On Jun 5, 2013, at 12:55 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>
> * We were covering bootloaders in a half-assed way in the Windows dual
> boot criterion, but that seemed kinda dumb, so I figured it would make
> sense to break out an explicit bootloader criterion: "The installer must
> allow the user t
On Sun, 2013-06-09 at 21:50 -0400, Tom Horsley wrote:
> I'm waiting for the "installing boot loader" step of a
> net install of fedora 19 to finish (about 20 minutes
> now).
>
> Poking around in the various console screens, I see
> that it is running the os-prober script during the
> grub2 mkconfi
I'm waiting for the "installing boot loader" step of a
net install of fedora 19 to finish (about 20 minutes
now).
Poking around in the various console screens, I see
that it is running the os-prober script during the
grub2 mkconfig.
In the syslog, I see it getting gazillions of errors
on device f
On 06/09/2013 01:56 PM, Alexander Volovics wrote:
I wanted to test gnome-boxes on a fully updated fed19 beta.
1) I had to set selinux to permissive to enable the install
of windows7/8 (or any Linux). Why?
2) Both Win7 and Win8 install without problems but I am unable
to enable 16:9 full
On 06/09/2013 09:56 AM, Alexander Volovics wrote:
1) I had to set selinux to permissive to enable the install
of windows7/8 (or any Linux). Why?
File a bug with the selinux errors.
--
test mailing list
test@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/list
It appear from my experiences a similar problem is reported here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=964139 where options in
ifcfg files are ignored. In addition, the presence of an ifcfg-Profile
file explains why network init behavior differed from options in ifcfg
br0 and slave files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=971255
The gist is that a UEFI system has Windows UEFI installed, and it works. Upon
PXE booting Fedora, it breaks the Windows install somehow. Because removing the
440 bytes of MBR code, and all of the Fedora partitions doesn't unbreak this, I
though
The following Fedora 19 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
54
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-5801/mantis-1.2.15-1.fc19
26
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-8116/clamav-0.97.8-1.fc19
15
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2013-9102/
In the middle of updating , I got these; how important are they? and,I
supopose, is the command to recover "db_runrecovery"?
error: rpmdb: BDB0113 Thread/process 3820/139765024729088 failed:
BDB1507 Thread died in Berkeley DB library
error: db5 error(-30973) from dbenv->failchk: BDB0087 DB_RUNRECO
I wanted to test gnome-boxes on a fully updated fed19 beta.
1) I had to set selinux to permissive to enable the install
of windows7/8 (or any Linux). Why?
2) Both Win7 and Win8 install without problems but I am unable
to enable 16:9 fullscreen (or any 16:9 screen).
For example 1600x900 d
Compose started at Sun Jun 9 09:15:02 UTC 2013
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[deltacloud-core]
deltacloud-core-rhevm-1.1.3-1.fc19.noarch requires rubygem(rbovirt) >=
0:0.0.18
[dragonegg]
dragonegg-3.1-19.fc19.x86_64 requires gcc
Compose started at Sun Jun 9 08:15:02 UTC 2013
Broken deps for x86_64
--
[bind10]
bind10-1.0.0-3.fc20.i686 requires liblog4cplus-1.1.so.5
bind10-1.0.0-3.fc20.x86_64 requires liblog4cplus-1.1.so.5()(64bit)
bind10-dhcp-
On Sat, 2013-06-08 at 22:34 +0200, Lars Seipel wrote:
> It took me a while to figure out you're not talking about Fedora
> packages but RPMs/specfiles provided by some 3rd party. Please make this
> a bit clearer next time.
Well, our server is somehow similar to
http://www.howtoforge.com/virtual-use
13 matches
Mail list logo
