On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 10:08:38AM -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 12:03:51PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> > Morten Torstensen wrote:
> >> [snip away bible quotes]
> >>
> >> This is getting way off topic, please consider what you post.
> >>
> >
> > Having only one true reposi
On Thu, Dec 06, 2007 at 02:57:11PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> However at some point people quit thinking logically and instead
> started just throwing virtual dung at each other
Personally I think that oversimplifies the issue a lot. There was a
plea for cooperation from one side and a s
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 02:21:20PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Florin Andrei wrote:
>
>> OTOH, yes, it would be so nice if all repos would be 100% compatible with
>> each other. :-)
>
> No it wouldn't because the reason you install something from a 3rd party
> repo may be precisely because its d
On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 05:12:06PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> But it would be even better if we could live with the assumption that repos
> will have incompatibilities, whether accidental or intentional. Then it
> would become a choice of which to install and things wouldn't break when
> somew
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 01:15:08PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
>> On Fri, Dec 07, 2007 at 05:12:06PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> But it would be even better if we could live with the assumption that
>>> repos will have incompatibilities, whethe
On Sat, Dec 08, 2007 at 08:15:07PM -0500, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Friday 07 December 2007, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> > I'd be happy to host the rest of this conversation in
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - which might actually have more people
> > watching who play a role in these situations ?
>
> There is o
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 08:32:57PM +0100, Heiko Adams wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 09.12.2007, 21:27 +0200 schrieb Axel Thimm:
> > ...
> > I'll just repeat myself: If the packagers don't cooperate no technical
> > solution will be able to really cover compatibilty probl
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 02:09:36PM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
>
>>>> Sorry, that's not possible. Just to give an example: For some reason
>>>> you favour repo A and make it trump over repo B. Both repos ship
>>>> libfoo and repo B
On Sun, Dec 09, 2007 at 08:55:08PM +0100, Heiko Adams wrote:
> Am Sonntag, den 09.12.2007, 21:39 +0200 schrieb Axel Thimm:
> > ...
> > But what does that have to do with 3rd party repos A and B supporting
> > CentOS but being incompatible towards each other? This is not abou
On Sun, Dec 30, 2007 at 01:09:00AM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>> Firewall builder is available in the ATrpms repository for C5:
>> http://atrpms.net/dist/el5/fwbuilder/
>
> Thanks. The version there is 6 months behind, but it looks mostly like bug
> fixes and for what I need this week, it sho
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 12:41:52AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Akemi Yagi wrote:
> > On Dec 30, 2007 8:53 PM, Devraj Mukherjee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> Hi everyone,
> >>
> >> Yum on one my CentOS systems has decided to stop functioning after an
> >> upgrade to CentOS 4.6. It's complaining
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 06:44:08AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Everyone is entitled to their own opinion ... mine is that the yum from
> CentOS is a critical package and should not be replaced with out a very,
> very good reason. Yours is different. Neither is right or wrong ...
> they are just
On Mon, Dec 31, 2007 at 07:37:34AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> We are working on a yum-3.2.8 version for CentOS-5 as well, as there is
> a major bug in the 3.0.x branch that causes problems with file paths
> used with file dependency calculations. However, just like we don't
> roll newer KDE cha
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 12:54:09PM -0400, Sam Beam wrote:
> Hi guys - brand new 5.1 install here and quite happy - but...
>
> The nv driver did not work at all for me, fritzy stripes and dots. This is a
> GeForce 7300 LE which was working happily dual-head under FC6 with the livna
> nvidia RPMs
Hi,
On Wed, Apr 02, 2008 at 04:04:14PM -0700, Scott Silva wrote:
> on 4-2-2008 3:56 PM Michael Kratz spake the following:
>>
>> On 02/04/2008, at 10:43 PM, Drew Weaver wrote:
>>> Does anyone know if upstream ever plans on updating the dovecot package
>>> to a non RC version or to even one of the
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 01:35:45PM -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> ATrpms has:
>
> madwifi-0.9.4-38_r2512.fc6.i386.rpm but requires their patched kernel.
No, it doesn't, it supports the CentOS' kernels as well (not the
centosplus yet), just try
smart install foo foo-kmdl-`uname -r`
(where foo
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 04:02:59PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 04:48:32PM -0600, Grant McChesney wrote:
> > On 7/23/07, Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >--> Processing Dependency: perl(Zaptel::Config::Defaults) for package:
> > >
On Mon, Jul 23, 2007 at 04:48:32PM -0600, Grant McChesney wrote:
> On 7/23/07, Dave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >Hello,
> >I've got a centos5 box that at least has a dependency issue or a
> >corrupt
> >rpm database. I am open to suggestions as to how to proceed. I have added
> >some extra
On Sun, Jul 29, 2007 at 03:29:11PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Dag Wieers wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 27 Jul 2007, JC Júnior wrote:
> >
> >> I received a message about EPEL repository, I would like to know if this
> >> repo is long term support too.
> >
> > Let me add that an effort to make sure EPEL is
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 07:51:45AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
>
> >Maybe the original draft will be picked up by other projects to
> >signal their mode of collaboration, let's see. It certainly was in
> >thge spirit of the existing 3rd party rep
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 11:21:10AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >ATM we'll just live and let live, and there will not be any one-side
> >effort to rectify any compatibility issues EPEL created. It's their
> >mess, they'll have to clean it up.
>
> Live and let die, you mean - at least as far as the
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 03:57:23PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
>
> >> I don't think this issue has any solution other than separate
> >>namespaces.
> >
> >Looking at your requests on this you should realize that repotags are
> >w
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 12:15:31PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> I know EPEL acknowledged that the whole repo-conflicts thing is an
> issue that needed to be addressed... as has been rehashed many times,
> they just didn't like repotags.
The history goes as follows:
o Dag suggests repotags, Axel
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 03:43:31PM -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> > Rex Dieter wrote:
> >> It's quite a stetch from "no repotags" to
> >> conclude "EPEL has no interest" in compatibility.
>
> >> In fact, epel (and fedora) repo is, by design and policy, supposed to be
> >> co
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 02:12:43PM -0700, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> I understand how a lot of it "went down" (saw the meetings and am on
> the lists as well), I'm just wondering if that aside (I know, hard to
> do :), could there feasibly be an RPM-based solution to this that would
> make repo-tags o
On Mon, Jul 30, 2007 at 04:58:19PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
>
> >>I don't know enough about repotags to understand why everyone needs
> >>them. Can't any repotag be distinguished from no repotag? Why is
> >>there any need for c
On Tue, Jul 31, 2007 at 10:17:00PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Dag Wieers wrote:
>
> >You may argue that that is a good thing. But Fedora is a different beast
> >than RHEL. People may want stable packages, or current packages and a
> >single repository (with the tools we have today) cannot prov
On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 11:29:25AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> You'll have to remind me why anyone wants different same-named packages
> with differences the end user doesn't understand and can't control to
> exist at all before I can comment on a solution about managing them.
Let's assume no o
On Thu, Aug 02, 2007 at 07:47:02AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >On Wed, Aug 01, 2007 at 11:29:25AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >>You'll have to remind me why anyone wants different same-named packages
> >>with differences the end user doesn&#
On Fri, Aug 03, 2007 at 08:02:38PM -0700, Kenneth Porter wrote:
> Is an RPM for Asterisk (the PBX system) available for CentOS 5? It looks
> like RPMforge is supposed to have one, as I can see dependent packages like
> asterisk-sounds, but the base package seems to be absent from the
> repositor
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 07:37:13AM -0400, Dave wrote:
> --> Processing Dependency: /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.18-8.el5 for package:
> fuse-kmdl-2.6.18-8.el5
> Importing additional filelist information
> --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> Error: Missing Dependency: /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.18-8.el5 is needed by
On Fri, Aug 17, 2007 at 04:30:34PM -0400, Dave wrote:
> Hello,
>Thanks for your reply. I am using both rpmforge and atrpms, i have not
> until now had an issue. What is dkms and kmdl?
dkms and kmdl are two different methods of providing kernel modules on
your system. dkms does this dynamicall
On Wed, Oct 17, 2007 at 03:03:29AM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Timothy Kesten wrote:
> > Hi Folks,
> >
> > I have to setup a new server with a fritz-pci-ISDN-card inside.
> > For it the fcpci-Packages from atrpm-repo is needed.
> > Trying to install this package on a machine with the newest Cent
On Fri, Nov 23, 2007 at 02:21:36PM +0300, Ern jura wrote:
> I get the following error when I try installing fuse-ntfs-3g even
> though I have installed fuse-2.7 and fuse-kmdl-2.7
What about fuse-libs?
> error: Failed dependencies:
> libfuse.so.2 is needed by fuse-ntfs-3g-1.913-1.el5.rf.i3
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 11:37:52PM -0700, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
> > Or is Redhat correct that there is nothing improved here and wait
> > for 3.0?
>
> Sorry to jump in, but where is that you saw Red Hat saying "there is
> nothing _improved_ in FF2"?! I suppose RHEL5 doesn't have FF2 because
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:45:25PM -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> I am trying to understand Suspend 2 and what I have to do to get it
> working in Centos 5. There is quite a bit for it at ATrpms:
>
> http://www.atrpms.net/dist/el5/hibernate-suspend2/
> http://www.atrpms.net/dist/el5/kernel-sus
On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 07:37:50PM -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> I am making some progress on my Centos 5 notebook build.
>
> So I am looking at Firefox and Thunderbird 2.0.
>
> Should I install them? Or is Redhat correct that there is nothing
> improved here and wait for 3.0? (well I have
On Fri, Jun 15, 2007 at 08:22:32AM -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> >>http://www.atrpms.net/dist/el5/hibernate-suspend2/
> >>http://www.atrpms.net/dist/el5/kernel-suspend2/
> I ASSuME there is nothing there that is RH specific and can be used with
> Centos. Afterall, I HAVE been doing this for m
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:03:39AM -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> I have not installed the madwifi specific kernel stuff (kdml and
> hal-kdml) from atrpms. I have installed with wpa rpms.
>
> And my Atheros card is working with almost no work on my part (other
> than runing wpa_supplicant as
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 11:55:25AM -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> >>>On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:03:39AM -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> I have not installed the madwifi specific kernel stuff (kdml and
> hal-kdml) from atrpms. I have installed with wpa rpms.
>
> And my Atheros c
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 12:22:04PM -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
>
> Axel Thimm wrote:
>
> >On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 11:55:25AM -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> >
> >>>>>On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 08:03:39AM -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> >>>&g
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 12:36:53PM -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> I have not installed the madwifi specific kernel stuff (kdml and
> hal-kdml) from atrpms. I have installed with wpa rpms.
>
> And my Atheros card is working with almost no work on my part (other
>
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 12:07:32PM -0400, Joe Klemmer wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Jun 2007, Scott Silva wrote:
>
> >>Anyone run into this? I was planning to upgrade the box to CentOS 5
> >>next month but I may do it sooner if it will fix this.
> >
> >Do you by any chance have atrpms enabled as a repo
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 12:30:14PM -0400, Joe Klemmer wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Axel Thimm wrote:
>
> >>>Do you by any chance have atrpms enabled as a repo?
> >>
> >>As it happens, yes. Is this a good thing or a bad thing?
> >
> >A good thi
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 12:43:00PM -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> I think I found one of my setup problems. I followed instructions at:
> http://atrpms.net/install.html
>
> And now I see that the information shown there to put into yum.conf (that I
> put into yum.repo.d/atrpms.repo) is only
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:02:07PM -0400, Joe Klemmer wrote:
> No config changes were made, just 'yum update'. No *.rpmnew files
> that I can find. Running rpm -V gives -
>
> $ rpm -V dovecot
> . c /etc/dovecot.conf
This output means that /etc/dovecot.conf was modified. If it had
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:09:06PM -0400, Joe Klemmer wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Axel Thimm wrote:
>
> >Personally I would recommend fixing the above, as the dovecot version
> >as shipped by the upstream vendor (0.99.11 from 2004) is not
> >maintained by
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:12:32PM -0400, Joe Klemmer wrote:
> On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Axel Thimm wrote:
>
> >>$ rpm -V dovecot
> >>. c /etc/dovecot.conf
> >
> >This output means that /etc/dovecot.conf was modified. If it had been
> >modified before
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 07:18:55PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 01:09:06PM -0400, Joe Klemmer wrote:
> > On Mon, 18 Jun 2007, Axel Thimm wrote:
> >
> > >Personally I would recommend fixing the above, as the dovecot version
> > >as shipped by
On Mon, Jun 18, 2007 at 05:18:41PM -0400, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> I copied exactly where Axel provided into atrmps.repo. I have the line:
>
> atrpms.repo:baseurl=http://dl.atrpms.net/el5-x86_64/atrpms/stable
>
> but the rpms that are being flagged as updates pretty much all have fc5
> in thei
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 07:54:11AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I've recently started using the priorities plugin as part of my best
> practices. It's very effective, and prevents nasty things from
> happening (like atrpms upgrading python and disabling yum.)
When did ATrpms replace python a
On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 10:38:55AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
>> On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 07:54:11AM -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>>> I've recently started using the priorities plugin as part of my best
>>> practices. It'
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 04:20:30PM -0600, Kenneth Burgener wrote:
> On 7/7/2008 2:26 PM, Scott Silva wrote:
>> on 7-7-2008 12:45 PM Kenneth Burgener spake the following:
>>> "The CentOS 5/RHEL 5 repository from atrpms.net is safe to use, if
>>> you only use the stable version. Packages in there do
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:17:58PM -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 8, 2008 at 9:50 AM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Axel Thimm wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 04:20:30PM -0600, Kenneth Burgener wrote:
> >>
&g
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 11:33:24AM -0700, Florin Andrei wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
>> Client filtering is not recommended by some people ... but highly
>> recommended by others :-D
>
> It's a good idea on important systems - but then you shouldn't open
> those machines to outside reposito
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 03:14:18PM -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
> > > >> Using client side filtering is not recommended, it creates more bugs,
> > > >> than it can solve. The proper thing is to take care of it on the
> > > >> server side, where the package owners are supposed to know how to
> > > >>
> > The true answer to this is cooperating/merged repos and we're
> > targeting this on rpmrepo.org. Join up and be part of the solution :)
>
> You might want to make some of the mailling lists public for people to
> join up on :).
Argh! Was that always the case? I'll fix that.
--
Axel.Thimm at
On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 02:34:01PM -0700, Scott Silva wrote:
> I think a big problem comes when a repo wants to build packageX, but it
> requires fancywidgetv2.1. But the base system only has fancywidgetv1.9.
> How would you get packagex without the possibility of breaking something
> unless fa
On Tue, Jul 15, 2008 at 03:34:56PM -0500, Victor Padro wrote:
> Does anyone has implemented this sucessfully?
Yes and no. :/
> I am asking this because we are implementing Xen on our test lab machines,
> which they hold up to three 3com and intel Nics 10/100mbps based.
>
> These servers are mean
Hi Paul,
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 07:50:51PM -0500, Paul Johnson wrote:
> I'm offering to share that back to you, but if you don't need it,
> that's fine.
regarding rpmrepo, we are still in infancy otherwise I'd say go on
submit the packages there! I'm sure many people will find your
packages usef
On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 06:52:09AM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> Here as well, we differ -- CentOS at its core is about boring, and
> stable and conservative as a core value. You are in the wrong place
> if you think otherwise. It makes a fine BASE to build on, as Dag's
> archive has long demonstra
On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 04:04:10AM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 08, 2009 at 06:52:09AM -0400, R P Herrold wrote:
> >> Here as well, we differ -- CentOS at its core is about boring, and
> >> stable and conservative as a core value.
On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 03:19:01PM -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
> My updated 5.2 has these
>cdrdao-1.2.1-2.i386
>cdrecord-2.01-10.i386
>xcdroast-0.98a15-12.2.2.i386
>
> Rpmforge has only the development rpm for the current cdrecord.
>
> I don't have atrpm on my system. You might c
On Wed, Dec 03, 2008 at 06:09:56PM -0500, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
> > With previous kernels, I had to use madwifi.
>
>
> Long back I used the kmod-madwifi patched kernel from atrpms, but then
> we got a dkms loadable madwifi and no more kernel patches. DKMS is how I
> am running my ipw3945 d
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 03:37:52PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM, wrote:
> > I would have to agree with the repo being misconfigured. If I'm on 5.4,
> > and look for updates to 5.4, it should *not* tell me that one package
> > needs updating, but that, and an unno
Hi,
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 04:11:15AM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> Am 05.05.10 08:32, schrieb Axel Thimm:
> > On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 03:37:52PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> >> You do not look for updates on 5.4, but for updates on5. And EPEL (as
> >> ATRPMS) ta
66 matches
Mail list logo
