I'm using Firefox for browsing, and Thunderbird for mail. However, I still seem to have mozilla installed. I wonder, is there any reason I should keep mozilla around? (Does any program depends specifically on the existence of mozilla installed?)
Thanks,
Will it be part of next Fedora or updated from 2.6.9 in 3? I want to se this apart of RHEL 4 since it has quite a bugfix list and some new hardware and bsd runlevels- wich I hope can be active.
Am Mo, den 27.12.2004 schrieb Thomas Skybakmoen um 15:27:
Please don't hijack foreign threads by replying to other's postings while you want to start a new topic.
Will it be part of next Fedora or updated from 2.6.9 in 3?
I am sure in a few days there will be pre-rawhide kernel RPMs available under
http://people.redhat.com/davej/kernels/Fedora/
and later - in a few weeks - an FC3 (FC2 probably too) update kernel.
I want to se this apart of RHEL 4 since it has quite a bugfix list and some new hardware and bsd runlevels- wich I hope can be active.
For RHEL (4) questions you will have to use a different mailing list.
Alexander
Unfortunately, and for some inexplicable reason, mplayer-plugin seems to require it....
HTH, thanks! GT
--- Gustavo Seabra seabra@ksu.edu wrote:
I'm using Firefox for browsing, and Thunderbird for mail. However, I still seem to have mozilla installed. I wonder, is there any reason I should keep mozilla around? (Does any program depends specifically on the existence of mozilla installed?)
Thanks,
--
Gustavo Seabra - Graduate Student Chemistry Department Kansas State University
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard. http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
Le Lundi 27 Décembre 2004 16:02, Globe Trotter a écrit :
mplayer-plugin seems to require it....
and devhelp, epiphany, ...
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 07:02:09 -0800 (PST), Globe Trotter itsme_410@yahoo.com wrote:
Unfortunately, and for some inexplicable reason, mplayer-plugin seems to require (Mozilla)
I noticed some yum strangeness the other day, related to this. I went to install mplayerplug-in with yum, and it wanted to install Mozilla. I went along with it, but then the Mozilla 1.73 rpm depended upon Firefox 0.93 (why?). I already had Firefox 1.0 installed, so yum quit, since it didn't want to replace Firefox 1.0 with 0.93.
To get it to work, I had to uninstall firefox, and run 'yum install mplayerplug-in' again. I let it install all dependencies, including Mozilla 1.73 and Firefox 0.93. Then I ran 'yum update firefox' to get Firefox back up to 1.0.
I'm using the yum.conf from http://fedorafaq.org/samples/yum.conf, so I shouldn't be having any repository conflicts, right? Why did this happen? Did I work around it the right way?
I have never had an ounce of trouble with yum, so this makes me a little nervous.
Thanks, Matt
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:18:31AM -0600, Gustavo Seabra wrote:
I'm using Firefox for browsing, and Thunderbird for mail. However, I still seem to have mozilla installed. I wonder, is there any reason I should keep mozilla around? (Does any program depends specifically on the existence of mozilla installed?)
Use yum to remove it; see what happens.
On Monday 27 December 2004 08:18, Gustavo Seabra wrote:
I'm using Firefox for browsing, and Thunderbird for mail. However, I still seem to have mozilla installed. I wonder, is there any reason I should keep mozilla around? (Does any program depends specifically on the existence of mozilla installed?)
On a fairly vanilla "everything" installation of FC3 this is the results of the rpm query here:
# rpm -q --whatrequires mozilla
epiphany-1.4.4-4 devhelp-0.9.2-2 mozilla-chat-1.7.3-17 mozilla-dom-inspector-1.7.3-17 mozilla-js-debugger-1.7.3-17 mozilla-mail-1.7.3-17 mozilla-devel-1.7.3-17
Regards, Mike Klinke
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Thomas Skybakmoen wrote:
Will it be part of next Fedora or updated from 2.6.9 in 3? I want to se this apart of RHEL 4 since it has quite a bugfix list and some new hardware and bsd runlevels- wich I hope can be active.
There's a merge to 2.6.10 already in CVS. I'll do a build sometime in the next few days for rawhide. FC2/FC3 will stick on 2.6.9 for a while, whilst the rough edges of 2.6.10 have been polished off.
Dave
On Monday 27 December 2004 11:46, Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Thomas Skybakmoen wrote:
Will it be part of next Fedora or updated from 2.6.9 in 3? I want to se this apart of RHEL 4 since it has quite a bugfix list and some new hardware and bsd runlevels- wich I hope can be active.
There's a merge to 2.6.10 already in CVS. I'll do a build sometime in the next few days for rawhide. FC2/FC3 will stick on 2.6.9 for a while, whilst the rough edges of 2.6.10 have been polished off.
Dave
Pay attention to samba things, and to amanda things in 2.6.10 Dave, I've had to revert to a 2.6.10-rc3-mm1 + realtime 33-04 here. Both amanda and samba are getting tummy aches here in less than 24 hours, and should be un-related as my amanda install does not use anything from samba that I'm aware of.
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 01:49:25PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Monday 27 December 2004 11:46, Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Thomas Skybakmoen wrote:
Will it be part of next Fedora or updated from 2.6.9 in 3? I want to se this apart of RHEL 4 since it has quite a bugfix list and some new hardware and bsd runlevels- wich I hope can be active.
There's a merge to 2.6.10 already in CVS. I'll do a build sometime in the next few days for rawhide. FC2/FC3 will stick on 2.6.9 for a while, whilst the rough edges of 2.6.10 have been polished off.
Dave
Pay attention to samba things
I wonder if thats the missing part of the security hole fix that we carried in the -ac patch on which our 2.6.9 kernels were based. It'll likely go out with 2.6.10-acX when I get around to building it anyway, so if that is the case, we'll pick that bit back up.
, and to amanda things in 2.6.10 Dave,
That I hadn't heard about. Make sure upstream (linux-kernel) hears about these problems too. Unheard problems go unfixed.
Dave
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 01:49:25PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Monday 27 December 2004 11:46, Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Thomas Skybakmoen wrote:
Will it be part of next Fedora or updated from 2.6.9 in 3? I want to se this apart of RHEL 4 since it has quite a bugfix list and some new hardware and bsd runlevels- wich I hope can be active.
There's a merge to 2.6.10 already in CVS. I'll do a build sometime in the next few days for rawhide. FC2/FC3 will stick on 2.6.9 for a while, whilst the rough edges of 2.6.10 have been polished off.
Dave
Pay attention to samba things
I wonder if thats the missing part of the security hole fix that we carried in the -ac patch on which our 2.6.9 kernels were based. It'll likely go out with 2.6.10-acX when I get around to building it anyway, so if that is the case, we'll pick that bit back up.
, and to amanda things in 2.6.10 Dave,
That I hadn't heard about. Make sure upstream (linux-kernel) hears about these problems too. Unheard problems go unfixed.
I had filed 142745 (against Amanda) and I just filed 143803 (against kernel) in RH's Bugzilla to track the Amanda issue.
I went to bed w/o sending this, sorry.
On Tuesday 28 December 2004 01:05, Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 01:49:25PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Monday 27 December 2004 11:46, Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Thomas Skybakmoen
wrote:
Will it be part of next Fedora or updated from 2.6.9 in 3? I want to se this apart of RHEL 4 since it has quite a bugfix list and some new hardware and bsd runlevels- wich I hope can be active.
There's a merge to 2.6.10 already in CVS. I'll do a build sometime in the next few days for rawhide. FC2/FC3 will stick on 2.6.9 for a while, whilst the rough edges of 2.6.10 have been polished off.
Dave
Pay attention to samba things
I wonder if thats the missing part of the security hole fix that we carried in the -ac patch on which our 2.6.9 kernels were based. It'll likely go out with 2.6.10-acX when I get around to building it anyway, so if that is the case, we'll pick that bit back up.
, and to amanda things in 2.6.10 Dave,
That I hadn't heard about. Make sure upstream (linux-kernel) hears about these problems too. Unheard problems go unfixed.
Dave
Humm, cancel my thoughts that amanda might be ok, I am in the middle of the run, and amstatus says the estimates are missing for this machine, and I have 2 amandad's showing in an htop report, one with the telltale Z label in its status column. So I've missed 2 backups in a row on this box. Damn!
On Tuesday 28 December 2004 07:30, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 01:49:25PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Monday 27 December 2004 11:46, Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Thomas Skybakmoen
wrote:
Will it be part of next Fedora or updated from 2.6.9 in 3? I want to se this apart of RHEL 4 since it has quite a bugfix list and some new hardware and bsd runlevels- wich I hope can be active.
There's a merge to 2.6.10 already in CVS. I'll do a build sometime in the next few days for rawhide. FC2/FC3 will stick on 2.6.9 for a while, whilst the rough edges of 2.6.10 have been polished off.
Dave
Pay attention to samba things
I wonder if thats the missing part of the security hole fix that we carried in the -ac patch on which our 2.6.9 kernels were based. It'll likely go out with 2.6.10-acX when I get around to building it anyway, so if that is the case, we'll pick that bit back up.
, and to amanda things in 2.6.10 Dave,
That I hadn't heard about. Make sure upstream (linux-kernel) hears about these problems too. Unheard problems go unfixed.
I had filed 142745 (against Amanda) and I just filed 143803 (against kernel) in RH's Bugzilla to track the Amanda issue.
This was with snapshot amanda-2.4.5b1-200411221, built by the same configuration script I've used for months now. I'm also on the amanda list, basicly functioning as the miners canary by building each new snapshot as they come out. There is nothing in the ChangeLog about amandad for quite a few versions past. I've rebooted, just like I did yesterday morning, and a fresh dump was started about 10 minutes ago. Still in the estimate phase just yet. Which is apparently where amandad is doing the fail... 10 minutes later, it made it through that ok, so I'd assume the catchup backup is going to be ok *this* time.
There was a patch of some kind not too long after the 2.6.9 release that killed amanda and it was backed out IIRC, did that get put back into 2.6.10-rc3-mm1 maybe? Although the 2.6.10-rc3-mm1-V033-04 did run flawlessly for 8 days here once before, but its not now, thats what I was running when it made a zombie out of amandad last night. That zombie was apparently reaped at some point in the night, it was gone this morning before I rebooted. I wish I could give more clues, but the amandad logs aren't at all helpfull.
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:18:31AM -0600, Gustavo Seabra wrote:
I'm using Firefox for browsing, and Thunderbird for mail. However, I still seem to have mozilla installed. I wonder, is there any reason I should keep mozilla around? (Does any program depends specifically on the existence of mozilla installed?)
Thanks,
When I do 'yum erase mozilla' I get devhelp.i386 0:0.9.2-2 as the only dependency. So on my system I could remove mozilla as long as I don't need devhelp. This is FC3, of course. You didn't specify which OS you are using.
So become root, do 'yum erase mozilla', and see what it tells you. Yum will confirm before it deletes anything, so this command is safe as long as you don't accidently tell is 'yes' instead of 'no' when it asks for confirmation.
To further answer your question, it's nice to have more than one browser around, but if you're short on space, removing Mozilla won't hurt.
-
Alexander Dalloz -
Aph -
Dave Jones -
Gene Heskett -
Globe Trotter -
Gustavo Seabra -
Jeff Ratliff -
Matt Morgan -
Matthew Miller -
Matthew Saltzman -
Mike Klinke -
Thomas Skybakmoen