devel October 2009

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

259 participants
256 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

Cannot rely on /dev being present in %post scripts?
by David Woodhouse 12 Mar '10

12 Mar '10

According to bug #517013, %post scripts should not assume that /dev is available -- so we can't do anything that requires the existence of /dev/null, /dev/urandom, etc. Is this a known and expected packaging rule, or is it a bug in the way that the user is attempting to install the packages? -- David Woodhouse Open Source Technology Centre David.Woodhouse(a)intel.com Intel Corporation

5 4

2009-10-22 - Power Management Test Day report
by Phil Knirsch 23 Dec '09

23 Dec '09

Here a short report from the Power Management Fedora Test day on 10/22/09 [1]. First of all many thanks to all the people who participated in it and who reported their findings. In order to make things easier for testers and to make sure we get a lot more stable and comparable results Marcela Maslanova, Jan Vcelak and Petr Lautrbach put together a rpm that consisted of all our test scripts, an easy call-script to easily run them and a "collect" script to pack together all results. Additionally the rpm itself has requirements against all the packages we needed for the tests, so a simple installation of the testday rpm provided a solid and easy method for every tester. This worked out really well and made test results very consistent. Unfortunately time ran out for including the automatic upload script from Mike McGrath and the ALPM test script, but that didn't seem to pose a big problem, roughly half of the testers provided results for ALPM as well. We got 30 results overall with half of them including ALPM test results, too. Overall the results showed us what we wanted to know: - The tools we're shipping are working as expected, no crashes or anything like that observed - Wakeups and system behavior in genereral in comparison to our Fedora 11 test day doesn't show any regressions - New features seem to be working as expected Rudolf Kastel discovered one strange bug with one of the profiles which we couldn't reproduce yet, but we're still investigating with him. All in all the whole test day was a real success. Especially the great idea of Marcela, Jan and Petr to make a rpm for the testday which automated a lot of the work that needed to be done. For the next testday we already plan to expand that idea and include the automated upload script which will make it even easier for the testers. [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Test_Day:2009-10-22 -- Philipp Knirsch | Tel.: +49-711-96437-470 Team Lead Core Services | Fax.: +49-711-96437-111 Red Hat GmbH | Email: Phil Knirsch <pknirsch(a)redhat.com> Hauptstaetterstr. 58 | Web: http://www.redhat.com/ D-70178 Stuttgart, Germany Motd: You're only jealous cos the little penguins are talking to me.

5 8

kernel/accounting question ...
by William W. Austin 16 Dec '09

16 Dec '09

(I know that this question might be more reasonable on a kernel list, but a while back I posted the question twice and got no answers.) The acct struct is defined in /usr/include/sys/acct.h includes both ac_io and ac_rw for bytes transferred and blocks read or written, respectively. Fair and good - works (on paper) similarly to unix, solaris, hp-ux, etc. However, in the kernel code [kernel/acct.c], ac_io (char) and ac_rw (blocks) are always set to 0 by these two lines: ac.ac_io = encode_comp_t(0 /* current->io_usage */); ac.ac_rw = encode_comp_t(ac.ac_io / 1024); For most purposes, this probably wouldn't be an issue, but I also do extensive performance analysis on several platforms and have written a fairly compresive accounting package (as a wraparound for psacct or as a standalone) including both an improved acctcom and a built-in reporter for it. Does anyone know wby the kernel zero's out the bytes transferred data? (Overhead comes to mind.) Not that it makes a huge differnce for my purposes (I had to write some wraparound code to make a "best-guestimate" about the data I'm missing), but curiosity is bugging me now. When I compile my program on other OS's I get useful data for char and block i/o and I'd like to find out whether there is something obvious that I'm just totally missing here...). Thanks -- william w. austin waustin(a)speakeasy.net "life is just another phase i'm going through. this time, anyway ..."

4 3

acctcom for linux
by William W. Austin 16 Dec '09

16 Dec '09

I recently made several updates to a Linux version of of acctcom (actually another accounting add-on package) which I've been using for several years, and one of the people testing it asked a question which I cannot answer. I'm hoping that someone on this list can give me some info. I have previously (over a year ago) asked on both this and a couple of kernel lists (several times there) about this issue, but nobody has ever answered. So if you have any info about this, I'd really appreciate it. As in many (all?) previous Linux kernels, the struct acct (defined in /usr/include/sys/acct.h) has members ac_io and ac_rw which are presumably counts of characters transferred and blocks read/written respectively. However, in the kernel code, the ac_io is set to 0 and the ac_rw gets set to (ac_io/512) or some such - it is set to 0 as well (and thus these are always reported as 0 in process accounting records. not good if you're trying to measure them...). Does anybody know why this is done that way? A long time ago (IIRC late 2.2 and an early 2.4 kernel) I looked into "fixing" this in the kernel code but was not successful (I finally produced a bootable kernel, but it was unstable. Then I changed jobs, got swamped at work, and eventually gave up). As I said above, I have previously asked about this issue without success, and I have essentially given up changing or "fixing" it. But if anyone knows __WHY__ it is this way (I'm hypothesizing that it's just too much work for too little added value), I'd really appreciate knowing the reason. Curiosity and the cat and all that ... Thanks - Bill -- william w. austin waustin(a)speakeasy.net "life is just another phase i'm going through. this time, anyway ..."

3 2

Need a sponsor: mod_proxy_html (apache)
by Philip Prindeville 11 Dec '09

11 Dec '09

Hi. I need a sponsor for this. An RPM has been built on several systems (including FC8 and FC9 and Centos5) and tested on all of those. The ticket has been languishing now unassigned for almost a year. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=452636 Can someone please pick this up? It's just an .src.rpm for Apache's mod_proxy_html. It's pretty trivial. Thanks, -Philip

6 9

Packages looking for new owners
by Trond Danielsen 07 Dec '09

07 Dec '09

Hi everyone, it is becoming clear to me that I can no longer provide the collection of packages I maintain the love and care that they deserve. If only there were more hours in a day, but the current situation does no leave much room for volunteer work on free software :-(. Hopefully I will find time in the future to return to Fedora related work The list if packages I maintain is available here: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/trondd?acls=owner I don't mind keeping libopenraw, avrdude and uisp unless anyone _really_ want to maintain these packages. Best regards, -- Trond Danielsen

8 12

texlive 2009 - should set TEXMFCNF?
by Neal Becker 23 Nov '09

23 Nov '09

I wonder if texlive should include a /etc/profile.d package to set TEXMFCNF, so that other packages, such as xdvipdfmx will work? Or, should texlive just obsolete xdvipdfmx and include it's own version?

4 12

does fedora have anything requiring :mail rw access?
by Michal Hlavinka 08 Nov '09

08 Nov '09

Hi all! I've got quite simple question from dovecot's upstream: Why do we have rw access on mails for mail group? Why /var/mail/<username> files have 0660 <username>:mail permissions instead of 0600 permissions? The fact is, I don't know the answer and I'd appreciate your help. Some facts: distro | group | perm ---------+-------+--------- Fedora | mail | 0660 Ubuntu | mail | 0600 openSuSE | users | 0600 (user is member of users group) debian 4.0 | mail | 0660 (Note: This is result of my own investigations on installed systems or livecds, I don't know if any installed system had changed settings.) Interesting thing is, that when new user is added to the system, useradd creates /var/mail/<username> file with <username>:mail 0660 permissions, but when you delete this file and the user gets new email, this file will be autocreated with 0600 permissions (still <username>:group owned) and it seems everything still works. useradd command comes from shadow-utils and fedora contains no patch changing permissions to 0660. The most important question is: Is there anything that requires these files can be read and written by mail group? If you have any info regarding this, please share. Thanks, Michal Hlavinka

5 7

Including windows-binary files for cross compiling into package
by Joost van der Sluis 06 Nov '09

06 Nov '09

Hi all, fpc is a pascal-compiler which is able to cross-compile to other architectures. Nothing really special, but it is also able to cross-compile to windows, without any dependencies. I've created a sub-package of the fpc package to make cross-compiling to windows possible. This package only consist of the run-time-library compiled for windows. But this means that if I commit this package, I add windows binary files (in /usr/lib64/fpc/units/x86_64-win64/) What are the opinions on this? Rpmlint and strip don't like these files as they are not elf files, but there's no real danger in this? It would be nice if this sub-package could be added to Fedora, making it possible to compile with fpc for windows directly. The srpm and the -win64 package can be found here: http://menora.cnoc.nl/extern/fpc/fpc-win64-2.2.4-5.fc11.x86_64.rpm http://menora.cnoc.nl/extern/fpc/fpc-2.2.4-5.fc11.src.rpm Joost van der Sluis.

5 10

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 October 2009