On Wednesday 07 June 2006 12:02 pm, Günter Lichtenberg wrote:
> > Smart isn't so smart..d'led something that KDE doesn't like, and
> > KILLED KDE...won't start up. Thankfully, I still have Gnome.
>
> Also for me KDE did not want to start - maybe it's the same as your
> problem. The solution was
On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 18:02 +0200, Günter Lichtenberg wrote:
> >
> > Smart isn't so smart..d'led something that KDE doesn't like, and KILLED
> > KDE...won't start up. Thankfully, I still have Gnome.
> >
>
> Also for me KDE did not want to start - maybe it's the same as your problem.
> The sol
>
> Smart isn't so smart..d'led something that KDE doesn't like, and KILLED
> KDE...won't start up. Thankfully, I still have Gnome.
>
Also for me KDE did not want to start - maybe it's the same as your problem.
The solution was: for some reason I still (or again?) had kdebase3-5.1 while
all
On Tuesday 06 June 2006 8:35 am, Kevin Donnelly wrote:
> On Monday 05 June 2006 15:32, Pascal Bleser wrote:
> > Works perfectly for me (and I haven't heard that complaint about it, at
> > least not yet ;)).
>
> At the minute, Smart is by far the most reliable and easily-installed
> package manager
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Janne Karhunen wrote:
> On Monday 05 June 2006 20:35, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
>
>>> OK, so all we're left with is the burden of syncronizing between
>>> these. Not quite as bad as i thought, but still.
>> how about: decide for one of them? that would s
On Monday 05 June 2006 20:35, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
> > OK, so all we're left with is the burden of syncronizing between
> > these. Not quite as bad as i thought, but still.
>
> how about: decide for one of them? that would solve the problem.
Okay, so - which one works or am i clueless again?
A
On Monday 05 June 2006 15:32, Pascal Bleser wrote:
> Works perfectly for me (and I haven't heard that complaint about it, at
> least not yet ;)).
At the minute, Smart is by far the most reliable and easily-installed package
manager for SUSE. Apt-rpm may do more specialised things, but for everyd
* Patrick Shanahan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06-05-06 16:43]:
> * Pascal Bleser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06-05-06 16:35]:
> > Here's how to do it with smart:
> >
> > smart mirror --add http://software.opensuse.org/download \
> > http://ftp-1.gwdg.de/pub/opensuse/repositories
> >
> > (that's a one-liner)
>
* Pascal Bleser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06-05-06 16:35]:
> You're not actually blaming smart for timeouts on the
> software.opensuse.org HTTP server, are you ? ;)
No, frustration with the update system .
> As Eberhard mentioned, you can use ftp-1.gwdg.de as a mirror.
Added his suggestions manu
* Eberhard Moenkeberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06-05-06 16:01]:
> You can try
>
> http://ftp-1.gwdg.de/pub/opensuse/repositories/KDE:/...
>
Thanks, trying now
--
Patrick ShanahanRegistered Linux User #207535
http://wahoo.no-ip.org@ http://count
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Patrick Shanahan wrote:
> * Pascal Bleser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06-05-06 10:34]:
>> Works perfectly for me (and I haven't heard that complaint about it, at
>> least not yet ;)).
>>
>> Have you tried using my smart RPMs [1] ? they come preconfigured with
Hi,
On Mon, 5 Jun 2006, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Pascal Bleser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06-05-06 10:34]:
Works perfectly for me (and I haven't heard that complaint about it, at
least not yet ;)).
Have you tried using my smart RPMs [1] ? they come preconfigured with a
lot of channels, including
* Pascal Bleser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [06-05-06 10:34]:
> Works perfectly for me (and I haven't heard that complaint about it, at
> least not yet ;)).
>
> Have you tried using my smart RPMs [1] ? they come preconfigured with a
> lot of channels, including the main repository, -updates, -non-oss,
> g
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 08:34:32PM +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
> On 2006-06-05 20:17:50 +0200, houghi wrote:
> > Should not be too hard to do, but then I have not looked at it, so it
> > could be unpossible.
> >
>
> you are way too bored are you?
> but go ahead write that tool.
The moment I pl
On 2006-06-05 20:17:50 +0200, houghi wrote:
> What is the fun in that? ;-)
>
> Somebody just write a tool to do so. I believe all tools have a CLI
> interface. So all you have to do is look wich ones are installed, look
> what repo each has and if one has one and not another, add that.
>
> Then a
On Monday 05 June 2006 20:36, Andreas Hanke wrote:
> > OK, so all we're left with is the burden of syncronizing between
> > these. Not quite as bad as i thought, but still.
>
> Why?
For most tasks no reason really, but every now and then I
find it easier for task Z to use tool Y. That, and histor
On Mon, Jun 05, 2006 at 07:35:31PM +0200, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
> On 2006-06-05 20:33:12 +0300, Janne Karhunen wrote:
> > On Monday 05 June 2006 20:26, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
> > > as most sources should ship with rpm-md files you can happily add them
> > > everywhere. If you use multiple tools co
Hi,
Janne Karhunen schrieb:
> OK, so all we're left with is the burden of syncronizing between
> these. Not quite as bad as i thought, but still.
Why?
Just make a decision in favour of one of them and use that one
exclusively. (This doesn't mean you can't switch in the future, you just
have to a
On 2006-06-05 20:33:12 +0300, Janne Karhunen wrote:
> On Monday 05 June 2006 20:26, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
> > as most sources should ship with rpm-md files you can happily add them
> > everywhere. If you use multiple tools concurrently, you need to add the
> > sources to each of them.
>
> OK, so
On Monday 05 June 2006 20:26, Marcus Rueckert wrote:
> the common repos format they all support is rpm-md. (dunno if the apt in
> the distro is already recent enough. but richard has an up2date package
> for sure)
Thanks for clarifying, I didn't know this.
> as most sources should ship with rp
On 2006-06-05 20:15:10 +0300, Janne Karhunen wrote:
> On Monday 05 June 2006 20:05, jdd wrote:
>
> > I guess respective repositories are mostly links to the
> > rpm's and separate link to metadata - I don't see any reason
> > to duplicate the rpm themselves
>
> Yep, but it's annoying to use half
On Monday 05 June 2006 20:05, jdd wrote:
> I guess respective repositories are mostly links to the
> rpm's and separate link to metadata - I don't see any reason
> to duplicate the rpm themselves
Yep, but it's annoying to use half a dozen different tools to
get one single thing installed. Luckily
Janne Karhunen wrote:
On Monday 05 June 2006 19:14, jdd wrote:
Well, we have at least yum, yast, apt, smart and god knows what
else as repository types. These tools are completely unaware of
each other
why start with a wrong assertion?
Umm, it's not wrong. If apt and yum know RPM, it does
On Monday 05 June 2006 19:14, jdd wrote:
> > Well, we have at least yum, yast, apt, smart and god knows what
> > else as repository types. These tools are completely unaware of
> > each other
>
> why start with a wrong assertion?
Umm, it's not wrong. If apt and yum know RPM, it does not make
them
Janne Karhunen wrote:
Well, we have at least yum, yast, apt, smart and god knows what
else as repository types. These tools are completely unaware of
each other
why start with a wrong assertion?
http://en.opensuse.org/index.php?title=Package_Management&action=history
you'll see that any pac
On Monday 05 June 2006 17:32, Pascal Bleser wrote:
> > Umm, how is it that we're supposed to install packages to 10.1 systems?
> > We now have several different tools (yum, yast, smart, apt) that see only
> > subset of total packages available, and thus, are unable to satisfy
> > dependencies for
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Janne Karhunen wrote:
> Hi,
Hi Janne
> Umm, how is it that we're supposed to install packages to 10.1 systems?
> We now have several different tools (yum, yast, smart, apt) that see only
> subset of total packages available, and thus, are unable to sa
Hi,
Umm, how is it that we're supposed to install packages to 10.1 systems?
We now have several different tools (yum, yast, smart, apt) that see only
subset of total packages available, and thus, are unable to satisfy
dependencies for anything. Let alone bugs, but is this even conceptially
figure
28 matches
Mail list logo
