Re: Where are the old repos of rpmfusion
On Sat, 2018-09-15 at 09:53 -0600, JD wrote: > Fedora keeps old revisions of SW for EOL'ed releases. > > Does rpmfusion have a link for these EOL'ed releases? http://archive.rpmfusion.org/ Found the link here: https://lisas.de/~adrian/?p=1321 Jonathan ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Where are the old repos of rpmfusion
On Sat, 2018-09-15 at 11:02 -0600, JD wrote: > > On 09/15/2018 10:38 AM, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > > On Sat, 2018-09-15 at 09:53 -0600, JD wrote: > > > Fedora keeps old revisions of SW for EOL'ed releases. > > > > > > Does rpmfusion have a link for these EOL'ed releases? > > > > http://archive.rpmfusion.org/ > > > > Found the link here: https://lisas.de/~adrian/?p=1321 > > > > Jonathan > > Hi > I browsed it. > It is not browsable for some strange reason. > For example, I click in the page > https://mirrors.rpmfusion.org/mm/publiclist/RPMFUSION%20free%20Fedora/28/x86_64/ > and I get the same page, no matter on which release number I click. Perhaps it's the mirror you're getting. Try: http://mirror1.hs-esslingen.de/pub/Mirrors/archive.rpmfusion.org/ Jonathan ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: 4.17.x kernels cause "nvme0: controller is down" on MacBook Air
I don't have an NVME drive, but I came across this the other day: https://community.wd.com/t/linux-support-for-wd-black-nvme-2018/225446/8 I have no idea what brand your NVME drive is, but perhaps this will help. Jonathan On Sat, 2018-10-13 at 12:54 -0700, Lonni J Friedman wrote: > And this problem exists on a fresh install of Fedora28 too. The > original shipping 4.16 kernel works fine, every kernel starting with > 4.17.x fails. > > Is literally no one else running into this?? > On Sun, Jul 15, 2018 at 3:06 PM Lonni J Friedman > wrote: > > > > Ever since Fedora(27) released a 4.17.x kernel, my MacBook Air > > (7,1) > > is no longer able to boot at all. It hangs when trying to use the > > NVMe disk controller: > > > > nvme nvme0: controller is down; will reset: CSTS=0x3, > > PCI_STATUS=0x810 > > > > and the entire boot process eventually times out completely. If I > > return to using the last 4.16.x kernel (4.16.14-200.fc27.x86_64), > > then > > the problem does *not* reproduce, and everything boots normally. > > > > i opened a bug for this problem: > > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1601196 > > > > however, I'm surprised that no one else has run into this > > issue. Any > > ideas or suggestions? > > > > thanks! > > ___ > users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Where is OpenOffice in Fedora 13 ?
On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 11:16 -0400, Jesse Palser wrote: > Hi, > > I installed Fedora 13 Release Candidate # 2 32bit. > Where is OpenOffice in this release? yum install openoffice.org-writer openoffice.org-calc \ openoffice.org-impress Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Where is OpenOffice in Fedora 13 ?
On Mon, 2010-05-10 at 12:12 -0400, Jesse Palser wrote: > Hi, > > Why is OpenOffice not a default program ? I believe it's because there's limited space on the LiveCD, and OpenOffice pushes it over the top. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: FC13 yum presto
On Fri, 2010-06-18 at 11:59 +0300, Dj YB wrote: > hello, > > since installation all updates had to be downloaded almost entirely and not > used the benefit of delta's > is anyone else seeing this problem or is something temporary in the repos? > how could I investigate the source of the problem if it lies at my > configurations? It's not your configuration, everyone is having the problem. See https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=598584 And yes, we are trying to fix it. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Gotta love embedded developers...
On Mon, 2010-07-19 at 12:53 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote: > Maybe, but netgear doesn't seem to have the iso files for fedora 2 on their > open source download site, so it might be a bit difficult for someone > wanting to replicate their development environment to do it. > > (Unless maybe there is a archeology.fedoraproject.org site I've never > found with all the old releases stashed on it :-). You mean like http://archive.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/fedora/linux/core/2 :) Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: DVD Deltaisos available for Fedora 12 -> Fedora Unity 20100202 12 (both i386 and x86_64)
On Thu, 2010-02-11 at 03:14 -0500, Andre Robatino wrote: > I've made available DVD deltaisos for Fedora 12 -> Fedora Unity 20100202 > 12 (both i386 and x86_64) at > > http://thepiratebay.org/user/andre14965/ > > i386: > Fraction of full ISO size: 14.6% > applydeltaiso's approximate running time: 20 minutes > > x86_64: > Fraction of full ISO size: 15.2% > applydeltaiso's approximate running time: 25 minutes Nicely done! Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: where is my remaining space ????
On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 01:39 -0600, Frank Cox wrote: > On Tue, 2010-02-23 at 12:48 +0530, Jatin K wrote: > > what about this missing space ... > > where is it ? ) > > The space you're looking for doesn't exist, for two reasons: > > First, most (all?) hard drive manufacturers define 1gb as 1000mb. In > reality, 1gb is 1024mb. Therefore, a hard drive that is sold as a 320gb > hard drive has only 312.5gb of actual space. Calling it a 320gb hard > drive is a marketing ploy to make it sound larger. Just wanted to clarify that most manufacturers define 1GB as 1,000,000,000 bytes, where it's actually 1,073,741,824 bytes (1024*1024*1024). That means that the actual space on a 320GB drive is roughly 298GB. > You also lose some of the hard drive capacity to what you might call > overhead; tracking and format information that allows your computer to > store and find stuff on the hard drive. The other 10GB can probably be traced to this. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Firefox 5.0
On Wed, 2011-06-22 at 14:00 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > It appears that Mozilla upstream is going to force our hand here. > Apparently, Mozilla declared Firefox 4 EOL alongside the release of > Firefox 5 [1]. > > This is going to cause a lot of pain, especially with regards to > extensions. Apparently the Fedora Firefox developers are working on it. See: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=249788 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=249830 Unfortunately, they've run into problems[1] building gjs against the new xulrunner, so you can't install those packages until gjs has been updated. Jonathan [1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=249845 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: DeltaISOs
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 01:49 -0400, David wrote: > Is it possible to make a deltaiso without having both the older ISO and > the Newer ISO on a local system. > > Example. Fedora-14-Alpha-x86_64-Live.iso was downloaded. A > Fedora-14-Alpha-2-x86_64-Live.iso is availible for download. > > Can a deltaiso be made without downloading the newer ISO? > > > makedeltaiso Fedora-14-Alpha-x86_64-Live.iso > http://path/to/folder/containing/Fedora-14-Alpha-2-x86_64-Live.iso deltaiso No. Makedeltaiso doesn't understand web links, only local files. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: DeltaISOs
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 06:51 -0400, David wrote: > On 8/29/2010 2:30 AM, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > > On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 01:49 -0400, David wrote: > >> Is it possible to make a deltaiso without having both the older ISO and > >> the Newer ISO on a local system. > >> > >> Example. Fedora-14-Alpha-x86_64-Live.iso was downloaded. A > >> Fedora-14-Alpha-2-x86_64-Live.iso is availible for download. > >> > >> Can a deltaiso be made without downloading the newer ISO? > >> > >> > >> makedeltaiso Fedora-14-Alpha-x86_64-Live.iso > >> http://path/to/folder/containing/Fedora-14-Alpha-2-x86_64-Live.iso deltaiso > > > > No. Makedeltaiso doesn't understand web links, only local files. > > Too bad. The delta concept, both rpm and ISO, is very useful and > functions very well IMO. > > Perhaps added in the future as an enhancement? :-) Patches are always welcome. :) Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: DeltaISOs
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 14:29 -0400, David wrote: > I think that I understand the principal behind this. Disk space nor > bandwidth are not problems for me. I was thinking of others that might > have a bandwidth/byte counter problem. > > Explain to me just how downloading only a part of the new ISO, the > changes, and then creating the new one with parts of the old ISO and the > new parts. How can that be the same as downloading the whole new ISO? > > Or am I not understanding how this works. The steps in a deltaiso lifecycle are as follows: The Fedora project (or an interested user) creates the deltaiso. To do so, they need the old iso and the new iso, and they generate the deltaiso using makedeltaiso. So, if we wanted to create a deltaiso from F14-Alpha to F14-Beta, we might do something like: makedeltaiso F14-Alpha.iso F14-Beta.iso F14-Alpha_Beta.diso This deltaiso will contain the *difference* from F14-Alpha to F14-Beta. A user who has the iso for F14-Alpha (and low bandwidth) will then download F14-Alpha_Beta.diso and run something like: applydeltaiso F14-Alpha.iso F14-Alpha_Beta.diso F14-Beta.iso They will then "magically" get F14-Beta.iso without having to download it. Of course, applying the deltaiso will take a long time, so it really only makes sense to use it if you're on a limited bandwidth connection. Please note that normal users should never need to *make* the deltaiso, they should just *apply* them. And Andre's done a great job of making deltaiso's available, especially during prerelease. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: DeltaISOs
On Sun, 2010-08-29 at 21:56 +0300, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > The Fedora project (or an interested user) creates the deltaiso. To clarify, this is theoretical. The Fedora project is *not* creating official deltaisos right now. However, any deltaiso should build into a byte-for-byte copy of the new iso, which can then be verified using normal methods. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: help - can't boot 2.6.34
On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 06:59 -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote: > The delta rpms may be the problem but also the solution. The deltarpms are not the problem. If the deltarpm doesn't build to a byte-for-byte copy of the original rpm, the signature won't match and yum will refuse to install it. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: yum check for deltas?
On Wed, 2010-10-06 at 23:09 +0200, Dj YB wrote: > Hello, > > my internet connection is pay per traffic so I prefer to use deltas when > possible. > Is it possible to know before you say 'yes' to the update process, what > packages are going to be fully downloaded and what packages have deltas? I'm afraid there is currently no way to know what packages will have deltas before downloading. As long as you're keeping reasonably up-to-date, though, there *should* be a delta for almost every package. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: yum check for deltas?
On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 11:52 -0500, Ranjan Maitra wrote: > At the very least, yum should provide an estimate of the delta download > size *before* the user is presented with the option for allowing > download to begin. Yum-presto did originally do this, but only by doing incredibly hackish things to internal yum variables (which is bad, as presto is a yum plugin and not part of yum itself). Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: yum check for deltas?
On Fri, 2010-10-08 at 19:09 +0100, Frank Murphy wrote: > The best place files an RFE, for stuff in your wish list: > http://yum.baseurl.org/ > > They have a mailing list and roadmap. Yum-presto isn't currently part of yum. It's a plugin. If you want to file an RFE, either use https://fedorahosted.org/presto/ or file a bug in bugzilla against the yum-presto component. Patches always welcome. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Finishing rebuild of rpms, from deltarpms
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 22:33 -0700, JD wrote: > On 04/15/2011 09:04 PM, Andre Robatino wrote: > > http://cedarandthistle.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/on-binary-delta-algorithms/ > Read the article and parts of the thesis. > So, the final version of the algorithm > still remains with the University of Oxford?? > > I downloaded the bsdiff srpm for fc15 and built it. > > I then used it to diff > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 3699072 Feb 6 23:09 > /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.35.11-83.fc14.i686 > vs > -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 3702144 Mar 31 15:26 > /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.35.12-88.fc14.i686 > and the resulting patch > -rw-r--r-- 1root root 3554921 Apr 15 22:17 > vmlinux-2.6.35.11-83--2.6.35.12-88.patch > > So, you can see that the patch is almost the same size as the files diffed. > > Obviously, version 4.3-8 does not contain the unpublished optimizations > that Colin Percival mentions in his thesis. A couple of things: 1. vmlinuz is compressed and it's essentially useless to delta compressed files without uncompressing them first. 2. We use the program deltarpm to make deltas between rpms. Deltarpm uses a modified bsdiff algorithm as well as the add block enhancements mentioned in my blog post. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Finishing rebuild of rpms, from deltarpms
On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 23:06 -0700, JD wrote: > On 04/15/2011 10:58 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > > On Fri, 2011-04-15 at 22:33 -0700, JD wrote: > >> On 04/15/2011 09:04 PM, Andre Robatino wrote: > >>> http://cedarandthistle.wordpress.com/2009/11/06/on-binary-delta-algorithms/ > >> Read the article and parts of the thesis. > >> So, the final version of the algorithm > >> still remains with the University of Oxford?? > >> > >> I downloaded the bsdiff srpm for fc15 and built it. > >> > >> I then used it to diff > >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 3699072 Feb 6 23:09 > >> /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.35.11-83.fc14.i686 > >> vs > >> -rwxr-xr-x 1 root root 3702144 Mar 31 15:26 > >> /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.35.12-88.fc14.i686 > >> and the resulting patch > >> -rw-r--r-- 1root root 3554921 Apr 15 22:17 > >> vmlinux-2.6.35.11-83--2.6.35.12-88.patch > >> > >> So, you can see that the patch is almost the same size as the files diffed. > >> > >> Obviously, version 4.3-8 does not contain the unpublished optimizations > >> that Colin Percival mentions in his thesis. > > A couple of things: > > > > 1. vmlinuz is compressed and it's essentially useless to delta > > compressed files without uncompressing them first. > > 2. We use the program deltarpm to make deltas between rpms. > > Deltarpm uses a modified bsdiff algorithm as well as the add > > block enhancements mentioned in my blog post. > > > > Jonathan > So, deltarpm actually uses the enhanced (i.e. modified) algorithm that > Colin Percival mentions in his thesis, or is it from a different author? Yes, though a different person wrote the code. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: OOo and delta RPM
On Wed, 2010-11-24 at 21:05 +, Ron Yorston wrote: > Is there a problem with openoffice.org and delta RPMs? I've just > done a yum update on F14 and all the OOo packages were downloaded in > their entirety, whereas about 30 others came in as deltas. And it's > not like OOo is small. And this is the second update in a week. > > If it's going to carry on like this I'll exclude OOo from updates: > I only use it once in a blue moon to examine documents in proprietary > formats. There's a bug in the push scripts where it only generates deltas against GA and not updates. So if you downgrade to GA OOo and then update you'd get deltas. Obviously *not* a good solution. We thought we'd fixed the bug, but obviously have missed something. We're investigating now. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: deltarpm with old RPM packages
On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 12:21 -0600, Paul B Schroeder wrote: > Hello all.. > > We have some RPM packages which have been built on a system with RPM > version 4.4.2.3 and are being installed on F14 based systems with > 4.8.1.. We are creating the delta RPM packages on the F14 system with > makedeltarpm 3.6. > > So package foo version 1 installs on the F14 systems just fine. But > when running applydeltarpm with the drpm created against foo version 2, > we get "md5 mismatch of result" errors. > > I'm guessing this is an issue with the fact that the RPM packages are > being built with an older version of RPM? If that's the case, is there > any way around this problem? Can you please provide a sample drpm, original rpm and target rpm (please put them on the web somewhere and provide links)? What OS is the system that you're using to build the RPMS? Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: deltarpm with old RPM packages
On Mon, 2011-01-31 at 11:04 -0600, Paul B Schroeder wrote: > > On 01/30/2011 02:35 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > > On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 12:21 -0600, Paul B Schroeder wrote: > >> Hello all.. > >> > >> We have some RPM packages which have been built on a system with RPM > >> version 4.4.2.3 and are being installed on F14 based systems with > >> 4.8.1.. We are creating the delta RPM packages on the F14 system with > >> makedeltarpm 3.6. > >> > >> So package foo version 1 installs on the F14 systems just fine. But > >> when running applydeltarpm with the drpm created against foo version 2, > >> we get "md5 mismatch of result" errors. > >> > >> I'm guessing this is an issue with the fact that the RPM packages are > >> being built with an older version of RPM? If that's the case, is there > >> any way around this problem? > > > > Can you please provide a sample drpm, original rpm and target rpm > Sure can.. Here they are: http://www.haywired.net/vbridges/ > > > (please put them on the web somewhere and provide links)? What OS is > > the system that you're using to build the RPMS? > They are being built on Ubuntu 9.04.. > > Thanks for taking a look..Paul... Ok, Just to explain what happens here. User has foo-1.0.rpm User downloads foo-1.0-1.1.drpm When the user applies foo-1.0-1.1.drpm to foo-1.0.rpm, applydeltrpm uncompressed foo-1.0, applies the deltarpm, and then recompresses the new payload into a byte-for-byte copy of the original foo-1.1.rpm. The problem you're running into is that the recompressed rpm doesn't match original rpm because whatever compression format you're using has changed slightly between Ubuntu 9.04 and Fedora 14. We ran into the same problem when we changed some of the xz settings when Fedora 13 was in development, which meant we had to throw away all of our old deltarpms. In your case, deltarpms will only work as long as the original rpms are generated on a similar enough system to the target to guarantee that the compression format (xz, gzip, bzip2) hasn't changed. For Fedora, we are currently using RHEL 5.5 builders with an updated version of rpm and xz-libs to make sure this stays true. I don't blame you for wanting to stick with deltarpms, though. A 40kb deltarpm is quite impressive when compared with a 15mb download. :) Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: test
On Sun, 2010-01-10 at 17:56 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote: > Jon Stanley wrote: > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2010 at 2:47 AM, Kavon Farvardin wrote: > > > >> I wonder how you got through my inbox filters…. Mailing list emails always > >> ended up in the right folder. > >> > > > > Very likely because the list address changed - see > > http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/2010-January/097844.html. > > Users who don't have the correct filtering rules in place won't have > > the mail filtered. I use gmail, so I just updated my filters - > > however, Matt Domsch has a very good procmail recipe at > > http://domsch.com/blog/?p=132 if you use procmail. > > > You apparently didn't read the message you cite. It said > > "Please don't send tests or other repeated messages to the list, since > that will only make the queue longer." AIUI, Jon is involved in the process of moving the mailing lists over to *.fedoraproject.org. His test messages are checking whether the new mailing lists are configured correctly, whereas a test message from you or me would be checking whether the new mailing lists are working for us. A huge difference, in my opinion. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: deltarpms and newer kernels
On Sat, 2010-01-23 at 13:55 -0800, Antonio Olivares wrote: > Dear fellow Fedora users, > > Deltarpms does help a little bit with many packages, but the kernel is > not one of them :( > > kernel-devel, kernel-headers, kernel-firmware, etc do work though, how > come kernel package is not the same? Basically, the kernel now has a 20MB initramfs included that is full of 0's. When you install the kernel, it automatically generates an initramfs to replace this "dummy" one. The reason the dummy one is in there is so that rpm can accurately calculate how much space it needs in boot. Deltarpm sees that the initramfs has changed and can't do a delta because it thinks the initramfs should be 0's. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: deltarpms and newer kernels
On Sun, 2010-01-24 at 03:11 -0800, Suvayu Ali wrote: > On Saturday 23 January 2010 11:45 PM, Jonathan Dieter wrote: > > Basically, the kernel now has a 20MB initramfs included that is full of > > 0's. When you install the kernel, it automatically generates an > > initramfs to replace this "dummy" one. The reason the dummy one is in > > there is so that rpm can accurately calculate how much space it needs in > > boot. > > > > Deltarpm sees that the initramfs has changed and can't do a delta > > because it thinks the initramfs should be 0's. > > Shouldn't that be classified as a bug with presto/deltarpm? No. It's a kernel packaging bug. See http://www.codemonkey.org.uk/2009/12/10/annoying-kernel-packaging-bug and https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=544901. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: F20 journalctl
On Tue, 2013-12-31 at 11:24 +, Frank Murphy wrote: > Has anyone found a way to: > journalctl | grep "last 10 minutes" journalctl --since -600 Jonathan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Save everybody some surprises in Fedora 22!
On 06/09/2014 04:15 PM, Andre Robatino wrote: The time when DNF will take over from Yum in Fedora is nearing. We're wondering: is there stuff people are still missing from DNF that they have got recently in Yum? Or even something else! We've put together a very short and simple survey. Let your opinion be heard! http://dnf.baseurl.org/2014/06/06/vote-for-yum-features-that-you-miss-in-dnf/ The list of missing yum options is both outdated and incomplete. For example, it's missing "includepkgs" (a repository option), for people who need to access specific packages from non-Fedora compatible repos. On the other hand, it includes "deltarpm", although dnf has supported this for a while now. Deltarpms are working, but, as far as I can see, need to be manually enabled. If we're going for consistency, deltarpms should be enabled by default if deltarpm is installed. Jonathan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Cups fails with "Filter failed"
On Thu, 2015-12-03 at 14:37 +0530, Suvayu Ali wrote: > I used the standard Fedora gui interface to find the printer on my > network, choose IPP, and follow all the prompts to find the printer > make > and model, and said yes to the recommended driver, screenshot here: > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/37474389/add_HP_LJP_MFP_126nw.png > > My understanding was the fedora gui knows how to download any blobs > necessary for known printers in the database. > > Am I missing something? I believe it will theoretically, but network printers seem to work differently. At the terminal, as root, try typing: # hp-plugin -i This should walk you through downloading and installing the binary plugin required by HP printers. Jonathan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: PXE Fedora 23 with Anaconda 20?
On Sun, 2016-01-31 at 19:38 -0800, Dave Close wrote: > I've been trying to get a new working PXE installation for F23 and it > isn't working. I just noticed what might be the problem. Although > I downloaded the vmlinuz and initrd.img from the F23 server > version archive, when the installation starts it shows F20 in the > upper-right and checking via Alt-F2 shows that it is Anaconda v20 > that's running. What could be responsible for that? What part of my > PXE configuration might be wrong? I've just checked on our PXE system, and we have Anaconda v23. Are you sure you're using the correct initrd? Jonathan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Frequent Gnome lock-ups since fresh F18 install
On Tue, 2013-02-12 at 21:48 -0500, Digimer wrote: > Hi all, > >I had F17 and updated it last week to F18. It was perfectly stable > and I had no problems with Gnome. > >I did a fresh install of F18 (fresh drive) on Sunday and since then > Gnome 3 has locked up hard on me six times (three times just today). > Each time, I can ctrl+alt+f2 into a terminal and I've tried restarting > various things without successfully recovering. I had this problem with these symptoms, and I solved it by downgrading bluez (yum downgrade "bluez*"). I have no idea if your problem is the same. My bug report is at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908637 Jonathan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: evince
On Wed, 2013-11-27 at 18:12 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 27 Nov 2013 16:18:37 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > The viewing ot the attached file is correct with xpsd and acroread, > > but is wrong with evince. > > The correct character is a \Delta with the wrong character for me > > is \Phi. > > > > Would you know what is wrong? > > It's a delta symbol here. > > $ rpm -q evince > evince-3.10.3-1.fc20.x86_64 > > What kind of desktop environment do you run? Maybe you've customised/changed > it to end up with a fonts issue? FWIW, on Fedora 19+updates, it's a phi symbol. I'm running the standard Gnome 3 desktop. $ rpm -q evince evince-3.8.3-2.fc19.x86_64 Jonathan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: evince
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 15:32 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote: > So what is the solution ? > > I tried fedora 16, fedora 18, fedora 19 (gnome3), all give the same result > a \Phi is shown when a \Delta should be displayed. > > Thank. I've figured it out. I had wine-symbol-fonts installed, which provides the "MS Symbol" font. After removing it, evince uses "Standard Symbols L" rather than "MS Symbol", which shows a \Delta rather than a \Phi. Jonathan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: evince
On Sun, 2013-12-01 at 15:48 +0100, Patrick Dupre wrote: > Humm, > > removing wine-symbol-fonts, will remove wine! > and rootplot, root etc > I am not sure about such a soluton!! I know nothing about root (aside from the fact that its documentation subpackage is ridiculously large), but "yum remove wine" should only remove the wine metapackage, not the core packages that actually run wine. Here's a list of my wine packages that are still installed after removing wine-symbol-fonts: # yum list installed "wine*" Loaded plugins: langpacks, ps, refresh-packagekit Installed Packages wine-alsa.x86_64 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-capi.i686 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-capi.x86_64 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-cms.i6861.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-cms.x86_64 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-common.noarch 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-core.i686 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-core.x86_64 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-courier-fonts.noarch1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-desktop.x86_64 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-filesystem.noarch 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-fixedsys-fonts.noarch 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-ldap.i686 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-ldap.x86_64 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-marlett-fonts.noarch1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-mono.noarch 0.0.8-1.fc19 @fedora wine-ms-sans-serif-fonts.noarch 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-openal.i686 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-openal.x86_64 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-pulseaudio.i686 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-pulseaudio.x86_64 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-small-fonts.noarch 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-system-fonts.noarch 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-systemd.noarch 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-tahoma-fonts.noarch 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-twain.i686 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-twain.x86_641.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-wingdings-fonts.noarch 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates wine-wow.x86_64 1.7.5-1.fc19 @updates Jonathan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: f20 - yum locally rebuilding deltas is so slow
On Thu, 2013-12-19 at 16:43 -0700, Chris Murphy wrote: > On Dec 19, 2013, at 4:14 PM, T.C. Hollingsworth > wrote: > > > On Thu, Dec 19, 2013 at a4:01 PM, Chris Murphy > > wrote: > >> Does anyone know exactly what's happening during the rebuild? I > >> understand from light documentation how deltarpm works, what I'm > >> not sure is if most of the time is spent reconstructing a virtual > >> oldrpm from an installed rpm, or applying the delta, or writing out > >> the new install? > > > > It reconstructs a real honest-to-God RPM file that must match the > > shasum/GPG sig of the old one exactly, lest it be thrown out. > > That sounds time consuming. I bet that's the big hit. It is. The worst part is that the rebuilt rpm has to also be compressed using exactly the same compression level as the original. The xz compression format (which is what Fedora's rpms use) is designed to be fast at decompression, but is pretty slow at compression, which slows down the rebuild time. To answer your original question, applydeltarpm never reconstructs a virtual oldrpm. Rather, it grabs the necessary bytes from the files on disk as it applies the delta. This process is hard on IO, but isn't very CPU-intensive. Building the new rpm, for the reasons listed earlier, is hard on the CPU. Jonathan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Fedora 29 - released before its time???
On Wed, 2018-11-07 at 14:53 -0500, David A. De Graaf wrote: > When a new Fedora is released, I immediately fetch the Live Xfce > Spin .iso. As a Gnome hater, I want to avoid that entrapment. > I've always found Xfce perfectly suited for me. > > This crucial piece of the release is missing at all the mirror sites > I've visited and, indeed, the file that lists checksums for all the > Spins omits mention of the Xfce-Live version. I've been hoping and > expecting this omission to be corrected, but it's been over a week. > > I did find one place: >https://spins.fedoraproject.org/xfce/download/index.html > that offers to "Download Fedora 29 Xfce Desktop", and I have done so. > However, there's no checksum that I've been able to discover. https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/alt/unofficial/releases/29/x86_64/Fedora-UNOFFICIAL-29-20181029.1-x86_64-CHECKSUM Found by copying the url into the address bar and removing the file part of it. FWIW, it matches the checksum provided by ToddAndMargo elsewhere in this thread. Jonathan ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Shredding a removable drive (OT)
On Fri, 2019-01-25 at 20:24 -0800, Gordon Messmer wrote: > On 1/25/19 6:45 PM, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote: > > Is there a quicker way to protect my data when I give the drives away, > > other than smashing the drives to bits? > > The quickest would be to encrypt the drives from the beginning. When you > want to discard the drives, you just need to wipe the LUKS header. With > the key wiped out, the rest of the drive is just random bits. This, 100 times over! Jonathan ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Why Must I Do "dnf clean all" Before Updating Will Proceed?
On Tue, 2019-06-04 at 18:54 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote: > On 6/1/19 5:27 AM, Garry T. Williams wrote: > > On Friday, May 31, 2019 11:05:20 PM EDT Tim via users wrote: > > > On Fri, 2019-05-31 at 17:18 -0400, Garry Williams wrote: > > > > But, of course, the issue is why this happens in the first place. > > > > > > Does your ISP insert a transparent proxy between you and the > > > internet? They're well known to cause caching problems. > > > > Ah, ha! That is a difference between the problem system and the > > others I have that do not experience the problem. > > > > My employer does eavesdrop on everything. > > I think I found the answer to this. I ran into the same problem with my > simple custom proxy. Starting in F30, the repo uses zchunk. This means > that dnf requests lots of byte ranges. If the proxy doesn't support > this, then librepo fails. According to the http specs, a client MUST > support getting more (or less) data than asked for when requesting > ranges. However, librepo does not. I'm about to file a bug for this. Please do, and please file it against zchunk when you do, but please first make sure you've updated to the latest versions if libdnf, librepo and zchunk-libs. librepo is supposed to automatically reduce the number of zchunk byte ranges it requests if there's a failure, so, if it's not, it's most likely a bug. It would also be really helpful to see how your proxy responds to a request for too many byte ranges. And please make sure to attach dnf.librepo.log when you file the bug. Jonathan ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F22 unusable - system freezes on login
On Fri, 2015-06-19 at 17:04 -0400, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > On 2015-06-19 16:29, Joe Zeff wrote: > > On 06/19/2015 01:13 PM, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > > > I'm increasingly unconvinced that it has anything whatsoever to > > > do with > > > X. More like it can't start a login session. I'd guess that > > > recovery > > > mode does something that's just a bit different, as that is > > > the*only* > > > way I can get to a usable environment of any kind. > > > > Have you tried creating a new user? > > Yes. *No* user can log in. Not the user I created at install, not a > newly created user, ***not root***. > > The only way I can interact with the system *in any way* is in > emergency > mode. Forgive me if this has already been asked, but have you run fsck on your filesystem? Some of the things you've mentioned (corrupted /var/log/messages) make me wonder whether something has happened to the filesystem. Jonathan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Yum/dnf Search Functionality
On 06/23/2014 12:49 AM, Stephen Morris wrote: Hi, I undertook a search for the string blueray in both yum and dnf and both, in my view, behaved strangely. From yum I received the following messages: yum search Blueray This doesn't deal with yum/dnf messages, but if you're looking for bluray packages, perhaps 'yum search bluray' would work better? Jonathan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: XBMC Missing NFS Support
Not sure why it's not enabled, but I would suggest opening a bug report at https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Fedora&component=xbmc. Jonathan On 10/22/2014 07:47 AM, Stephen Morris wrote: XBMC for fedora as supplied by the RPM-fusion respository appears to not have support for nfs compiled into the rpm. Does anybody know why that is, or is it the case that in order to get it I have to compile libnfs? regards, Steve -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Cannot play MP3 files on Totem
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 15:22 +, Paul Smith wrote: > I have installed > > yum install gstreamer* > > and tried several MP3 without any success. On F14 all these MP3 files > could be played with Totem. FWIW, when I upgraded from F15 to F16, I was unable to play *any* media through Totem (despite having all of the necessary rpmfusion rpms installed). After removing ~/.gstreamer-0.10 everything worked again. If you've used the same home directory since Fedora 14, it might be worth trying. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Cannot play MP3 files on Totem
On Wed, 2011-11-23 at 19:44 +, Paul Smith wrote: > It is working now -- thanks for your help! > > Paul You're welcome Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Re: Message when running yum update
On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 12:44 -0600, JD wrote: > # yum -y update > Loaded plugins: auto-update-debuginfo, downloadonly, etckeeper, > langpacks, presto, priorities, product-id, refresh-packagekit, >: subscription-manager > Updating certificate-based repositories. > Unable to read consumer identity > > This machine has not been registered and therefore has > no access to security and other critical updates. Please > register using subscription-manager. > - > > This is the first time I see the registration thing. > Why is this being done? > Why does anyone have to register their machine? > I see no reason for this other than monitoring people's machines. > This is totally unacceptable. I'm guessing the subscription-manager yum plugin is for RHEL and shouldn't be installed on a Fedora machine. And Red Hat does want to validate that your RHEL subscription before using them for updates. Anyhow, a quick check in yum shows that both product-id and subscription-manager aren't in the Fedora repositories. Removing them (again, assuming you're on a Fedora machine) should fix the error message. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Message when running yum update
On Sat, 2012-06-30 at 19:24 +, Andre Robatino wrote: > Jonathan Dieter lesbg.com> writes: > > > Anyhow, a quick check in yum shows that both product-id and > > subscription-manager aren't in the Fedora repositories. Removing them > > (again, assuming you're on a Fedora machine) should fix the error > > message. > > subscription-manager is in F17: > > Name: subscription-manager > Arch: x86_64 > Version : 1.0.3 > Release : 1.fc17 > Yeah, I missed that. I was looking for a yum plugin. Thanks, Andre, for the correction. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Can't boot Linux after motherboard change
On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 17:00 -0700, Paolo Galtieri wrote: > I let it sit powered off for a while and tried rebooting running just > on battery, and this time it got past where it failed previously. > This time it ran file system checks on the various file systems, but > for some reason it also decided to do a selinux relabel. Shortly > after it started the relabel it powered off again. Have you checked the CPU temperature? These symptoms sound like they may indicate that the CPU is overheating. Jonathan signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: yum delta problems
On Wed, 2013-07-03 at 18:33 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote: > I can assure you, I am not manually modifying anything installed by > those packages to cause this mismatch. I do notice they are all > 32 bit packages, but I'm running 64 bit. Is yum trying to apply > a 64 bit delta to a 32 bit package or something? I believe that's exactly what yum is doing. Now that yum-presto has been merged into yum for Fedora 19, your best bet would be to file a bug against yum itself. Jonathan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: yum delta problems
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 08:55 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote: > On Thu, 04 Jul 2013 12:36:25 +0300 > Jonathan Dieter wrote: > > > I believe that's exactly what yum is doing. Now that yum-presto has > > been merged into yum for Fedora 19, your best bet would be to file a bug > > against yum itself. > > Yea, I might as well. At least I might get a reason why it isn't > a bug when they close it :-). Here 'tis: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=981314 I found the mistake and I've posted a patch to that bug that should fix it. Jonathan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: yum delta problems
On Thu, 2013-07-04 at 00:55 +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: > 14 out of 118 - who cares? > > so there was some invalid delta-files - that's why yum is designed > to fall back to the ordinary full RPM in such cases > > Should I file a bugzilla against yum (or something else)? > > clearly: NO The invalid deltas were a bug in yum. And I've posted a patch in bugzilla that fixes it, so I'm glad Tom opened the bug. Jonathan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: how to pxe boot using Fedora 19 live CDs
On Thu, 2013-07-11 at 13:09 -0700, Jerome Yanga wrote: > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Jerome Yanga wrote: > > > I have tried many configs and have failed to pxe boot a live Fedora 19 cd. > > I need help in the boot parameters. Here is my current one. > > > > LABEL fedora_x86_64_19 > > MENU LABEL ^1) Fedora 19 x86_64 Live > > MENU INDENT 1 > > KERNEL knl/vmlinuz_fedora_19_x86_64_live_desktop > > APPEND initrd=img/initrd_fedora_19_x86_64_live_desktop root=live: > > http://192.168.0.100/repo/linux/fedora/x86_64/19/LiveOS/squashfs.imgroot=live:http://192.168.0.100/repo/linux/fedora/x86_64/19/LiveOS/squashfs.img > > > > I am getting the error below. > > > > dracut: FATAL: Don't know how to handle 'root=live: > > http://192.168.0.100/repo/linux/fedora/x86_64/19/LiveOS/squashfs.img' > > > > regards, > > j > > > > > I forgot to mention that the Live CD ISO is mounted via loop and published > via the URL. > > regards, > j Have you tried using livecd-iso-to-pxeboot, available from livecd-tools in the repositories? This tool will extract the disk image and kernel from the iso and create a proper config file for it. Jonathan -- users mailing list users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
Re: Failed Delta RPMs observed in repo
On Sun, 2020-02-09 at 09:36 -0500, John Mellor wrote: > Question for the repo managers, > > Why do I sometimes see invalid checksums for drpm downloads? E.g: > This excerpt from the update this morning: > > > /var/cache/dnf/updates-7fc4c739b3909d9f/packages/selinux-policy- > > targeted-3.14.4-46.fc31_3.14.4-47.fc31.noarch.drpm: md5 mismatch of > > result > > Some packages were not downloaded. Retrying. > > selinux-policy-targeted-3.14.4-47.fc31.noarch.r 14 MB/s | 13 > > MB 00:00 > > It almost always causes the total download size to be larger than any > savings from using the drpm format: > > > Failed Delta RPMs increased 41.3 MB of updates to 43.3 MB (-4.1% > > wasted) > > > > Is this a repo bug? This is not a repo bug, but rather a (small) bug in how selinux-policy- targeted is packaged. A drpm is assembled by taking the parts of the old installed rpm that haven't changed from the local system and then only downloading the parts that have changed. The problem is that a file in selinux-policy-targeted changes *after* it's installed, but dnf doesn't detect that the old installed rpm has changed until after downloading and attempting to apply the drpm. As you can see on my local system, there are four files that have changed after selinux-policy-targeted was installed: $ sudo rpm -V selinux-policy-targeted S.5T. c /etc/selinux/targeted/contexts/files/file_contexts.local ..5T./var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/commit_num S.5T./var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/file_contexts ...T./var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/homedir_template S.5T./var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/policy.kern .M... g /var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/policy.linked ...T./var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/seusers ...T./var/lib/selinux/targeted/active/users_extra The file in /etc is marked as a config file, so won't cause the deltarpm to fail, but the changes to the other three will. Arguably, any files that may change on the local system should be marked as config files. Jonathan ___ users mailing list -- users@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to users-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/users@lists.fedoraproject.org
