test January 2004

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

133 participants
104 discussions

Problems with rawhide
by Paul F. Johnson 31 Jan '04

31 Jan '04

Hi, Most things are working fine on my rawhide system, but I've hit four problems. 1. On starting up the desktop, all users are getting the following error box "Error activating XKB configuration Probably an internal X server problem" I'm using XFree86-4.3.0-45 2. The applications on the main gnome menu have vanished totally! Everything else is on the main gnome menu, but not the applications. What do I need to install (again) to get that working properly? 3. Evolution 1.5.3 has slowed down to something almost as slow as Outhouse! Is it using it's own spam filtering system or is it still using SA - it seems daft using two filtering systems. It looks really good, but it doesn't import previous folders :-( 4. There is a conflict between libcroco-0.30 and 0.40. The only thing needing 0.40 is librsvg. Other than that, it's great. I've not added any of these to bugzilla as I'm not sure if they are bugs, conflicts or what. Any comments would be appreciated. TTFN Paul

3 4

MyDoom comming thru the list??
by Aaron Lamb 30 Jan '04

30 Jan '04

No that I am too concerned with it but did anyone receive one of these 2 batches ago?? fedora-list-admin(a)redhat.com; on behalf of; fedora-list-request(a)redhat.com ...then followed by my MacAfee message ****************** McAfee VirusScan ************************ ******* Alert generated at: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 19:42:19 -0500 ********* ********************************************************************* McAfee VirusScan has detected a potential threat in this e-mail sent by fedora-list-request(a)redhat.com. The following actions were attempted on each suspicious part. We strongly recommend that you report this virus-related activity to fedora-list-request(a)redhat.com. The attachment "E-mail body" is infected with the W32/Mydoom.eml!exe Virus(es). This attachment has been quarantined.

1 0

posted gcc-3.3.2-6 for the x86_64
by Gene C. 30 Jan '04

30 Jan '04

You can get the rpms built for the x86_64 at: ftp://czarc.net/pub/x86_64 The src.rpm is not included base it is the same one at updates/testing/1/SRPMS/ -- Gene

1 0

x86_64 updates
by Gene C. 30 Jan '04

30 Jan '04

So far, the only updates for test1 of FC1 for the x86_64 seem to be an update for the 2163 kernel. Is there any plan to start making the updates (testing and regular) available for i386 also available for x86_64? So far I have been very pleased with the x86_64 version but I would like to get more "current" (especially the security fixes) and building the rpms myself (while doable) is a bit of a pain (and needs to be repeated by every one of us who wants to update). So far my experience in trying to port some software (which is also designed to run on MS Windows) has proved to be a real learning experience. This is especially true for the "long" variable which is 4 bytes on 32 bit systems, 8 bytes on 64 bit *nix and Linux systems, and 4 bytes on MS Windows 64 bit systems. -- Gene

8 29

updates-testing release schedule
by Matt Hansen 30 Jan '04

30 Jan '04

Hi guys What is the release schedule for updates currently in updates testing? i.e. kernel-2.4.22-1.2154.nptl has been in there since 13th Jan and some such as postfix-2.0.16-1.i386.rpm have been there since late Nov. Is it all part of the QA process that governs some packages taking months to reach updates released? Any idea when kernel 2154 or 2163 will be released? Thank you -- Matt

3 2

Successful Fedora 64 Install
by raz0rsharp 29 Jan '04

29 Jan '04

I successfully installed Fedora 64 on a system comprised of the following: Tyan S2882 Thunder K8S Pro Motherboard w/ IDE, SATA, SCSI, RAID Dual Opteron 240 chips 2 GB Ram 160 GB Maxtor IDE HD Sony DVD+-RW Creative Sound Blaster Live GFORCE FX 5200 PCI dual vga video Epson Printer Casio Digital Camera To start with, I burned the three iso's to cds... The install was pretty smooth, although on reboot it seemed to hang on enabling swap space. I booted into my 32-bit install on a separate partition, edited /etc/inittab to boot into init 3, and remarkably this cured the problem. Setting up X using nvidia's drivers was no problem. Sound took nothing special at all. The printer and digital camera were both recognized, and while I haven't used the printer yet, I was able to easily mount the camera and get pictures off. So far I have had no problems, other than having to compile xmms and mplayer from source. After that was done, they both work well. I have yet to get gaim-encryption successfully working, but maybe if I do a recompile of gaim and gaim-encryption, perhaps it will work. Thus far I've been very happy as either RPMs or SRPMs are usually available making it easy. A few hiccups occured on some SRPMs for some packages I was just trying out (can't really even remember what the software was), so I downloaded the source and it seemed to work. I believe for one kde application I had to create a link in /usr/lib to one of the libraries in /usr/lib64/... I guess if I had any complaints right now it would be the lack of repositories for yum, but its understandable as this isn't even a stable release yet. I also hope vmware produces a workstation release that works in 64-bit mode, as I know they have started working on it and are in either alpha or beta stage. I have had no lock-ups or crashes, and everything is smooth. Feel free to ask any questions about the hardware, the software or anything else related to my use of fedora 64. Raz0rSharp

2 1

cast warnings
by Gene C. 29 Jan '04

29 Jan '04

Do the cast warning messages I see when compiling previously 32 bit applications on the amd64 really mean all that much? Now I understand that you do not want to store an 8 byte pointer into a 4 byte variable or get a 8 byte pointer from a 4 byte variable. If the code underlying the calls does the "right thing" (e.g., defines the actual storage space with something like "void *" or "long"), then is there really a problem underlying the cast warnings? That is, is it worth the pain to go fix things so that the cast messages do not occur? I went to some effort to clean up nessus so building it had no cast messages. But was it worth it. As I am rebuilding some of the i386 updated packages on the amd64, I am seeing cast messages in existing packages that seem to work OK (e.g., ethereal). So again, is it worth much effort to clean these up other than having clean (no warning) compiles. For example, you have a function which extracts something from an array/table and may return a pointer sometimes and other times an integer. If you know that when you call it in a certain manner it will return an integer, then what does the cast warning matter? -- Gene

5 5

rawhide - 2.6 & cifs
by Satish Balay 29 Jan '04

29 Jan '04

Looks like cifs is to be used with 2.6kernel instead of smbfs. Which package contains mount.cifs - which is required for using cifs? Thanks, Satish http://fedoranews.org/colin/fnu/week4.shtml

2 2

i386 package install on x86_64 system
by Gene C. 29 Jan '04

29 Jan '04

OK, I asked some of this before and got some answers that explained things but I am still a little confused. I have a local repository which includes both the i386 updates and (mostly locally built) x86_64 updates ... this is a single directory tree and yum-arch has been run to create the appropriate header files for both i386 and x86_64 packages. When I ran up2date yesterday to update both gcc and glibc on the x86_64 system, I noticed that the x86_64 packages were installed and then the i386 (from previous messages, I thought it would be the reverse). That is, glibc-devel...x86_64.rpm was installed before glibc-devel...i386.rpm. This should not create any problems because these packages have libraries in their appropriate directory trees and data files (identical in both packages). I now want to install the i686 version of openssl. The x86_64 version of openssl is already install when I created the system. However, openssl has the program file /usr/bin/openssl. So, how should I go about manually installing (running rpm) to install the i386 package? -- Gene

1 0

reiserfs + quota
by Juan Pablo Abuyeres 29 Jan '04

29 Jan '04

hi, quota is not working for reiserfs filesystems. reiserfs partitions can not be mounted with 'usrquota' option. Does anyone know something about this? Regards, -- Juan Pablo Abuyeres <jpabuyer(a)tecnoera.com>

1 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

test January 2004