KDE 3.1.93 for Fedora spotted

[Dave Thomas]

See ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/unstable/3.1.93/RedHat/Fedora

Most KDE mirrors dont have it yet....its pretty fresh. I am dl'ing it now to 
give it a try.

Dave Thomas

[Mike Chambers]

On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:12, Dave Thomas wrote:
> Most KDE mirrors dont have it yet....its pretty fresh. I am dl'ing it now to 
> give it a try.

Fedora Core 1 already contains 3.1.4, doesn't it?

[Rob Park]

Mike Chambers wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:12, Dave Thomas wrote:
> > Most KDE mirrors dont have it yet....its pretty fresh. I am dl'ing it now to 
> > give it a try.
>
> Fedora Core 1 already contains 3.1.4, doesn't it?

"3.1.93", I believe, could be more accurately described as "3.2 release 
candidate 1".

[than]

Mike Chambers schrieb:
> On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:12, Dave Thomas wrote:
> > Most KDE mirrors dont have it yet....its pretty fresh. I am dl'ing it now to 
> > give it a try.
>
> Fedora Core 1 already contains 3.1.4, doesn't it?

yes,  Fedora Core 1 contains the KDE 3.1.4 stable release.

yesterday i have uploaded KDE 3.2 Beta 1 for Fedora Core 1 to 
ftp.kde.org ;-)

Than

[Mike Chambers]

On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 00:58, Rob Park wrote:
> "3.1.93", I believe, could be more accurately described as "3.2 release 
> candidate 1".

Um, er, NO idea what I was thinking when I sent that email.  I'll just
shutup and sit quietly hehe.

[brian connolly]

Dave,

Okay, I'll bite.

But I may have to resolve a problem first.  Currently, I only have Gnome
installed.  Just tried to install KDE from CD and right after it asked
for disk 2, it comes back with an installation error.  DRAT!

So, first... what do you think that error is?  Is it possibly it's a
drive disk space issue.  Fedora is sharing the drive with XP.  I've got
about 4 gig dedicated to Fedora presently.  It's showing that 1.8 is now
used.

Anyway, if space is not a problem... can I just install it on line?  How
does one do that and capture all the relevant files?

Thanks in advance.

Brian Connolly

On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:12, Dave Thomas wrote:
> See ftp://ftp.kde.org/pub/kde/unstable/3.1.93/RedHat/Fedora
>
> Most KDE mirrors dont have it yet....its pretty fresh. I am dl'ing it now to 
> give it a try.
>
> Dave Thomas
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Other Window Managers (was: KDE 3.1.93 for Fedora spotted)

[Hoyt]

On Tuesday 18 November 2003 08:20 pm, [e-mail] wrote:
> I am not wanting a flame-war by what I am about to
> ask.  I am asking for honest opinions, not a "Holy
> War" about desktops.

But that's what you'll get. 8)

They both do pretty much the same and we have the two to choose from _because_ 
of holy wars over licensing. People who choose Gnome also tend to have 
greater idealism about their rationale for their choices in software. That's 
neither good nor bad, just different.

Your question also ignores the dozens of other useful window managers 
available. Each is tailored to provide a different GUI experience for 
different types of users. If you are a confirmed CLI user, you might want to 
investigate the window managers which were specifically designed to enhance 
productivity for users such as yourself.

[Elton Woo]

On November 18, 2003 01:58 am, Rob Park Rob Park  wrote:
> Mike Chambers wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:12, Dave Thomas wrote:
> > > Most KDE mirrors dont have it yet....its pretty fresh. I am dl'ing it now
> > > to give it a try.
> >
> > Fedora Core 1 already contains 3.1.4, doesn't it?
>
> "3.1.93", I believe, could be more accurately described as "3.2 release
> candidate 1".

kdebase-3.1.4-6 is the current version in FC1 (Yarrow)

Elton ;-)

[Mike]

Rob Park wrote:
> Mike Chambers wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:12, Dave Thomas wrote:
> > > Most KDE mirrors dont have it yet....its pretty fresh. I am dl'ing it 
> > > now to give it a try.
> >
> > Fedora Core 1 already contains 3.1.4, doesn't it?
>
> "3.1.93", I believe, could be more accurately described as "3.2 release 
> candidate 1".
>
> -- 
> fedora-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Just a heads up for the brave souls who are going to give this a shot, 
upgrading to 3.1.93 from the stock KDE breaks some stuff (not 
surprisingly).

I installed the packages on a basically clean setup of Core 1, and the 
menu entries got slightly screwed up, various KDE apps crash randomly, 
and for some reason any OpenGL-based program (tuxracer, celestia, etc) 
crash immediately.  Additionally, the repository does not offer any 
yum/apt headers (as I write this) so you'll have to do some command-line 
RPM finagling for everything to work.

In spite of all that, I must say I'm quite impressed with the new 
version.  Lots of little improvements to the UI as well as a slightly 
snappier responsiveness make it worth the hassles (at least for us 
bleeding-edge fetishists :)

Mike

[Frank Tanner III]

I am not wanting a flame-war by what I am about to
ask.  I am asking for honest opinions, not a "Holy
War" about desktops.

Do you, collectively, prefer KDE or Gnome?  And why?

My Linux experience, since Red Hat 5.2, has been 100%
CLI based.  I have never even used the GUI.  I am
wanting to do a fresh install of Fedora on a system,
but I only want to load one desktop interface.

Any non-flammatory experiences/opinions would be
greatly appreciated.

--- Mike  wrote:
> Rob Park wrote:
> > Mike Chambers wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:12, Dave Thomas wrote:
> > > > Most KDE mirrors dont have it yet....its pretty
>
> fresh. I am dl'ing it
> > > > now to give it a try.
> > >
> > > Fedora Core 1 already contains 3.1.4, doesn't it?
> >
> > "3.1.93", I believe, could be more accurately
>
> described as "3.2 release
> > candidate 1".
> >
> > -- 
> > fedora-list mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>
> Just a heads up for the brave souls who are going to
> give this a shot, 
> upgrading to 3.1.93 from the stock KDE breaks some
> stuff (not 
> surprisingly).
>
> I installed the packages on a basically clean setup
> of Core 1, and the 
> menu entries got slightly screwed up, various KDE
> apps crash randomly, 
> and for some reason any OpenGL-based program
> (tuxracer, celestia, etc) 
> crash immediately.  Additionally, the repository
> does not offer any 
> yum/apt headers (as I write this) so you'll have to
> do some command-line 
> RPM finagling for everything to work.
>
> In spite of all that, I must say I'm quite impressed
> with the new 
> version.  Lots of little improvements to the UI as
> well as a slightly 
> snappier responsiveness make it worth the hassles
> (at least for us 
> bleeding-edge fetishists :)
>
> Mike
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

=====

--------------------------------------------------------------
"Never memorize what you can look up."  -Albert Einstein

[Felipe Alfaro Solana]

On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 11:04, Than Ngo wrote:
> yesterday i have uploaded KDE 3.2 Beta 1 for Fedora Core 1 to 
> ftp.kde.org ;-)

And it rocks!

[Aaron]

Wow,
I mostly used kde until now, but with Fedora, they are really so close
its seems to me a tossup
Aaron
On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 22:20, [e-mail] wrote:
> I am not wanting a flame-war by what I am about to
> ask.  I am asking for honest opinions, not a "Holy
> War" about desktops.
>
> Do you, collectively, prefer KDE or Gnome?  And why?
>
> My Linux experience, since Red Hat 5.2, has been 100%
> CLI based.  I have never even used the GUI.  I am
> wanting to do a fresh install of Fedora on a system,
> but I only want to load one desktop interface.
>
> Any non-flammatory experiences/opinions would be
> greatly appreciated.
>
> --- Mike  wrote:
> > Rob Park wrote:
> > > Mike Chambers wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:12, Dave Thomas wrote:
> > > > > Most KDE mirrors dont have it yet....its pretty
> >
> > fresh. I am dl'ing it
> > > > > now to give it a try.
> > > >
> > > > Fedora Core 1 already contains 3.1.4, doesn't it?
> > >
> > > "3.1.93", I believe, could be more accurately
> >
> > described as "3.2 release
> > > candidate 1".
> > >
> > > -- 
> > > fedora-list mailing list
> > > [e-mail]
> > > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
> >
> > Just a heads up for the brave souls who are going to
> > give this a shot, 
> > upgrading to 3.1.93 from the stock KDE breaks some
> > stuff (not 
> > surprisingly).
> >
> > I installed the packages on a basically clean setup
> > of Core 1, and the 
> > menu entries got slightly screwed up, various KDE
> > apps crash randomly, 
> > and for some reason any OpenGL-based program
> > (tuxracer, celestia, etc) 
> > crash immediately.  Additionally, the repository
> > does not offer any 
> > yum/apt headers (as I write this) so you'll have to
> > do some command-line 
> > RPM finagling for everything to work.
> >
> > In spite of all that, I must say I'm quite impressed
> > with the new 
> > version.  Lots of little improvements to the UI as
> > well as a slightly 
> > snappier responsiveness make it worth the hassles
> > (at least for us 
> > bleeding-edge fetishists :)
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > --
> > fedora-list mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>
> =====
>
> "Never memorize what you can look up."  -Albert Einstein
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

[Andy Green]

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

On Tuesday 18 November 2003 20:20, [e-mail] wrote:
> Do you, collectively, prefer KDE or Gnome?  And why?

Like the other posts are saying, they basically each cover the same ground in 
a good way.  Something that may not be obvious if you stayed so far from X is 
that you can perfectly happily run gnome apps in a KDE desktop and 
vice-versa.  The main thing you're choosing is the desktop and start 'panel', 
you can have ghex in KDE and khexedit in gnome for example.  So the choice 
matters less in practical terms than you might think.

That said, I started with Gnome and found Nautilus, the "explorer" type app, 
bogged down unusably if you had a few instances open.  I don't know if that 
is still the case since 7.3 or 8 or whatever, because I tried KDE and really 
liked it.  Konqueror, the equivalent to Nautilus in KDE doesn't suffer 
slowdowns on having many instances open.

Despite the fact you only want one desktop interface, the best advice is to 
give both of them a go, if you want to lose kde its just half-a-dozen or so 
rpms to -e, don't know about gnome.

- -Andy
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)
>
> iD8DBQE/urPpjKeDCxMJCTIRAhifAJ4h3gH6iQT7Anv7gy1FVDiOLclUBQCcDoTW
> sIEqcLytfqynC3CTw/872Jw=
> =ppde
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[Mike Chambers]

On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 04:04, Than Ngo wrote:
> yesterday i have uploaded KDE 3.2 Beta 1 for Fedora Core 1 to 
> ftp.kde.org ;-)

Someone that d/l'd and installed it said there were menu
changes/problems and a few programs crashing.

Is there something that stops the menu deal or is consistant with the
menu in FC 1?

[Rob Park]

[e-mail] wrote:
> Do you, collectively, prefer KDE or Gnome?  And why?

I've always been torn between KDE and Gnome. Overall, I prefer the 
usability of KDE (I've always found GNOME to have a lot of small 
shortcomings, like minor UI annoyances, that are nitpicky in nature, but 
all add up to a bad experience overall). On the other hand, I've always 
preferred the look of GTK2 to the look of Qt.

Also, RedHat has been seriously KDE-hostile in their distro releases in 
the past (I'm not sure if Fedora is any better), so for the most part 
I've just been using GNOME for the time being.

However, I saw the announcement for KDE 3.2 beta, and I saw the 
screenshots, and I absolutely loved it. With the advent of KE 3.2, KDE 
isn't ugly (to me) anymore, and since I've always found KDE to be more 
usable, I'll probably end up switching to KDE full-time as soon as it's 
released (I'm not brave enough to try the betas; I'll wait for a 'yum 
upgrade' to ask me if I want to install kde 3.2 before I switch :)

Looking for easy method to transfer data: Outlook to Ximian

[brian connolly]

Hi all,

I am looking for a shortcut to transfer my calendar, tasks and mail to
Ximian Evolution.

Anyone know of an easy way?

Brian Connolly
Sr. Consultant
Literati Group
312.482.9229
http://www.literatigroup.com

[Dave Thomas]

On Tuesday 18 November 2003 7:04 pm, Rob Park wrote:
> [e-mail] wrote:
> > Do you, collectively, prefer KDE or Gnome?  And why?

These days, I prefer KDE. I use a ATI8500LE with two monitors and the Xinerama 
(although it is pseudo-xinerama with latest r200 dri snap) options in 3.1.93 
finally do everything I have always wanted. I can have apps maximize to a 
single monitor, and have the task bar span both monitors at the same time, 
which is just what I want. I also find the eye candy (Kandy? hehe) in KDE to 
be better. KDE also seems more integrated than Gnome does....and it has lots 
of little touches for laptop users that come in handy. KDE is just damn 
tight.  That said, Gnome is also very good these days, but it just does not 
do a few things that KDE can do for my setup.

BTW: I have been running 3.1.93 since a few minutes after my post saying I 
'spotted' it.....and it really kicks a**. If you are into KDE, you want it.

Dave Thomas

[Felipe Alfaro Solana]

On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 21:20, [e-mail] wrote:
> Do you, collectively, prefer KDE or Gnome?  And why?

I have always preferred KDE over GNOME. I find iKDE to be more
customizable and beautiful, and it allows me to do things that GNOME
(i.e. Metacity) won't. I don't like simplicity, I prefer flexibility.

There are a few exceptions where I prefer GNOME apps over KDE like, for
example, Evolution or GAIM.

[Markku Kolkka]

Brian Connolly kirjoitti viestissään (lähetysaika Tiistai 18. 
Marraskuuta 2003 16:58):
> But I may have to resolve a problem first.  Currently, I only have
> Gnome installed.  Just tried to install KDE from CD and right after
> it asked for disk 2, it comes back with an installation error.  DRAT!
>
> So, first... what do you think that error is?

Bug #109276, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=109276
> Anyway, if space is not a problem... can I just install it on line? 
> How does one do that and capture all the relevant files?

up2date kdebase kdenetwork kdeutils kdeartwork kdeaddons kdemultimedia

[Shane DeRidder]

On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 01:24, Mike Chambers wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-11-17 at 23:12, Dave Thomas wrote:
> > Most KDE mirrors dont have it yet....its pretty fresh. I am dl'ing it now to 
> > give it a try.
>
> Fedora Core 1 already contains 3.1.4, doesn't it?

Yes, but 3.1.93 is the pre-3.2 version.

KDE vs. Gnome (was: KDE 3.1.93 for Fedora spotted)

[Shane DeRidder]

On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 15:20, [e-mail] wrote:
> I am not wanting a flame-war by what I am about to
> ask.  I am asking for honest opinions, not a "Holy
> War" about desktops.
>
> Do you, collectively, prefer KDE or Gnome?  And why?

Personally, I use both on and off, but I find myself in KDE more than
GNOME these days.  With their overlapping release schedules, there was
always one feature of one environment that I liked and used.  Then, the
next release of the other environment that had yet another feature that
I wanted to have.  So, I've flipped-flopped between the two.

Also, I use GNOME apps in KDE, and vice-versa.  For me, it's not really
a choice of one versus the other.  Both have their merits.

[Jim Cornette]

Mike Chambers wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 04:04, Than Ngo wrote:
> > yesterday i have uploaded KDE 3.2 Beta 1 for Fedora Core 1 to 
> > ftp.kde.org ;-)
>
> Someone that d/l'd and installed it said there were menu
> changes/problems and a few programs crashing.
>
> Is there something that stops the menu deal or is consistant with the
> menu in FC 1?

I downloaded the rpms to a local directory. When I tried to update the 
packages, I got these errors from up2date.

Are these the programs that crash?

Jim
> Test install failed because of package conflicts:

file /usr/share/mimelnk/application/vnd.sun.xml.calc.desktop from 
install of kdelibs-3.1.93-0.1 conflicts
with file from package openoffice.org-1.1.0-6
file /usr/share/mimelnk/application/vnd.sun.xml.draw.desktop from 
install of kdelibs-3.1.93-0.1 conflicts
with file from package openoffice.org-1.1.0-6
file /usr/share/mimelnk/application/vnd.sun.xml.impress.desktop from 
install of kdelibs-3.1.93-0.1 conflicts
with file from package openoffice.org-1.1.0-6
file /usr/share/mimelnk/application/vnd.sun.xml.writer.desktop from 
install of kdelibs-3.1.93-0.1 conflicts
with file from package openoffice.org-1.1.0-6

[Mike]

Jim Cornette wrote:
> Mike Chambers wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 04:04, Than Ngo wrote:
> > > yesterday i have uploaded KDE 3.2 Beta 1 for Fedora Core 1 to 
> > > ftp.kde.org ;-)
> >
> > Someone that d/l'd and installed it said there were menu
> > changes/problems and a few programs crashing.
> >
> > Is there something that stops the menu deal or is consistant with the
> > menu in FC 1?
>
> I downloaded the rpms to a local directory. When I tried to update the 
> packages, I got these errors from up2date.
>
> Are these the programs that crash?
>
> Jim
> > Test install failed because of package conflicts:
>
> file /usr/share/mimelnk/application/vnd.sun.xml.calc.desktop from 
> install of kdelibs-3.1.93-0.1 conflicts
> with file from package openoffice.org-1.1.0-6
> file /usr/share/mimelnk/application/vnd.sun.xml.draw.desktop from 
> install of kdelibs-3.1.93-0.1 conflicts
> with file from package openoffice.org-1.1.0-6
> file /usr/share/mimelnk/application/vnd.sun.xml.impress.desktop from 
> install of kdelibs-3.1.93-0.1 conflicts
> with file from package openoffice.org-1.1.0-6
> file /usr/share/mimelnk/application/vnd.sun.xml.writer.desktop from 
> install of kdelibs-3.1.93-0.1 conflicts
> with file from package openoffice.org-1.1.0-6

Yup, got those errors too.  The only workaround I found was to remove 
openoffice, install the new KDE packages, then reinstall.  As long as 
you keep your ~/.openoffice directory, the uninstall/reinstall process 
*shouldn't* affect any of your settings,templates,etc.  But don't quote 
me on that :)

I posted a couple of days ago referring to programs crashing after 
installing the update to KDE.  The problem seemingly has corrected 
itself (with sporadic random exceptions), but I've still been unable to 
run any GL-enabled programs since.

Also as I said, it looks like the menu structure has changed slightly 
from 3.x -> 3.2, it appears Fedora gets confused as to where some 
programs should go.  Consequently, I've got an 'Unknown' menu entry 
which holds a bunch of random apps that it didn't know what to do with.

Mike

[Jim Cornette]

Mike wrote:
> Jim Cornette wrote:
> > Mike Chambers wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2003-11-18 at 04:04, Than Ngo wrote:
> > > > yesterday i have uploaded KDE 3.2 Beta 1 for Fedora Core 1 to 
> > > > ftp.kde.org ;-)
> > >
> > > Someone that d/l'd and installed it said there were menu
> > > changes/problems and a few programs crashing.
> > >
> > > Is there something that stops the menu deal or is consistant with the
> > > menu in FC 1?
> >
> > I downloaded the rpms to a local directory. When I tried to update the 
> > packages, I got these errors from up2date.
> >
> > Are these the programs that crash?
> >
> > Jim
> > > Test install failed because of package conflicts:
>
> openoffice.org related
>
> Yup, got those errors too.  The only workaround I found was to remove 
> openoffice, install the new KDE packages, then reinstall.  As long as 
> you keep your ~/.openoffice directory, the uninstall/reinstall process 
> *shouldn't* affect any of your settings,templates,etc.  But don't quote 
> me on that :)

I figured I'd uninstall openoffice, then try out KDE. I really like the 
new look for this version.
  Previously, I thought that KDE looked too XP'ish and before the XP 
style copying, it looked too cartoonish.
The new look seems easier to navigate and has a lot more clarity.

I've been a GNOME user for the most part. This new version of KDE might 
be worth switchig from the dwindling Gnome powers. (metacity, instead of 
something better. Menu editing problems, etc)

I like the new KDE so far.

Jim
> I posted a couple of days ago referring to programs crashing after 
> installing the update to KDE.  The problem seemingly has corrected 
> itself (with sporadic random exceptions), but I've still been unable to 
> run any GL-enabled programs since.
>
> Also as I said, it looks like the menu structure has changed slightly 
> from 3.x -> 3.2, it appears Fedora gets confused as to where some 
> programs should go.  Consequently, I've got an 'Unknown' menu entry 
> which holds a bunch of random apps that it didn't know what to do with.
>
> Mike
>
> -- 
> fedora-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

[T. Ribbrock]

On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 12:20:51PM -0800, [e-mail] wrote:
> I am not wanting a flame-war by what I am about to
> ask.  I am asking for honest opinions, not a "Holy
> War" about desktops.
>
> Do you, collectively, prefer KDE or Gnome?  And why?

Neither. I still find both of them too clunky and too Windows-like,
insofar as that they tend to get in the way. Also, they're too
resource hungry by far (yes, I still have some smaller machines here).
Give me a small, fast window manager (I prefer Window Maker) and a few
rxvt's and I'm happy.

My EUR0.02,

Thomas

2115 can see NTFS, 2129 can't

[brian connolly]

I got 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl to see NTFS.  When I update to
2.4.22-1.2129.nptl, it can't.

The NTFS Project (http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/rpm/fedora1.html)
doesn't have an rpm for the latest kernel update.

:(

Brian

2115 can see NTFS, 2129 can't

[jason pearl]

i know that sux huh
im gonna get rid of the ability to read it once i get alll my files offf
the win part

On Tue, 2003-12-02 at 20:51, Brian Connolly wrote:
> I got 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl to see NTFS.  When I update to
> 2.4.22-1.2129.nptl, it can't.
>
> The NTFS Project (http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/rpm/fedora1.html)
> doesn't have an rpm for the latest kernel update.
>
> :(
>
> Brian
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

2115 can see NTFS, 2129 can't

[William Hooper]

Brian Connolly  said:
> I got 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl to see NTFS.  When I update to
> 2.4.22-1.2129.nptl, it can't.
>
> The NTFS Project (http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/rpm/fedora1.html)
> doesn't have an rpm for the latest kernel update.

Since it is a kernel module, it is only available for the kernel it was
compiled for.   Welcome to the wonderful world of third party kernel
modules.  It's their fault, not Fedora's.

Can't get there now, but surely they have an src.rpm you can rebuild for
your version.

2115 can see NTFS, 2129 can't

[Marc Schwartz]

On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 08:52, William Hooper wrote:
> Brian Connolly  said:
> > I got 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl to see NTFS.  When I update to
> > 2.4.22-1.2129.nptl, it can't.
> >
> > The NTFS Project (http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/rpm/fedora1.html)
> > doesn't have an rpm for the latest kernel update.
>
> Since it is a kernel module, it is only available for the kernel it was
> compiled for.   Welcome to the wonderful world of third party kernel
> modules.  It's their fault, not Fedora's.
>
> Can't get there now, but surely they have an src.rpm you can rebuild for
> your version.

There is no source RPM.

You might want to give Rich a day or so, since he is likely suffering
from the same kernel download issues that have been posted here in the
past 24 hours.  That will delay his ability to release the new NTFS RPMs
for the 2129 kernel.

Rich has been very diligent in the past relative to getting out new RPMs
when a new kernel is released and he typically has one within a couple
of days.

Patience...  :-)

Marc

2115 can see NTFS, 2129 can't

[Paweł Orzechowski]

Dnia śro 3. grudnia 2003 04:51, Brian Connolly napisał:
> I got 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl to see NTFS.  When I update to
> 2.4.22-1.2129.nptl, it can't.
>
> The NTFS Project (http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/rpm/fedora1.html)
> doesn't have an rpm for the latest kernel update.
>
> :(
>
> Brian
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

You can also try different solution:
http://www.jankratochvil.net/project/captive/

Pawel

2115 can see NTFS, 2129 can't

[brian connolly]

Thanks.  It certainly looked encouraging.  However, Fedora did not find
it entertaining in the slightest.

Brian

On Wed, 2003-12-03 at 09:20, Paweł Orzechowski wrote:
> Dnia śro 3. grudnia 2003 04:51, Brian Connolly napisał:
> > I got 2.4.22-1.2115.nptl to see NTFS.  When I update to
> > 2.4.22-1.2129.nptl, it can't.
> >
> > The NTFS Project (http://linux-ntfs.sourceforge.net/rpm/fedora1.html)
> > doesn't have an rpm for the latest kernel update.
> >
> > :(
> >
> > Brian
> >
> > --
> > fedora-list mailing list
> > [e-mail]
> > To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>
> You can also try different solution:
> http://www.jankratochvil.net/project/captive/
>
> Pawel
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> [e-mail]
> To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

LPRng --> CUPS; convert printcap file?

[Matt Temple]

All,

We have a server running, among other things, LPRng.  It has a large 
number of print queues.   I'm in the process of bringing up a new
Fedora-based server.  (It's a Dell Poweredge 2600 which I updated from 
RH 7.3 to Fedora with only a small number of problems.)   I'm trying to 
find out what problems I'll have converting the queues to CUPS.
Is there any automated way?   In additions, many of our print queues
are netatalk driven.  Does anyone there have experience with Netatalk/CUPS?

Matt Temple

=============================================================
Matthew Temple                Tel:    [phone]
Director, Research Computing  Fax:    [phone]
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute  [e-mail]
44 Binney Street,  ML105      http://research.dfci.harvard.edu
Boston, MA 02115              Choice is the Choice!

LPRng --> CUPS; convert printcap file?

[Tim Waugh]

On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 05:57:52PM -0500, Matt Temple wrote:
> We have a server running, among other things, LPRng.  It has a large
> number of print queues.  I'm in the process of bringing up a new
> Fedora-based server.  (It's a Dell Poweredge 2600 which I updated
> from RH 7.3 to Fedora with only a small number of problems.)  I'm
> trying to find out what problems I'll have converting the queues to
> CUPS.  Is there any automated way?  In additions, many of our print
> queues are netatalk driven.  Does anyone there have experience with
> Netatalk/CUPS?

If you used redhat-config-printer to set up the queues, just run
redhat-switch-printer and it will be done for you.

Tim.
*/

CUPS / Netatalk

[Matt Temple]

All,

OK, so now I've switched over to CUPS on my new
Fedora test server.   We have many Macs.   Our server
runs netatalk.   This doesn't appear to sit as a standard
object in CUPS, if I'm reading the documentation correctly.

If anyone reading this list uses netatalk and CUPS,
and is willing to share the setup for even one single appletalk
printer, I'd appreciate it enormously.  (including the papd.conf
entry)

Let's say the printer is a laserwriter named "testp"
in appletalk zone "printers"

Thanks so much.

Matt Temple