[ATrpms-users] smart, which repositories
Hi, Last week I reinstalled my box and installed smart to upgrade. At that time I had not all repositories enabled that came with the medley package. Now I want to install xmms-mp3 package which is in livna repository but when I do, smart wants to install lots of packages which I think is wrong. It spends over 10 minutes sorting out all dependencies and than comes up with a very large list of things to install. It actually seems that there's something wrong with smart because it also doesn't show with packages I have installed. The packages it want to install when I want to add xmms-mp3 are already on my system it seems. What should I do ? Can it be trusted to enable all repositories in the medley package and do the upgrade ? Regards, Marcel ___ atrpms-users mailing list atrpms-users@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
Re: [ATrpms-users] Re: Funny behaviour with smart and yum
Hi Axel, On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 02:56:34PM -0400, Preet Khalsa wrote: On Sun, 2005-18-09 at 16:46 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: On Sun, Sep 18, 2005 at 10:13:47AM -0400, Preet Khalsa wrote: Hi all, My nightly check4updates (with only yum enabled due to x86_64) tells me that I have ... libglib-2.0_0.x86_64 2.6.6-1_12.rhfc3.at atrpms libgmodule-2.0_0.x86_64 2.6.6-1_12.rhfc3.at atrpms libgobject-2.0_0.x86_64 2.6.6-1_12.rhfc3.at atrpms libgthread-2.0_0.x86_64 2.6.6-1_12.rhfc3.at atrpms Available. i386 versions were downloaded and installed. Smart does not even show them as available. When I use yum to do an upgrade, it tells me that the gpg key for these is not in the database. I have all keys in the database and other atrpms rpms download fine. I suspect the gpg check is keeping smart from even showing it to me. What is the solution? The i386 and x86_64 packages have the same signatures: # rpm -qip libgthread-2.0_0-2.6.6-1_12.rhfc3.at.*|grep Sign Signature : DSA/SHA1, Sat 10 Sep 2005 09:52:35 PM CEST, Key ID 508ce5e666534c2b Signature : DSA/SHA1, Sat 10 Sep 2005 11:12:52 PM CEST, Key ID 508ce5e666534c2b This is weird because it seems as if one is recognized and the other not. I suspect that ATrpms' key has been removed from your rpm database. I've recently heard of another such case, where suddenly the ATrpms key was missing, so perhaps some repo is removing all gpg keys but some, or explicitely some keys including ATrpms'?/paranoia Try rpm -q gpg-pubkey-66534c2b Not Found. That seems to be the issue, then. Wuestin is how did it get removed? Just so you know, I've noticed a couple of times now on quite a few machines, when I've updated the yum version I ended up losing the ATRPMs key from my rpm key database and I've had to re-add it in, each time, before i could install packages from ATrpms. I'm not sure why this happens, and the first time it did I just put it down to a glitch, but having seen it happen on other servers, and having read some people here mentioning it also, I'm now thinking there's something wrong somewhere. I've recently updated spamassassin on various machines too, and haven't had the ATrpms key vanish anymore, so now again, I'm putting it down to a glitch somewhere :P Michael. Which of your packages has it? I have tried reinstalling atrpms-61-1.at and it is still not there. You need to import it, it cannot be installed. Use http://atrpms.net/RPM-GPG-KEY.atrpms or /usr/share/atrpms/RPM-GPG-KEY.atrpms -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net --- End of Original Message --- ___ atrpms-users mailing list atrpms-users@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
[ATrpms-users] Installing latest atrpms yum on SL4
Hi Axel, Although I see this on SL4: # yum list yum Setting up Repos at-stable 100% |=| 951 B00:00 dries 100% |=| 951 B00:00 dag 1.1 kB 00:00 sl-contrib 951 B 00:00 sl-base 1.1 kB 00:00 sl-errata951 B 00:00 Reading repository metadata in from local files at-stable : ## 909/909 dries : ## 2338/2338 dag : ## 2575/2575 sl-contrib: ## 22/22 sl-base : ## 1447/1447 sl-errata : ## 330/330 Installed Packages yum.noarch 2.2.1-1.SL installed Available Packages yum.i386 2.4.0-63.el4.atat-stable When I try to download the latest, I just get this: # yum -y install yum Setting up Install Process Setting up Repos at-stable 100% |=| 951 B00:00 dries 100% |=| 951 B00:00 dag 1.1 kB 00:00 sl-contrib 951 B 00:00 sl-base 1.1 kB 00:00 sl-errata951 B 00:00 Reading repository metadata in from local files at-stable : ## 909/909 dries : ## 2338/2338 dag : ## 2575/2575 sl-contrib: ## 22/22 sl-base : ## 1447/1447 sl-errata : ## 330/330 Parsing package install arguments Nothing to do I was able to use the yum -y install yum technique successfully on FC1, FC2 and SL3, but on FC3 (yum-2.2.2-0.fc3) and SL4 (yum-2.2.1-1.SL), I can't seem to install the latest yum. I have tried using different forms of package naming, like yum-2.4.0-63.el4.at.i386.rpm and various forms of that, but all to no avail. Do you have advice for this? Michael. ___ atrpms-users mailing list atrpms-users@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
[ATrpms-users] Re: smart, which repositories
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 10:52:39AM +0200, Marcel Janssen wrote: Hi, Last week I reinstalled my box and installed smart to upgrade. At that time I had not all repositories enabled that came with the medley package. Now I want to install xmms-mp3 package which is in livna repository but when I do, smart wants to install lots of packages which I think is wrong. It spends over 10 minutes sorting out all dependencies and than comes up with a very large list of things to install. It actually seems that there's something wrong with smart because it also doesn't show with packages I have installed. The packages it want to install when I want to add xmms-mp3 are already on my system it seems. What should I do ? Can it be trusted to enable all repositories in the medley package and do the upgrade ? No, the medley-package is provided for you to decide which repos you want to use. There are no guarantees that it will work, some repos cooperate, others do not. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net pgpbdeAt702kK.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ atrpms-users mailing list atrpms-users@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
[ATrpms-users] X86_64 FC4 Segmentation Fault
Greetings-- I recently noticed that there are new RPMs for fc4/x86_64 for the plugins which is great news. I've been eager to try them. So, I did. Unfortunately I am getting a segmentation fault now when I try run MythTV which persists until I remove most of the plugins I have installed. I've noticed quite a number of posts on what seemed to be an issue for FC4/X86_64 but I didn't follow it all. I assumed that the presence of the RPMs meant that it was resolved. I do notice that the RPM versions of my mythtv-backend, frontend and setup (0.18.1-114.rhfc4.at) are one up from the plugins it installed (0.18.1-113.rhfc4.at). I'm really sorry if this is a problem on my end, but I can't seem to figure out what's going on. Thanks for any help you might offer. ___ atrpms-users mailing list atrpms-users@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
[ATrpms-users] Re: smart, which repositories
On Saturday 24 September 2005 16:07, Axel Thimm wrote: No, the medley-package is provided for you to decide which repos you want to use. There are no guarantees that it will work, some repos cooperate, others do not. That sounds fair regarding medley, but makes it hard for users to select the correct ones. How are we supposed to know which are good to select and which are likely to cause problems ? I'm currently in doubt how I should install the xmms-mp3 package. livna is enabled and a smart upgrade shows no interesting package available for the upgrade. When I try to install xmms-mp3 it starts computing transaction for a very long time and comes up with a large list of things it wants to install. I don't trust this at all and therefore didn't do this. I have no idea why smart wants to install all these things either (most of the packages are already installed I believe) Below is the list of packages it wants to install. I suppose I can safely upgrade/install/downgrade all packages if smart says so, but I don't trust it. Can this be trusted ? The list seems far to large to just enable my xmms to play some mp3's. A lot of system files are in that list too, therefore I didn't agree with smart to install. My system is running fine now and I don't want things to break just because of the xmms-mp3 package. Regards, Marcel Computing transaction... Installed packages (94): MAKEDEV findutils iproute libtiff sed SysVinitfreeglutiputils libttf2 setup audit-libs freetypekernel-smp lvm2shadow-utils basesystem gawkless medley-package-config sysklogd bashgdk-pixbuf libacl mingettytar chkconfig gliblibattr mkinitrdtermcap coreutils gliblibfontconfig1 mktemp tzdata cpioglib2 libfontconfig1 module-init-tools udev cracklibglibc libfreetype6 ncurses unzip cracklib-dicts glibc libfreetype6 net-tools util-linux db4 glibc-commonlibgcc nvidia-graphics7676-libsxmms desktop-file-utils greplibgcc pam xmms-mp3 device-mapper gtk+libjpeg pcrexorg-x11-Mesa-libGL e2fsprogs gtk+libpng poptxorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU ethtool gziplibselinux procps xorg-x11-libs expat hotplug libsepol psmisc xorg-x11-libs expat hwdata libstdc++ readlinezlib fedora-release infolibstdc++ redhat-menuszlib filesystem initscripts libtermcap redhat-menus0 84.9MB of package files are needed. 248.7MB will be used. Confirm changes? (Y/n): ___ atrpms-users mailing list atrpms-users@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
[ATrpms-users] Re: smart, which repositories
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 06:23:26PM +0200, Marcel Janssen wrote: On Saturday 24 September 2005 16:07, Axel Thimm wrote: No, the medley-package is provided for you to decide which repos you want to use. There are no guarantees that it will work, some repos cooperate, others do not. That sounds fair regarding medley, but makes it hard for users to select the correct ones. How are we supposed to know which are good to select and which are likely to cause problems ? Previouly ATrpms would have default setting, but I felt like that being wrong, and removed them. I'm currently in doubt how I should install the xmms-mp3 package. livna is enabled and a smart upgrade shows no interesting package available for the upgrade. When I try to install xmms-mp3 it starts computing transaction for a very long time and comes up with a large list of things it wants to install. I don't trust this at all and therefore didn't do this. I have no idea why smart wants to install all these things either (most of the packages are already installed I believe) Below is the list of packages it wants to install. I suppose I can safely upgrade/install/downgrade all packages if smart says so, but I don't trust it. Can this be trusted ? The list seems far to large to just enable my xmms to play some mp3's. A lot of system files are in that list too, therefore I didn't agree with smart to install. My system is running fine now and I don't want things to break just because of the xmms-mp3 package. Indeed these are a lot of unrelated updates. And it sais installed which means it assumes you don't have them installed. Is it true that you don't have say sed on the system? I don't think so, so I guess smart's rpm-db channel is out of order. What does $ smart channel --show rpm-db [rpm-db] type = rpm-sys name = RPM Database return on your system? Regards, Marcel Computing transaction... Installed packages (94): MAKEDEV findutils iproute libtiff sed SysVinitfreeglutiputils libttf2 setup audit-libs freetypekernel-smp lvm2shadow-utils basesystem gawkless medley-package-config sysklogd bashgdk-pixbuf libacl mingettytar chkconfig gliblibattr mkinitrdtermcap coreutils gliblibfontconfig1 mktemp tzdata cpioglib2 libfontconfig1 module-init-tools udev cracklibglibc libfreetype6 ncurses unzip cracklib-dicts glibc libfreetype6 net-tools util-linux db4 glibc-commonlibgcc nvidia-graphics7676-libsxmms desktop-file-utils greplibgcc pam xmms-mp3 device-mapper gtk+libjpeg pcrexorg-x11-Mesa-libGL e2fsprogs gtk+libpng poptxorg-x11-Mesa-libGLU ethtool gziplibselinux procps xorg-x11-libs expat hotplug libsepol psmisc xorg-x11-libs expat hwdata libstdc++ readlinezlib fedora-release infolibstdc++ redhat-menuszlib filesystem initscripts libtermcap redhat-menus0 84.9MB of package files are needed. 248.7MB will be used. Confirm changes? (Y/n): ___ atrpms-users mailing list atrpms-users@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net pgpVwHlvW4u0C.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ atrpms-users mailing list atrpms-users@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
[ATrpms-users] Re: smart, which repositories
On Sat, Sep 24, 2005 at 08:13:14PM +0200, Marcel Janssen wrote: On Saturday 24 September 2005 19:10, Axel Thimm wrote: $ smart channel --show rpm-db [rpm-db] type = rpm-sys name = RPM Database return on your system? $ smart channel --show rpm-db does not return anything. Then something is broken in your setup. Does /usr/lib/smart/distro.py exist? What does rpm -V medley-package-config say? The following does return something : # smart channel --show atrpms [atrpms] type = apt-rpm name = Fedora Core 4 - x86_64 - ATrpms priority = 2 baseurl = http://dl.atrpms.net/fc4-x86_64/atrpms components = stable Why is there a priority? That also looks altered. I'd install atrpms-package-config, blast away /var/lib/smart/* and reissue a smart update. Then make sure rpm-db exists like above. Have your system upgraded, and then go medley-package-config and disable the channels that you don't want to use. Don't mess with priorities, they break more than they could ever save in theory. That's all just a recommendation, of course. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net pgp8nnUByxwgi.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ atrpms-users mailing list atrpms-users@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
[ATrpms-users] Re: %lib_package macro definition
Thanks! I put it in my ~/.rpmmacros, and the compilation goes forward, but it dies at the end with: ... Requires: libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libm.so.6 libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0) Processing files: xvidcore-devel-1.0.3-7.rhfc4.at error: Could not open %files file /home/dinoklein/src/rpm/BUILD/xvidcore-1.0.3/develfiles.list: No such file or directory RPM build errors: Could not open %files file /home/dinoklein/src/rpm/BUILD/xvidcore-1.0.3/develfiles.list: No such file or directory BTW, is there a way to search to mailing list? It just occurred to me that I could've used google, but it might be a bit behind on recent activity. Also - for some reason I didn't receive the messages pertaining to this topic via the mailing list; I only received the CCs which were directly to me. However, I am getting other messages (from the list) as usual. Perhaps you have access to some list logs that may shed light on this? (this is not critical, but interesting nonetheless) Thanks again. Axel Thimm wrote: On Fri, Sep 23, 2005 at 09:55:48AM -0400, Dino Klein wrote: In a nutshell - what is the definition of the %lib_package macro? Check out http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-devel/2005-August/000862.html I've been trying to recompile the xvidcore package, but had a problem with this line: %lib_package xvidcore 4 Thanks. ___ atrpms-users mailing list atrpms-users@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
[ATrpms-users] Re: X86_64 FC4 Segmentation Fault
I, too, am having this problem. AMD64 on FC4 with the same discrepencies in rpm versions (114 and 113) It happens when starting mythfrontend. Also, prior to the first time attempting to run mythfrontend, the mythtv-setup ran fine, nice blue clean background. After this frontend error, the setup background is all twisty and nasty. Here are the messages: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ mythfrontend 2005-09-24 23:09:16.819 New DB connection, total: 1 Total desktop width=1280, height=1024, numscreens=1 2005-09-24 23:09:16.832 Using screen 0, 1280x1024 at 0,0 2005-09-24 23:09:16.836 mythfrontend version: 0.18.1.20050523-1 www.mythtv.org 2005-09-24 23:09:16.837 Enabled verbose msgs : important general Conflict in /usr/lib/qt-3.3/plugins/styles/bluecurve.so: Plugin uses incompatible Qt library! expected build key x86_64 Linux g++-4.* full-config, got i686 Linux g++-4.* full-config. Conflict in /usr/lib/kde3/plugins/styles/highcolor.so: Plugin uses incompatible Qt library! expected build key x86_64 Linux g++-4.* full-config, got i686 Linux g++-4.* full-config. Conflict in /usr/lib/kde3/plugins/styles/highcontrast.so: Plugin uses incompatible Qt library! expected build key x86_64 Linux g++-4.* full-config, got i686 Linux g++-4.* full-config. Conflict in /usr/lib/kde3/plugins/styles/keramik.so: Plugin uses incompatible Qt library! expected build key x86_64 Linux g++-4.* full-config, got i686 Linux g++-4.* full-config. Conflict in /usr/lib/kde3/plugins/styles/kthemestyle.so: Plugin uses incompatible Qt library! expected build key x86_64 Linux g++-4.* full-config, got i686 Linux g++-4.* full-config. Conflict in /usr/lib/kde3/plugins/styles/light.so: Plugin uses incompatible Qt library! expected build key x86_64 Linux g++-4.* full-config, got i686 Linux g++-4.* full-config. Conflict in /usr/lib/kde3/plugins/styles/plastik.so: Plugin uses incompatible Qt library! expected build key x86_64 Linux g++-4.* full-config, got i686 Linux g++-4.* full-config. 2005-09-24 23:09:17.802 Switching to square mode (G.A.N.T.) Corrupt JPEG data: bad Huffman code 2005-09-24 23:09:18.743 Registering Internal as a media playback plugin. 2005-09-24 23:09:18.778 Joystick disabled. 2005-09-24 23:09:18.756 Inserting MythDVD initial database information. Segmentation fault [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ The .la's (plastik.la, etc) all point to /usr/lib instead of /usr/lib64, don't know if this is an issue or not.. Please let me know if there are any other logs you'd like to see. Graham On Thu, Sep 22, 2005 at 09:42:32AM -0500, Benjamin Bakken wrote: Greetings-- I recently noticed that there are new RPMs for fc4/x86_64 for the plugins which is great news. I've been eager to try them. So, I did. Unfortunately I am getting a segmentation fault now when I try run MythTV which persists until I remove most of the plugins I have installed. I've noticed quite a number of posts on what seemed to be an issue for FC4/X86_64 but I didn't follow it all. I assumed that the presence of the RPMs meant that it was resolved. I do notice that the RPM versions of my mythtv-backend, frontend and setup (0.18.1-114.rhfc4.at) are one up from the plugins it installed (0.18.1-113.rhfc4.at). That's just coincidence. I'm really sorry if this is a problem on my end, but I can't seem to figure out what's going on. Please offer some more detail, which plugins cause the segfault, what where you doing at that time etc. Also consider notifying the mythtv lists. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net ___ atrpms-users mailing list atrpms-users@atrpms.net http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
