devel September 2004

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

251 participants
243 discussions

upgrading RH 9 system->Fedora with iso files and apt only
by Didier Casse 17 Jan '22

17 Jan '22

I have the yarrow's iso files on my HD in a RH9 system. Let's say I want to upgrade selected packages using an "apt-get install" pointing to my iso-mounted files, how do I do it? i.e I mount the iso into some /mnt/yarrow1, /mnt/yarrow 2 etc.. Then what is the complete procedure to make my apt look into my own HD to upgrade packages. Can anybody redirect me to the correct resource or some literature hanging on the web? Thanks. Assume also that I do not wish to burn CDs! I do not want to use apt-cdrom. Thanks. With kind regards, Didier. --- PhD student Singapore Synchrotron Light Source (SSLS) 5 Research Link, Singapore 117603 Email: slsbdfc at nus dot edu dot sg \or\ didierbe at sps dot nus dot edu dot sg Website: http://ssls.nus.edu.sg

6 9

autoconf breakage on x86_64.
by Sam Varshavchik 26 Sep '06

26 Sep '06

I don't know the right way to fix this, but something is definitely broken; and something needs to be fixed, one way or the other. The question is what exactly needs to be fixed. Consider something like this: LIBS="-lresolv $LIBS" AC_TRY_LINK_FUNC(res_query, AC_MSG_RESULT(yes), AC_MSG_RESULT(no)) Here's what happens on x86_64: gcc -o conftest -g -O2 -Wall -I.. -I./.. conftest.c -lresolv >&5 /tmp/ccW7EeDX.o(.text+0x7): In function `main': /home/mrsam/src/courier/authlib/configure:5160: undefined reference to `res_query' collect2: ld returned 1 exit status configure:5147: $? = 1 configure: failed program was: [ blah blah blah ] | /* We use char because int might match the return type of a gcc2 | builtin and then its argument prototype would still apply. */ | char res_query (); | int | main () | { | res_query (); | ; | return 0; | } The same exact test on FC1 x86 will work. The reason appears to be that you have to #include <resolv.conf> on x86_64 in order to succesfully pull res_query() out of libresolv.so. You don't need to do this on x86, and the test program generated by AC_TRY_LINK_FUNC does not include any headers, but uses a manual prototype. So, what now?

4 3

ia32e, er EM64T that is...
by Jesse Keating 22 Dec '04

22 Dec '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 What are the chances of getting an ia32e specific kernel in the x86_64 version of Fedora Core 3? We're starting to ship Nacona based systems, and we have always done Fedora Core pre-installs. While the x86_64 kernel of FC2 works now, I thought it was in some sort of 'compatible 64bit' mode rather than ia32e or em64t specific mode. I guess a better question: With kernel 2.6, is there any need to have a specific ia32e vs amd64 kernel? Are all the differences worked out at runtime and thus a non-issue? Thanks. - -- Jesse Keating RHCE (http://geek.j2solutions.net) Fedora Legacy Team (http://www.fedoralegacy.org) GPG Public Key (http://geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub) Was I helpful? Let others know: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=jkeating -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBPJpX4v2HLvE71NURAgLOAJ41i+nTykxeQlOs+SG0Lxu297RM/gCfQ30X DzP7D/wWGZN0T8LiXAlZFpY= =7oGl -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

6 11

APT repository problems with up2date
by Jos Vos 28 Nov '04

28 Nov '04

Hi, Before I start digging in the up2date code myself, maybe someone can comment on this: I have a problem when using up2date up2date with my self-created APT repositories. When updating, it complains about conflicting files: it just thinks that a long list of directories that are shared among packages conflict with each other. Apt-get itself (and synaptic) seems to work fine with the same repository, only with up2date there is a problem. Also, up2date with a yum repository of then same package set works fine, as does yum itself. FWIW: I generate my APT repositories with --flat --bloat. Cheers, -- -- Jos Vos <jos(a)xos.nl> -- X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364 -- Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Fax: +31 20 6948204

3 3

emacs-nxml-mode new version out.
by Gavin Henry 15 Nov '04

15 Nov '04

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi all, If I remember Tim Waugh did an rpm for this. Tim, do you have an updated one or should I take your src.rpm and update it? http://www.thaiopensource.com/download/nxml-mode-20040726.tar.gz - -- Kind Regards, Gavin Henry. Managing Director. T +44 (0) 1224 587369 M +44 (0) 7930 323266 F +44 (0) 1224 742001 E ghenry(a)suretecsystems.com Open Source. Open Solutions. http://www.suretecsystems.com/ -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFBBSOieWseh9tzvqgRAqS7AJ9dw2htkWghGDkqaSSxnDuUj8m5pQCgkm2x zjEl0ToUdqT4KOugxCowY24= =hVlR -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

2 4

gnupg newpg gpgme gpgme03 cryptplug isuses
by Dennis Gilmore 29 Oct '04

29 Oct '04

Recently the version of libgcrypt was increased to 1.1.94 as a result of this newpg would not build against the newer libgcrypt i sent an email to gcrypt-devel list and this is what i got back <quote> Don't build newpg at all. It has been superseded by gnupg-1.9.x . You would need an old libgcrypt < 1.1.42 to build it. The configure sscript was not able to detect newer versions with a changed API. </quote> we have a problem here seems we no longer need newpg but we need things it provides for gpgme gpgme03 cryptplug gpa kgpg (which doesnt complain so much just says its not there) to get these things it provides we need to go to the newer gnupg or we need to revert back to the older libgcrypt. being so late in the cycle i dont know which would be best. so i thought id ask before filling a bug against something. it does need to be fixed before final is out as people will complain if they cant decrypt email in kmail or mutt gpa doesnt work etc. i think we should probably go back to the old version of libgcrypt Dennis

6 15

mozilla 1.7.3?
by D. Stolte 09 Oct '04

09 Oct '04

mozilla 1.7.3 has been released some weeks ago and fixes some security problems. when can we expect to see it packaged? /ds

5 4

udev on Fedora
by Harald Hoyer 06 Oct '04

06 Oct '04

If you have questions or problems with udev on Fedora, please have a look at: http://people.redhat.com/~harald/udev.html If not answered by this, send your questions to me, and I will extend this page. Thank you! Harald

2 2

QA-process for new packages
by Silke Reimer 05 Oct '04

05 Oct '04

Hallo! Some time ago I submitted a few packages on fedora.us. One of them (gdal, Bug #1964) got lots of comments so I rebuilt the package and announced it today. Due to several reasons it took me some time to rebuild the package and meanwhile I have been set as owner of the bug (and of all my other bugs (#1965, #2000 and #2001) as well). Since I am not member of the QA team I don't really understand this action. I thought that people that are new to fedora can submit packages thus being submitter of a bug. Afterwards the QA team assigns someone to do the quality assurance and the submitter will have to fix the package if there are problems. So, my question is: Did I misunderstand the process? And what should I do to ensure that a QA team member might look at my packages? Or is this perhaps the normal process and I don't have to do anything at all? Thanks for all explanation (or some hints to any documention [1]), Silke [1] Yes, I already read: http://www.fedora.us/wiki/PackageSubmissionQAPolicy -- Silke Reimer Intevation GmbH http://intevation.de/ FreeGIS http://freegis.org/

4 9

subversion-1.1 released
by Neal Becker 04 Oct '04

04 Oct '04

subversion-1.1 is released. It would be great to include this. It allows use of subversion without requiring a database. It would be good to include this capability before many users have migrated to subversion.

7 8

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

devel September 2004