YUM update conflicts: 'glibc' and 'glibc-common' (F11, x86_64)
Running 'yum update' from the command line, I am getting some file conflicts between different arch/versions of the 'glibc' and 'glibc-common' packages. This machine runs F11-x86_64. Here's the actual error output: Transaction Check Error: file /usr/share/doc/glibc-2.10.1/NEWS from install of glibc-2.10.1-4.i686 conflicts with file from package glibc-2.10.1-2.x86_64 file /usr/bin/ldd from install of glibc-common-2.10.1-4.i586 conflicts with file from package glibc-common-2.10.1-2.x86_64 file /usr/lib/locale/locale-archive.tmpl from install of glibc-common-2.10.1-4.i586 conflicts with file from package glibc-common-2.10.1-2.x86_64 file /usr/share/doc/glibc-common-2.10.1/ChangeLog.bz2 from install of glibc-common-2.10.1-4.i586 conflicts with file from package glibc-common-2.10.1-2.x86_64 file /usr/share/i18n/locales/de_AT from install of glibc-common-2.10.1-4.i586 conflicts with file from package glibc-common-2.10.1-2.x86_64 Is this a known issue, or did I screw something up? Ryan B. Lynch ryan.b.ly...@gmail.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: YUM update conflicts: 'glibc' and 'glibc-common' (F11, x86_64)
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 15:44, Kevin J. Cummings < cummi...@kjchome.homeip.net> wrote: > On 08/22/2009 03:39 PM, Geoffrey Leach wrote: > > On 08/22/2009 12:24:08 PM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: > >> On 08/22/2009 03:17 PM, Ryan Lynch wrote: > >>> Running 'yum update' from the command line, I am getting some file > >>> conflicts between different arch/versions of the 'glibc' and > >>> 'glibc-common' packages. This machine runs F11-x86_64. > >>> > >>> Here's the actual error output: > >>> > >>> > >>> Transaction Check Error: > >>> file /usr/share/doc/glibc-2.10.1/NEWS from install of > >>> glibc-2.10.1-4.i686 conflicts with file from package > >> glibc-2.10.1-2.x86_64 > >>> file /usr/bin/ldd from install of glibc-common-2.10.1-4.i586 > >> conflicts > >>> with file from package glibc-common-2.10.1-2.x86_64 > >>> file /usr/lib/locale/locale-archive.tmpl from install of > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-4.i586 conflicts with file from package > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-2.x86_64 > >>> file /usr/share/doc/glibc-common-2.10.1/ChangeLog.bz2 from > >> install > >> of > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-4.i586 conflicts with file from package > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-2.x86_64 > >>> file /usr/share/i18n/locales/de_AT from install of > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-4.i586 conflicts with file from package > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-2.x86_64 > >>> > >>> > >>> Is this a known issue, or did I screw something up? > >> > >> Something is screwed up. Possibly on your system. glibc-common.i586 > >> is > >> conflicting with glibc-common.i686. I think you need one and not the > >> other. Since you system is a base x86_64, I would suggest trying the > >> following: > >> > >> # yum shell > >>> remove glibc-common.i586 > >>> install glibc-common.i686 > >>> run > >> > >> and see if that helps > > > > H ... perhaps install glibc-common.x86_64? i686 is still 32 bit. > > Not if its a multi-lib problem. I assumed that the x86_64 part would > straighten itself out But yes, he needs to ensure that all of his > secondary libs are either all i586 or all i686 (where he has a choice > between the two) and that they co-exist well with their x86_64 > counterparts (which should be the primary concern anyways). Here's the output of `yum list installed glibc-common glibc`, for reference: Installed Packages glibc.i686 2.10.1-2 installed glibc.x86_64 2.10.1-2 installed glibc-common.x86_642.10.1-2 installed I tried `yum remove glibc.i686`, but it wants to remove 116 packages, for dependencies. Mostly, it looks like stuff I installed while getting Skype for Linux to run, so I'm pretty sure its going to break some things if I remove it all. Isn't this a packaging bug? There's no conflict between my currently-installed 'glibc.i686' and 'glib.x86_64' (2.10.1-2), although there is a conflict between the two archs' 'glibc-common' packages. -Ryan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: YUM update conflicts: 'glibc' and 'glibc-common' (F11, x86_64)
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 16:10, suvayu ali > wrote: > Hi Ryan, > > 2009/8/22 Ryan Lynch : > > I tried `yum remove glibc.i686`, but it wants to remove 116 packages, for > > dependencies. Mostly, it looks like stuff I installed while getting > Skype > > for Linux to run, so I'm pretty sure its going to break some things if I > > remove it all. > > > > That doesn't sound right, the dependencies for skype should be a lot > less. somewhere around 60s. I never said ALL of those packages are related to Skype. -R -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: YUM update conflicts: 'glibc' and 'glibc-common' (F11, x86_64)
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 16:19, Ryan Lynch wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 16:10, suvayu ali > > > wrote: > >> Hi Ryan, >> >> 2009/8/22 Ryan Lynch : >> > I tried `yum remove glibc.i686`, but it wants to remove 116 packages, >> for >> > dependencies. Mostly, it looks like stuff I installed while getting >> Skype >> > for Linux to run, so I'm pretty sure its going to break some things if I >> > remove it all. >> > >> >> That doesn't sound right, the dependencies for skype should be a lot >> less. somewhere around 60s. > > > I never said ALL of those packages are related to Skype. > > -R > Sorry, I meant to add: The point is, I can't just remove 'glibc.i686' without breaking some things. So isn't it irrelevant how many 32-bit packages relate to Skype? -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: FC11 - flash plugin for Firefox
> > If someone knows of another flash plugin that does not have > this problem, please let me know. I know of two other options for Flash support under FF on Linux, but both are worse than Adobe's plugin, in my experience: * gnash: Youtube video and sound work. Many other flash sites fail. * swfdec: Youtube video works, but I get no audio. Many other flash sites fail. I think the problem is that neither gnash nor swfdec support Flash 10 features--I don't know whether 10 represents a new file format, or just some extensions. When the Adobe plugin is installed, FF's about:plugins page lists both Shockwave 9 and Shockwave 10 support, while it only shows 9 with gnash/swfdec. If you want to try them, do a 'yum remove flash-plugin' and then do (for gnash) `yum install gnash gnash-plugin`, or (for swfdec) do `yum install swfdec swfdec-gtk swfdec-mozilla gstreamer-ffmpeg`. I don't know what happens when both are installed at once, you could certainly try it. Make sure to restart FF after installing a new plugin, too. I'm running F11 x86-64, so it's a little different from your setup. Maybe you will get better results than I did. Good luck. -Ryan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: YUM update conflicts: 'glibc' and 'glibc-common' (F11, x86_64)
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 16:55, Kevin J. Cummings < cummi...@kjchome.homeip.net> wrote: > On 08/22/2009 04:00 PM, Ryan Lynch wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 15:44, Kevin J. Cummings > > mailto:cummi...@kjchome.homeip.net>> > wrote: > > > > On 08/22/2009 03:39 PM, Geoffrey Leach wrote: > > > On 08/22/2009 12:24:08 PM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: > > >> On 08/22/2009 03:17 PM, Ryan Lynch wrote: > > >>> Running 'yum update' from the command line, I am getting some > file > > >>> conflicts between different arch/versions of the 'glibc' and > > >>> 'glibc-common' packages. This machine runs F11-x86_64. > > >>> > > >>> Here's the actual error output: > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Transaction Check Error: > > >>> file /usr/share/doc/glibc-2.10.1/NEWS from install of > > >>> glibc-2.10.1-4.i686 conflicts with file from package > > >> glibc-2.10.1-2.x86_64 > > >>> file /usr/bin/ldd from install of glibc-common-2.10.1-4.i586 > > >> conflicts > > >>> with file from package glibc-common-2.10.1-2.x86_64 > > >>> file /usr/lib/locale/locale-archive.tmpl from install of > > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-4.i586 conflicts with file from package > > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-2.x86_64 > > >>> file /usr/share/doc/glibc-common-2.10.1/ChangeLog.bz2 from > > >> install > > >> of > > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-4.i586 conflicts with file from package > > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-2.x86_64 > > >>> file /usr/share/i18n/locales/de_AT from install of > > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-4.i586 conflicts with file from package > > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-2.x86_64 > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> Is this a known issue, or did I screw something up? > > >> > > >> Something is screwed up. Possibly on your system. > glibc-common.i586 > > >> is > > >> conflicting with glibc-common.i686. I think you need one and not > the > > >> other. Since you system is a base x86_64, I would suggest trying > the > > >> following: > > >> > > >> # yum shell > > >>> remove glibc-common.i586 > > >>> install glibc-common.i686 > > >>> run > > >> > > >> and see if that helps > > > > > > H ... perhaps install glibc-common.x86_64? i686 is still 32 > bit. > > > > Not if its a multi-lib problem. I assumed that the x86_64 part would > > straighten itself out But yes, he needs to ensure that all of > his > > secondary libs are either all i586 or all i686 (where he has a choice > > between the two) and that they co-exist well with their x86_64 > > counterparts (which should be the primary concern anyways). > > > > > > > > Here's the output of `yum list installed glibc-common glibc`, for > reference: > > > > > > Installed Packages > > glibc.i686 2.10.1-2 installed > > glibc.x86_64 2.10.1-2 installed > > glibc-common.x86_642.10.1-2 installed > > > > > > I tried `yum remove glibc.i686`, but it wants to remove 116 packages, > > for dependencies. Mostly, it looks like stuff I installed while getting > > Skype for Linux to run, so I'm pretty sure its going to break some > > things if I remove it all. > Ryan, >You are barking up the wrong tree. Your problem is > glibc-common.i586. Something is trying to install this package and it > conflicts with your currently installed glibc-common.i686. > You need to track down where that dependency is coming from and deal > with it. No, I'm pretty sure that's the right tree :-) I didn't post the whole output of 'yum update', though, so that's not your fault. See below. > > Isn't this a packaging bug? There's no conflict between my > > currently-installed 'glibc.i686' and 'glib.x86_64' (2.10.1-2), although > > there is a conflict between the two archs' 'glibc-common' packages. > > > Possibly, but we need to know what is causing it first. i586/i686 are > not meant
Re: YUM update conflicts: 'glibc' and 'glibc-common' (F11, x86_64)
On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 17:48, Ryan Lynch wrote: > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 16:55, Kevin J. Cummings < > cummi...@kjchome.homeip.net> wrote: > >> On 08/22/2009 04:00 PM, Ryan Lynch wrote: >> > On Sat, Aug 22, 2009 at 15:44, Kevin J. Cummings >> > mailto:cummi...@kjchome.homeip.net>> >> wrote: >> > >> > On 08/22/2009 03:39 PM, Geoffrey Leach wrote: >> > > On 08/22/2009 12:24:08 PM, Kevin J. Cummings wrote: >> > >> On 08/22/2009 03:17 PM, Ryan Lynch wrote: >> > >>> Running 'yum update' from the command line, I am getting some >> file >> > >>> conflicts between different arch/versions of the 'glibc' and >> > >>> 'glibc-common' packages. This machine runs F11-x86_64. >> > >>> >> > >>> Here's the actual error output: >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Transaction Check Error: >> > >>> file /usr/share/doc/glibc-2.10.1/NEWS from install of >> > >>> glibc-2.10.1-4.i686 conflicts with file from package >> > >> glibc-2.10.1-2.x86_64 >> > >>> file /usr/bin/ldd from install of glibc-common-2.10.1-4.i586 >> > >> conflicts >> > >>> with file from package glibc-common-2.10.1-2.x86_64 >> > >>> file /usr/lib/locale/locale-archive.tmpl from install of >> > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-4.i586 conflicts with file from package >> > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-2.x86_64 >> > >>> file /usr/share/doc/glibc-common-2.10.1/ChangeLog.bz2 from >> > >> install >> > >> of >> > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-4.i586 conflicts with file from package >> > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-2.x86_64 >> > >>> file /usr/share/i18n/locales/de_AT from install of >> > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-4.i586 conflicts with file from package >> > >>> glibc-common-2.10.1-2.x86_64 >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> Is this a known issue, or did I screw something up? >> > >> >> > >> Something is screwed up. Possibly on your system. >> glibc-common.i586 >> > >> is >> > >> conflicting with glibc-common.i686. I think you need one and not >> the >> > >> other. Since you system is a base x86_64, I would suggest trying >> the >> > >> following: >> > >> >> > >> # yum shell >> > >>> remove glibc-common.i586 >> > >>> install glibc-common.i686 >> > >>> run >> > >> >> > >> and see if that helps >> > > >> > > H ... perhaps install glibc-common.x86_64? i686 is still 32 >> bit. >> > >> > Not if its a multi-lib problem. I assumed that the x86_64 part >> would >> > straighten itself out But yes, he needs to ensure that all of >> his >> > secondary libs are either all i586 or all i686 (where he has a >> choice >> > between the two) and that they co-exist well with their x86_64 >> > counterparts (which should be the primary concern anyways). >> > >> > >> > >> > Here's the output of `yum list installed glibc-common glibc`, for >> reference: >> > >> > >> > Installed Packages >> > glibc.i686 2.10.1-2 installed >> > glibc.x86_64 2.10.1-2 installed >> > glibc-common.x86_642.10.1-2 installed >> > >> > >> > I tried `yum remove glibc.i686`, but it wants to remove 116 packages, >> > for dependencies. Mostly, it looks like stuff I installed while getting >> > Skype for Linux to run, so I'm pretty sure its going to break some >> > things if I remove it all. >> > Ryan, >>You are barking up the wrong tree. Your problem is >> glibc-common.i586. Something is trying to install this package and it >> conflicts with your currently installed glibc-common.i686. >> You need to track down where that dependency is coming from and deal >> with it. > > > > No, I'm pretty sure that's the right tree :-) I didn't post the whole > output o
Re: FC11 - flash plugin for Firefox
If you search for 'leigh123' and 'flash-plugin' and '64 bit' and 'rpm' on fedoraforums.org, there is a very nice RPM and yum repo for Adobe's 64-bit flash-plugin. The packager keeps it reasonably well updated, too. -Ryan On 2009-08-23, John Aldrich wrote: > Coming into this discussion late, but there *is* a Beta version of Flash > for x86_64 linux here: http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer10.html > > Scroll down to the bottom and you'll find the link to the download. > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@redhat.com > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines > -- Ryan B. Lynch ryan.b.ly...@gmail.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: moving a working fedora install from old to new hardware?
Two routes that have worked OK for me in similar circumstances: 1) KVM virtualization: If your hardware supports VT, the old image will basically work with zero changes. Do a basic install w/ libvirt on the new hardware, then 'dd' the whole physical drive image to a file on the new box, and create a new virt guest. Editing ifcfg-eth* files is about the only change you'll make, and the performance is quite good. (For bonus points, switch it to 'virtio' disks/nics--a little extra work, which boosts IO performance.) 2) Manual w/ 'rsync' assistance: Manually migrating isn't hard--it's not like Windows, there's no install-time HAL magic that you can't change. Plus, there are tools (like rsync, and the install ISO) that make it a lot easier. Here's the steps: - Partitioning/formatting: Boot the new machine with an install ISO and get your LVM partitons set up. Its easiest to just let it install a quick, barebones setup, accepting defaults except for the LVM you need. (If you know manual fdisk, LVM, and makefs.* usage, any old boot disk will do, and you can just partition/format it.) - Creating mount points: (still on the new machine running the boot/install disk) Create any mount point dirs in your new LVM root, and mount the LVM volumes on them. Update your existing ftstab on the old box, at this point, to remove any old mounts and add these new ones. - Copying filesystem(s): (back on the new machine, but leave the new one booted w/ that ISO and network-accessible) Run 'rsync' (over GigE, ideally) with the (I think) -a, -H, -A, and -X options, plus the option to copy SElinux context (I forget it, but it's in the man page). Copy from the existing root to the new box's dir that is the new root's temp mount point. (After this, all on the new box.) - Initrd creation: Fedora creates initrds at kernel install time, usually in the RPM post script, using the 'mkinitrd' script. Exact usage depends on your version, but it's not hard--google has some examples, as does FedoraForum. Or, if using the install ISO, you can enter a Chroot and use 'rpm -E ...' to remove the existing kernel package, followed by 'rpm -ih ...' to re-install it. - GRUB installation: Again, you'll have to look up the exact method for you version, but the install ISO and Chroot make this pretty easy. After rebooting the new box, you should be in business--just modify your ifcfg-eth* files and off you go. (I realize #2 is a bit more than your question asked for--apologies if I overran your needs, there.) On 2009-08-24, Robert P. J. Day wrote: > > what is the preferred way to migrate a working fedora install from > an aging box to a newer one? an extra complication is that the old > server has a single root filesystem with everything in it, while the > new, super-fast box is a dual drive system that will be using LVM. so > a simple byte-for-byte clone using "dd" isn't an option. > > so is there a fedora way to say, "make *this* box look just like > *that* box, but do it intelligently"? > > rday > -- > > > Robert P. J. Day Waterloo, Ontario, CANADA > > Linux Consulting, Training and Annoying Kernel Pedantry. > > Web page: http://crashcourse.ca > Twitter: http://twitter.com/rpjday > > > -- > fedora-list mailing list > fedora-list@redhat.com > To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines > -- Ryan B. Lynch ryan.b.ly...@gmail.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: FC11 - flash plugin for Firefox
On 2009-08-23, Markus Kesaromous wrote: > Well, I am no longer runing 64 bit kernel. Since I migrated to F11, I am > using the 32 bit kernel. Ah--I did see that, earlier, sorry. The other comment about 64-bit threw me off. > Also, I did have to resort to the Adobe version 10 flash plugin. > AFA cpu load, it seems to have the lowest load: 70% of cpu while > a video is playing. As I said in my first post, the trouble with the > Adobe flash 10 is this: if I play a video, and after it finishes, I do not > close the window. I switch to other tabs or other tasks. If I come > back and try to play any other video, or even if I try to replay > the same video, I get totally stuttetered sound and then a repetitive > echo of some unitelligible sound. Does adobe even know about this problem? I haven't had quite that level of problems--with Adobe 64-bit Flash, I have no major complaints. Full-screen video is slow, but I'm not sure whether Adobe or my Intel GPU is to blame for that. > I wonder if any graphics chips will provide a flash decoder so that > all the host has to do is send the flash stream directly to the graphics > controller. While truly *awesome*, I don't think it will happen. I imagine it would be much, much cheaper and easier for Adobe to fund a couple more programmers on the Linux Flash port, than for anybody to commission a dedicated HW design and incorporate it into GPUs. Adobe underfunds Linux development because of a perceived lack of desktop market share--they don't see enough Linux users to justify the costs. If Linux market share ever grows big enough, Adobe's cheapest option will just be to improve the Linux port. I don't think 3rd parties could build/sell the hardware, either--Adobe seems to have shut down F/OSS Flash 10 implementations (Patents? I don't actually know.). Whatever the cause, though, I think the same cost-evaluation logic applies to 3rd parties: If you could get permission/exemption to implement Flash 10, wouldn't it be cheaper just to improve Adobe's Linux software port, or write your own, rather than design chips? But I could be wrong about the comparative design costs--this is just my wild speculation. -R -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Anyone using Skype on FC11 ?
> sudo wget -O /etc/pki/rpm-gpg/RPM-GPG-KEY-skype >> http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0xD66B746E >> >> sudo wget -O /etc/yum.repo.d/skype.repo >> http://fedorasolved.org/multimedia-solutions/skype.repo >> > Also, have you tried Skype for MID, yet? I think the version is 3.0.0.93, but I'm not sure whether that's in the same version # scheme as regular Skype. It's a modifed client intended for Linux MIDs (Mobile Internet Devices). * http://www.skype.com/go/getskype-mid I am running it now, on Fedora 11, and it works pretty well with my Logitech QuickCam 9000 USB. It seems to like PulseAudio, after I uncommented and changed some settings. * high-priority = yes * nice-level = 3 * default-fragments = 8 * default-fragment-size-msec = 5 You may not need all of those, I'm not 100% sure which ones solved my problems. (Basically, I was getting sound so choppy that it sounded like short, sharp bursts of static--totally unusable.) After changing settings, do a `killall pulseaudio`, and then restart your client apps (pulseaudio should be automatically restarted when a client requests it). I haven't gotten around to making an F11 RPM spec file, yet, but the manual installation is dead simple: * Untar to '/usr/share/skype/', * copy the 'skype' script 'skype.bin' binary executables to '/usr/bin', and * edit the 'skype' script so that it points to the correct binary path There are a few missing features in MID, but I haven't missed them. -Ryan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Where is pulseaudio started?
On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 13:03, Jonathan Ryshpan wrote: > On Wed, 2009-08-26 at 09:25 +0200, Roberto Ragusa wrote: > > stan wrote: > > > If you are using the default Fedora setup, you have your own version of > > > pulse started when you log in. I notice that it also can be started by > > > programs that need its services, and that seems to be gconf-helper. > > > > Isn't "autospawn" activated by default in /etc/pulse/client.conf? > > That means you can have pulseaudio started by who knows what. > > I don't think so. On my system (Fedora-11 vanilla) autospawn is > commented out. "autospawn" is the default setting. They listed in the file anyway for documentary purposes. In order to disable it, you would un-comment that line and set it manually. -Ryan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Multiple IP addresses without aliasing?
Do the Fedora network init scripts support additional secondary IP addresses without the use of alias labels? Does an option for IPv4 addresses exist that works like IPV6ADDR_SECONDARIES? I just skimmed /usr/share/doc/initscripts-*/sysconfig.txt, but I didn't see anything to that effect, so I'm guessing the answer is no, and I have to use aliases and 'ifcfg-eth?:0' files. -R Ryan B. Lynch ryan.b.ly...@gmail.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Multiple IP addresses without aliasing?
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 17:36, Sam Varshavchik wrote: > Ryan Lynch writes: > >> Do the Fedora network init scripts support additional secondary IP >> addresses without the use of alias labels? Does an option for IPv4 >> addresses exist that works like IPV6ADDR_SECONDARIES? >> >> I just skimmed /usr/share/doc/initscripts-*/sysconfig.txt, but I >> didn't see anything to that effect, so I'm guessing the answer is no, >> and I have to use aliases and 'ifcfg-eth?:0' files. > > Yes, at least for IPv4. There is absolutely no support from the GUI, but you > can manually install /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-ethX:Y. For > example, I have an ifcfg-eth1 and an ifcfg-eth1:1, with a second IP address. > Just copy ifcfg-ethX to ifcfg-ethX:1, and stick in an additional IP address. That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid--I don't want Fedora to add the 'eth0:0', 'eth0:1', etc. labels. I'm wondering if the init scripts support multiple addresses WITHOUT aliases. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Anyone using Skype on FC11 ?
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 14:15, jack craig wrote: > i guess i muffed this one? > > 1. i removed the skype.fc10 > 2. i extracted the tarball to /usr/share/skype (note that i moved > skype-3.0.0.93/* to /usr/share/skype/..) > 3. i coped the skype script to /usr/bin and updated it to be, ... > > #!/bin/sh > # Configure this with paths that suit you. The default should work if you > run ./skype from the current directory. > # > # Example: > # LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/share/skype/Qt4.4:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH ./skype.bin > # > cd /usr/share/skype; LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/share/skype:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH > ./skype.bin $* > > 4. i also copied /usr/share/skype/skype.bin to /usr/bin/. > > But! after launch, i put in my passwd and it comes back with, 'unable to > access skype data files'. > > does my error jump out at you? Hmm... You're using a different modification than what I meant. Here's what I have in my '/usr/bin/skype' script: LD_LIBRARY_PATH=/usr/share/skype:$LD_LIBRARY_PATH /usr/bin/skype.bin $* If I had to guess, I'd say that the LD_LIBRARY_PATH setting is where 'skype.bin' looks for its config file (which should be at '/usr/share/skype/skype.conf', based on how we both did your installations). So I don't know that changing to my usage will work for you--try it, see what happens. -R -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Multiple IP addresses without aliasing?
On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 17:59, Mike Wright wrote: > Ryan Lynch wrote: >> >> On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 17:36, Sam Varshavchik >> wrote: >>> >>> Ryan Lynch writes: >>> >>>> Do the Fedora network init scripts support additional secondary IP >>>> addresses without the use of alias labels? Does an option for IPv4 >>>> addresses exist that works like IPV6ADDR_SECONDARIES? >>>> >>>> I just skimmed /usr/share/doc/initscripts-*/sysconfig.txt, but I >>>> didn't see anything to that effect, so I'm guessing the answer is no, >>>> and I have to use aliases and 'ifcfg-eth?:0' files. >>> >>> Yes, at least for IPv4. There is absolutely no support from the GUI, but >>> you >>> can manually install /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-ethX:Y. For >>> example, I have an ifcfg-eth1 and an ifcfg-eth1:1, with a second IP >>> address. >>> Just copy ifcfg-ethX to ifcfg-ethX:1, and stick in an additional IP >>> address. >> >> That's exactly what I'm trying to avoid--I don't want Fedora to add >> the 'eth0:0', 'eth0:1', etc. labels. I'm wondering if the init >> scripts support multiple addresses WITHOUT aliases. >> > I've never been able to find a solution to that that didn't require running > another script. /etc/rc.local is a kind of "catch all". There are also > /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifup-post and ifdown-post. > > Using iproute2 certainly gives good control. > > ip address add 10.20.30.40/8 dev eth0 > ip address add 10.20.30.41/16 dev eth0 > ip address add 10.20.30.42/24 dev eth0 > ip address add 10.20.30.43/32 dev eth0 > ip address add 192.168.1.1/24 dev eth0 > > is an example of how to add addresses to an interface. > > You may also use the same command to setup routes for your new found > diversity of addresses :) I'm familiar with the manual method. What I'm wondering, now, is whether the init scripts support any method that achieve the same effect. -R -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Multiple IP addresses without aliasing?
On 2009-08-29, Bill Davidsen wrote: > Note, adding a address via "ip" works in some odd ways you might not expect, > and > you have to set up routing by hand as well. What is wrong with the alias > method > which works for the rest of us? I'm aware of the differences in how iproute2 constructs interfaces, and the command syntax, (I do a lot of rule-based routing work), but I appreciate the concern. I can believe that you've never encountered an application or situation where aliased interfaces become awkward. I didn't think it was asking a lot, to believe me that they do exist. But it sounds like maybe you don't, so here goes: * Have you ever tried versioning your system/build configurations in SVN? * And did any of those system/build configurations include 'ifcfg-eth0:0'-style alias config files? * And then, did you try checking out those config SVN repos, for developer access, on Windows workstations? If you don't have that experience, or something similar, then I can understand why you don't appreciate my grumbling over a "method which works for the rest of us." -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
See the options that were passed to a currently-loaded kernel module?
Running 'modinfo ' shows me all of the available module options that could be passed to the module called MODULE_NAME. But I want to know what options were actually passed when the current instance of the module was loaded. I know I can look at the values under '/sys/module//parameters/' and find a pseudofile containing the value of each option parameter. But is there a standard utility that can parse this stuff and format it, or do I have to roll my own, here? -Ryan Ryan B. Lynch ryan.b.ly...@gmail.com -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Fedora 10 auto mounting
On Sun, Oct 25, 2009 at 16:41, Aaron Konstam wrote: > On Sun, 2009-10-25 at 12:28 -0500, Rod Rook wrote: >> Is there any way I can configure Fedora 10 to mount not all but >> certain hard drives automatically? >> >> There must a config file somewhere. >> >> Thank you for your input in advance. > Is this not what fstab allows you to do? Aaron, The OP mentioned "automount" in the subject line. I assume that he wants to use the automounter because he doesn't want to have to create a separate /etc/fstab entry for every single current and future device. As far as I know, '/etc/fstab' can't help with this. Does that sound right, Rod? As for how to actually configure the automounter: No idea, sorry. -Ryan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Passing arguments to initrd's 'init' script.
Is it possible to pass arguments from the kernel (boot) command line to the
'init' script located in my initrd? If so, is there a best-practice method
for doing this?
Looking at the non-initrd system init script '/etc/event.d/rcS', I see that
it just reads '/proc/cmdline' and looks for relevent tokens:
{{{
for t in $(cat /proc/cmdline); do
case $t in
-s|single|S|s) runlevel="S" ;;
[1-9]) runlevel="$t" ;;
esac
done
}}}
I assume that the initrd's 'init' script has access to this same
information, at least after it mounts '/proc'. Is there some reason not to
use this from the initrd, or is it acceptable?
This is related to a larger question I have about 'mkinitrd' and the 'init'
script: Why does 'mkinitrd' hard-code the name of the LVM root device,
among other things, instead of reading it from the 'root=' parameter on the
boot command line? Wouldn't it make more sense to dynamically pick up the
root device on each boot, using a method similar to the 'rcS' script, above?
-Ryan
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@redhat.com
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
CPU frequency scaling problems in F10
I'm using the latest F10 updates on a Dell Inspiron 8600 notebook (Pentium M 1.4 GHz), and the CPU frequency scaling appears to be malfunctioning. I think this is a new issue, but it's hard to say--I only noticed it recently, but it's possible that I just wasn't paying attention. Basically, the system won't let me set the CPU frequency to the maximum (1400 MHz), and it keeps fluctuating between 1000 and 1200 MHz as the load on the system changes. Also, the fluctuations are kind of random: Even if the load average is above 2.0 and rising, the frequency will stay at 1000 MHz as the box starts to choke up. The machine is basically unuseable under KDE4, right now--I'm struggle just to type this email. I tried selecting the "performance" option from the system tray applet, which I've read is supposed to peg the CPU frequency at the highest level. No effect. I've also tried exiting from the applet, killing the HAL cpu daemon, and setting manual minimum/maximum values via Sysfs. This last trick rejected 1400 MHz as a valid setting, even though Sysfs reports it as one of the available frequencies, and in any event it wouldn't stick--the machine switched back to 1000 MHz after a few minutes. I'm not running 'cpuspeed' or 'cpufreqd' or anything like that, as far as I know. Is there something I'm missing, here? -Ryan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
PackageKit run scheduling?
PackageKit has been driving me nuts, lately. It will kick off installing updates in the middle of the day, while I'm trying to work, which drives my load average up to 3 or 4, basically making the machine unusable. Is there a way to control when PackageKit runs? I'd like to schedule it to download and install all updates at 3 AM, every night. Alternatively, how do I disable PackageKit entirely? -Ryan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: CPU frequency scaling problems in F10
I fixed this, so in case anybody else runs into a similar problem, here you go: As I understand it, a kernel ACPI facility called "PPC", related to how processors express their capabilities to the OS, is faulty, or the machine BIOS is faulty. Either way, this PPC facility is incorrectly warning the CPU Frequency scaling facility that the CPU is running too fast, which causes the scaling facility to slow down unnecessarily. This requires a kernel or BIOS update to fix, but there is a decent workaround: Set the 'processor' module parameter called 'ignore_ppc' from the default '0' value to '1'. At runtime, you can set it via the R/W SysFS node '/sys/module/processor/parameters/ignore_ppc'. At boot time, use the option 'processor.ignore_ppc=1'--I added this to 'grub.conf'. See http://kerneltrap.org/index.php?q=mailarchive/linux-kernel/2008/5/23/1922554/threadfor more information. On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Ryan Lynch wrote: > I'm using the latest F10 updates on a Dell Inspiron 8600 notebook (Pentium > M 1.4 GHz), and the CPU frequency scaling appears to be malfunctioning. I > think this is a new issue, but it's hard to say--I only noticed it recently, > but it's possible that I just wasn't paying attention. > > Basically, the system won't let me set the CPU frequency to the maximum > (1400 MHz), and it keeps fluctuating between 1000 and 1200 MHz as the load > on the system changes. Also, the fluctuations are kind of random: Even if > the load average is above 2.0 and rising, the frequency will stay at 1000 > MHz as the box starts to choke up. The machine is basically unuseable under > KDE4, right now--I'm struggle just to type this email. > > I tried selecting the "performance" option from the system tray applet, > which I've read is supposed to peg the CPU frequency at the highest level. > No effect. I've also tried exiting from the applet, killing the HAL cpu > daemon, and setting manual minimum/maximum values via Sysfs. This last > trick rejected 1400 MHz as a valid setting, even though Sysfs reports it as > one of the available frequencies, and in any event it wouldn't stick--the > machine switched back to 1000 MHz after a few minutes. > > I'm not running 'cpuspeed' or 'cpufreqd' or anything like that, as far as I > know. > > Is there something I'm missing, here? > > -Ryan > -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: new install, Firewall, anti-virus?
Hey, Jim: On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 19:15, Jim Douglas wrote: > Is the firewall up and running by default effective? It's a home machine but > I plan on adding a web server. The default Fedora firewall is pretty good. Just make sure that the 'iptables' service is running (should be, by default). You can use the GUI 'system-config-services' tool to look at what's running, or run 'sudo service iptables status' from the command line. About that web server... See below for an opinion on that. > What is the best anti-virus? In my experience, most Linux users/systems don't bother. I think it's generally considered to be a low-probability threat on Linux. You can certainly use ClamAV (open-source signature-based AV), but I don't know how much it will integrate with your other programs' usage. You're almost definitely NOT going to find the kind of comprehensive, all-seeing, all-knowing, checks-all-file-access AntiVirus suite that you've grown to know in the Windows world. Here are some basic local desktop usage rules that should keep you pretty safe: - Run a firewall that blocks unsolicited Internet traffic. - Don't run anything as 'root'. Configure and use 'sudo', and keep the password checking turned on, even though it's a little hassle. - Keep any data that you want to protect in your home directory, and remove access to your home dir for "other" (non-owner, non-group) users. - Make regular backups of your home directory, and store your backups on physically separate media (a remote machine, maybe, or an external hard drive). Keep your backup disk physically disconnected when you're not making/restoring a backup, or at least change the ownership and permissions of the stored backups so that only 'root' can access or modify them. Now, about your web server: Lots of people do this, and it can be perfectly safe. BUT: Any internet-accessible service represents a potential vector of attack. If you take the precautions outlined above, but you poke a hole in the firewall to allow HTTP/HTTPS traffic to your web server, you have to treat that web server process a little more carefully. Read up on securing your web server, and make sure you understand the security mechanisms (SELinux, chroot, privilege separation, filesystem perms, etc.) that are in place. You will probably be OK--a little effort/knowledge will make the next guy a bigger target than you. Good luck. -Ryan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Upgrades driving me crazy....
Hi, Michael, On Wed, Nov 11, 2009 at 17:35, Michael Pawlowsky wrote: > Is FC simply a bad choice for enterprise production. > > I'm starting to want to try CentOS soon. Unfortunately this will mean not > always being able to take advantage of the latest features in software and > so on. > > So I was just wondering what other people in this situation do? I really don't understand something, here. First, you blast Fedora for its high-speed upgrade treadmill. OK, fair enough--that gets on my nerves, too, at times. But then, near the end of your email, you complain that Red Hat/CentOS lacks the newest updates. Huh? Which is it--do you want the updates, or not? -Ryan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: internet (without LAN) monthly traffic statistics
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 09:27, Dj YB wrote: > iptraf is really complicated and require too many changes, > vnstat doesn't support the separation using single interface... > any help on this matter will be greatly appreciated. Cacti is good at this, and I think MRTG can do it, too. But neither of those is simple to set up. I'd give them a try, though, you might do OK. Depending on exactly what numbers you need, NTop is also a possibility. It's dead easy to set up, and it's capable of breaking out separate interfaces. The level of detail will be enormous, but it's actually (IMHO) much easier/faster to get running than either Cacti or MRTG. If you're good with any scripting languages, you might want to consider just polling the kernel's interface counters, yourself, via a regular 'cron' job. That might not be an option, though, depending on your skill level. -Ryan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: How to import a Fedora Core 7 era KVM Image to Fedora 12?
On Tue, Nov 24, 2009 at 23:40, Michael N. Moran wrote: > I recently installed Fedora 12 after using Fedora Core 7 > for last couple of years. I have a Windoze KVM/Qemu image > that I would like to import to run on my shiny new Fedora > 12. > > I've launched Virtual Machine Manager, but it doesn't seem > to like my old .raw image file. > > Any pointers? Two suggestions: - Your description of the problem is pretty vague, which makes it kind of hard to help you. If you can thoroughly document the steps you took and the specific failure behavior you saw, maybe somebody could help identify your problem. - There is a mailing list specifically for libvirt: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list. You'll probably get more useful suggestions if you post a detailed description of your problem to that list. -Ryan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Default keyring for NetworkManager
On Sat, Nov 28, 2009 at 07:20, Frank Elsner wrote: > On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 13:26:39 + Marko Vojinovic wrote: > First of all: Do not use Network Manager. I don't get it--why should he not use NetworkManager? -Ryan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: installing fedora packages on RHEL -- how bad the craziness?
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 08:31, Martin Airs wrote: > Could you not install from sources > > get poppler.?.?.?.src.rpm > > then rpmbuild --rebuild poppler.?.?.?.src.rpm > > that should build you a centos rpm At work, some of my colleagues prefer to compile and install from source into '/usr/local' for non-distro software. I happen to think that way of doing things is just a whole lot of extra work for nothing. Usually, I prefer to use the route that Martin describes: Rebuild the Fedora SRPM on your CentOS/RH box, and install the binaries that it outputs. Usually, libraries will be backwards-compatible, so you don't need to worry about breaking any existing deps. (This is why most packages will just express specifically-versioned deps as "Library X, at any version greater than Y.Z"--future revisions of the library past Y.Z probably aren't going to remove any functionality or break any existing expectations.) But often enough, newer versions of some package will break existing behavior. Python is a good example of this: Fedora broke older Zope applications that depended on older Python versions when it moved to Python 2.6, which raised a small amount of Cain with the users of the broken Zope apps. (Fedora's official philosophy is that they don't want to stall their progress, or make extra work for the distro maintainers, just because some random app developer is too busy to update his code to use the latest Zope/Python. I happen to think it's a reasonable stance.) If you find yourself in the latter situation, you do have the option of convert the original dependency into a 'compat-' style package, which moves the older version's installed files into a different path on the filesystem, so that you can keep both the older and newer versions installed at the same time. In the case of the Python 2.4->2.6 transition, one of the 3rd-party YUM repos (I think ATRPMs, but it might be RPMFusion) built a package called 'compat-python24' that moved the Python installation from '/usr/lib/python' to '/usr/lib/python24' (and similarly for '/usr/bin', etc.). So 2.6 is your default Python if you call '/usr/bin/python', but 2.4 is available if you call '/usr/bin/python24', instead. But it can be a heck of a lot of work to convert everything, and then you become responsible for maintaining the 'compat-' package, too. I think that the extra work is the reason why Fedora doesn't usually just do this by default. There are exceptions, but only with good reasons attached. -Ryan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Getting rid of /boot
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 19:45, Marc Wilson wrote: > On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Tom H wrote: > >> I had understood the complexity to be the separate /boot not the use of >> lvm... > > Actually, the complexity is that Fedora for some insane reason still > defaults to using LVM for everything *other* than /boot. This brings > no benefit to most users. With all due respect, the fact that one of us can't imagine the need for some technology doesn't say much, one way or another, about whether a general use case exists. In general, I find this attitude amusing, but you may have a point W.R.T. LVM. Some people have high skill and comfort levels working with LVM, and find all sorts of helpful uses for it. (Me, for instance.) But I work with more experienced UNIX/Linux admins who start cussing and moaning whenever they need to interact with it, and if you offer to help, the answer is often something along the lines of "You can help by getting rid of LVM!" I see similar sentiments on the mailing lists, too--some people really dislike it. I wonder whether it might be a solution in search of a problem. I can rattle off a list of LVM applications that have helped me, in the past (live backups w/ snapshotting, transparent expansion across new disks), but that never seems to convince the anti-LVM crowd. When we get into lunch-hour debates about the merits and flaws, the usual responses are along the lines of "But you wouldn't *need* to do any of those things, if you'd designed your system correctly." I think you made a similar point, in your emails. But the flexibility is great, and I can think of dozens of situations where LVM's features saved me hours and days of time, or an inconvenient reboot, or just simplified some disk operation for me. I think the difference is that I know LVM *really* well, so I'm never frustrated by having to remember how the hell some obscure command option is supposed to work, or how to recover a VG with a missing PV when a RAID disk fails. But just to bring this back to the topic: From the day that Fedora re-unites /boot and / on a single LVM volume, I will henceforce script a YUM pre-upgrade hook that automatically takes a "before" snapshot of the entire system, for idiot-proof rollback if anything gets out of line. That will be a hell of a neat trick. -Ryan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
Re: Getting rid of /boot
On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 20:13, Matthew Saltzman wrote: > Well, it means I can have separate filesystems for things that I don't > want overwritten if I reinstall (/home, /usr/local, /opt, /var/www, > etc.) and I can dynamically resize them if they get unbalanced. That's > pretty useful. Out of curiousity, what filesystem do you use to get dynamic shrinking? -Ryan -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
