devel May 2006

devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

191 participants
161 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

Self-Introduction: Denis Ovsienko and /etc/net project
by Denis Ovsienko 24 Oct '07

24 Oct '07

Denis Ovsienko Russia, Moscow Linux system administrator and developer ValueCommerce/Russia I develop /etc/net project (http://etcnet.org) and my goal is to integrate it into Fedora Core. I am a member of ALTLinux Team. /etc/net is already integrated into ALTLinux development tree and should soon be seen in 3.0 version. I know that ArchLinux has /etc/net in its repository. IDMS Linux did so too, but i haven't heard from them for last months. My skills include 6 years Linux experience, several programming languages, 5 years of mixed software development and system/network administration and so on, but I guess it's not related much to my goal now. I have reviewed current initscripts buglist. Some bugs are not bugs in /etc/net: #65114 RFE: ifup-aliases iproute support, ifup/ifup-aliases scop... #75390 it would be nice to tie bandwidth shaping into the networ... #129820 initscripts maclist patch #132252 Request for addition of routing rule config file #132912 No additional IP addresses at ethX without aliased devices #132925 initscripts use old ifconfig instead of iproute2 #154348 Adds support for WPA (Wi-Fi Protected Access) to the ifup... #168990 No ifup-gre/ifdown-gre scripts. #170884 MTU of ethernet card can't be set before interface is up #171763 Enhancement to initscripts Some bugs gave me ideas how to improve /etc/net: #59114 .d-style scripts for ifup/ifdown #119952 RFE: Add hook for "local" network initialization #124045 Support setting a metric on interface routes The whole process, if we don't face some unexpected problems, should take 3 to 6 months. What I need: 1. Ability to advocate patches (sometimes heavy) to about 10-20 FC packages. 2. Probably some help with documentation. How can we start? pub 1024D/6D1844F2 2002-11-11 Key fingerprint = AF2F DDAE 7EB3 4699 09FF F0FC 00B1 6D41 6D18 44F2 uid Denis Ovsienko <linux(a)pilot.org.ua> uid Denis Ovsienko (http://pilot.org.ua) <pilot(a)altlinux.ru> sub 2048g/57B7ACBE 2002-11-11 -- DO4-UANIC

10 17

Move Evolution to Extras?
by David Woodhouse 03 Jan '07

03 Jan '07

Evolution is fairly much broken in FC5, and there's little movement even on the 'this mail crashes Evolution' bugs, let alone the "Evolution is totally unusable with IMAP" bugs. What are we going to do about it? One option might be to move it to Extras in the hope that someone will actually start to look after it there. Or perhaps just drop it entirely? Any better ideas? Volunteers? -- dwmw2

64 174

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

Heads-up: Requiring PAE for running Xen
by Jeremy Katz 31 Jul '06

31 Jul '06

As we move forward with Xen enablement, there's a desire for being able to access more than 4 gigs of RAM on 32-bit Xen hosts. The options for handling this are 1) Another kernel. This is bad due to a) we're running out of CD space already b) keeping things matched up between the HV and the guest kernels c) migration is worlds of pain with two types of kernels 2) Switch the 32-bit xen kernels to require PAE. For most "current" non-laptop hardware, this is a non-issue. It does mean that xen won't work a lot of earlier PentiumM laptops 3) Do nothing, tell people to use 64bit if they want more than 4 gigs of RAM 4) Make the PAE code handled at runtime. This is a pretty non-trivial amount of work :) Given these, we're looking at going with #2 and thus only having Xen work on PAE-capable hardware in the development tree. And we're planning to try to execute this switchover the beginning of next week. Note that this will not affect bare metal installs at all. Jeremy

14 34

Zeroconf in FC5?
by Daryll Strauss 13 Jul '06

13 Jul '06

I saw zeroconf in action at a Mac based facility a while back and I have to say I was impressed. It makes their networking setup very easy. The biggest downside was that they knew very little about how their network actually worked. That made my life integrating a Linux system in to their environment much more difficult. So, I'd like to see zeroconf really integrated in to FC5. I think it'll make network setup for a lot of users much easier. For those who don't know, zeroconf provides several functions: *) Dynamically allocating an IP address to a system when it boots (without requiring a DHCP server) *) Translate between names and IP addresses (without any setup or directory server) *) Allows for the publishing and discovery of services such as DNS, NFS, ftp, http, printers, whatever (without requiring any setup or directory server) *) Allocates multicast addresses (without a MADCAP server). (This part isn't yet supported and I'm not sure I know what it means :)) Fedora ships with Howl which looks to be the framework for doing zeroconf. It seems that what's needed is integrating howl in to all the appropriate places. - |Daryll

6 9

libm
by Rudi Chiarito 11 Jul '06

11 Jul '06

Hello, I have a couple of questions that maybe someone can help with. Exhibit A is an x86_64 FC3 system: # objdump -p /usr/lib64/libfftw.so | grep -A20 Version Version References: required from libm.so.6: 0x09691a75 0x00 03 GLIBC_2.2.5 required from libc.so.6: 0x0d696913 0x00 04 GLIBC_2.3 0x09691a75 0x00 02 GLIBC_2.2.5 # rpm -qi fftw | grep ^[VRI] Version : 2.1.5 Vendor: (none) Release : 5 Build Date: Tue 14 Dec 2004 06:56:25 PM CST Install Date: Wed 23 Mar 2005 04:14:50 PM CST Build Host: extras64.linux.duke.edu Exhibit B is an x86_64 FC5 system: # objdump -p /usr/lib64/libfftw.so | grep -A20 Version Version References: required from libc.so.6: 0x0d696913 0x00 05 GLIBC_2.3 0x0d696914 0x00 04 GLIBC_2.4 0x09691a75 0x00 03 GLIBC_2.2.5 0x09691974 0x00 02 GLIBC_2.3.4 # rpm -qi fftw2 | grep ^[VRI] Version : 2.1.5 Vendor: (none) Release : 12.fc5 Build Date: Sat 18 Feb 2006 04:08:15 AM CST Install Date: Wed 26 Apr 2006 05:00:30 PM CDT Build Host: hammer2.fedora.redhat.com The FC3 fftw references libm, the FC5 one doesn't. Is one of the two behaviours considered more proper? Scons' autoconf-like test fails with the FC5 libfftw because it can't resolve sin() and cos(). The FC3 libfftw seems to reference those, too, but the reference to libm takes care of that. More in general, though, isn't a call to sin() and cos() expensive and shouldn't the compiler just use inline native FP code? In the case of FFTW those two are only used in the setup stages, with the actual FFTs implemented with multiplications and additions (gcc uses SSE as expected on x86_64), but not all code is going to be like that. Are there reasons for them not to be inlined? Thanks. -- Rudi

4 6

redhat/fedora distros: su versus su -
by Chitlesh GOORAH 18 Jun '06

18 Jun '06

Hello here, Last time at LinuxTag Wiesbaden, someone asked me why in RedHat/Fedora distros, /sbin is not in the PATH for _su_ example ifconfig but as _su -_, /sbin is in the PATH? He also pointed out that in other distros like Mandriva and Suse it is not the case. Can anyone answer this so that I could document myself :) regards, Chitlesh Goorah -- http://clunixchit.blogspot.com

4 4

Old Flex version in FC5?
by Benjamin Thery 16 Jun '06

16 Jun '06

Hello, I use Fedora Core 5 to test Mobile IPv6 on Linux. In a recent version of the mobility daemon source code a change made to a lex file make the build failson FC5. This changes introduced some flex options to reduce warnings output during compilation. To my surprise these options are not supported by the current flex version shipped with FC5. I found it strange because FC5 is very recent. Then, googling a bit, I discovered that flex state seems a bit confusing: - Fedora ships 2.5.4a (released in 1997) - Gentoo has 2.5.33 - Debian has two different packages flex-old (2.5.4a) and flex (2.5.33) My question is: why does Fedora ships flex 2.5.4a and not a more recent one? What are the mysteries behind flex versioning? Thanks, Benjamin

8 16

Reporting bugs upstream
by Bart Vanbrabant 06 Jun '06

06 Jun '06

Hello, When I find a bug in fedora and it's obviously a bug upstream I report it there. But do we have to report them in fedora bugzilla too and reference the upstream bugreport? So if an other users files a bugreport for the same bug and doesn't check upstream maintainer of the module know it's already filed upstream. Or do we have to notify the maintainer in other way? I've searched the fedora wiki for this but I can't find any information about this. thanks, Bart -- Bart Vanbrabant <bart.vanbrabant(a)zoeloelip.be> PGP fingerprint: 093C BB84 17F6 3AA6 6D5E FC4F 84E1 FED1 E426 64D1

14 24

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 May 2006