test September 2003

test@lists.fedoraproject.org

313 participants
468 discussions

test2 via rawhide
by Lars G 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

hello i checked the redhat ftp and some mirrors and most of them already have the test2 release files, fine. my question is when do the test2 packages propagate to the rawhide channel because i noticed that the packages from the test2 (severn) folder are newer than the ones in rawhide. (rawhide-release is from 23-09) lars

1 0

gnome 2.4 - beta 2 - upgrading from beta 1 and RH 9
by Frank Merenda 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

> > My next question is 'where's gnome 2.4'? How do I > get > > it? > > in beta2 > > -sv I thought you were going to say that. :) Thanks for the information - I do appreciate it. Ok, here's the next question. if I have beta 1 installed, can I apt-get dist-upgrade to beta 2? If so, do I have to change anything in my sources.list? Second question. On my main laptop I am running RedHat 9. Is there any way to upgrade via apt-get? Or do I have to download the ISO's and install? I'm on a dialup, and would like to apt-get dist-upgrade from 9 if possible. Thanks in advance! ===== - Frank Merenda Author - Uptime - http://www.steidler.net/uptime/ -a community based Linux blog and newsletter- Registered Linux User #234428 - http://counter.li.org webmaster - Humane Society of Jackson County - http://www.hsjc.com __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search http://shopping.yahoo.com

3 2

Test 2 Release Communication
by Epps, Aaron M. 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

How will it be communicated when Test 2 Release is available for download, on this mailing list, fedora.redhat.com, all of the above?

12 19

still unclear about updates versus rawhide
by Robert P. J. Day 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

i still haven't seen a definitive explanation about the distinction between "rawhide" and beta "updates." are these technically one and the same? from fedora.redhat.com, "As developers build packages to fix bugs or implement new features, the packages are placed in Red Hat Rawhide..." historically, i always thought that "updates" were highly-recommended patches, to fix bugs or apply security updates. in short, those were the sorts of things that were pretty clearly *guaranteed* to be in the next release. rawhide, OTOH, was for new and improved packages that were still noticeably leading edge, perhaps uncomfortably so in some cases, and while they almost always supplied more functionality than the current packages, there was no guarantee that they would end up in the next release. so, officially, how does one stay up to date with the soon-to-be- released beta? just keep applying rawhide on a regular basis? or what? rday

3 2

There do should have different between up2date and Rawhide?
by 肇鑫 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Hello, everyone. I have an question. There do should have different between up2date and Rawhide? My answer is no. However, the fact now seems different. What makes me think of it is as below. 1)I use up2date to update my Severn everyday. I aslo subcribe the two Severn Channel, Beta and Beta Updates 2)However, since the Fedora announce date,Sep. 22ed, until now, Sep. 26th, I notice my up2date tells me there is nothing to update. 3)As I said above, I use up2date everyday, so I feel more and more strange about that. Then I go to ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/rawhide/i386/RedHat/RPMS to see if my Severn is updated. 4)I use rpm -q to check. I checked to package: up2date and XFree86, which I think is the most frequently updated. The result are as below. [hutigers@www hutigers]$ rpm -q up2date up2date-3.9.28-2 [hutigers@www hutigers]$ rpm -q XFree86 XFree86-4.3.0-32 However, what I find in ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/rawhide/i386/RedHat/RPMS now is up2date-3.9.29-2.i386.rpm and XFree86-4.3.0-33.i386.rpm, which are newer. 5)Then I go to https://rhn.redhat.com/ and http://fedora.redhat.com/ to check if there is something changed. 6)In https://rhn.redhat.com/ I find "Mailman RPM does not properly handle package installation and upgrade." And I notice it has bugs on upgrade. 7)In http://fedora.redhat.com/ I find nothing newer than Sep 22ed. then I go to http://fedora.redhat.com/download/#errata, where I find the below message. AA:**Check for Updates** BB:**If you downloaded a beta, check Rawhide for updated packages or the RHN beta channel using the Red Hat Update Agent (up2date).** CC:**If you downloaded a final release, check for Errata via Red Hat Network or from the Errata website.** Notice the BB section. It says "check Rawhide for updated packages or the RHN beta channel using the Red Hat Update Agent (up2date)". That makes me believe that two methods you do will come to the same result. However, it is not. In https://ren.redhat.com/ you can find up2date is just as follows up2date-3.9.28-2 Red Hat Linux (Severn) 9.0.93 - Beta Updates up2date-3.9.26-2 Red Hat Linux (Severn) 9.0.93 - Beta Updates up2date-3.9.25-2 Red Hat Linux (Severn) 9.0.93 - Beta Updates up2date-3.9.24-1 Red Hat Linux (Severn) 9.0.93 - Beta Updates up2date-3.9.23-2 Red Hat Linux (Severn) 9.0.93 - Beta Updates up2date-3.9.20-2 Red Hat Linux (Severn) 9.0.93 - Beta Updates up2date-3.9.19-2 Red Hat Linux (Severn) 9.0.93 - Beta Updates up2date-3.9.15-2 Red Hat Linux (Severn) 9.0.93 - Beta Updates up2date-3.9.13-2 Red Hat Linux (Severn) 9.0.93 - Beta Updates up2date-3.9.12-2 Red Hat Linux (Severn) 9.0.93 - Beta Updates up2date-3.1.46-2 Red Hat Linux (Severn) 9.0.93 - Beta And in rawhide,ftp://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/rawhide/i386/RedHat/RPMS, up2date is now up2date-3.9.29-2.i386.rpm. So now rawhide is newer than update channels 8 and final) After the long discussion, my question is that. Is that a mistake make the two different? I mean that the two should be the same. Or in fact the rawhide should be newer than the update channel, as it is more unstable than update channel? If the second answer is yes, please tell me a way to update with rawhide automaticly. Thanks you all too read this long page and best regards. :) hutigers Sep. 26th, 2003 _________________________________________________________________ 享用世界上最大的电子邮件系统― MSN Hotmail。 http://www.hotmail.com

1 0

First problems with Fedora Core
by Gerry Tool 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Install went well. Up2date froze during first-boot while trying to register with RHN. Reboot restarted first-boot OK and up2date completed to finding there was no channel available for this system yet. Evolution has frozen multiple times - almost anytime I try to change something like adding this account or moving the subject field to the left of the from field. Have to kill all evolution processes to recover. Attempts to reboot before killing errant evolution processes failed until I did a Ctrl-Alt-Backspace. RHN icon is 1 pixel wide. Any confirmation of these findings from others? If so, I will bugzilla them. Thanks. Gerry Tool

4 3

test of upcoming libxml2-2.6.0 beta version
by Daniel Veillard 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

I plan to provide a new version of libxml2-2.6.0 including a lot of changes at various level, it should provide significant speedups but I'm still a bit worried about possible ABI compatibilities which may have resulted from the massive changes done since 2.5.11 last stable version. I have provided a new set of RPMs and tarball at http://people.redhat.com/~veillard/libxml2/ including packages precompiled and signed for severn and shrike. I have run for the most part of the day with that version on my workstation without any apparent problem, but I would be interested in possible ABI breakage that a larger pool of tester may find :-) For those interested in the change done in the library and at the API level there is a few posts about those. http://mail.gnome.org/archives/xml/2003-September/msg00146.html http://mail.gnome.org/archives/xml/2003-September/msg00115.html Daniel -- Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network https://rhn.redhat.com/ veillard(a)redhat.com | libxml GNOME XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/ http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/

1 0

how do enable these TCP ports for Bittorrent?
by Elton Woo 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Allow incoming TCP 6881 - 6889 to join the torrent swarm. http://torrent.dulug.duke.edu/ I thought this might be a good time to try using / learn to use Bittorrent. The red hat 9 rpm pacakage is already installed, but I don't know if /how to enable the above ports. If I go to security settings, I *know* that just saying TCP is a trusted device will open all ports. .... I guess this is something else I ought have learned to do <*blush*> so feel free to rap me on the knuckles if I'm asking a stupid / annoying question! Elton ;-) -- http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/stats/team/team_4504.html "You only live once: let's make life BETTER for each other." LINUX User #193975 [AMD ATHLON CPU] ICQ #149608718.

4 4

Homebrew Severn ISOs
by David W. Aquilina 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

Greetings all, I'm attempting to create some custom Severn ISOs (mainly to include a kickstart file and such) however I'm running into some problems that I never saw when doing the same with RHL 9.0. The CD created from the custom ISO boots without a problem, however the installer complains that "The Red Hat Linux CD was not found in any of your CDROM drives". I created the CD by copying the contents of the first Severn CD to a directory, making my modifications, and then creating the ISO via this command: "mkisofs -r -T -J -V "Custom Severn Disk 1 of 3" -b images/bootdisk.img -o CustomSevern1.iso /CD1" (/CD1 being the path to the directory) This process worked just fine for Shrike (Red Hat Linux 9). Any thoughts? Thanks! -- David Aquilina

8 18

Re: Test 2 Release Communication
by DAVID BALAZIC 25 Sep '03

25 Sep '03

"Michael K. Johnson" <johnsonm(a)redhat.com> wrote : > >On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 11:07:12AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote: >> 1) mailing lists, and their specific mandates, and > >No change beyond what we did last week. What specific >questions do you have here? > >> 2) how to report bugs > >Bugzilla will have "Fedora Core" as product, "test2" as version. Continuing the trend of ambigous versions ? What do you have against "9.0.94" or "9.0.94beta" ? Regards -- David Balazic

5 4

← Newer
1
...
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
...
47
Older →

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

test September 2003