LB> if i manage to do something, i will post on cooker list,
LB> and put rpm on http://www.comedia.it/cooker/mail/
Thanks.
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 11:04:04PM +0100, Galileo wrote:
Luca Berra, care to look at this?
LB> Feeling very masochistic i could try to extract this from debian patch,
LB> or i could try to adapt the one trustix ppl kindly extracted from there :)
LB> will let u know...
Could you CC that to me also,
>>Luca Berra, care to look at this?
LB> Feeling very masochistic i could try to extract this from debian patch,
LB> or i could try to adapt the one trustix ppl kindly extracted from there :)
LB> will let u know...
Could you CC that to me also, since i often miss things from changelog list?
btw if t
On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 04:58:55PM +0200, Buchan Milne wrote:
It seems it is possible to build postfix with dynamic support for
mysql/postgres/ldap, see the patch Debian uses:
http://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/p/postfix/postfix_2.0.16-2.diff.gz
(or newer I guess).
that's looks like the infamou
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>I few years ago I needed postfix with mysql support. postfix in
>>mandrake didn't have it. I downloaded srpm and found that mysql was in
>>but switch in spec file wasn't activated. It took quite a while for a
>>new package to
Galileo wrote:
> LB> the second is phrased in a way i cannot understand
> Simple lvm is not functioning properly when setup on top of raid1.
>
well, if you insist i'll just state it works correctly for me.
but if you try and give some more useful info (eg output of commands)
we could see if it is
LB> the second is phrased in a way i cannot understand
Simple lvm is not functioning properly when setup on top of raid1.
LB> libraries, and they won't run if mysql libraries are not installed.
didn't know that it worked that way. Thanks.
LB> maybe if you tried the patch before, you could also re
LB> well, if you insist i'll just state it works correctly for me.
LB> but if you try and give some more useful info (eg output of commands)
LB> we could see if it is a bug or another problem.
Well this was with 9.1 haven't had the time to test it with 9.2.
Anyway the situation was something like
Galileo wrote:
> For example find a message with a subject:
> or "[Cooker] Lilo Installation bug"
...
> I haven't had the time to test this with 9.2 but i bet that this
> wasn't fixed.
well, if you want to know if something has been fixed or not file a bug
on bugzilla.
> Haven't had a single reply.
bccz> Sometimes it is more effective to post a patch, and/or file a bug.
bccz> Sometimes not.
Well i can't post a patch since I'm not really a coder. I can find my
way around C, perl, php but nothing special.
This sometimes bothers me greatly.
bccz> But you seem to infer that only Mandrakesoft peo
> bccz> Development is totally open. If you want to help, you can. There
> is no bccz> need to ask for developers, because the policy is clear.
> Volunteers are bccz> welcome and always have been.
> ???
> Don't have to ask developers ? If I want something to be changed in ML i
> will post a message
bccz> Development is totally open. If you want to help, you can. There is no
bccz> need to ask for developers, because the policy is clear. Volunteers are
bccz> welcome and always have been.
???
Don't have to ask developers ? If I want something to be changed in ML
i will post a message to cooker l
JC> rpm -qa gpg-pubkey*
JC> gpg-pubkey-22458a98-3969e7de
JC> gpg-pubkey-9b4a4024-3874ddfb
JC> gpg-pubkey-70771ff3-3c8f768f
JC> The first key is the one you are missing.
Beats me. I will try to delete all of the keys then add the one from
isos and the other from mandrakes site.
What I don't underst
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Well if you haven't seen it a loot of others have.
>
> But that doesn't help fix it. Mandrakesoft has
> problems reproducing it too
> (and 'just install a package' isn't a reproducible
> test case), so it's
> difficult for them to solve it.
Hope this helps: steps
On Fri, 24 Oct 2003, Greg Meyer wrote:
> On Friday 24 October 2003 01:20 pm, Brook Humphrey wrote:
> > > On this page
> > > http://www.mandrakesecure.net/en/advisories/advisory.php?name=MDKA-2003:0
> > >20
> > >
> > > Mandrake says that all of the mandrakeclub commercial drivers are
> > > availabl
> bccz> Maybe you have an old page cached, but at least all the NVidia
> kernel bccz> packages have been updated. I hope the ATI and winmodem
> drivers could also I know how to check for a page in cache. It wasn't
> it.
>
> bccz> BTW, this is better than 9.1, where Mandrakesoft did not update
> any
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Galileo wrote:
| rpm --checksig
/Install/Mandrake/Update/kernel-2.4.22.18mdk-1-1mdk.i586.rpm
| /Install/Mandrake/Update/kernel-2.4.22.18mdk-1-1mdk.i586.rpm: sha1 md5
(GPG) NOT OK (MISSING KEYS: GPG#22458a98)
|
| rpm -qa gpg-pubkey*
| gpg-pubkey-70771ff3
bccz> Maybe you have an old page cached, but at least all the NVidia kernel
bccz> packages have been updated. I hope the ATI and winmodem drivers could also
I know how to check for a page in cache. It wasn't it.
bccz> BTW, this is better than 9.1, where Mandrakesoft did not update any of the
bccz>
On Friday 24 October 2003 04:19 pm, Vincent Danen wrote:
> The nvidia rpms should be up by now or very shortly... waiting on the Club
> webmaster for that. The ATI ones will be up as soon as I obtain the srpms.
Are we going to see the club_com_i586_9.2 hdlist updated so these will be
available i
VD> How did you import the key? Did you do it using gpg?
rpm --import RPM-GPG-KEYS from : https://www.mandrakesecure.net/RPM-GPG-KEYS
VD> If so, then you really need to learn how to use urpmi. urpmi will import
VD> the key for you. You also need to use rpm to import the key since rpm
VD> manage
On Friday 24 October 2003 03:48 pm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Most people are just clueless, and run Redhat because everyone else does,
> Debian because they think they don't need newer software releases, or
> Gentoo because they think that cool compile flags will really make their
> firewall run
On Fri Oct 24, 2003 at 07:18:30PM +, Thierry Vignaud wrote:
> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 18:55:27 +0200
> From: Galileo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [Cooker] 9.2 Updates a total mess
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/pla
> Next :
> On this page
> http://www.mandrakesecure.net/en/advisories/advisory.php?name=MDKA-2003:020
>
> Mandrake says that all of the mandrakeclub commercial drivers are
> available.
> Quote:
> "New commercial drivers for this kernel are available at Mandrake
> Club."
> Now my English is a bit r
On Friday 24 October 2003 10:52 am, Galileo wrote:
> "kernel-2.4.22.10mdk"
> this is the "old" kernel, new is 18
> So no new drivers.
> It doesn't matter to me really but it if you read on one page that they
> should be there then they should be there.
>
ok I understand now
>
> BH> um yes this doe
BH> um they are. Maybe you didn't look right at the top of the page but listed
BH> right there are drivers for ati, nvidia, winmodems and whatnot else.
Let see:
http://rpms.mandrakeclub.com/rpms/MandrakeClub/comm/9.2/i586/NVIDIA_kernel-2.4.22.10mdk-4496-2mdk.i586.html
"kernel-2.4.22.10mdk"
this
On Friday 24 October 2003 01:20 pm, Brook Humphrey wrote:
> > On this page
> > http://www.mandrakesecure.net/en/advisories/advisory.php?name=MDKA-2003:0
> >20
> >
> > Mandrake says that all of the mandrakeclub commercial drivers are
> > available.
> > Quote:
> > "New commercial drivers for this ker
On Friday 24 October 2003 09:55 am, Galileo wrote:
> All of the updates for 9.2 have an invalid gpg signature
> For example :
> rpm --checksig kernel-2.4.22.18mdk-1-1mdk.i586.rpm
> returns :
> kernel-2.4.22.18mdk-1-1mdk.i586.rpm: sha1 md5 (GPG) NOT OK (MISSING KEYS:
> GPG#22458a98) i even imported
All of the updates for 9.2 have an invalid gpg signature
For example :
rpm --checksig kernel-2.4.22.18mdk-1-1mdk.i586.rpm
returns :
kernel-2.4.22.18mdk-1-1mdk.i586.rpm: sha1 md5 (GPG) NOT OK (MISSING KEYS:
GPG#22458a98)
i even imported gpg key from https://www.mandrakesecure.net/RPM-GPG-KEYS
same
28 matches
Mail list logo