Re: Are There Working CheckSums For SL LiveDVD?
On 07/06/15 14:56, Tini wrote: I wanted to try, http://ftp1.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/livecd/66/i386/SL-66-i386-2014-11-09-LiveDVD.iso but the two checksums are invalid. 9cc64db53fbb5b1bb7cc838eb59563921bd9f7b7 SL-66-i386-2014-11-09-LiveDVD.md5sum bd575af4452d24401541eee8a653f82521186d4a8f78afbe83d6bd6bf9c6ba13 SL-66-i386-2014-11-09-LiveDVD.md5sum I get no properly formatted MD5 checksum lines found Are there any working tags for SL-66-i386-2014-11-09-LiveDVD.md5sum? The web pages that I see give SHA1 and SHA256 sums, not an md5 sum
Are There Working CheckSums For SL LiveDVD?
I wanted to try, http://ftp1.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/livecd/66/i386/SL-66-i386-2014-11-09-LiveDVD.iso but the two checksums are invalid. 9cc64db53fbb5b1bb7cc838eb59563921bd9f7b7 SL-66-i386-2014-11-09-LiveDVD.md5sum bd575af4452d24401541eee8a653f82521186d4a8f78afbe83d6bd6bf9c6ba13 SL-66-i386-2014-11-09-LiveDVD.md5sum I get no properly formatted MD5 checksum lines found Are there any working tags for SL-66-i386-2014-11-09-LiveDVD.md5sum?
Re: Wine staging?
On 05/28/2015 07:51 PM, ToddAndMargo wrote: Dear EPEL, Just got word that Fedora switched to Wine-staging: https://forum.winehq.org/viewtopic.php?f=8t=23535 The Fedora wine packages are now being built from wine-staging (formerly known as wine-compholio), a heavily patched, third party version of Wine. Like all third party versions of Wine, it is not supported here. It appears that Fedora no longer packages plain Wine at all, and does not plan on doing so in the future. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1147271 Please do not file bugs or AppDB test reports or ask for help on the forum or in IRC if you are using the Fedora packages and have not tested your application in plain Wine. Problems that cannot be reproduced in plain Wine should be reported to https://bugs.wine-staging.com. Do you guys know what EPEL's plans are for Wine-Staging? (Maybe the will fix some bugs?) Many thanks, -T I asked EPEL with an RFE on their Bugzilla. They said that EPEL only supported Wine Staging. When I pointed out that they were still on regular Wine, the RFE turned into a BUG. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228380 -- ~~ Computers are like air conditioners. They malfunction when you open windows ~~
Re: Adding files to the sl repo
On 06/05/2015 09:03 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On Jun 5, 2015 14:25, ToddAndMargo toddandma...@zoho.com mailto:toddandma...@zoho.com wrote: On 06/05/2015 11:59 AM, Tom H wrote: On Fri, Jun 5, 2015 at 1:57 PM, ToddAndMargo toddandma...@zoho.com mailto:toddandma...@zoho.com wrote: The only exception is that if it is supported by the Fedora project. RHEL and clones are variations of Fedora. SL6 is essentially Fedora Core 13 and SL7 is essentially Fedora Core 21. I doubt that the RHEL developers would like the essentially. Chuckle! But they'd love to know that they have a time machine given that F21 was released on December 9th and RHEL7 was released on June 10th. :) Chuckle! 7.x not 7.0. Red Hat uses Fedora as their proving/testing ground, then wraps it up into RHEL. RHEL 7 is based off of fedora 19 with only few items back ported. RHEL 20 and 21 might only have a few items moved over to 7.1 but the majority of things from kernel and GCC and glibc are from 18 and 19. Rhel 6 is based off of fedora 12 and rhel 5 is based off of fedora 6 -T This is why I used the weasel word essentially. :-) A lot of FC22's RPM will work in SL 7.
Re: Adding files to the sl repo
On 06/06/2015 12:37 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: On Jun 6, 2015 07:10, Alan Bartlett a...@elrepo.org mailto:a...@elrepo.org wrote: On 6 June 2015 at 05:03, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com mailto:smo...@gmail.com wrote: snip RHEL 20 and 21 might . . . snip Either I have been asleep for a very long time or perhaps application of s/RHEL/Fedora/ is appropriate. ;-) Alan. You are right. Oops I had to read it three times before I caught it. :-)
