
>>>close to upstream, so it's likely that very little patch updating etc
>>>would have to be done - is that a correct assumption? I can see that for
>>>heavily patched packages would be more difficult for someone who is not
>>>the original packager to package a sane update.)
>>>      
>>>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane