NVIDIA Question
by David St.Clair
This may be a dumb question, but why can't Redhat distribute NVIDIA binary
drivers?
In NVIDIA's licence (http://www.nvidia.com/object/nv_swlicense.html) it
says:
"2.1.2 Linux Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section
2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system
may be
copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not
modified in any
way (except for unzipping of compressed files)."
So, what's keeping RedHat from putting the drivers in the distribution? If
it's a GPL
thing, would it be easy to just download it during installation or at
least give the option to the user?
Thanks,
--
David St.Clair
dstclair(a)cs.wcu.edu
1 year, 10 months
Mouse goes crazy
by Jonathan Villa
Ok, I have had Yarrow working well for a while now, but yesterday I
started experiencing some odd issues with my mouse. All of a sudden it
stops working correctly. The only thing that seems to fix is to kill X
and run mouse-test, then restart.
Any ideas?
Also, I have FC 1 running on a desktop which is hooked up to a KVM
switch. Whenever I go to another PC, and return, the same thing
happens, the mouse goes crazy.
???
1 year, 10 months
Re: digikam and kipi-plugins?
by Rex Dieter
Per Bothner wrote:
> The Rawhide version of digikam is the very latest (0.10.0-rc1),
> but it fails to find any of the "Kipi plugins", even though I've
> installed the kipi-plugins package. This might be an upstream
> issue, since 0.10.0 is pretty bleeding edge and the kipi-plugins
> may even more bleeding-edge. Gwenview does seem to be see the
> plugins, so I'm wondering if there is there might be a
> Fedora-specific problem before I complain upstream ...
The f10 builds seem to work fine for me (finding the plugins), so perhaps
this is rawhide-specific?
To be clear, digikam's Settings -> configure digikam -> Kipi Plugins is
empty?
-- Rex
8 years
Mouse Wheel gone
by Christian Menzel
Since the latest xorg-X11 upgrade I receive the already mentioned XKB
error and the mouse wheel is not working anymore.
Has anybody seen this behavior?
Regards
Chris
8 years
Re: NFS failure
by Fulko.Hew＠sita.aero
Damian Menscher <menscher(a)uiuc.edu>@redhat.com on 04/07/2004 04:57:13 PM
wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2004, Jeff Elkins wrote:
>
> > I'm getting failure messages on my nfs mounts i.e. :
> >
> > mount to NFS server 'music.elkins' failed: server is down.
> >
> > nsfd appears to be running and I didn't see anything suspicious in the
logs.
> > The servers are up and running and have other clients connected.
>
> You didn't mention what steps you took to debug it:
>
> Can you ping the server?
> What is the output of rpcinfo -p servername?
> Does the server have access restrictions (firewall, TCP Wrappers, etc)?
I have the same symptoms...
rpcinfo says that nfs et.al. are running.
Something has changed in test 2, since the same PC running RH9
accesses that host just fine.
8 years
OS X dual boot criterion problems
by Adam Williamson
Hi, folks. Talking to cmurf, our resident OS X dual boot expert, on
#fedora-qa, it's become clear that when we adopted the OS X dual boot
criterion a few weeks back, we didn't have a good understanding of the
current state of that code and particularly upstream grub's support for
booting OS X via UEFI. Basically it seems that booting OS X from grub
didn't work then and doesn't work now and we can't realistically fix it,
so we shouldn't have put that criterion in place because it's not
something we can actually viably achieve.
cmurf, roshi, kparal and I voted +1 to removing the criterion on that
basis. I'm hoping cmurf will be kind enough to look at the issue again
for the F22 cycle, in consultation with pjones if necessary, so we can
put a realistic requirement in place before we get into F22 Alphas.
If no-one has any objections, we'll make the removal formal ahead of
tomorrow's Go/No-Go meeting for 21. Thanks folks!
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
8 years, 10 months
Release criterion proposal: "Package sets" (Alpha and Beta)
by Adam Williamson
The "Package sets" criterion for Alpha currently reads:
"When doing a graphical install using the dedicated installer images,
the installer must be able to install each of the release blocking
desktops, as well as the minimal package set."
This was drafted prior to Product-ization. It has a bug - you can't do
that from the Server DVD, and that's intended - and two problems -
it's too focused on desktops for the new Product-y world, and the
'graphical' restriction seems arbitrary (TUI should work regarding
package sets too). It also is missing something: there's no
requirement about what the *default* package set should be.
I propose we re-word the Alpha criterion to:
"When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image,
the installer must be able to install the default package set."
and add a Beta criterion:
"When installing with a release-blocking dedicated installer image,
the default package set must be correct."
with an explanatory note that 'correct' means the package set intended
by the group responsible for the image - Product WG, FESCo or whoever.
I'm not sure whether we need a requirement for non-default package
sets. Note that the case for offline media is already covered by Alpha
criterion "No broken packages":
"There must be no errors in any package on the release-blocking images
which cause the package to fail to install."
network installs using updates media don't really need to block on
package set issues, as they can be fixed. That leaves the question of
whether we'd want to block the release if, say, there was a bug which
meant that if you tried to netinst KDE without the updates repos
enabled, it failed. What do folks think about that?
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net
http://www.happyassassin.net
8 years, 10 months
DNF kernel-devel: The Final Frontier
by poma
# yum install $(ls *3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64.rpm)
...
--> Finished Dependency Resolution
Dependencies Resolved
==================================================================================================================================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
==================================================================================================================================
Installing:
kernel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 0.0
kernel-core x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-core-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 40 M
kernel-debug x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-debug-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 0.0
kernel-debug-core x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-debug-core-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 41 M
kernel-debug-devel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-debug-devel-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 34 M
kernel-debug-modules x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-debug-modules-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 17 M
kernel-debug-modules-extra x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-debug-modules-extra-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 2.2 M
kernel-devel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-devel-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 33 M
kernel-modules x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-modules-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 17 M
kernel-modules-extra x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-modules-extra-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 2.1 M
Updating:
kernel-headers x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-headers-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 3.2 M
kernel-tools x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-tools-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 226 k
kernel-tools-libs x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-tools-libs-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 18 k
kernel-tools-libs-devel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /kernel-tools-libs-devel-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 5.8 k
perf x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /perf-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 2.4 M
python-perf x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 /python-perf-3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64 344 k
Removing:
kernel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @rawhide-koji 0.0
kernel-core x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @rawhide-koji 40 M
kernel-devel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @rawhide-koji 33 M
kernel-modules x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @rawhide-koji 17 M
kernel-modules-extra x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @rawhide-koji 2.1 M
Transaction Summary
===================================================================================================================================
Install 10 Packages
Upgrade 6 Packages
Remove 5 Packages
Total size: 193 M
Is this ok [y/d/N]: y
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1062997#c22
# dnf install $(ls *3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1.x86_64.rpm)
...
--> Finished dependency resolution
Dependencies resolved.
=====================================================================================
Package Arch Version Repository Size
=====================================================================================
Installing:
kernel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 32 k
kernel-core x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 18 M
kernel-debug x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 32 k
kernel-debug-core x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 19 M
kernel-debug-devel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 9.0 M
kernel-debug-modules x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 18 M
kernel-debug-modules-extra x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 2.3 M
kernel-modules x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 17 M
kernel-modules-extra x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 2.2 M
Upgrading:
kernel-devel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 8.9 M
kernel-headers x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 931 k
kernel-tools x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 114 k
kernel-tools-libs x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 38 k
kernel-tools-libs-devel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 35 k
perf x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 983 k
python-perf x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc6.git0.1.fc21.1 @commandline 125 k
Removing:
kernel x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @System 0
kernel-core x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @System 40 M
kernel-modules x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @System 17 M
kernel-modules-extra x86_64 3.16.0-0.rc5.git0.1.fc21 @System .1 M
Transaction Summary
=====================================================================================
Install 9 Packages
Upgrade 7 Packages
Remove 4 Packages
Total size: 96 M
Is this ok [y/N]: N
poma
8 years, 10 months
[Fedora QA] #322: New release criterion: no X libs in the minimal install set
by fedora-badges
#322: New release criterion: no X libs in the minimal install set
------------------------------+------------------
Reporter: mattdm | Owner:
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Priority: major | Milestone:
Component: Release criteria | Version:
Keywords: | Blocked By:
Blocking: |
------------------------------+------------------
= problem =
There are no rules holding us to a sane minimal package set. Features
which are added to minimal could pull in the whole universe.
= analysis =
Drawing the line at X11 seems reasonable. (And Wayland.) We can argue at
length about what minimal means, but this is a fairly clear line in the
sand ''and'' is usually a reasonable split at a package level ''and''
matches our historic practice (see vim packages for example).
= enhancement recommendation =
"No package in the minimal install set may have a dependency chain which
includes the libX11, the core X11 library (or its equivalent in Wayland).
Packages must split functionality requiring this into subpackages, or be
removed from the minimal package set."
My suggestion is to make this an Alpha criterion, so such issues can be
resolved early, but I don't have strong feelings on the particular timing.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa/ticket/322>
Fedora QA <http://fedorahosted.org/fedora-qa>
Fedora Quality Assurance
8 years, 10 months
