Re: Xinetd resurrection
On Sun, Sep 20, 2009 at 7:40 PM, Lorenzo Villani lvill...@binaryhelix.netwrote: On 09/20/2009 06:28 PM, Steve Grubb wrote: Not at all. These days the only need for xinetd is in memory constrained systems. For mainline x86_64 bought with typically 4Gb of main memory, xinetd is a thing of the past. That's my point. Well, I am probably part of that 0.01% who would like some services to start on-demand. For example I don't print all the time and I prefer to have cups start only when needed, then die instead of having it waiting for no real purpose. Now, this is a case in which it doesn't make sense (you start xinetd instead of cups for no real gain) but it can be useful with some setups. Even if I have a quad-core system with 4Gb of memory available I always prefer to find a better use for it. What about launchd ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Launchd http://developer.apple.com/macosx/launchd.html Sound good But it really have MUCH more functionality of xinetd (or the old inetd) -- Lorenzo V. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Troubles running F9 mock chroot under F11
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 3:31 PM, Jan Kratochvil jan.kratoch...@redhat.com wrote: Hi, filed as: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=523698 how to possibly fix the problem by a backport from rpm5.org as suggested by Jeff Johnson. For rpm 4.4 the backport was already filled but reject. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464752 Thanks, Jan -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: prelink: is it worth it?
On Thu, Jul 9, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Adam Miller maxamill...@gmail.com wrote: I am curious as to this answer as well because prelink has been something that actually hurt my netbook in performance so I nuked it. There are also other two big problem, imho, now, with prelink support: 1 - it render impossibile to do a centralizzated integrity checker (with as example rfc.sf.net ): very very bad 2 - not checked if this problem is actual or not: prelink erases file-based capabilities https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456105 If actual it render new rpm possibility in this area pointless -Adam -- http://maxamillion.googlepages.com - () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Heads up: NoArch Sub Packages Feature continues
On Mon, Jun 15, 2009 at 6:21 PM, Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com wrote: On 06/15/2009 07:19 AM, Florian Festi wrote: I've been thinking about proposing a Guideline that says header files should not be placed in noarch packages. Header files can contain architecture specific bits. We currently do not have an automated method for detecting whether header files are different on different arches. When architecture specific information is encoded in header files and the wrong architecture headers are installed, subtle bugs can be introduced. These bugs can be made worse because the problems can occur and disappear unpredictably, based on which architecture the noarch package was built on. Some specific example could be clarify the issue, because it is istintive to put noarch the header package. -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: More mock problems
On Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Neal Becker ndbeck...@gmail.com wrote: mock -r fedora-devel-x86_64 --shell INFO: mock.py version 0.9.14 starting... State Changed: init plugins State Changed: start State Changed: lock buildroot mock-chroot rpm -q igraph rpmdb: Program version 4.7 doesn't match environment version 4.5 error: db4 error(-30971) from dbenv-open: DB_VERSION_MISMATCH: Database environment version mismatch error: cannot open Packages index using db3 - (-30971) error: cannot open Packages database in /var/lib/rpm rpmdb: Program version 4.7 doesn't match environment version 4.5 error: db4 error(-30971) from dbenv-open: DB_VERSION_MISMATCH: Database environment version mismatch error: cannot open Packages database in /var/lib/rpm package igraph is not installed Seems related to this patch rejected for rpm for RHEL and CENTOS. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464752 Regards -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
Re: Proposal (and yes, I'm willing to do stuff!): Must Use More Macros
On Sat, Jun 6, 2009 at 6:44 PM, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: yersinia wrote: In @rpm5.org, yes. rpm5.org is not the upstream for Fedora's RPM. Sure, but it is only for info. Anyway it is only for MANDRIVA vendor in configure. Exists so many rpm fork in place in the world. Regards -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
