Re: All I want for Christmas is digiKam 1.0 in F12-stable...
On Mon, 2009-12-21 at 11:46 -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: Linuxguy123 wrote: digiKam 1.0.0 was released today. I think a lot of us are running 1.0-beta 6 installed via yum. Would it be possible to get 1.0.0 into F12 stable prior to Christmas ? https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/digikam-1.0.0-1.fc12 stable that quickly? I'd feel a bit uncomfortable without at least some testing and positive feedback. Nice job providing a means for installation without building from source and so quickly. Good work. As for installation, doing a straight rpm -i over the -beta6 install resulted in a slew of error messages regarding file conflicts. I did a yum remove digikam and then an rpm -i and everything worked fine. Thanks again. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: All I want for Christmas is digiKam 1.0 in F12-stable...
On Tue, 2009-12-22 at 09:18 -0600, Jeffrey Ollie wrote: On Tue, Dec 22, 2009 at 9:01 AM, Linuxguy123 linuxguy...@gmail.com wrote: As for installation, doing a straight rpm -i over the -beta6 install resulted in a slew of error messages regarding file conflicts. I did a yum remove digikam and then an rpm -i and everything worked fine. That's to be expected, as rpm -i installs a package without removing the old one. Unless the package is specially designed (like the kernel) you'll get conflicts. Normally, you'd want to use rpm -U which will remove the old package before installing the new one. DOH, what the heck was I thinking ? I KNEW that. Sheesh ! :smacks forehead with open hand: I was thinking it was an install because I had downloaded the rpms. I don't usually have to download rpms to do updates because I just use yum. Thanks for the reply. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
All I want for Christmas is digiKam 1.0 in F12-stable...
digiKam 1.0.0 was released today. I think a lot of us are running 1.0-beta 6 installed via yum. Would it be possible to get 1.0.0 into F12 stable prior to Christmas ? I know I can build it from source, but I need to install it on several machines and it would be much easier to do it via a yum update. I'm also behind on my Christmas shopping... Thanks for listening. Season's Greetings ! LG -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: F12 updates-testing issue: X flickers and fails to start
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 10:36 +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:12:07 +0200 (EET) Pekka Savola wrote: Now gdm login however doesn't show my username and fingerprint login is no longer an option Looks like the issue with hal-0.5.14-1: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2009-12840 I think it has something to do with display power management and the monitor brightness level. I can replicate the behavior by simply adjusting the display brightness in a KDE session. I have logged 2 bugs that are possibly related to this. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528188 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525767 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: F12 updates-testing issue: X flickers and fails to start
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 06:27 -0700, Linuxguy123 wrote: On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 10:36 +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote: On Wed, 9 Dec 2009 11:12:07 +0200 (EET) Pekka Savola wrote: Now gdm login however doesn't show my username and fingerprint login is no longer an option Looks like the issue with hal-0.5.14-1: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2009-12840 I think it has something to do with display power management and the monitor brightness level. I can replicate the behavior by simply adjusting the display brightness in a KDE session. I have logged 2 bugs that are possibly related to this. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528188 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525767 I recommend connecting an external monitor to see if the issue is display specific and have you tried ctrl-alt-F6 to get to a console at login and then going back to the X session with ctrl-alt-F1 ? -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: F12 updates-testing issue: X flickers and fails to start
On Wed, 2009-12-09 at 18:36 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Linuxguy123 wrote: I have logged 2 bugs that are possibly related to this. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528188 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525767 Huh? One of these is a Nouveau bug, the other is a bug in the proprietary nvidia driver, both of them already happened with F12 as released, so these have absolutely nothing to do with this thread. That is what you say. How exactly did you determine that ? OR are you guessing ? I say they have similar symptoms. I said they *might* be related. I bet my bugs have nothing to do with the nouveau or nvidia drivers. I've been saying that all along. I guess we will find out. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 12 Graphics Issues: Cancel F13 and concentrate on fixing F12 ?
On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 14:01 +, Terry Barnaby wrote: Ok, controversial title. I have just tried to test install F12 on some of my systems, (5 different ones). All of these bar 1 has problems with the graphics (X11 lockups, system lockups and other problems) mainly in 3D but also in 2D. I still am using F8 on most of my systems as the Graphics systems have not been stable enough for 3D in Fedora since around those times. I know there is a lot of work going on in the graphics front, I myself have worked on and fed back issues as time and ability allow. During F11 I helped with some issues, but unfortunately none of these made it back into updates for F11 and now F12 is out with yet more issues. The Linux kernel is generally relatively stable, as is the main system libraries etc in Fedora. The core issues most people seem to be facing is Graphics and Sound issues. Obviously a major issue with Graphics is the sheer number of different graphics chip sets in use and the lack of documentation for quite a few of them. Due to this it requires a lot of user testing and feedback to get these issues sorted out. Unfortunately the very fast Fedora new release schedule gets in the way of getting this testing done and things do not get fixed prior to a new release which introduces yet another set of problems. The new release speed also uses a lot of developer and user time in just managing to create a new release and updating systems to use it. I know the quick release cycle is one of Fedora's features in its aim to be close to the leading edge, but this has to be balanced with usability otherwise there will be few people actually using it in anger and thus actually testing the software. This could lead to the demise of Fedora. As an idea, at this stage, how about canceling the F13 release and just fixing and updating the F12 release ? This will concentrate developers and users into one system release. Similar to the pre-release test days we could have post-release test days. For example a Graphics test day for F12 where a certain set of tests with a test suite and a set of well known applications could be run. As F12 would be out longer, more people could participate in this. If a commitment, all round, to producing updates fixing the issues in F12 were made, I think more people would be willing to participate as users could expect to see a stable system for their efforts. +1 on this. I have 4 bugs entered into bugzilla related to display problems and none of them get any attention. I even posted a warning to the group about this matter. (See November 16, Warning about possible display issues with F12 upgrade.) For KDE users, this situation has been building for a while. Back in F9 the Folderview widget didn't work correctly with some nvidia cards, supposedly because of issues in the proprietary nvidia driver. The developer's response to this: tough luck for using a proprietary driver. Now that the open source nvidia driver is out they say to use it. The problem with nouveau is that it has just as many or more problems than the proprietary driver, albeit in different areas. I am not buying that all of the display problems are caused by the proprietary driver. And if they are, why do these bugs get closed ? They should be forwarded to nvidia for work. Aside: I know, the bug reporter should forward them to nvidia. But then why even report a bug to the Redhat bugzilla ? EVERYTHING is upstream to them ! And the problem with reporting the bug (non proprietary nvidia) upstream is that they say that we aren't running the general release of the component, we are running the Fedora version and thus Fedora should fix it. I am VERY frustrated with the state of the display components right now. I am quite frustrated with how display component bugs are handled by the Fedora developers. I think some things need to change. I'm holding back from upgrading to F12 until I hear that some of these issues are resolved. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Fedora 12 Graphics Issues: Cancel F13 and concentrate on fixing F12 ?
On Thu, 2009-11-26 at 20:13 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Specific bug reports are definitely going to help. Here are 4 to start with: 1) Cronometer crashes KDE session. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=504173 2) Display not operating properly https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=528188 Notice that this uses nouveau and it was reported back in rawhide. 3) Blank screen on login https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525767 4) KDE session display gets messed up on Gateway LT3108u https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=525767 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: FESCO ticket#270 - preupgrade and F-12
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 14:56 -0500, James Laska wrote: Greetings folks, After careful review by Will Woods around recently discovered problems related to preupgrading to Fedora 12, I've filed ticket#270 (https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/270) for discussion at the next FESCO meeting. Please take a moment to read the details in the ticket. The high-level summary from Will ... preupgrade to F12 is basically not going to work for anyone without significant manual workarounds, due to insufficient disk space on /boot. How much disk space will one require on /boot to perform the update without work arounds ? Can gparted resize /boot ? Thanks -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: FESCO ticket#270 - preupgrade and F-12
On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 15:10 -0500, James Laska wrote: On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 13:00 -0700, Linuxguy123 wrote: On Thu, 2009-11-12 at 14:56 -0500, James Laska wrote: Greetings folks, After careful review by Will Woods around recently discovered problems related to preupgrading to Fedora 12, I've filed ticket#270 (https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/270) for discussion at the next FESCO meeting. Please take a moment to read the details in the ticket. The high-level summary from Will ... preupgrade to F12 is basically not going to work for anyone without significant manual workarounds, due to insufficient disk space on /boot. How much disk space will one require on /boot to perform the update without work arounds ? From the ticket (see URL above). Here's the details. The default /boot partition is 200MB, but there's some overhead: Ext3/Ext4 overhead: 7MB Reserved space: 10MB F11 kernel: 8MB (at least - usually 3 kernels = 24MB) GRUB/EFI files: 1MB Total overhead: 26MB So there's 174MB of usable space maximum, and usually 158MB available. preupgrade now requires at least 167MB free space on /boot: F12 installer images: 143MB (8mb larger than F11!) F12 kernel: 18MB (10mb larger than F11!) RPM/anaconda tmpfiles: =8MB (measured in stupid tests) Total: 167MB (Was 149MB in F11 - no problem!) With all my kernels removed except the current one, I have this: # df -h FilesystemSize Used Avail Use% Mounted on /dev/sda2 143G 89G 47G 66% / /dev/sda1 190M 14M 167M 8% /boot tmpfs 2.0G 88K 2.0G 1% /dev/shm /dev/sdb1 294G 242G 37G 87% /data uname -a Linux localhost.localdomain 2.6.30.9-96.fc11.i686.PAE #1 SMP Tue Nov 3 23:41:33 EST 2009 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Request for assistance with F11 Sound Issue. (Intel/Pulseaudio)
I, and others, have been without sound since F11 shipped. Sound worked fine for me in F10 and F9 IIRC. I have posted the details of my problem in a thread titled From the top... how do I get sound working in F11 ? in the fedora-list list. As far as I know I have implemented every solution thus offered and none of them have worked. I am willing to spend considerable time troubleshooting this situation with a developer. I will file a bugzilla report if we determine that it is in fact a bug. I will do an extensive write up of how we get sound working on my machine if we are successful. I request that someone knowledgeable with this issue come over to the fedora-list list and assist us with this problem. I feel it would be better to address the issue over there as regular users don't usually come to the developer list to look for solutions like this. Thanks for listening. LG -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
