Python package packaging question
by Toshio Kuratomi
Hi all,
What is the standard for including byte-compiled python scripts in
packages? Say I have
/usr/lib/python2.2/site-packages/foo.py
which can byte-compile to foo.pyc (byte compiled) and foo.pyo (optimized
byte-compiled. At the moment "optimized" vs normal byte-compiled just
removes assert statements.)
I want to include the foo.py script so everyone can see how it works.
Do I also want to include the byte compiled versions to reduce startup
time? Do I want to include the pyc or pyo file?
I figure that if I don't include one, I still have to %ghost it in case
root happens to byte-compile it later, the package will know to own the
generated file.
I notice that the FC1 python2.2 seems to install all three files which
seems a waste of space....
-Toshio
--
Toshio <toshio(a)tiki-lounge.com>
20 years, 2 months
Re: User Linux
by Pete Zaitcev
On Tue, 03 Feb 2004 13:36:56 +0900
Naoki <naoki(a)valuecommerce.com> wrote:
> What do you guys think? Especially about the "RedHat's Proposal"
> section?
We think this discussion does not belong to fedora-devel-list.
Please troll elsewhere.
-- Pete
20 years, 2 months
Developer related
by jeffrin_jose@rajagiritech.ac.in
Hello all
Is it possible to become a official Fedora developer by
working in a Organisation.If yes, Please tell me the
procedures to become a developer.
-----------------------------------------
Rajagiri School of Engineering and Technology
Kakkanad, Ernakulam
http://rajagiritech.ac.in/
20 years, 2 months
diff Fedora Redhat 9 (or perhaps a stupid ?)
by Harry Hoffman
Hi,
Please don't flame me too bad if this is a really stupid question, I'm still new
to switching to Fedora. :-)
I'm going over the ML looking for some docs that point out the differences
between Fedora and RH 9. Does such a doc exist?
Are Fedora and RH 9 that similar?
Thanks,
Harry
--
Harry Hoffman
hhoffman(a)ip-solutions.net
-------------------------------------------------
This mail sent through IpSolutions: http://www.ip-solutions.net/
20 years, 2 months
Re: Fedora Core 2 Test 1... delayed
by Bill Nottingham
David Balazic (david.balazic(a)hermes.si) said:
> Isn't it better to update the page right now to say "delayed for unknown
> days",
Working on that...
Bill
20 years, 2 months
Re: strange TCP problems w/ RawHide
by Pete Zaitcev
On Sun, 1 Feb 2004 23:35:52 -0500
"Alexander L. Belikoff" <abel(a)vallinor4.com> wrote:
> I wonder if anyone observed the same weirdness I have. I've installed RawHide
> over FC1 through constant yum'ming. Currently, I'm running kernel 2.6.1-1.63.
99% of these are upstream firewall problems.
Does "echo 0 > /proc/sys/net/ipv4/tcp_ecn" fix the problem?
-- Pete
20 years, 2 months
Re: Trouble with Cisco Airo MPI350 and kernel-2.6.1+
by Warren Togami
Fabrice Bellet wrote:
> Hi Warren,
>
> On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 07:48:57PM -1000, Warren Togami wrote:
>
>>IBM Thinkpad T41
>>Cisco Airo MPI350 802.11b Wireless
>>PCIID: 0x14b9 0xa504
>>Kernel: Fedora rawhide 2.6.1-1.57 (Based on 2.6.2-rc1)
>>
>>http://bellet.info/~bellet/laptop/t40.html#wireless
>>http://bellet.info/~bellet/laptop/airo.c-2.6.1-mm2.diff
>>airo.ko does not support this Airo device, but with the addition of this
>>patch it recognizes the device.
>
>
> What is the firmware version (in /proc/driver/aironet/eth0/Status) ?
5.20.17
> Currently, only versions 5[b].00.xx are supported by this patch. More recent
> firmwares changed the card's behaviour in a way that prevents it to
> associate to the access point. But, I'm a bit surprised by this kind of
> error, because, even with an unsupported firmware, I can set the WEP key
> without error with iwconfig.
I tested the following firmware versions and all failed identically to
set the WEP key in Linux.
5.30.17
5.20.17
5.02.20
>
> You may want to downgrade the firmware, if needed, with the ACU tool under
> Windows _only_. You also can try to set the WEP key with ACU too. A linux
> version of this tool is available for linux, from :
> http://www.cisco.com/pcgi-bin/tablebuild.pl/aironet-utils-linux
> This version works with the linux cisco driver, and also with airo.
>
Used the ACU tool under Windows XP for flashing the firmware. The
newest firmware version that operates with your driver is:
5.00.03
Perhaps mention within a comment and/or config Help of your patch that
the newest supported firmware is 5.00.03? That would save people like
me a lot of time in the future...
> Maybe this error occurs because no wep key has ever been stored in
> the card's non-volatile memory. The cisco card has two locations to
> store the wep keys : a volatile, and a non-volatile memory. The linux
> driver sets the key in both places in writeWepKeyRid(), when perm=1.
> You seem to have a problem to store the key in the non-volatile
> location (WEP_PERM). The ACU program gives the possibility to choose
> this location.
>
Tested this theory. It seems that airo is unable to set the WEP key
after ACU has done so.
So your airo driver is working with the 5.00.03 firmware, but there is
this one remaining issue. notting(a)redhat.com mentioned it is failing to
"rename" something but I cannot remember the details.
During bootup it fails to recognize the airo device exists. iwconfig
shows some weird "devXXXXX" device that is not associated with an ethX
name. rmmod airo gets rid of it, and afterward ifup works. The "Set
Mode" error is harmless. It subsequently works. Any ideas?
Bringing up interface eth1: airo device eth1 does not seem to be
present, delaying initialization
[root@ibmlaptop root]# iwconfig eth1
Warning: Driver for device dev13905 has been compiled with version 16
of Wireless Extension, while this program is using version 15.
Some things may be broken...
dev13905 IEEE 802.11-DS ESSID:"tsunami"
Mode:Managed Frequency:2.442GHz Access Point: FF:FF:FF:FF:FF:FF
Bit Rate:11Mb/s Tx-Power=20 dBm Sensitivity=0/0
Retry limit:16 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
Encryption key:off
Power Management:off
Link Quality:176/0 Signal level:-105 dBm Noise level:-105 dBm
Rx invalid nwid:154 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:171 Missed beacon:0
[root@ibmlaptop root]# rmmod airo
airo: Unregistering dev13905
divert: freeing divert_blk for dev13905
[root@ibmlaptop root]# ifup eth1
Error for wireless request "Set Mode" (8B06) :
SET failed on device eth1 ; Invalid argument.
[root@ibmlaptop root]# iwconfig eth1
Warning: Driver for device eth1 has been compiled with version 16
of Wireless Extension, while this program is using version 15.
Some things may be broken...
eth1 IEEE 802.11-DS ESSID:"apophis" Nickname:"blah"
Mode:Managed Frequency:2.412GHz Access Point: 00:0C:41:75:D4:02
Bit Rate:11Mb/s Tx-Power=20 dBm Sensitivity=0/0
Retry limit:16 RTS thr:off Fragment thr:off
Encryption key:****-****-** Security mode:open
Power Management:off
Link Quality:49/0 Signal level:-84 dBm Noise level:-98 dBm
Rx invalid nwid:5 Rx invalid crypt:0 Rx invalid frag:0
Tx excessive retries:0 Invalid misc:253 Missed beacon:0
Warren Togami
wtogami(a)redhat.com
20 years, 2 months
RE: Corporate pressure
by Josiah Royse
> "I Agree", "OK" etc. I think it would be better to prompt for OK the
> first time a programm is started, so that you could install, and
update
> it without any problems and agree to their terms before you can use
it.
> Adobe uses this techinque in their SVG-Plugin for Mozilla an I think
it
> is a good way to manage it.
Yes, "click wrapping" sounds like a great compromise to programs that
seek user licenses. Would wrapping proprietary plugins/applications
with a click-license that checks the user's ~/.dotfile for license
acceptance be a semi-legal way to "redistribute" these types of
proprietary software? Could this be also be interpreted as a peace
offering- having a simple way of respecting legal acceptance documents
without having an interactive installation? In doing so, the open
source software movement may motivate companies to change alter license
agreements to allow redistribution, if there was a standard or easy way
of prompting for user license acceptance.
--Josiah, RHCE
20 years, 2 months
Version Control System Comparison (was Re: not SVN?)
by Xose Vazquez Perez
Cristian Gafton wrote:
> There is going to be plenty of time to play with alternative solutions
> once we have in place at least one. Every solution has its supporters and
> opposition, and we're not going to get unanimity no matter what.
>
> I happen to know CVS and I think that most people are familiar with CVS.
> It is not perfect, it has its faults, but its faults are widely known. I
> can take few days to put out the CVS server or I can take few weeks to
> review other solutions that I'm not that familiar with. I'd rather have
> the CVS out.
Better SCM Initiative [1] has a very nice "Version Control System Comparison":
http://better-scm.berlios.de/comparison/
[1] http://better-scm.berlios.de
--
Software is like sex, it's better when it's bug free.
20 years, 2 months