Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
Chmouel Boudjnah wrote: > "Brian J. Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Why do I need to have grub if I use LILO? > because our dear pixel want like this, i believe he has no reason. God > also has no reason some time, pixel hes like god, he do by feeling and > color of sky. If we could understand *all* of God's reasons for doing things, we would be God. God is by definition not totally comprehensible to anyone less than God. Perhaps Pixel hopes that by pretending to be beyond understanding, he can get people to believe that he is God?(-: -- lost: oNE ``cAPS lOCK'' KEY. rEWARD OFFERED.
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
Alexander Skwar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > b) See, that's the point. You can't stand LILO. That's totally fine. > Others can't stand grup. That's cool as well. The point is, that it is not > possible to remove either package without using --nodeps. And that, I don't > like. well, as for now grub relies on keytab-lilo.pl to generate the /boot/LANG.klt
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
So sprach Nick B am Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 11:40:05AM -0500: > I like grub more than lilo (has LILO been made graphical like > redhats/corel's?). Grub has a better design because it has some sort of a > menu system. LILO really is discusting (to me at least) ;) a) The new menu system of LILO is quite nice. Try it, you may like it b) See, that's the point. You can't stand LILO. That's totally fine. Others can't stand grup. That's cool as well. The point is, that it is not possible to remove either package without using --nodeps. And that, I don't like. But the day will come, when Pixel is fed up with Pizza and is benevolent to all of us unworthy fellowers and he'll give us the opportunity to just install one of the two packages. Oh, how I long for that day to come :] *G* Hmm, Chmou, dams, shall we all sacrifice a fraction of a pizza to him? Would this make the day come faster? *SCNR* Alexander Skwar -- Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com | http://www.dp.ath.cx Sichere Mail? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] fuer GnuPG Keys ICQ:7328191
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
I like grub more than lilo (has LILO been made graphical like redhats/corel's?). Grub has a better design because it has some sort of a menu system. LILO really is discusting (to me at least) ;) >From: "dam's" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ? >Date: 18 Oct 2000 18:11:34 +0200 > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chmouel Boudjnah) writes: > > > "Brian J. Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > > > from the quill of Chmouel Boudjnah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on >scroll > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > > > i am ''healthy'' also today > > > > > > I don't really wanna "fight" about it. I guess I just don't see the > > > point. Please enlighten me. Why do I need to have grub if I use >LILO? > > > > because our dear pixel want like this, i believe he has no reason. God > > also has no reason some time, pixel hes like god, he do by feeling and > > color of sky. > >and amount of pizzas, too. >-- >dam's > _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com. Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at http://profiles.msn.com.
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Chmouel Boudjnah) writes: > "Brian J. Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > from the quill of Chmouel Boudjnah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on scroll > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > > i am ''healthy'' also today > > > > I don't really wanna "fight" about it. I guess I just don't see the > > point. Please enlighten me. Why do I need to have grub if I use LILO? > > because our dear pixel want like this, i believe he has no reason. God > also has no reason some time, pixel hes like god, he do by feeling and > color of sky. and amount of pizzas, too. -- dam's
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
"Brian J. Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > from the quill of Chmouel Boudjnah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on scroll > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > i am ''healthy'' also today > > I don't really wanna "fight" about it. I guess I just don't see the > point. Please enlighten me. Why do I need to have grub if I use LILO? because our dear pixel want like this, i believe he has no reason. God also has no reason some time, pixel hes like god, he do by feeling and color of sky. -- MandrakeSoft Inc http://www.chmouel.org Paris, France --Chmouel
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
from the quill of Chmouel Boudjnah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on scroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > i am ''healthy'' also today I don't really wanna "fight" about it. I guess I just don't see the point. Please enlighten me. Why do I need to have grub if I use LILO? b. -- Brian J. Murrell
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
from the quill of Guillaume Cottenceau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on scroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > So your freshening was with some nodeps stuff... No. See that is just it. I don't want to use --nodeps. If I have to use it, it's a bug in packaging. I agree that I need basesystem and want to install it. I just don't want to have to lay down unnessary bloat (i.e. grub) to do it. I also wonder how much more of that is going on. b. -- Brian J. Murrell
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
Guillaume Cottenceau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This debate comes up now and then. You wanna fight with pixel another > time? i am ''healthy'' also today -- MandrakeSoft Inc http://www.chmouel.org Paris, France --Chmouel
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
"Brian J. Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > from the quill of Guillaume Cottenceau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on scroll > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > Then? :-) > > The jist is that Cooker on my system is just an upgrade in place of > individual packages rather than a fresh install thus no "basesystem" > package -- there was not one there before I "Cooker"ed it. I just > didn't want to risk an installer f*cking up my working Linux machine. So your freshening was with some nodeps stuff... -- Guillaume Cottenceau -- Distribution Developer for MandrakeSoft http://us.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
from the quill of Guillaume Cottenceau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on scroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Then? :-) The jist is that Cooker on my system is just an upgrade in place of individual packages rather than a fresh install thus no "basesystem" package -- there was not one there before I "Cooker"ed it. I just didn't want to risk an installer f*cking up my working Linux machine. > This debate comes up now and then. So I read. > You wanna fight with pixel another > time? Well I just think unecessary bloat is a bad thing. It's makes something more complicated and harder to understand when you include parts that are really not needed and not used (this is a general statement that is valid outside of the Linux context even). That is my argument against this kind of unessary bloat. What argument could there be for it? It seems to me that Alex had/has a pretty good solution. Why not use it? b. -- Brian J. Murrell
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
"Brian J. Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > > If you currently don't have basesystem, it's because once you removed > > it > > with a "--nodeps"; > > Uhm, actually nope. I could explain but it's moot. Then? :-) [...] > But that was not my "dependancy gripe". basesystem->grub was, as well > as basesystem->ntsysv and basesystem->console-tools. The latter two I > can probably live with and understand, but why should I *have* to > install grub? I use LILO. Sure it's a miniscule package and I should > just install it and shut-up, but I like to do things right. :-) This debate comes up now and then. You wanna fight with pixel another time? -- Guillaume Cottenceau -- Distribution Developer for MandrakeSoft http://us.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
So sprach Brian J. Murrell am Wed, Oct 18, 2000 at 03:02:16AM -0700: > But that was not my "dependancy gripe". basesystem->grub was, as well > as basesystem->ntsysv and basesystem->console-tools. The latter two I > can probably live with and understand, but why should I *have* to > install grub? I use LILO. Sure it's a miniscule package and I should > just install it and shut-up, but I like to do things right. :-) Well, we already had this discussion about a month or so ago. I also argued, like you, that this is bloat. The answer was to rpm -e --nodeps grub/lilo and be happy, BECAUSE they are so tiny. I suggested to add a virtual provide like boot-loader in the grub and lilo packages and make basesystem depend on boot-loader. Well, the suggestion was not accepted, for whatever reason. I gave up on this and have grub AND lilo installed but only use the latter. Basically I think it's a bad idea to have any package names in the requires of any package. Much better would be to invent virtual names that describe what this package does and only use those names, but, well... I also like the way debian does it. There you can, during install, chose "tasks". If you install a task, you'll have to install other packages that the task depends on. For example, you could choose task "dialup" which will make you install ppp, fetchmail and a mailserver maybe. Sure, experienced users know that it is good to choose these packages, but for the end user it is nicer to choose "dialup" and be happy. Those tasks are in reality normal packages that don't have any files, besides maybe some documentation files. This is really neat IMO. Alexander Skwar -- Homepage: http://www.digitalprojects.com | http://www.dp.ath.cx Sichere Mail? Mail an [EMAIL PROTECTED] fuer GnuPG Keys ICQ:7328191
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
from the quill of Guillaume Cottenceau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on scroll
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Every linux-mandrake box should contain basesystem, which is a
> pseudo-package in order for people to not screw up the system by
> removing
> important things.
Ok. I under{stand,stood} that.
> If you currently don't have basesystem, it's because once you removed
> it
> with a "--nodeps";
Uhm, actually nope. I could explain but it's moot.
> well then if you want to play this game (you can if you
> know what you're doing of course!) why bothering this dependency?
> upgrade
> your glibc and ignore the basesystem thingy.
But that was not my "dependancy gripe". basesystem->grub was, as well
as basesystem->ntsysv and basesystem->console-tools. The latter two I
can probably live with and understand, but why should I *have* to
install grub? I use LILO. Sure it's a miniscule package and I should
just install it and shut-up, but I like to do things right. :-)
Thots?
b.
--
Brian J. Murrell
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
"Brian J. Murrell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: [...] > Ok, here's what I get: > > # rpm -Uvh db1-1.85-1mdk.i586.rpm db2-2.4.14-1mdk.i586.rpm >glibc-2.1.92-2mdk.i586.rpm > error: failed dependencies: > basesystem is needed by glibc-2.1.92-2mdk > # rpm -Uvh basesystem-7.2-1mdk.i586.rpm db1-1.85-1mdk.i586.rpm >db2-2.4.14-1mdk.i586.rpm glibc-2.1.92-2mdk.i586.rpm > error: failed dependencies: > console-tools is needed by basesystem-7.2-1mdk > ntsysv is needed by basesystem-7.2-1mdk > grub is needed by basesystem-7.2-1mdk > > So I needed "basesystem" in order to get glibc 2.1.92 installed. But to > install basesystem, I need to further install grub, ntsysv and > console-tools. But I don't want at least two of those. For example, why > should grub be a requirement of glibc and/or basesystem? I use LILO. Every linux-mandrake box should contain basesystem, which is a pseudo-package in order for people to not screw up the system by removing important things. If you currently don't have basesystem, it's because once you removed it with a "--nodeps"; well then if you want to play this game (you can if you know what you're doing of course!) why bothering this dependency? upgrade your glibc and ignore the basesystem thingy. -- Guillaume Cottenceau -- Distribution Developer for MandrakeSoft http://us.mandrakesoft.com/~gc/
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
from the quill of Chmouel Boudjnah <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> on scroll <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Hi, > > In a few minutes i'll upload to cooker a new version of glibc version > 2.1.92, with the db1 and db2 package, if you want to upgrade upgrade > with the db2 package first and db1. The locales should be broken for a > while until pablo rebuild sync the locales package. Ok, here's what I get: # rpm -Uvh db1-1.85-1mdk.i586.rpm db2-2.4.14-1mdk.i586.rpm glibc-2.1.92-2mdk.i586.rpm error: failed dependencies: basesystem is needed by glibc-2.1.92-2mdk # rpm -Uvh basesystem-7.2-1mdk.i586.rpm db1-1.85-1mdk.i586.rpm db2-2.4.14-1mdk.i586.rpm glibc-2.1.92-2mdk.i586.rpm error: failed dependencies: console-tools is needed by basesystem-7.2-1mdk ntsysv is needed by basesystem-7.2-1mdk grub is needed by basesystem-7.2-1mdk So I needed "basesystem" in order to get glibc 2.1.92 installed. But to install basesystem, I need to further install grub, ntsysv and console-tools. But I don't want at least two of those. For example, why should grub be a requirement of glibc and/or basesystem? I use LILO. Thots? b. -- Brian J. Murrell
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
"Dmitry V. Levin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Well, I cannot say about Debian, but latest Red Hat Bug Fix Advisory > (RHBA-2000:079-03) contains 2.1.94 + patches, which is appeared to be > 2.1.95 + standart little cygnus-to-redhat patch. i know, i'm just actually evaluate the work we need to do for glibc-2.1*, will see to upgrade to 2.1.95 when i'll be ready with 94. > If you plan to make locales for glibc-2.1.92, you'll have to redo it for > glibc >= 2.1.94 Is not a big deal -- MandrakeSoft Inc http://www.chmouel.org Paris, France --Chmouel
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 12:50:49PM +0200, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote: > > > In a few minutes i'll upload to cooker a new version of glibc version > > > 2.1.92, with the db1 and db2 package, if you want to upgrade upgrade > > > with the db2 package first and db1. The locales should be broken for a > > > while until pablo rebuild sync the locales package. > > > > You would better upload glibc version 2.1.95 instead of 2.1.92, since it > > includes latest patches from redhat errata. > > > > More even, binary locales for 2.1.92 and 2.1.94 are incompatible. > > > > About locales: all statically linked executables which use non-C locale > > have to be relinked against new glibc to support locale again. > > i'm trying to stay with what the others distro, like RH and Debian > does for compatibility... Well, I cannot say about Debian, but latest Red Hat Bug Fix Advisory (RHBA-2000:079-03) contains 2.1.94 + patches, which is appeared to be 2.1.95 + standart little cygnus-to-redhat patch. If you plan to make locales for glibc-2.1.92, you'll have to redo it for glibc >= 2.1.94 Regards, Dmitry +-+ Dmitry V. Levin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Software Engineer PGP pubkey http://www.fandra.org/users/ldv/pgpkeys.html IPLabs Linux Team http://linux.iplabs.ru Fandra Project http://www.fandra.org +-+ UNIX is user friendly. It's just very selective about who it's friends are. PGP signature
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
"Dmitry V. Levin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 11:41:05AM +0200, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote: > > In a few minutes i'll upload to cooker a new version of glibc version > > 2.1.92, with the db1 and db2 package, if you want to upgrade upgrade > > with the db2 package first and db1. The locales should be broken for a > > while until pablo rebuild sync the locales package. > > You would better upload glibc version 2.1.95 instead of 2.1.92, since it > includes latest patches from redhat errata. > > More even, binary locales for 2.1.92 and 2.1.94 are incompatible. > > About locales: all statically linked executables which use non-C locale > have to be relinked against new glibc to support locale again. i'm trying to stay with what the others distro, like RH and Debian does for compatibility... -- MandrakeSoft Inc http://www.chmouel.org Paris, France --Chmouel
Re: [Cooker] Ready to go ?
On Tue, Oct 17, 2000 at 11:41:05AM +0200, Chmouel Boudjnah wrote: > In a few minutes i'll upload to cooker a new version of glibc version > 2.1.92, with the db1 and db2 package, if you want to upgrade upgrade > with the db2 package first and db1. The locales should be broken for a > while until pablo rebuild sync the locales package. You would better upload glibc version 2.1.95 instead of 2.1.92, since it includes latest patches from redhat errata. More even, binary locales for 2.1.92 and 2.1.94 are incompatible. About locales: all statically linked executables which use non-C locale have to be relinked against new glibc to support locale again. Regards, Dmitry +-+ Dmitry V. Levin mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Software Engineer PGP pubkey http://www.fandra.org/users/ldv/pgpkeys.html IPLabs Linux Team http://linux.iplabs.ru Fandra Project http://www.fandra.org +-+ UNIX is user friendly. It's just very selective about who it's friends are. PGP signature
