> Fedora will be creating a small stage 1 loader. This wil be signed by
> the MS keys, and will inself contain Fedora keys. These fedora keys will
Which is therefore non-free and cannot be part of Fedora or shipped with
it.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe or cha
On 1/06/12 16:38, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Fedora will be creating a small stage 1 loader. This wil be signed by
>> the MS keys, and will inself contain Fedora keys. These fedora keys will
>
> Which is therefore non-free and cannot be part of Fedora or shipped with
> it.
I don't know enough about the l
On Thu, 31 May 2012 20:56:03 -0700
JD wrote:
> FWIW, perhaps - just perhaps - this is an attempt by MS and redhat
> (and perhaps others like Oracle),
> to try an convince government customers that a system with a signed
> bootloader and kernel and modules, provides for such greater security,
> th
William. The operating word here is Tiviozation.
You can compile the kernel but you can't run it on the system. That is the
threat GPL3 is trying to counteract.
By creating "valid" kernels, by definition "not valid kernels" cannot run.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 2:09 AM, William Brown wrote:
> On 1
On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 5:44 PM, jarmo wrote:
> When closing comp kernel panic, again
> can't produce message here, but remember, that can't find shutdown.sh
> script was one of messages...
Ok, so I think I just went through this same path yesterday.
I noticed the upgrade did not correctly set t
> If you wouldn't mind explaining *exactly* how this would be "non-free",
> and why this would exclude this approach, I would be most interested.
Free Software is usually defined as providing a set of freedoms
- The freedom to run the program, for any purpose
Ok not a problem
- The freedom to s
On 1/06/12 16:50, Javier Perez wrote:
> William. The operating word here is Tiviozation.
> You can compile the kernel but you can't run it on the system. That is
> the threat GPL3 is trying to counteract.
> By creating "valid" kernels, by definition "not valid kernels" cannot run.
>
Well, It woul
Dear all,
I have a machine with two monitors, using Intel Q35
driver with DRI. Gnome 3
works in fallback mode still in FC17 - I was expecting that would not
happen. Did I hope for
too much?
Bill
--
Bill Murray ATLAS
STF
> We're told that Fedora's bootloader is going to get signed – and by that,
> that must mean "grub", right?
No. A tiny loader before grub with the Microsoft key is the plan. That's
actually technically quite smart as it means you don't have to keep going
back to Microsoft. Of course in reality b
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 12:20 AM, Javier Perez wrote:
> William. The operating word here is Tiviozation.
> You can compile the kernel but you can't run it on the system. That is the
> threat GPL3 is trying to counteract.
> By creating "valid" kernels, by definition "not valid kernels" cannot run.
>
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:58:52 +0930
William Brown wrote:
> On 1/06/12 16:50, Javier Perez wrote:
> > William. The operating word here is Tiviozation.
> > You can compile the kernel but you can't run it on the system. That is
> > the threat GPL3 is trying to counteract.
> > By creating "valid" kern
Tommy, you are exactly right on all of your points.
The Fedora people say that they would rather not go back to the times of
compatibility lists to find out what hardware worked with the system.
I'd rather go back to compatibility lists and give my gold to whichever
hardware manufacturer caters t
From: users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[mailto:users-boun...@lists.fedoraproject.org] On Behalf Of Javier Perez
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2012 9:54 AM
To: Community support for Fedora users
Subject: Re: Red Hat Will Pay Microsoft To Get Past UEFI Restrictions
Tommy, you are exactly right on all
Turns out this can be done although its somewhat scarier than usual
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum#Fedora_16_-.3E_Fedora_17
It worked on my test box fine. The new Fedora kernel crashes all the
time, the desktop is in fallback mode and also broken but the upgrade
works fi
On 31/05/12 21:15, Javier Perez wrote:
Looking up the article: "Implementing UEFI Secure Boot in Fedora" at
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html
http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/12368.html
to quote:
"(Brief disclaimer - while I work for Red Hat, I'm only going to be
talking about Fedora here. A
On 05/31/2012 06:17 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 14:43:29 +0100,
> Alan Cox wrote:
>>
>> Count yourself lucky - if it can only find part of an old RAID volume eg
>> a stale header the FC16 installer just crashed. FC17 has introduced a new
>> bug where you can't install on
On 1 June 2012 08:46, Alan Cox wrote:
>> We're told that Fedora's bootloader is going to get signed – and by that,
>> that must mean "grub", right?
>
> No. A tiny loader before grub with the Microsoft key is the plan. That's
> actually technically quite smart as it means you don't have to keep goi
> > Demanding your money back because the board doesn't work as
> > advertised cuts even more deeply into their profit margin.
>
> This might work with smaller retail suppliers and local shops but if
> the board was advertised as supporting secure boot then you may find
> that argument leaves you
On 06/01/2012 01:09 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
It worked on my test box fine. The new Fedora kernel crashes all the
time, the desktop is in fallback mode and also broken but the upgrade
works fine.
For certain, non-standard values of "fine," that is.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
> for the virtual machines and continue the chain. Note that you're
> already half-way there with KVM, since most of its code runs in the
> kernel itself.
Not really. Chunks of kvm run in userspace so you'll now have to
sign libc, qemu, every file qemu uses, ld.so , ...
This is a general proble
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 01:27:34 -0700
Joe Zeff wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 01:09 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
> > It worked on my test box fine. The new Fedora kernel crashes all the
> > time, the desktop is in fallback mode and also broken but the upgrade
> > works fine.
>
> For certain, non-standard values of
NOTE/PS Yes, I was brave and did read myself back (now I feel pain for
you). Doing that, I realized we badly need a very visible FAQ
somewhere. Does it exist already? Can we point people to it? Should
we write it? Anyway, here goes:
On 06/01/2012 05:34 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
positiv
On 06/01/2012 09:15 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
Now a signed bootloader has its uses, however in a properly designed
system you would allow the user to import their own keys.
If it goes banana, I'm pretty confident this will be required by law in
most sane countries. There are good organizations of a
On 05/31/2012 09:33 PM, Fernando Lozano wrote:
>> > OpenJDK6 will no longer get security updates after November 2012:
>> > http://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/discuss/2012-February/002514.html
>> > A large part of the problem is that we will not have access to all the
>> > security vulnerabi
On 06/01/2012 01:47 AM, Thibault Nélis wrote:
Red Hat has the infrastructure, the resources, the money and the OEM
contacts to provide that service itself for itself and for many other
FOSS players. It probably just didn't think about it yet (or not
enough, this isn't an easy business, and sho
On 06/01/2012 02:53 AM, Edward M wrote:
also dont expect many computer manufacuters will be adding the keys
in comptuers for consumers, if they do it will not be for long term.
CORRECTION:
last line should of read: also dont expect many computer
manufacuters will be adding fedora
On 06/01/2012 09:46 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
Out of support releases are also an interesting problem. If a hole is
found they need to revoke the key. If they do that the users machine is
crippled. It's potentially a criminal matter in many EU states as well so
whoever issues the revocation could end u
On Thu, 31 May 2012 19:46:08 -0300, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> I' m using VLC 2.01 as per the vlc-2.0.1-1.fc17.i686 RPM
>
> I quickly found that the default audio ' visualization ' plugins included
> with VLC 2.x suck so badly that it'd be better if they included no
> visualizations AT ALL.
>
> So
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 7:23 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> Stop here, please. Don't rush like that. Anyone else, who finds this
> message in the list archives (when searching the Internet), don't run
> a command like that. Not only does it install much more than necessary
> (even packages for softw
> in case the system isn't yet infected. All the system has to do is
> fetch a new kernel and install it somehow, and if it does, even if it
> *is* infected, it would work, since the bootloader is assumed to be secure.
What new kernel - the release is by then over a year old so is no longer
sup
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/01/2012 04:56 AM, JD wrote:
> FWIW, perhaps - just perhaps - this is an attempt by MS and redhat
> (and perhaps others like Oracle), to try an convince government
> customers that a system with a signed bootloader and kernel and
> modules, provi
Alan Cox writes:
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:58:52 +0930
William Brown wrote:
> On 1/06/12 16:50, Javier Perez wrote:
> > William. The operating word here is Tiviozation.
> > You can compile the kernel but you can't run it on the system. That is
> > the threat GPL3 is trying to counteract.
> > By c
Javier Perez writes:
Tommy, you are exactly right on all of your points.
The Fedora people say that they would rather not go back to the times of
compatibility lists to find out what hardware worked with the system.
I'd rather go back to compatibility lists and give my gold to whichever
h
Alan Cox writes:
> certification key. That's the hood, welded shut, that's absolutely
mandatory
> for a secured bootloader to have any logical purpose, whatsoever.
Correct - and you need to lock it down way more than that. Also I can't
see Red Hat directly signing third party binary blobs. If
Thibault Nélis writes:
On 06/01/2012 09:46 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
Out of support releases are also an interesting problem. If a hole is
found they need to revoke the key. If they do that the users machine is
crippled. It's potentially a criminal matter in many EU states as well so
whoever issues t
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:59:42 +0100
"Bryn M. Reeves" wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 06/01/2012 04:56 AM, JD wrote:
> > FWIW, perhaps - just perhaps - this is an attempt by MS and redhat
> > (and perhaps others like Oracle), to try an convince government
> > custo
> AFAIK, Microsoft is already doing something like that with Windows drivers.
> They must be signed by Microsoft, in order to avoid a warning thrown in your
> face upon installation. I think that current Windows OS will just refuse to
> install an unsigned driver, for any hardware.
On curren
Thibault Nélis writes:
Yes, I think that would qualify.
No it isn't necessary. You're looking at it the wrong way; basically only
the things able to boot kernels and kernels themselves have to be signed and
trusted to ensure the integrity of the kernels.
Who gets to make a call what is
> (for instance now that I'll have to
> attempt to compile source code on my own to see if the bug is fixed).
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libprojectM-2.0.1-15.fc17
--
Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.3.7-1.fc17.x86_64
loadavg: 1.11 0.87 0.79
--
users mailing list
users@li
> Even if this goes extremely bad, firmwares will be hacked. The tech
> world always goes on with technical solutions, whether the politics
> follow or not. I mean this thing affects *everyone*, it's not a lost fight.
Oh certainly: one of the nastier effects of this (and it didn't start
with E
-Original Message-
Thibault Nélis writes:
> Now, users who buy machines with Windows pre-installed should expect
> their firmware to include Microsoft's key, and should be aware that
> they can add theirs legally. If they don't want to use Windows and
> don't want the trouble of setti
On 06/01/2012 01:11 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
You are assuming that Microsoft will sign a bootloader with such
functionality.
I would not take that bet.
The plan is to make them sign a shim boot loader, which essentially
delegates the trust down to Fedora entirely, because they have no
cont
On Thu, 31 May 2012 22:31:11 +0700
Khemara Lyn wrote:
> Thanks,
> It is far better than i thought. i would love to try the ssh tunnel and
> access by VNC to the display 0 also. Please forgive me for the poor
> suggestion. I thought i could help; in fact, i learn new thing from that :).
x11vnc
> Aside from some clear performance wins for not-that-uncommon workloads
> (deleting lots of large files, storing large images etc) there's the
> fact that most of the attention upstream these days is going into ext4
> - - the earlier ext* file systems are pretty much in maintenance mode today.
Yo
On 06/01/2012 01:18 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Who gets to make a call what is "trusted", and what even "trusted" means.
Can I recompile my own kernel, sprinkle some magic dust over it, and
make "trusted", without involving any other party?
Yes, you can sign it yourself, with your own key.
A
> And if secure boot isn't enabled by default even on machines with
> preinstalled OSes, then the world will gain nothing from the technology
> as, again, the people feeding the zombie networks are the same who won't
> care to enable it themselves.
It's btw a requirement that Windows 8 boxes sh
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 07:29:05AM -0600, Greg Woods wrote:
> ~/.gconf/apps/metacity/workspace_names/%gconf.xml
You already have a solution, so just adding some background info...
Up to GNOME 3.2 (inclusive), Mutter and GNOME shell use gconf to store
their settings. As of GNOME 3.4, gsettings is
On 06/01/2012 01:00 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
If, all of a sudden, another bootloader gets pushed into Fedora, only a
year or so after all the headache and pain of migrating from grub 1 to
grub 2, then this will validate our collective take on the subject.
With the ability to manage your keys,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/01/2012 12:15 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 11:59:42 +0100 "Bryn M. Reeves"
> wrote:
>
>> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1
>>
>> On 06/01/2012 04:56 AM, JD wrote:
>>> FWIW, perhaps - just perhaps - this is an attempt b
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/01/2012 12:18 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
> Who gets to make a call what is "trusted", and what even "trusted"
> means.
Slightly off-topic but a favourite Ken Thomson talk/paper of mine that
is very relevant to the discussion of "trust" in softwa
On 06/01/2012 01:05 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Just last week, installing the kernel 3.3.7 update made the ACPI
backlight intensity adjustment keys on my Thinkpad work, for the first
time.
Unti now, they never worked. I never bothered to complain. I figure
that, sooner or later, the kernel will
> Now a signed bootloader has its uses, however in a properly designed
> system you would allow the user to import their own keys.
The problem with this scheme is that a "trusted" os would in theory,
with the users permission be able to some how update the trusted key
repository on the firmware.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/libprojectM-2.0.1-15.fc17
>
Thanks Michael,
Downloaded and installed
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/packages/libprojectM/2.0.1/15.fc17/i686/libprojectM-2.0.1-15.fc17.i686.rpm
Works for me!
FC
Thibault Nélis writes:
Again, you are assuming that Microsoft will sign off on the concept of
signing a shim, and going forward, it's the wild-wild West.
Not going to happen.
Well why wouldn't they?
Because that makes the entire concept of a trusted boot, into a trusted
operating system,
Thibault Nélis writes:
On 06/01/2012 01:11 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
You are assuming that Microsoft will sign a bootloader with such
functionality.
I would not take that bet.
The plan is to make them sign a shim boot loader, which essentially
delegates the trust down to Fedora entirely,
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 04:28:01AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >No, but it sounds like a kernel panic.
> In my case, it was an obvious kernel panic.
>
> AFAIS, the cause was running a Fedora 16 kernel underneath of Fedora
> 17. Preupgrade (rsp. yum and/or grub underneath) obviously did not
> up
On 06/01/2012 02:27 PM, William Brown wrote:
The problem with this scheme is that a "trusted" os would in theory,
with the users permission be able to some how update the trusted key
repository on the firmware. Which means the security of your machine is
as good as the security of your firmware /
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 08:53:59AM -0400, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 04:28:01AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>No, but it sounds like a kernel panic.
In my case, it was an obvious kernel panic.
AFAIS, the cause was running a Fedora 16 kernel underneath of Fedora
17. Preupgra
> Typically you would only be able to manage the keys via the UEFI
> firmware UI, only accessible at boot time. Now of course an attack can
UEFI doesn't define UI. Which is a problem for getting any kind of sanity
here
> be mounted against the firmware, but these are often set up to only
> in
On 06/01/2012 09:06 AM, Jeff Gipson wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 08:53:59AM -0400, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 04:28:01AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>No, but it sounds like a kernel panic.
In my case, it was an obvious kernel panic.
AFAIS, the cause was running a Fedora
> > Verisign is somehow involved since they will receive the payments; and
> > they
> > are arguably less biased). Microsoft/Verisign currently ask $100 for the
> > signatures. Every time an attacker's malware is detected and blacklisted,
> > it would have to pay $100 to a trust broker to
On 06/01/2012 02:53 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 04:28:01AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
No, but it sounds like a kernel panic.
In my case, it was an obvious kernel panic.
AFAIS, the cause was running a Fedora 16 kernel underneath of Fedora
17. Preupgrade (rsp. yum and/o
On 06/01/2012 02:40 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
they can't possibly review all the software that could follow the boot
loader down the chain,
They won't have to. Once they have a signing key that boots their
current Windows OS, they have no further need for a certification
process. What value ad
Hrm, for me I still have an F16 kernel that seems to be eclipsing the
F17 kernel:
mcpierce@mcpierce-laptop:~ $ rpm -qa kernel
kernel-3.3.7-1.fc16.x86_64
kernel-3.3.7-1.fc17.x86_64
kernel-3.3.6-3.fc16.x86_64
mcpierce@mcpierce-laptop:~ $ uname -r
3.3.7-1.fc16.x86_64
--
Darryl L. Pierce, Sr. Sof
I find it gauling that I could buy standard hardware, either directly from an
OEM or resale, and Micro$loth (a software vendor, NOT a hardware vendor) has to
be paid blood money, so that free and open source software can be 'approved'
for installation.
This is wholly inappropriate regardless of
On 06/01/2012 02:33 PM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
Because that makes the entire concept of a trusted boot, into a trusted
operating system, moot.
They are not that dumb.
This will enable a piece of PC hardware to boot an operating system,
then run virus code that boots Windows' bootloader, infecti
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 03:30:28PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 02:53 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
> >On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 04:28:01AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> >>>No, but it sounds like a kernel panic.
> >>In my case, it was an obvious kernel panic.
> >>
> >>AFAIS, the cause
Is there no VLC for fedora-17?
Yum install vlc results in "No package vlc available."
I've messed wit this for a while to no avail, nothing found in
Google has provided a solution. Don't know what I might have done
wrong?.
Bob
--
http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD
box7
On 06/01/2012 10:31 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
>
>Is there no VLC for fedora-17?
>
>Yum install vlc results in "No package vlc available."
>
>I've messed wit this for a while to no avail, nothing found in
>Google has provided a solution. Don't know what I might ha
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/01/2012 01:14 PM, Alan Cox wrote:
>> Aside from some clear performance wins for not-that-uncommon
>> workloads (deleting lots of large files, storing large images
>> etc) there's the fact that most of the attention upstream these
>> days is go
Hi there
Fedora17 with drbd 8.3.11 an i am trying to create a resource with
external meta-disk:
resource cos62 {
#meta-disk internal;
meta-disk /dev/vg_drbd/lv-cos62-drbd-meta;
disk/dev/vg_drbd/lv-cos62-drbd;
on fed17-1 {
address 10.1.1.23:7789
On 01/06/12 10:43, Ed Greshko wrote:
On 06/01/2012 10:31 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
Is there no VLC for fedora-17?
Yum install vlc results in "No package vlc available."
I've messed wit this for a while to no avail, nothing found in
Google has provided a solu
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/01/2012 03:55 PM, Lutz Griesbach wrote:
> Hi there
>
> Fedora17 with drbd 8.3.11 an i am trying to create a resource with
> external meta-disk:
>
> resource cos62 { #meta-disk internal; meta-disk
> /dev/vg_drbd/lv-cos62-drbd-meta;
- From the
Hey Bryn,
Thank you for your answer.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:08 PM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
>
> - From the parse error you're getting it seems like drbd is expecting an
> index following the device parameter. According to the documentation
> that should be optional:
>
> "meta-disk internal, meta-
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 06/01/2012 04:24 PM, Lutz Griesbach wrote:
> as you described but the parse error still appears.
>
> [root@fed17-2 drbd.d]# drbdadm create-md cos62 drbd.d/cos62.res:8:
> Parse error: '[' expected, but got ';' (TK 59)
>
> Also i am not sure, if the
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
wrote:
> Ok, well maybe what I need is to get rpmfusion-free installed which
> I don't see in my list of yum repos? I haven't been able to get that
> either.
http://rpmfusion.org/Configuration
--
Suvayu
Open source is the
Hoping someone has some suggestions for helping me recover from these
upgrade problems (problems = system will not boot).
The system started as F16 with a RT patched kernel from Planet CCRMA.
I upgraded to F17 using the install DVD, and after the upgrade install the
system console has a continuous
On 01/06/12 12:07, suvayu ali wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
wrote:
Ok, well maybe what I need is to get rpmfusion-free installed which
I don't see in my list of yum repos? I haven't been able to get that
either.
http://rpmfusion.org/Configur
On 06/01/2012 10:25 AM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 03:30:28PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
On 06/01/2012 02:53 PM, Darryl L. Pierce wrote:
On Fri, Jun 01, 2012 at 04:28:01AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
No, but it sounds like a kernel panic.
In my case, it was an obvious
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:48:17 -0400, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
> On 01/06/12 12:07, suvayu ali wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
> > wrote:
> >>Ok, well maybe what I need is to get rpmfusion-free installed which
> >>I don't see in
On 06/01/2012 04:18 AM, Sam Varshavchik wrote:
I don't give a frak about that. I just want to run my own stuff,
without anyone else sticking their nose in my personal business. Is
that too much to ask?
This discussion reminds me of the great Philospher Hegel.
The means used by tyrants to ri
Am 01.06.2012 13:17, schrieb Alan Cox:
AFAIK, Microsoft is already doing something like that with Windows drivers.
They must be signed by Microsoft, in order to avoid a warning thrown in your
face upon installation. I think that current Windows OS will just refuse to
install an unsigned driver, f
Tim Evans wrote:
> My repo config must not have been reset for fc17 by preupgrade. Having
> removed the fc17 kernel, yum cannot find it to (re)install--only sees
> fc16 ones.
Please do not hijack threads. Start a new thread for your problem.
--
users mailing list
users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To
On 01/06/12 13:33, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:48:17 -0400, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
On 01/06/12 12:07, suvayu ali wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA
wrote:
Ok, well maybe what I need is to get rpmfusion-free inst
On 06/01/2012 03:10 PM, Michael Cronenworth wrote:
Tim Evans wrote:
My repo config must not have been reset for fc17 by preupgrade. Having
removed the fc17 kernel, yum cannot find it to (re)install--only sees
fc16 ones.
Please do not hijack threads. Start a new thread for your problem.
Was
> Is there any way to download all the required updates (on a machine that
> has Internet access, obviously) and save these downloads for the creation
> of the local repository you speak of? Let me clarify. The target system
> (with no Internet access) is in a customer site. The development s
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 15:10:42 -0400, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
> On 01/06/12 13:33, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 12:48:17 -0400, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
> >
> >> On 01/06/12 12:07, suvayu ali wrote:
> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 5:02 PM, Bob Goodwin
I upgraded a Dell PowerEdge 2099 from Fedora 15 to Fedora 16 using a F16
x86_64 net install CD and the machine can't boot:
Error 15: File not found
Press any key to continue...
Then I get an old grub 0.97-71.fc15 screen with an "Upgrade to Fedora
12" message from long ago.
I know this is th
On 01/06/12 15:53, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Try again. Use cut'n'paste. Don't introduce type mistakes.
What you've run is not what I've suggested.
[root@box9 bobg]# rpm -e rpmfusion-release-nonfree
rpmfusion-release-free
error: package rpmfusion-release-nonfree is not installed
er
On 06/01/2012 04:11 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
> On 01/06/12 15:53, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> Try again. Use cut'n'paste. Don't introduce type mistakes.
>> What you've run is not what I've suggested.
>>
>
>[root@box9 bobg]# rpm -e rpmfusion-release-nonfree
>rpmfusion-
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:11:19 -0400, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
> On 01/06/12 15:53, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > Try again. Use cut'n'paste. Don't introduce type mistakes.
> > What you've run is not what I've suggested.
> >
>
> [root@box9 bobg]# rpm -e rpmfusion-release-nonfre
I've tried installing Fedora-17 in two ways using a USB stick.
First I installed the DVD.iso on a stick with Fedora LiveUSB Creator.
This seemed to work fine and installed all the packages asked for,
remarkably quickly, and then booted OK.
I installed the new system on /dev/sda7, leaving Fedora-16
On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:16:06 -0400, Elliott Chapin wrote:
> On 06/01/2012 04:11 PM, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
> > On 01/06/12 15:53, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> >> Try again. Use cut'n'paste. Don't introduce type mistakes.
> >> What you've run is not what I've suggested.
> >>
> >
On Fri, 2012-06-01 at 22:24 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Jun 2012 16:11:19 -0400, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
>
> > On 01/06/12 15:53, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> > > Try again. Use cut'n'paste. Don't introduce type mistakes.
> > > What you've run is not what I've suggest
James - thanks for the info. Much appreciated. In answer to your
question, the reason for the upgrade on the 'stand-alone' machine is
mostly so as to have the latest kernel (3.3.7 as opposed to 3.10) as there
are a lot of SCTP fixes with regards to this (still) changing piece of
code.
--
u
On 01/06/12 16:28, Michael Schwendt wrote:
These typos (wrong space characters= in the earlier reply caused too much
confusion. It should have been
rpm -e rpmfusion-free-release rpmfusion-nonfree-release
Sorry. This is very basic RPM usage. One should not simply sit and wait
for step-by-ste
On 06/01/2012 04:45 PM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
Or is the ext4 code able to mount ext3 now (I didn't think so)?
I'm pretty sure it is fully backward compatible yes, even with ext2 from
what I read. It simply doesn't use all the new and fancy features
obviously.
--
t
--
users mailing list
user
On 01/06/12 16:24, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Good. So, that raises the question why you have .repo files for
rpmfusion repos in /etc/yum.repos.d/? And those are damaged or invalid.
Let's continue with the instructions at:
http://rpmfusion.org/Configuration
What works for you? What doesn't? I
Am 01.06.2012 23:06, schrieb Thibault Nélis:
> On 06/01/2012 04:45 PM, Bryn M. Reeves wrote:
>> Or is the ext4 code able to mount ext3 now (I didn't think so)?
>
> I'm pretty sure it is fully backward compatible yes, even with ext2 from what
> I read.
> It simply doesn't use all the new and f
On 01/06/12 17:11, Bob Goodwin - Zuni, Virginia, USA wrote:
Can you download that file with your favourite browser?
If yes, userpm -ivh rpmfusion-free-release-stable.noarch.rpm
to install it within the directory you downloaded it to.
Yes that works:
[root@box7 bobg]# wget
http:/
1 - 100 of 127 matches
Mail list logo
