Re: Newer Kernels: Boot failed (Bug in Bugzilla)

Am Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:37:08 -0600
schrieb Michal Jaegermann <michal <at> harddata.com>:

> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 09:31:28AM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:21:10PM +0100, Roger Grosswiler wrote:
> > > 
> > > ok. i downloaded the following from koji and gonna install this
> > > this night:
> > > 
> > > 1) libbdevid-python-6.0.69-1.fc10.i386.rpm
> > > 2) nash-6.0.69-1.fc10.i386.rpm
> > > 3) mkinitrd-6.0.69-1.fc10.i386.rpm
> > > 4) kernel-firmware-2.6.27.4-69.fc10.noarch.rpm
> > > 5) kernel-2.6.27.4-69.fc10.i686.rpm
> > > 
> > > Can i use rpm -U for others than the kernel or is -i more secure?
> > 
> > If you are not sure then, in a directory with downloaded rpms, do
> > 
> >    yum --nogpgcheck update *6.0.69-1.fc10*
> >    yum --nogpgcheck update k*2.6.27.4-69.fc10*
> > 
> > Note - no quotes this time.  You _want_ a shell expansion to happen.
> 
> Oops!  Sending too fast.  Sorry.  Make the above into "localupdate":
> 
>     yum --nogpgcheck localupdate *6.0.69-1.fc10*
>     yum --nogpgcheck localupdate k*2.6.27.4-69.fc10*
> 
>       Michal

Re: XO: Could not update .ICEAuthority

On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 18:08 -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote:
> On Thu, 2008-10-30 at 17:20 -0400, Bryan Kearney wrote:
> > I had been getting this error after autologin, so I re-installed 
> > everything (new SD card files and removed /home/liveuser directory from 
> > within sugar). On the next reboot, I ge thte same error:
> > 
> > Could not update .ICEAuthority file /home/liveuser/.ICEauthority
> 
> When do you get the error?  Any selinux denials in dmesg/ausearch -m
> avc?

I'm seeing the same problem here. When I log into a console as liveuser
it says "No directory /home/liveuser! Logging in with home = "/".",
and /dev/mtd0 does not exist.

-- 
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet <at> gmail.com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed

--

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

F9 kernel-headers-2.6.27.4-19 errors

On my Fedora 9 machine, when I do:

rpm -ivh kernel-headers-2.6.27.4-19.fc9.i386.rpm

I get this:

Preparing...                ###########################################
[100%]

         file /usr/include/drm/drm.h from install of 
kernel-headers-2.6.27.4-19.fc9.i386 conflicts with file from package 
libdrm-devel-2.4.0-0.13.fc9.i386
         file /usr/include/drm/drm_sarea.h from install of 
kernel-headers-2.6.27.4-19.fc9.i386 conflicts with file from package 
libdrm-devel-2.4.0-0.13.fc9.i386
         file /usr/include/drm/i915_drm.h from install of 
kernel-headers-2.6.27.4-19.fc9.i386 conflicts with file from package 
libdrm-devel-2.4.0-0.13.fc9.i386
         file /usr/include/drm/mga_drm.h from install of 
kernel-headers-2.6.27.4-19.fc9.i386 conflicts with file from package 
libdrm-devel-2.4.0-0.13.fc9.i386
         file /usr/include/drm/r128_drm.h from install of 
kernel-headers-2.6.27.4-19.fc9.i386 conflicts with file from package 
libdrm-devel-2.4.0-0.13.fc9.i386
         file /usr/include/drm/radeon_drm.h from install of 
kernel-headers-2.6.27.4-19.fc9.i386 conflicts with file from package 
libdrm-devel-2.4.0-0.13.fc9.i386
         file /usr/include/drm/savage_drm.h from install of 
kernel-headers-2.6.27.4-19.fc9.i386 conflicts with file from package 
libdrm-devel-2.4.0-0.13.fc9.i386

Re: Note to testers of F10: scanbuttond

Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 09:28:45AM +0900, John Summerfield wrote:
>> However, it doesn't seem to recognise my scanner,
> 
> Some scanners require loading firmware and for some this is just
> a question of adding identifiers to configuration files. I know
> nothing about your scanner so I cannot give you a specific advice.
> Look at various files in /etc/sane.d.

The LJ3052 works perfectly fine, it's just the scanbuttond package has 
problems

> 
>>  and even it it did it 
>> would not work. It calls scanimage with the argument "-depth 8" and 
>> scanimage, in F9, does not understand that.
> 
> It does, provided this is '--depth' and not '-depth'.  The catch is
> that this is among "Options specific to device" and 'scanimage -h'
> will print that only when it will find a device and its driver.
> With that particular scanner I have around it shows
> 
>     --depth 16|14|12|8
This from my .bash_history. The first failed, the second worked (and 
produced a very large file!).

scanimage --mode Color --resolution 1200 --depth 8  -x 210 -y 297 >tmp/image
scanimage --mode Color --resolution 1200   -x 210 -y 297 >tmp/image

> 

Re: Note to testers of F10: scanbuttond

On Sat, Nov 01, 2008 at 10:34:57AM +0900, John Summerfield wrote:
> 
> Until it works, the package should be removed. It's useless as is. I 
> didn't know it had been broken for so long.

In any case under no circumstances this daemon should run with
root priviledges.  It could be hooked up as a session program.
I did not try to figure out details.

OTOH it is not entirely useless.  As you can see from the quoted
bug report in some circumstances it was even helpful. 

   Michal

--

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

Re: F9 kernel-headers-2.6.27.4-19 errors

On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 20:25 -0500, Gilbert Sebenste wrote:
> On my Fedora 9 machine, when I do:
> 
> rpm -ivh kernel-headers-2.6.27.4-19.fc9.i386.rpm
> 
> I get this:

>          file /usr/include/drm/drm.h from install of 
> kernel-headers-2.6.27.4-19.fc9.i386 conflicts with file from package 
> libdrm-devel-2.4.0-0.13.fc9.i386
> [snip lots of conflicts]

> What am I doing wrong?

Absolutely nothing. This will be fixed in 2.6.27.4-20.fc9.

-- 
Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams <ivazqueznet <at> gmail.com>

PLEASE don't CC me; I'm already subscribed

--

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

Re: F9 kernel-headers-2.6.27.4-19 errors

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008, Ignacio Vazquez-Abrams wrote:

> On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 20:25 -0500, Gilbert Sebenste wrote:
>> On my Fedora 9 machine, when I do:
>>
>> rpm -ivh kernel-headers-2.6.27.4-19.fc9.i386.rpm
>>
>> I get this:
>
>>          file /usr/include/drm/drm.h from install of
>> kernel-headers-2.6.27.4-19.fc9.i386 conflicts with file from package
>> libdrm-devel-2.4.0-0.13.fc9.i386
>> [snip lots of conflicts]
>
>> What am I doing wrong?
>
> Absolutely nothing. This will be fixed in 2.6.27.4-20.fc9.

Oh. OK, cool! Thanks.

Gilbert

*******************************************************************************
Gilbert Sebenste                                                     ********
(My opinions only!)                                                  ******
*******************************************************************************

--

-- 
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list <at> redhat.com

ath5k module vs. MadWifi

I am wondering, for those who have an AR5007EG card, if they are finding
that lately (perhaps 2 updates or so ago) that they are better off
reverting to the MadWifi drivers.  

My results are not consistent.  I imagine there are various differences
in the chipsets that I'm missing, but with two Acer laptops, one the
Aspire One, I get different results.  With the 4720z, the latest kernels
and ath5k module works without any issues.  On the AA1, it will
sometimes show nothing if doing iwlist scan, and other times, though it
will show available networks, will not get a DHCP address, nor work with
a statically assigned address.  I don't use NetworkManager, I configure
it manually, so that shouldn't be a factor. 

I note that the latest Ubuntu is disabling the ath5k module by default,
saying, in their release notes, that it will conflict with the MadWifi
driver--however, they seem a bit ambiguous as to which works better.
(They say that with some of the chipsets, the MadWifi won't work with
WPA, or maybe WPA2.)  In that case, one wonders why they are disabling
the ath5k instead of encouraging people to use it--this is why I felt it
was a bit ambiguous, they just suggest that if your MadWifi driver isn't
working, install a backports modules with updated ath5k drivers. 

The 4720z is working well with the ath5k.  So this might be some issue
with the AA1, however, I have a few installations on this machine--those
that are using the MadWifi driver connect without issue, while Rawhide
isn't. 

So, I'm wondering what other people are experiencing.  Is the ath5k
working for you?  

Re: ath5k module vs. MadWifi

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Scott Robbins <scottro <at> nyc.rr.com> wrote:
> I am wondering, for those who have an AR5007EG card, if they are finding
> that lately (perhaps 2 updates or so ago) that they are better off
> reverting to the MadWifi drivers.

Was this working for you with Madwifi? it barely was for me, I
couldn't suspend. Updated to the .27 kernel and using the ath5k
driver, and stuff works now, even suspend.

-- 
Fedora 9 : sulphur is good for the skin
( www.pembo13.com )

--

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

Re: Newer Kernels: Boot failed (Bug in Bugzilla)

Am Fri, 31 Oct 2008 09:37:08 -0600
schrieb Michal Jaegermann <michal <at> harddata.com>:

> On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 09:31:28AM -0600, Michal Jaegermann wrote:
> > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 01:21:10PM +0100, Roger Grosswiler wrote:
> > > 
> > > ok. i downloaded the following from koji and gonna install this
> > > this night:
> > > 
> > > 1) libbdevid-python-6.0.69-1.fc10.i386.rpm
> > > 2) nash-6.0.69-1.fc10.i386.rpm
> > > 3) mkinitrd-6.0.69-1.fc10.i386.rpm
> > > 4) kernel-firmware-2.6.27.4-69.fc10.noarch.rpm
> > > 5) kernel-2.6.27.4-69.fc10.i686.rpm
> > > 
> > > Can i use rpm -U for others than the kernel or is -i more secure?
> > 
> > If you are not sure then, in a directory with downloaded rpms, do
> > 
> >    yum --nogpgcheck update *6.0.69-1.fc10*
> >    yum --nogpgcheck update k*2.6.27.4-69.fc10*
> > 
> > Note - no quotes this time.  You _want_ a shell expansion to happen.
> 
> Oops!  Sending too fast.  Sorry.  Make the above into "localupdate":
> 
>     yum --nogpgcheck localupdate *6.0.69-1.fc10*
>     yum --nogpgcheck localupdate k*2.6.27.4-69.fc10*
> 
>       Michal