Mozilla 1.5 Fedora RPMs

[Jonathan Ryshpan]

There are RPMs that claim to be compatible with the Fedora project on
the Mozilla web site, at:
/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/yum/SeaMonkey/releases/1.5/redhat/fedora-test3

Does anyone know anything about them?  Do they have the appropriate
Fedora patches, or do they need to be patched to bring them into
conformance with Fedora standards (such as these are).  Are they up to
date? -- They are all pretty old, all dated 16-Oct-2003.

Many Thanks -- Jonathan Ryshpan <jonrysh(a)pacbell.net&gt;

[Clint Harshaw]

Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>  There are RPMs that claim to be compatible with the Fedora project
> on
>  the Mozilla web site, at:
>  /pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/yum/SeaMonkey/releases/1.5/redhat/fedora-test3
>  
>  Does anyone know anything about them?  Do they have the appropriate
>  Fedora patches, or do they need to be patched to bring them into
>  conformance with Fedora standards (such as these are).  Are they up to
>  date? -- They are all pretty old, all dated 16-Oct-2003.
>  
>  Many Thanks -- Jonathan Ryshpan <jonrysh(a)pacbell.net&gt; 
I have not installed 1.5 yet because of a dependency issue with Epiphany 
which needs Mozilla 1.4.1. But if you wanted to try installing it via 
yum, you could add the following to your yum.conf (thanks to some 
#fedora folks on irc who told me about this!):

#[mozilla-seamonkey]
name=Mozilla SeaMonkey Release
baseurl=http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/yum/SeaMonkey/rele...

then simply do "yum update mozilla" as root.

I have done that part, but backed out when yum told me of the dependency 
issue, since I have a couple of family members who prefer Epiphany's 
simplicity and UI.

C
-- 
Clint <clint(a)penguinsolutions.org&gt;

[David Cary Hart]

On Sun, 2004-01-11 at 15:30, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote:
>  There are RPMs that claim to be compatible with the Fedora project
> on
>  the Mozilla web site, at:
>  /pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/yum/SeaMonkey/releases/1.5/redhat/fedora-test3
>   
There is really no need to install Mozilla from an RPM since it has a
Windows type installation interface that allow you to choose which
components you want to install. I have found, though, that 1.5+ will not
use the same font structure as 1.4 and appearance suffers.

                               ---------
            Quality Management - A Commitment to Excellence

DLink DWL-520 Problems

[Miles Phillips]

Hello all,
First of all I'm new to this list and if I am in the wrong spot I apologize
in advance.  I just installed Fedora on a couple computers, and all worked
well except...  I just purchased without doing research(bad me) a dlink
DWL-520 PCI wireless ethernet card.  Fedora detects the card as Prism 2.5
Wavelan chipset.  When I try to activate the connection from devices, I get
the message "orinoco_pci device eth0 does not seem to be present, delaying
initialization."

If I go in under the hardware tab and click edit, it chooses irq 11 which I
believe is correct, then I hit ok and then I get:
Command failed: /sbin/modprobe orinco_pci irq=11

Output:
Warning: ignoring irq=11, no such parameter in this module
Warning: ignoring irq=11, no such parameter in this module
/lib/modules/2.4.22-1.2115/nptlsmp/kernel/drivers/net/wireless/orinco_pci.o:
init_module: No such device
/lib/modules/2.4.22-1.2115/nptlsmp/kernel/drivers/net/wireless/orinco_pci.0:
insmod
/lib/modules/2.4.22-1.2115.nptlsmp/kernel/drivers/net/wireless/orinoco_pci.o
failed
/lib/modules/2.4.22-1.2115/nptlsmp/kernel/drivers/net/wireless/orinco_pci.0:
insmod orinco_pci failedHint: insmod errors can be caued by incorrect module
parameters, including invalid IO or IRQparameters.
You may findout more information in syslog or the output from dmesg

If anyone has had any experience, or has any suggestions for me on this it
would be greatly appreciated!

Thanks in advance!

Miles

DLink DWL-520 Problems

[Alexander Dalloz]

Am So, den 11.01.2004 schrieb Miles Phillips um 22:44:

Please - do NOT hijack foreign threads!

Always open a new message and write in the list address
fedora-list(a)redhat.com as recipient and then your subject line.

Thank you.

Alexander


-- 
Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany
PGP key valid: made 13.07.1999
PGP fingerprint: 2307 88FD 2D41 038E 7416  14CD E197 6E88 ED69 5653

DLink DWL-520 Problems

[Mike - W0TMW]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sunday 11 January 2004 03:44 pm, Miles Phillips wrote:
>  Hello all,
>  First of all I'm new to this list and if I am in the wrong spot I
>  apologize in advance.  I just installed Fedora on a couple computers,
>  and all worked well except...  I just purchased without doing
>  research(bad me) a dlink DWL-520 PCI wireless ethernet card.  Fedora
>  detects the card as Prism 2.5 Wavelan chipset.  When I try to
>  activate the connection from devices, I get the message "orinoco_pci
>  device eth0 does not seem to be present, delaying initialization."
>
>  If I go in under the hardware tab and click edit, it chooses irq 11
>  which I believe is correct, then I hit ok and then I get:
>  Command failed: /sbin/modprobe orinco_pci irq=11
>
>  Output:
>  Warning: ignoring irq=11, no such parameter in this module
>  Warning: ignoring irq=11, no such parameter in this module
>  /lib/modules/2.4.22-1.2115/nptlsmp/kernel/drivers/net/wireless/orinco
> _pci.o: init_module: No such device
>  /lib/modules/2.4.22-1.2115/nptlsmp/kernel/drivers/net/wireless/orinco
> _pci.0: insmod
>  /lib/modules/2.4.22-1.2115.nptlsmp/kernel/drivers/net/wireless/orinoc
> o_pci.o failed
>  /lib/modules/2.4.22-1.2115/nptlsmp/kernel/drivers/net/wireless/orinco
> _pci.0: insmod orinco_pci failedHint: insmod errors can be caued by
>  incorrect module parameters, including invalid IO or IRQparameters.
>  You may findout more information in syslog or the output from dmesg
>
>  If anyone has had any experience, or has any suggestions for me on
>  this it would be greatly appreciated!
>
>  Thanks in advance!
>
>  Miles 
You have to configure a minimum of values for the card using iwconfig 
and redhat-network-config (neat). Finally, do a ifconfig down then up 
and if you've configured the DWL-520 properly, it'll come up.

Mike W

- -- 
Registered Linux - 256979   (http://counter.il.org for more information)
NRA Life
ARS: W0TMW
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQFAAeix5fq6h2uDDlQRAv+LAKCXPj/IGQ4aYL2ahzFcAcGaRfo+tACdGywG
> Wc+dpQYy+H99hDjqFxjRCEg=
> =6cY0
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- 

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner, 
and is believed to be clean.

DLink DWL-520 Problems

[Bill Carlson]

On Sun, 11 Jan 2004, Mike Watson wrote:

>  -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>  Hash: SHA1
>  
>  On Sunday 11 January 2004 03:44 pm, Miles Phillips wrote:
>  > Hello all,
>  > First of all I'm new to this list and if I am in the wrong spot I
>  > apologize in advance.  I just installed Fedora on a couple computers,
>  > and all worked well except...  I just purchased without doing
>  > research(bad me) a dlink DWL-520 PCI wireless ethernet card.  Fedora
>  > detects the card as Prism 2.5 Wavelan chipset.  When I try to 
What revision of the DWL-520 do you have? It should list it on the box or 
on the card itself.

Dlink changed chipsets with Revision C, see:
http://www.seattlewireless.net/index.cgi/DlinkDwl520

I have one of the Rev C cards, got it working with the module listed.  
Beware the receiver sensitivity problem, my range was horrible; a Netgear
MA311 was well worth the money as a replacement.

Good luck!

Bill Carlson
-- 
Systems Administrator    wcarlson(a)vh.org      | Anything is possible,
Virtual Hospital      http://www.vh.org/      | given time and money.
University of Iowa Hospitals and Clinics      |       
Opinions are mine, not my employer's.         |

[J.B. Nicholson-Owens]

David C. Hart wrote:
>  There is really no need to install Mozilla from an RPM since it has
> a
>  Windows type installation interface that allow you to choose which
>  components you want to install. 
I would think removal (uninstallation), usage statistics, and having a
single package tool to use for all packages would be good reasons for using
packages to maintain any program instead of installation programs.

[Stefan Hoelldampf]

David C. Hart wrote:

>  There is really no need to install Mozilla from an RPM since it has
> a
>  Windows type installation interface that allow you to choose which
>  components you want to install. I have found, though, that 1.5+ will not
>  use the same font structure as 1.4 and appearance suffers. 
Do you really know the advantages of a package management tool like RPM?

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/mozilla/yum/SeaMonkey/releases/1.5...

mozilla-chat-1.5-1.i386.rpm
mozilla-debuginfo-1.5-1.i386.rpm
mozilla-devel-1.5-1.i386.rpm
mozilla-dom-inspector-1.5-1.i386.rpm
mozilla-js-debugger-1.5-1.i386.rpm
mozilla-mail-1.5-1.i386.rpm
mozilla-nspr-1.5-1.i386.rpm
mozilla-nspr-devel-1.5-1.i386.rpm
mozilla-nss-1.5-1.i386.rpm
mozilla-nss-devel-1.5-1.i386.rpm

You can also choose the components by installing the RPM packages you
want to have ;-)

Kind Regards,
Stefan

[David Cary Hart]

On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 17:31, Stefan Hoelldampf wrote:
>  David C. Hart wrote:
>  
>  > There is really no need to install Mozilla from an RPM since it has a
>  > Windows type installation interface that allow you to choose which
>  > components you want to install. I have found, though, that 1.5+ will not
>  > use the same font structure as 1.4 and appearance suffers.
>  
>  Do you really know the advantages of a package management tool like RPM? 
Absolutely. I'm just pointing out that installing Mozilla from source is
not like compiling a kernel, for example. The setup program is very
similar to a Windows application. Many people who would not be
comfortable with the typical Linux source install would be perfectly
comfortable installing Mozilla without relying upon an RPM.
>   
                               ---------
            Quality Management - A Commitment to Excellence

[Andreas Mueller]

David C. Hart wrote:
>  On Tue, 2004-01-13 at 17:31, Stefan Hoelldampf wrote:
>  > David C. Hart wrote:
>  > > There is really no need to install Mozilla from an RPM since it has a
>  > > Windows type installation interface that allow you to choose which
>  > > components you want to install. I have found, though, that 1.5+ will
>  > > not use the same font structure as 1.4 and appearance suffers.
>  >
>  > Do you really know the advantages of a package management tool like RPM?
>
>  Absolutely. I'm just pointing out that installing Mozilla from source is
>  not like compiling a kernel, for example. The setup program is very
>  similar to a Windows application. Many people who would not be
>  comfortable with the typical Linux source install would be perfectly
>  comfortable installing Mozilla without relying upon an RPM. 
I think you compare apples and oranges. You meant installing Mozilla from 
*pre*compiled binaries, so you don't have to compile anything, the installer 
only asks you what to install. Using RPM doesn't make a big difference in 
terms of putting the binaries into the right directory, but RPM really 
*cares* about dependencies, which you can't expect from the mozilla 
installer.

If you want to compile Mozilla from source, you have to get around 36 MB for 
the latest tar.gz, kernel 2.6.1 has around 40 MB of compressed code. Since 
you don't have to compile everything for a working kernel, once you have 
configured it, it take only a few minutes to compile. Compiling Mozilla lasts 
hours...

Regards,
Andreas

[Stefan Hoelldampf]

David C. Hart wrote:

> >Do you really know the advantages of a package management tool
> like RPM? 
>  Absolutely. I'm just pointing out that installing Mozilla from
> source is
>  not like compiling a kernel, for example. The setup program is very
>  similar to a Windows application. Many people who would not be
>  comfortable with the typical Linux source install would be perfectly
>  comfortable installing Mozilla without relying upon an RPM. 
Perhaps I've misunterstood what you have written but nobody has to
create his own Mozilla *source* RPM(s) since *binary* RPMs are available
for example at ftp.mozilla.org.
The installation is very simple: After downloading the packages of your
choice you only have to run "rpm -Uvh mozilla*.rpm".

Kind Regards,
	Stefan