This may be a dumb question, but why can't Redhat distribute NVIDIA binary
In NVIDIA's licence (http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html) it
"2.1.2 Linux Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section
2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system
copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not
modified in any
way (except for unzipping of compressed files)."
So, what's keeping RedHat from putting the drivers in the distribution? If
it's a GPL
thing, would it be easy to just download it during installation or at
least give the option to the user?
Ok, I have had Yarrow working well for a while now, but yesterday I
started experiencing some odd issues with my mouse. All of a sudden it
stops working correctly. The only thing that seems to fix is to kill X
and run mouse-test, then restart.
Also, I have FC 1 running on a desktop which is hooked up to a KVM
switch. Whenever I go to another PC, and return, the same thing
happens, the mouse goes crazy.
Per Bothner wrote:
> The Rawhide version of digikam is the very latest (0.10.0-rc1),
> but it fails to find any of the "Kipi plugins", even though I've
> installed the kipi-plugins package. This might be an upstream
> issue, since 0.10.0 is pretty bleeding edge and the kipi-plugins
> may even more bleeding-edge. Gwenview does seem to be see the
> plugins, so I'm wondering if there is there might be a
> Fedora-specific problem before I complain upstream ...
The f10 builds seem to work fine for me (finding the plugins), so perhaps
this is rawhide-specific?
To be clear, digikam's Settings -> configure digikam -> Kipi Plugins is
Damian Menscher <menscher(a)uiuc.edu>@redhat.com on 04/07/2004 04:57:13 PM
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Jeff Elkins wrote:
> > I'm getting failure messages on my nfs mounts i.e. :
> > mount to NFS server 'music.elkins' failed: server is down.
> > nsfd appears to be running and I didn't see anything suspicious in the
> > The servers are up and running and have other clients connected.
> You didn't mention what steps you took to debug it:
> Can you ping the server?
> What is the output of rpcinfo -p servername?
> Does the server have access restrictions (firewall, TCP Wrappers, etc)?
I have the same symptoms...
rpcinfo says that nfs et.al. are running.
Something has changed in test 2, since the same PC running RH9
accesses that host just fine.
On Fri, 09 Oct 2009 18:34:25 +0000, Valent Turkovic wrote:
> I there a way to test new GIMP 2.7/2.8 in Fedora? I looked in Rawhide
> repos and I still see only 2.6x versions there. Any plans to put 2.7 in
> Rawhide repost for testing purposes?
Should I ask on development channel?
pratite me na twitteru - www.twitter.com/valentthttp://kernelreloaded.blog385.com/
linux, blog, anime, spirituality, windsurf, wireless
registered as user #367004 with the Linux Counter, http://counter.li.org.
ICQ: 2125241, Skype: valent.turkovic
I had interesting discussions with Andy Lindeberg and jlaska today about
the semantics of our current Bugzilla - and particularly triage -
We were thinking about the NEW / ASSIGNED dichotomy, and Andy and I came
to the conclusion that it doesn't really make a lot of sense.
Right now, Bugzappers uses it one way, Andy uses it another for
anaconda. In the Bugzappers process, ASSIGNED just means, really,
Triaged: you set a bug to ASSIGNED once the triage process is complete.
For Anaconda, Andy sets bugs to ASSIGNED once they're assigned to the
correct anaconda maintainer (whether or not the rest of triage is yet
Neither case is really terribly problematic, but they also don't make a
whole lot of sense, really. Having 'triage completed' as a status is a
bit arguable; it's not quite in the flow of the statuses, as a bug could
be at a point 'beyond' ASSIGNED but not yet have been triaged, for
instance. And it's also just semantically wrong - the word 'assigned'
does not mean 'triaged'.
In the anaconda case, we just thought about it and decided the use of
ASSIGNED isn't really _achieving_ anything: you can tell whether the
bug's been assigned or not just by looking at who it's assigned to.
We sort of came to the conclusion that it'd probably make the most sense
to have a 'Triaged' keyword that's used to affirm that a bug's been
triaged (in fact there already is one, but it's not officially used in
our current process), and abandon the distinction between NEW and
ASSIGNED. Ideally, the ASSIGNED state would just be removed, but we
could keep it and just note in our workflow / policy that it's not
really used to mean anything in particular.
This could, I think, be implemented quite quickly if desired; I think we
could rig something up to set all bugs in ASSIGNED state (except
anaconda ones) to have the 'Triaged' keyword, that shouldn't be
We'd be interested in thoughts - negative, positive, whatever - on the
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
I had a power shortage while I ran "yum update". After booting up, yum
told me to run yum-complete-transaction.
However yum-complete-transaction reported (see attachement), it would:
Install 7 Package(s)
Upgrade 205 Package(s)
Remove 209 Package(s)
So I canceld, afraid of having a lot of stiff accidentially removed.
Is it safe to let yum-complete-transaction continue?