kernel panic - kernel-2.6.32-220.el6 on ASUS

Hello, I installed new kernel-2.6.32-220.el6.x86_64 on ASUS: ASUS NX90Jq B1 Core i7 740QM / 1.73 GHz - RAM 10 GB - HDD 640 GB + 640 GB - DVD-Writer / BD-ROM - GF GT 335M - Gigabit Ethernet - WLAN : 802

Re: yum and yumex: problem installing packages

On 12/15/2011 09:25 PM, Steven J. Yellin wrote: >> 14:08:09 : Error checking package signatures: \ >> Package jdk-1.6.0_29-fcs.i586.rpm is not signed > > Apparently SL has not been able to get the jdk package signed, but for > security yum by default requires that it be signed. I t

Re: comparison of packages on different repositories

On 12/15/2011 12:44 PM, Yasha Karant wrote: Here is the fundamental problem from my experience. The stock EL distribution contains many add-on applications that are not up to current stable revision version from the application source author(s). ...snip... For those of us who use EL on worksta

Re: yum and yumex: problem installing packages

14:08:09 : Error checking package signatures: \ Package jdk-1.6.0_29-fcs.i586.rpm is not signed Apparently SL has not been able to get the jdk package signed, but for security yum by default requires that it be signed. I think you should try to evade that security precaution with

yum and yumex: problem installing packages

greetings. i am having problems getting 5 packages updated. ]$ uname -a Linux 2.6.18-274.12.1.el5 #1 SMP Tue Nov 29 11:20:34 EST 2011 i686 i686 i386 GNU/Linux yum-3.2.22 yumex-2.0.3 when updating packages with yumex, errors with; 13:54:01 : Determining fastest mirrors 13:54:33 : * epel:

Re: Help! Segmentation Fault after ntfs-3g

It could be that ntfs-3g has been damaged. That can be checked with the command rpm -V ntfs-3g which should return nothing. If it does return something, re-install ntfs-3g. Another possibility is that the disk has been corrupted. To check that possibility, first verify that you hav

Re: [SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS] How do I set default gdm session?

On 12/15/2011 06:19 AM, Pat Riehecky wrote: On 12/14/2011 11:50 PM, Todd & Margo wrote: On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 1:18 PM, Pat Riehecky mailto:riehe...@fnal.gov>> wrote: On 12/14/2011 11:49 AM, Todd And Margo Chester wrote: On 12/13/2011 01:50 PM, Pat Riehecky wrote: On 12/13/2011 12:36 PM, T

Re: comparison of packages on different repositories

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 10:30:43AM -0800, Yasha Karant wrote: > On 12/15/2011 10:07 AM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote: > >On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 09:44:44AM -0800, Yasha Karant wrote: > >> > >>Just as there is a Grand Unified Boot Loader, we need a Grand > >>Unified Repository. > >> > > Although I mi

Re: comparison of packages on different repositories

On 12/15/2011 10:07 AM, Konstantin Olchanski wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 09:44:44AM -0800, Yasha Karant wrote: Just as there is a Grand Unified Boot Loader, we need a Grand Unified Repository. Thanks, but no thanks. GRUB qualifies as the worst program ever written. Although I might agr

Re: Problems w/ glibc 2.12-1.47 ?

Am 15.12.2011 18:18, schrieb Akemi Yagi: > On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Gerhard Schneider > wrote: >> >> After installation of glibc 2.12-1.47 that appeared in sl6-security >> different applications tend to do segmentation faults - including >> unmount.nfs and atop. After downgrading to glibc

Re: comparison of packages on different repositories

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 09:44:44AM -0800, Yasha Karant wrote: > > Just as there is a Grand Unified Boot Loader, we need a Grand > Unified Repository. > Thanks, but no thanks. GRUB qualifies as the worst program ever written. -- Konstantin Olchanski Data Acquisition Systems: The Bytes Must Flow

Re: comparison of packages on different repositories

On 12/14/2011 11:04 PM, Steve Traylen wrote: [snip] I do repost my question: how does one compare the various repositories? Note that EPEL states: Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux (or EPEL) is a Fedora Special Interest Group that creates, maintains, and manages a high quality set of addit

Re: Problems w/ glibc 2.12-1.47 ?

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 9:00 AM, Gerhard Schneider wrote: > > After installation of glibc 2.12-1.47 that appeared in sl6-security > different applications tend to do segmentation faults - including > unmount.nfs and atop. After downgrading to glibc 2.12-1.25 the problems > disappeared. > > Did I

Problems w/ glibc 2.12-1.47 ?

After installation of glibc 2.12-1.47 that appeared in sl6-security different applications tend to do segmentation faults - including unmount.nfs and atop. After downgrading to glibc 2.12-1.25 the problems disappeared. Did I miss something? Gerhard Schneider -- Gerhard Schneider Institute of L

gcc 4.6

Hi everyone, Has anyone tried to package gcc 4.6 for scientific linux? Would this be a difficult task? Is this something people are interested in? Thanks, Yi

Fwd: XFS stack overflow

Denice, I have spoken with a couple of the guys on the xfs mailing list. The quick fix would seem to be recompiling the kernel to support a 16K kernel stack. I've spent a few hours researching and have been unable to locate anything relative to the 2.6.32 kernel. It's not easy finding anything

Re: Mock acting up?

On 12/16/2011 01:12 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote: On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:50 AM, zxq9 wrote: I've never had any problem with Mock before, and haven't seen a problem like this for the last several years with it -- so I'm assuming this isn't affecting others. Any insights would be greatly appreciated

Re: Mock acting up?

On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:50 AM, zxq9 wrote: > Has anyone experienced a problem building with Mock where the buildroot > exists, but can't be found/accessed by the script? It seems like this is a > permission problem of some sort, as the directories it is searching for > exist but can't be written

Mock acting up?

Has anyone experienced a problem building with Mock where the buildroot exists, but can't be found/accessed by the script? It seems like this is a permission problem of some sort, as the directories it is searching for exist but can't be written to by the mock group. Checking /var/lib/mock/, t

Re: Help! Segmentation Fault after ntfs-3g

Ghis, here is what I got: #umount /dev/sdh1 umount: /dev/sdh1: not mounted # umount -a umount: /home: device is busy. (In some cases useful info about processes that use the device is found by lsof(8) or fuser(1)) umount: /dev/shm: device is busy. (In some cases useful info

Re: Help! Segmentation Fault after ntfs-3g

Hmmm let's do it one more time (could you please give the output you get from each command if any): 1) unmount the sdh drive (in case of) # umount /dev/sdh1 Maybe you could rather unmount everything by: # umount -a Later you can remount everything using: # mount -a 2) create a new mount direct

Re: Help! Segmentation Fault after ntfs-3g

No, nothing appears. On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 8:42 PM, Ghislain Vaillant < ghislain.vaill...@kcl.ac.uk> wrote: > ** > So nothing appears if you "ls /mnt/mounted_disk" ? > > > On 15/12/11 11:59, ting xu wrote: > > Ghis, > > Thank you for your reply. I tried, nothing echo, but when I check with >

Re: Help! Segmentation Fault after ntfs-3g

So nothing appears if you "ls /mnt/mounted_disk" ? On 15/12/11 11:59, ting xu wrote: Ghis, Thank you for your reply. I tried, nothing echo, but when I check with "df -Th", the disk has not been mounted:( Do you have any other suggestion? Best! Linda On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Ghisl

Re: Help! Segmentation Fault after ntfs-3g

Ghis, Thank you for your reply. I tried, nothing echo, but when I check with "df -Th", the disk has not been mounted:( Do you have any other suggestion? Best! Linda On Thu, Dec 15, 2011 at 6:57 PM, Ghislain Vaillant < ghislain.vaill...@kcl.ac.uk> wrote: > ** > What about: > > mkdir /mnt/mount

Re: Help! Segmentation Fault after ntfs-3g

What about: mkdir /mnt/mounted_disk mount -t ntfs-3g /dev/sdh /mnt/mounted_disk This is the basic mounting command for ntfs partitions, more infos on mounting options here: http://opensuse.swerdna.org/susentfs.html Ghis On 15/12/11 02:19, ting xu wrote: Hi, I want to mount a NTFS hard di