Adobe Reader gets Gtk-WARNIKNG
Hi all, I like to use Adobe Reader to view PDF files on SL 6.4 and have installed the version 9.5.4. When I use it to open a PDF with the command line below: acroread foo.pdf I got a lot (acroread:5362): Gtk-WARNING **: Unable to locate theme engine in module_path: clearlooks, and I still can read the PDF without any problems. The Gtk-WARNING could means that Adobe Reader has selected a theme that uses the theme engine clearlooks, which is not installed on the system. Some suggests to install gtk-theme-engine-clearlooks, but it is not in the list when I did yum list gtk* Some suggests to install gtk2-engines.i686, but I already have gtk2-engines-2.18.4-5.el6.x86_64 on SL6.4. Should gtk2-engines.i686 be installed? Any suggestions? -Daniel.
Re: vlc repo
On 22/04/13 06:47, W K Daniel PUN wrote: Hi John, other, Thank you very much for your reply. I did try to use atrpms. After installing vlc, the system keep asking me to update a few libs and when I did it and got following errors. The vlc is working fine with my system at the moment. I don't want to remove the repos epel and rpmforge from my system. Do I really need to get these updates done? If don't, how can these update messages be stopped coming? Or, should --skip-broken be used to work around as suggested? Thanks, -Daniel. You now have a mixed set of packages; I warned you about that. I don't think you need to remove the other repos, but you ought to try disabling them during the installation process. Todd's script looks as if it will do that - although you might now need to reinstall rather than upgrade - but other conflicts may emerge. I shall probably be working with variants of that script to reconfigure my Fedora box, but my experience of mixing these repos is limited. John P
Re: vlc repo
On 22 April 2013 22:40, W K Daniel PUN danielw...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks John. I didn't realise that I have already got a mixed set of packages. What I tried to do now is that I remove the vlc package and then reinstall it with sudo yum --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=atrpms install vlc The installation is okay, but the Security update message still come. Extensible Binary Meta Language library libebml-1.2.1-1.el6 (x86_64) Open audio/video container format library libmatroska-1.2.0-1.el6 (x86_64) Modplug mod music file format library libmodplug-1:0.8.8.3-2.el6 (x86_64) Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) SDK libupnp-1.6.18-2.el6 (x86_64) When click on update, I got No packages to update None of the slected packages could be updated. More details vlc-2.0.5-6.el6.x86_64 requires libthreadutil.so.2()(64bit) vlc-2.0.5-6.el6.x86_64 requires libupnp.so.3()(64bit) vlc-2.0.5-6.el6.x86_64 requires libebml.so.2()(64bit) vlc-2.0.5-6.el6.x86_64 requires libmodplug.so.0()(64bit) vlc-2.0.5-6.el6.x86_64 requires libmatroska.so.2()(64bit) : Success - empty transaction How can these 4 updates be stopped? Thanks, -Daniel. On 22 April 2013 17:45, John Pilkington j.p...@tesco.net wrote: On 22/04/13 06:47, W K Daniel PUN wrote: Hi John, other, Thank you very much for your reply. I did try to use atrpms. After installing vlc, the system keep asking me to update a few libs and when I did it and got following errors. The vlc is working fine with my system at the moment. I don't want to remove the repos epel and rpmforge from my system. Do I really need to get these updates done? If don't, how can these update messages be stopped coming? Or, should --skip-broken be used to work around as suggested? Thanks, -Daniel. You now have a mixed set of packages; I warned you about that. I don't think you need to remove the other repos, but you ought to try disabling them during the installation process. Todd's script looks as if it will do that - although you might now need to reinstall rather than upgrade - but other conflicts may emerge. I shall probably be working with variants of that script to reconfigure my Fedora box, but my experience of mixing these repos is limited. John P
Re: vlc repo
On 22/04/13 13:40, W K Daniel PUN wrote: On 22 April 2013 17:45, John Pilkington j.p...@tesco.net mailto:j.p...@tesco.net wrote: On 22/04/13 06:47, W K Daniel PUN wrote: Hi John, other, Thank you very much for your reply. I did try to use atrpms. After installing vlc, the system keep asking me to update a few libs and when I did it and got following errors. The vlc is working fine with my system at the moment. I don't want to remove the repos epel and rpmforge from my system. Do I really need to get these updates done? If don't, how can these update messages be stopped coming? Or, should --skip-broken be used to work around as suggested? Thanks, -Daniel. You now have a mixed set of packages; I warned you about that. I don't think you need to remove the other repos, but you ought to try disabling them during the installation process. Todd's script looks as if it will do that - although you might now need to reinstall rather than upgrade - but other conflicts may emerge. I shall probably be working with variants of that script to reconfigure my Fedora box, but my experience of mixing these repos is limited. John P Thanks John. I didn't realise that I have already got a mixed set of packages. What I tried to do now is that I remove the vlc package and then reinstall it with sudo yum --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=atrpms install vlc The installation is okay, but the Security update message still come. Extensible Binary Meta Language library libebml-1.2.1-1.el6 (x86_64) Open audio/video container format library libmatroska-1.2.0-1.el6 (x86_64) Modplug mod music file format library libmodplug-1:0.8.8.3-2.el6 (x86_64) Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) SDK libupnp-1.6.18-2.el6 (x86_64) When click on update, I got No packages to update None of the slected packages could be updated. More details vlc-2.0.5-6.el6.x86_64 requires libthreadutil.so.2()(64bit) vlc-2.0.5-6.el6.x86_64 requires libupnp.so.3()(64bit) vlc-2.0.5-6.el6.x86_64 requires libebml.so.2()(64bit) vlc-2.0.5-6.el6.x86_64 requires libmodplug.so.0()(64bit) vlc-2.0.5-6.el6.x86_64 requires libmatroska.so.2()(64bit) : Success - empty transaction How can these 4 updates be stopped? Thanks, -Daniel. Your last post came direct to me and didn't go to the list. I still haven't found the best way to reply on this list, but please check before hitting send. Note: I need to heed my own advice here. Resending to list. And I suspect that this list, like most others that I use, prefers 'bottom posting', so I've changed that. I have just spent the morning moving my Fedora 17 box from an ATrpms base to rpmfusion; it still has unresolved problems. I recently did the same with my SL6 laptop. You have chosen to go the other way, so I can't easily compare what we see. Your 'vlc requires' messages may be looking for packages from ATrpms-testing, which your command line above won't have enabled - you omitted a *. The name doesn't mean what it says; it just marks packages that may change RHEL functionality. The others may be from rpmfusion and you may be able to remove them by rpm -e if you don't need them elsewhere. I don't think I can offer any more help. Good luck. John P
rpm repository and distribution concordance
I have appended to what is hopefully a new topic (lest I dare modify an existing topic and thus contaminate proper list thread indexing) the reason for this post -- that is hence a top post (new topic). We too have found similar issues when we leave SL6x and obtain compiled RPMs (binaries) from other repositories, usually requiring the enablement of that repository in the list of repositories from which to seek the dependency RPMs. I am not asking for a strict resolution of this issue from the SL providers. Rather, is there a way to get a list of conflicts between repositories? Is there a way to do an accurate dry run so that one can discover dynamically (at the time when one is contemplating the installation of a RPM) of the conflicts? Is there a way to automatically select the precedence of repositories? To be clear, here is my meaning of precedence. Each repository can be regarded as a set (possibly ordered), with overlaps by package content functionality although not necessarily identical revision level of said functionalities; e.g., library x.rev(n) versus x.rev(m), m .ne. n. One might want a precedence resolution rule. To be concrete, suppose there are three repositories, SL 6x, A, and B. The rule might be: use RPMs from SL 6x; if the functionality exists in A and B but not SL 6x, use A and replace all SL6x dependencies with A; otherwise, use whichever RPMs from SL6x, A, or B, that support the maximum number of other requested packages and, in the event of a multimodal distribution (ties in the integer maxima), pick SL6x first, next A, and lastly B (thus, in the event of such ties, B would never be chosen). The above would be deterministic. If the resulting system does not in fact support full functionality (use of B breaks more important functionalities supplied by, say, SL6x), modify the rules, automatically remove the offending RPMs from the system that were provided by, say, B, and re-update. If using the order of precedence methodology above seems too automatic for some, then again -- a means to determine dependency conflicts and do a manual evaluation before committing. Yasha Karant On 22/04/13 13:40, W K Daniel PUN wrote: On 22 April 2013 17:45, John Pilkington j.p...@tesco.net mailto:j.p...@tesco.net wrote: On 22/04/13 06:47, W K Daniel PUN wrote: Hi John, other, Thank you very much for your reply. I did try to use atrpms. After installing vlc, the system keep asking me to update a few libs and when I did it and got following errors. The vlc is working fine with my system at the moment. I don't want to remove the repos epel and rpmforge from my system. Do I really need to get these updates done? If don't, how can these update messages be stopped coming? Or, should --skip-broken be used to work around as suggested? Thanks, -Daniel. You now have a mixed set of packages; I warned you about that. I don't think you need to remove the other repos, but you ought to try disabling them during the installation process. Todd's script looks as if it will do that - although you might now need to reinstall rather than upgrade - but other conflicts may emerge. I shall probably be working with variants of that script to reconfigure my Fedora box, but my experience of mixing these repos is limited. John P Thanks John. I didn't realise that I have already got a mixed set of packages. What I tried to do now is that I remove the vlc package and then reinstall it with sudo yum --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=atrpms install vlc The installation is okay, but the Security update message still come. Extensible Binary Meta Language library libebml-1.2.1-1.el6 (x86_64) Open audio/video container format library libmatroska-1.2.0-1.el6 (x86_64) Modplug mod music file format library libmodplug-1:0.8.8.3-2.el6 (x86_64) Universal Plug and Play (UPnP) SDK libupnp-1.6.18-2.el6 (x86_64) When click on update, I got No packages to update None of the slected packages could be updated. More details vlc-2.0.5-6.el6.x86_64 requires libthreadutil.so.2()(64bit) vlc-2.0.5-6.el6.x86_64 requires libupnp.so.3()(64bit) vlc-2.0.5-6.el6.x86_64 requires libebml.so.2()(64bit) vlc-2.0.5-6.el6.x86_64 requires libmodplug.so.0()(64bit) vlc-2.0.5-6.el6.x86_64 requires libmatroska.so.2()(64bit) : Success - empty transaction How can these 4 updates be stopped? Thanks, -Daniel. Your last post came direct to me and didn't go to the list. I still haven't found the best way to reply on this list, but please check before hitting send. Note: I need to heed my own advice here. Resending to list. And I suspect that this list, like most others that I use, prefers 'bottom posting', so I've changed that. I have just spent the morning moving my Fedora 17 box from an
Mirror questions
I am trying to setup a mirror (internal initially, might make public). It seems to be taking significantly more space than expected based on the FAQ. The page on https://www.scientificlinux.org/download/mirroring/mirror.rsync recommends --exclude=archive/obsolete and --exclude=archive/debuginfo. Any reason not to also exclude archives/obsolete and archives/debuginfo too? They seem rather big and are under the 5rolloing directory. Perhaps a mistake in the directory name as 6rolling is called archive? Also, sites/example under most seem to be going forever and causing part of my problem. Is some sym or hard link not syncing correctly? For example: http://rsync.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/53/i386/sites/example/sites/example/sites/example/sites/example/sites/example/sites/example/sites/example/sites/example/ (etc...)
Re: vlc repo
On 04/22/2013 07:03 AM, John Pilkington wrote: I still haven't found the best way to reply on this list, The list is missing the Delivered-To: tag. It should say Delivered-To: scientific-linux-us...@listserv.fnal.gov I tried to get the list administrator to fix it a year or so ago and got nowhere. I don't think they ever intend to fix it. To work around it, I press Reply-all:, then remove the To: (the senders personal address) and change the Cc: to To: (SL users). I do wish the list administer would fix this: a lot of good stuff does not go into the archives because of it. -T
