users March 2015

users@lists.fedoraproject.org

127 participants
157 discussions

UEFI -
by Bob Goodwin 03 Mar '15

03 Mar '15

I had a failure last week and have just received a new motherboard to replace the old one. I see that it has a lot of wonderful features for Windows that I don't need, among them UEFI. Am I going to have trouble running Fedora 21 on it? I guess I need to know that before installing it. The instruction manual is of little help, mainly describes installing it as a Windows 8 system using the included installation disk, none of which I will ever see. Bob -- http://www.qrz.com/db/W2BOD box10 Fedora-21/64bit Linux/XFCE

5 7

Xfce 4.12 released
by poma 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

https://mail.xfce.org/pipermail/xfce-announce/2015-February/000389.html ... **Thank you, everyone!** A warm thank you all the contributors, translators and packagers for your efforts in making this release possible. We would also like to thank our fantastic users and occasional contributors who submitted bug reports, helped us find issues and sometimes provided patches. We are currently reviewing all patches sent to us and will include many more fixes to Xfce in the next release. We would also like to thank the many people who donated money to our project via Bounty Source ... __ __ __ _ _ _ ____ \ \/ // _| ___ ___ | || | / |___ \ \ /| |_ / __/ _ \ | || |_ | | __) | / \| _| (_| __/ |__ _|| |/ __/ /_/\_\_| \___\___| |_|(_)_|_____| http://xfce.org/about/news

4 7

Re: Leaping from F18 -> F21
by Ben Blankley 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Max Pyziur <pyz(a)brama.com> > > To: Community support for Fedora users <users(a)lists.fedoraproject.org> > > Cc: > > Date: Sat, 28 Feb 2015 08:43:32 -0500 (EST) > > Subject: Re: Leaping from F18 -> F21 > > On Fri, 27 Feb 2015, jd1008 wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> On 02/27/2015 03:15 PM, Max Pyziur wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> Greetings, > >>> > >>> I decided to begin making the leap from F18 to F21. My reluctance in > >>> upgrading with each new release was due to all of the problems that were > >>> reported with upgrades, and not wanting to go through a dependency upgrade > >>> ordeal. > >>> > >>> Now with F18 firmly EOL'd and enough packages showing their age and > >>> demanding upgrades, I've begun making the switch. > >>> > >>> I have three machines that run Fedora: two laptops, one of which is an > >>> i686 and the other a dual-core, and a desktop. > >>> > >>> I've started w/ the i686, the least used, and essentially a backup. The > >>> strategy is to simply leave the /home partition alone, and to do a fresh > >>> install, reformating the other partitions. (I used the Fedora 21 > >>> Workstation Live i686 disc). Having a list of those RPMs that were > >>> installed under F18, I'll work my way back to something that I was using > >>> before. > >>> > >>> I did that, but when the machine responded and rebooted, and then I tried > >>> to login through the GUI to a gnome desktop, the result was unusable. > >>> > >>> No problem: <ctrl+alt>+F2 and I have a character-based screen, and I can > >>> log in. > >>> > >>> From there, I did a > >>> yum groupinstall "Xfce Desktop" > >>> > >>> and then rebooted, selected Xfce as my desktop, login, and I have the > >>> beginnings of a functioning gui-based system. > >>> > >>> However, my Gnome problem remains: there is no provision in F21-i686 for a > >>> yum groupinstall "GNOME Desktop" so that I have a functioning Gnome or > >>> Gnome-Classic desktop (there is one for "MATE Desktop," btw). > >>> > >>> Would anyone have advice on how to install all of the remaining necessary > >>> pieces for a functioning F21 i686 Gnome Desktop? > >>> > >>> Much thanks, > >>> > >>> Max Pyziur > >>> pyz(a)brama.com > >> > >> Personally, I had absolutely no problems leaping from f18 to f20 using fedup. > >> It worked flawlessly. > > > > > > I'll consider this as a possible method for upgrading the other two machines. > > > > A fresh install is a bit extreme, but on my attempts of moving from F17-> F18 using fedup I recall a machine became unusable. Monitoring subsequent releases (F19, F20, F21) and users using fedup as the upgrade mechanism, there still seemed to be reports of unreliability, as in YMMV. > > > > I also have an additional concern, since I'm somewhat reliant on PostgreSQL and PostGIS, which require elevated vigilance across releases, since the newer versions need to have data backuped and specially restored. > > > >> That is not to sat that some f18 packages did not have updates in f21. > >> That is why I still have some f18 packages, which still work without any problems. > > > > > > My experience so far is that I still can't use the Gnome Desktop (Classic, Wayland, or otherwise) in F21 on my i686 Laptop (I can use Xfce and MATE); I keep trying to find the correct yum group to install; I also keep adding packages, but I still haven't found the correct libraries and/or packages so a typical Gnome Desktop appears correctly. > > > > So, I would be grateful for any continuing guidance in this regard. > > > > Thanks. > > > > Max Pyziur > > pyz(a)brama.com > > >From this post: http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=302035 there may be a hidden yum group called "GNOME". Try running 'yum grouplist hidden', and see what groups return? GNOME might be listed there. Ben Blankley President - WCT, Board Member - WSC

2 1

cups ipp14
by François Patte 02 Mar '15

02 Mar '15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Bonjour, I installed fedora21 and try to have my printer working... It used to work with ipp14 backend but I cannot find this in fedora21. Where can I find a solution? Thank you. - -- François Patte UFR de mathématiques et informatique Laboratoire CNRS MAP5, UMR 8145 Université Paris Descartes 45, rue des Saints Pères F-75270 Paris Cedex 06 Tél. +33 (0)1 8394 5849 http://www.math-info.univ-paris5.fr/~patte -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iEYEARECAAYFAlT0Tq8ACgkQdE6C2dhV2JUUXQCgpoyM3VbTX+KqvH+FuL+jgVJt 1R4AoL9lh/qweOBc9xQofQV8/tTBC9fY =G/TI -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

3 6

a yum install failure
by JD 01 Mar '15

01 Mar '15

Tried to install all xmms packages. # yum -y install bluecurve-xmms-skin.noarch collectd-xmms.x86_64 gkrellxmms2.x86_64 gxmms2.x86_64 logjam-xmms.x86_64 nyxmms2.x86_64 purple-plugin_pack-pidgin-xmms.x86_64 xmms.x86_64 xmms-acme.x86_64 xmms-adplug.x86_64 xmms-arts.x86_64 xmms-crossfade.x86_64 xmms-devel.x86_64 xmms-faad2.x86_64 xmms-flac.x86_64 xmms-libs.x86_64 xmms-lirc.x86_64 xmms-mp3.x86_64 xmms-mplayer.x86_64 xmms-musepack.x86_64 x mms-normalize.x86_64 xmms-pulse.x86_64 xmms-scrobbler.x86_64 xmms-skins.noarch xmms-speex.x86_64 xmms-uade.x86_64 xmms2-avcodec.x86_64 xmms2-devel.x86_64 xmms2-docs.x86_64 xmms2-faad.x86_64 xmms2-freeworld.x86_64 xmms2-mac.x86_64 xmms2-mad.x86_64 xmms2-mms.x86_64 xmms2-mp4.x86_64 xmms2-nonfree.x86_64 xmms2-perl.x86_64 xmms2-python.x86_64 xmms2-ruby.x86_64 xmms2-sid.x86_64 Got the following error: ---> Package xmms2-sid.x86_64 0:0.8-4.fc19 will be installed --> Processing Dependency: libsidplay2.so.1()(64bit) for package: xmms2-sid-0.8-4.fc19.x86_64 --> Processing Dependency: libresid-builder.so.0()(64bit) for package: xmms2-sid-0.8-4.fc19.x86_64 --> Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Package: xmms2-sid-0.8-4.fc19.x86_64 (rpmfusion-nonfree) Requires: libresid-builder.so.0()(64bit) Error: Package: xmms2-sid-0.8-4.fc19.x86_64 (rpmfusion-nonfree) Requires: libsidplay2.so.1()(64bit) You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest PS: Running fc21. So it seems that rpmfusion did not care to try and install these packages in fc21 before adding them into the fc21 repo.

2 1

F21 systemd log flood - how to stop
by Andy Hairston 01 Mar '15

01 Mar '15

I have a near-stock installation of Fedora 21, and am experiencing the systemd log flood mentioned previously (https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/fedora-server-list/2014-May/00112…) How do I get systemd to stop putting massive amounts of information into /var/log/messages for routine cron jobs? I tried setting LogLevel=warn in /etc/systemd/system.conf and rebooting, but this had no effect.

1 0

nfs shares not mounted at boot
by Jens Neu 01 Mar '15

01 Mar '15

Dear list, maybe since 2 weeks (close to upgrade to Twenty_One), my nfs shares are no longer mounted at boot. Claims that the nfs server is not resolvable, but it clearly is. Raised the timeo to 200, but no luck. Hints? Bugworthy? regards Jens [root@andrea ~]# systemctl status media-jessa.mount ● media-jessa.mount - /media/jessa Loaded: loaded (/etc/fstab) Active: failed (Result: exit-code) since Sun 2015-02-22 08:52:55 CET; 1min 15s ago Where: /media/jessa What: mavie.zeeroos.int:/media/jessa Docs: man:fstab(5) man:systemd-fstab-generator(8) Process: 1849 ExecMount=/bin/mount -n mavie.zeeroos.int:/media/jessa /media/jessa -t nfs -o _netdev,rw,hard,intr,nfsvers=3,tcp,noatime,nodev,async,rsize=8192,wsize=8192,vers=3,nolock,timeo=200 (code=exited, status=32) Feb 22 08:52:55 andrea.zeeroos.de systemd[1]: media-jessa.mount mount process exited, code=exited status=32 Feb 22 08:52:55 andrea.zeeroos.de systemd[1]: Failed to mount /media/jessa. Feb 22 08:52:55 andrea.zeeroos.de systemd[1]: Unit media-jessa.mount entered failed state. Feb 22 08:52:55 andrea.zeeroos.de mount[1849]: mount.nfs: Failed to resolve server mavie.zeeroos.int: Name or service...known Hint: Some lines were ellipsized, use -l to show in full. [root@andrea ~]# host mavie.zeeroos.int mavie.zeeroos.int has address 192.168.17.124 mavie.zeeroos.int has IPv6 address 2001:6f8:11d5:0:215:17ff:fe36:aa4e

9 20

Jump to page: