Thanks for the links. I have already basically done everything
there and have the ms fonts. Unfortunately they look pretty bad..
I have not followed the thread carefully, but I've seen in a couple of
screenshots that bitmaps fonts might have been used. Have you tried this?
ln -s
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3565
I get the same thing when running puplet from the
commandline on my machine.
We are looking at this issue now.
Puplet fails with me too, I have to use yum at the CLI.
I even forgot there is such a thing as puplet :-(
Upstream, reported back in
--- On Sun, 8/23/09, Lucian @ lastdot.org luc...@lastdot.org wrote:
If you liked Balsa, maybe you will like Sylpheed as well:
rpm -ivh http://odiecolon.lastdot.org/el5/i386/sylpheed-2.7.1-1.i386.rpm
Sylpheed might need a few other dependencies, which are however
offered by the same
Maybe this CentOS wiki helps?
http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/Network/SecuringSSH
I just gave it a try: works like a charm.
I was smarter 3 years ago, I mean I knew it :-)
http://beranger.org/index.php?article=1308
R-C
http://rofi.roger-ferrer.org/eiciel/?s=2
__
Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
http://www.flickr.com/gift/
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
no, trolling works much better on high volume lists
like this one.
I officially declare that whoever uses the word troll
is underbrained (aka stupid moron). The verb to troll
was invented by some ***arrogant*** F/LOSS developers
to assert that any *conversation* that looks slightly
critical
My point being: audacious does build, but it has a missing
dependency.
Which still == broken repo.
You were referring the whole time to SRPMs that do not build.
But you never give me an example of one.
On the contrary, I mentioned Comix. But again, I never try the
SRPM, but the
The audacious package is willing to wait that long
:)
Nope, because I've built it *for myself*,
i.e. in my repo.
And was your patch rejected from the places you are
complaining about?
There. Is. No. Question. About. Any. Patch.
When you build audacious from SPEC + tarball, it
Buildlogs are available from:
http://packages.sw.be/comix/_buildlogs/
I hope you come back and tell me what was your problem.
I have to be back on my continent before addressing this issue.
So far, I can see that the build of Comix seems to have been done
by Dries, and that it was
I believe that YOU are the only person on this list
who has expressed an interest in audacious
(whatever it is does) for CentOS during these several
days of rant.
I believe that YOU are the only person on this list
(whoever you are do) to have suggested popularity as
a required raison
So we have centosplus and extras which are the repos with
access denied for packages inclusion. Dag's rpmforge
which is so huge with a lot of dependencies not suitable
for testing/bleeding edge/alternative packages. So
what's the suitable repo? That's why people are going to
run own
How many employees does Canonical have? AFAIK, it all
started with a group of 30 odd Debian developers.
Yes, but when they started, they mainly rebuilt the upstream
(Debian) packages, right?
Compare this with the russian ALT Linux distribution:
150 paid full time developers only to
Firefox was better than Mozilla.
Nay. Only Firefox 0.9 was better than Mozilla.
Later on, bloatware won.
It's definitely worth noting that, Epiphany
Firefox popped up so quickly because they built on
Mozilla's rendering, etc.
Yes, it's easier to add bloatware on a solid open-sourced
He wants me to do some things for him for free
(unfortunately I am a freelancer and not a millionaire).
Not for *me*!!!
It's only a matter of perception. I normally don't like
when a SRPM doesn't build, and I believe that until it's
fixed, it should either be removed (alongside with the
What was the problem with audacious again ?
# yum install audacious
...
Resolving Dependencies
-- Running transaction check
--- Package audacious.i386 0:1.3.2-5.el5.rf set to be updated
-- Processing Dependency: audacious-plugins = 1.3.0 for package: audacious
...
-- Missing Dependency:
yes, perhaps the english language is alien to you - the
word 'testing' means something, there is a reason why
those packages are there in 'testing' - people who
dont know what they are doing are recommended to
NOT use them.
Karanbir, I've always 'appreciated' you being such a 'nice'
Where did you see the QA requirements for the packages
in c.k.o ?
I didn't. But since you say that there is a reason for
them to be in testing, I then assumed the reason was
testing. But then, the activity usually called testing
is part of a process usually called Quality Assurance.
But hey,
I Can not speak for others, but the only time i have
seen Karanbir be stern with anyone is when they do
deserve it.
Well, I've read him saying in various ways and on
several occasions something that would equate RTFM,
only it was put in such an offensive way that even
myself, as an
Anyway, as I said previously, I would rather see the CentOS
Project concentrate on the core product and do a really good
job on that (i.e, a move closer to the old 4 week release lag
than the current 10 week release lag), and I would much rather
see this than effort diluted by taking on a
A quick look at http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=centos
shows that a great majority of the packages are not even
close to being up-to-date, and that is a good thing for
those us of who care more about stability than eyecandy.
That can't be other way. For instance, you can't
(1) I expect now patches from you to make a workable
audacious based on our audacious package. Apparently
you have the interest and the time to do it ?
RF's audacious has unmet dependencies. It's as simple as that.
It lacks audacious-plugins.
(2) No, they are not compatible, we know. Share
led to the great compiler we have today. The same
would hold for any large project (the kernel, firefox, etc.)
And... are you happy with the quality of the huge $h1t which
is Firefox? Because I am not.
As for the Linux kernel, they pushed in all kind of crap.
Back in 1996, I was running
Folks,
I've build a tiny repo to provide GIMP 2.3.15 (and 2.3.14 as a possible
fallback) for EL5.
GIMP 2.3.15 is the last version of GIMP that builds with no errors with the
GTK+ version that ships with EL.
2.3.15 is almost GIMP 2.4, as 2.3.19 was the last development release prior
to
# yum install libwpd-devel
Loaded plugins: fastestmirror
Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile
Setting up Install Process
Parsing package install arguments
Resolving Dependencies
-- Running transaction check
--- Package libwpd-devel.i386 0:0.8.7-3.el5 set to be updated
-- Processing
Oh, sorry, fixed it with
rpm -iv --force libwpd-0.8.7-3.el5.i386.rpm
rpm -iv --nodeps libwpd-devel-0.8.7-3.el5.i386.rpm
I suppose the RPM database is too fragile by design.
R-C
__
Make your browsing faster, safer, and
--- On Fri, 6/5/09, Matt Harrington mbh.li...@gmail.com wrote:
I need a hosting provider just like Dreamhost.net's shared hosting
service, but with a CentOS shell instead of Debian. Any pointers?
http://www.asmallorange.com/
R-C
I'm looking for a provider that runs on CentOS.
asmallorange.com runs on CentOS-4, shared hosting:
Linux ivan.asmallorange.com 2.6.9-78.0.22.ELsmp #1 SMP Thu Apr 30 19:17:40 EDT
2009 x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
No /etc/redhat-release available for shared accounts.
Their list of servers
--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
So there *should* have existed:
* 5.1-only updates issued post-5.2;
* 5.1-only and 5.2-only updates issued post-5.3;
etc.
go back and reread the entire list of comments.
You seem quite confused
about what should and
--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Ralph Angenendt ra+cen...@br-online.de wrote:
For CentOS: Yes.
But Karanbir says I seem quite confused about what should and should not
exist. How can you answer correctly to an incorrect question raised by an
confused ignorant?
For Upstream: Ask Red Hat.
I was
--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Dag Wieers d...@centos.org wrote:
Communication problems are usually caused by both sides.
Agreed.
Besides the EUS source RPM packages are not released
to the public, so you need those expensive entitlements
to be able to rebuild them.
Eek. Never knew that. This
Umm... is there any rational reason to only announce the CentOS-5.3 Live CD on
May 27, when it was available since May 19, and Patrice has updated the Release
Notes on the same May 19?
The CD date is indeed 19-May-2009 02:50 and I've found it on May 21 on all the
mirrors I've checked. I was
Like every thing else we do - its not released till
its announced. And till its announced, it can change
- be removed or modified or even pulled.
Thanks. It makes sense. It's just... the regular 5.3 was *not* posted (as ISO
images) one week before the announcement!
And it was
Yes. We had some issues with our mirror network which we
wanted to resolve before announcing the Live CD, so that
the CD would be available on all mirror carrying CD isos.
Ouch, didn't know that there were mirroring problems.
Also, how come it only includes FF 3.0.6? This is
terribly
the problem in this case, is that the package should not
have been updated. It would / should be the same as whats
in the 5.3 tree. We prolly need to add that to the QA process.
I know that this is CentOS' policy -- to ship obsolete packages on the install
media, just to match 100% the
--- On Wed, 5/27/09, Ralph Angenendt ra+cen...@br-online.de wrote:
Nothing will keep from joining the live CD project on
http://projects.centos.org/ - constructive input is
always welcome.
Oh. Knowing that CentOS is the most conservative from all the EL clones, I
don't expect 'heresies'
--- On Wed, 5/27/09, Niki Kovacs cont...@kikinovak.net wrote:
Some of them require GTK2 2.12 to build, so I'm
considering a (careful) upgrade of this package.
General question: 1) how safe is it to upgrade this
package? To do so, I'd use an SRPM from Fedora.
2) What could I possible
--- On Wed, 5/27/09, Toby Bluhm t...@alltechmedusa.com wrote:
Niki Kovacs wrote:
Ladislav Bodnar a écrit :
Hey, didn't you abandon Linux and switch to Windows
not long ago? I remember
you making a big deal out of this on your blog. Or
did you change your mind
again? Was
--- Patrick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you are using the 8.41 ATI driver don't as it will break
I am using i810. And it has still nothing to do with *writing* to swap
failing with I/O errors!
iirc if your swap partition/available swap is too small hibernate can fail.
It is not. The *same*
--- Patrice Guay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Patrice Guay a écrit :
The main difference between this LiveCD
and the original distribution lies in these system files:
- /etc/init.d/halt
- /etc/init.d/kudzu
- /etc/init.d/netfs
- /etc/issue
- /etc/sysconfig/network
-
Folks,
I am terribly puzzled by an issue reported as bug 2381
[http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=2381] definitely an upstream bug, as it
does the same under X/OS 5 and StartCom 5.
Simply put: Hibernation fails with horrendous I/O errors after swsusp starts
dumping to swap.
What bugs me
I might be stupid and ask an idiot or offensive question, but here it is:
Why was tzdata-2007h [RHEA-2007:0928-05] only released for CentOS 2, when
upstream has released it for all the versions?
The guys from X/OS have released it for 5.0 along with the other updates (on
Oct. 9).
Are the
Mea culpa, I can see now that tzdata-2007h was released for CentOS-4 and
CentOS-5 too, on Oct. 6... it's just I didn't see the corresponding e-mails!
Sorry about that.
Thanks,
R-C
Be smarter than spam. See how smart SpamGuard is at giving junk email the
boot with the All-new Yahoo!
--- Robert [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ummm. This is from my CentOS 5 /var/log/yum.log: Oct 06 14:30:09
Updated: tzdata.noarch 2007h-1.el5
Sorry, my bad. I trusted *too much* the mails from centos-announce, and the
only tzdata-2007h e-mail announcement was for CentOS 2!
R-C
Be
Does anyone know how to submit wishes to the EPEL Wishlist here?
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/WishList
It reads Immutable Page.
They say: Please add packages that are part of Fedora but lack a EPEL
maintainer to this list, but there is no way to do that!
They don't say if Packages part
Wrong list?
The subject line was a question. EPEL stands for... you know what. And CentOS
is a rebuild of... you know what. Therefore, I suspect that CentOS users
would/should/could be interested in adding EPEL as an extra repository. You
know, there is more than Karan[bir] and DAG on
You need a Wiki account (FAS):
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WikiEditing#head-3d4b8815f923a8f137fb466901ca2cf1b567cf0f
You can contact me if you like to get added to the EditGroup when
you've completed the process
It was obvious that I would need an account, so I made one.
It was
If no LiveCD is forthcoming soon, then I'll burn a copy
of the
CentOS 4 LiveCD and let her try that.
Sorry for being rude, but in the meantime, what's wrong with a copy of
Scientific Linux 5 LiveCD?!
ftp://ftp.psi.ch/psi/livecd/pub/50/
Except for the artwork, it should be closer to CentOS 5
ftp://ftp.psi.ch/psi/livecd/pub/50/
In what way are you being rude?
For recommending a distro on a ML of another distro.
R-C
Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to
Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com
I have found this to be a frustrating 'option' Even when I
shutdown FF2
cleanly, when I start it (even after rebooting
the system), it trys to
resume my sessions...
Tools - Options - Main - Startup. Under When Firefox starts,
change from Show my windows and tabs from last time to Show a
Can one ever be patient enough :-) But I had lunch, walked the dog
and left it sitting there for several hours. Took a few minutes to get
to 3/4 or the bar, and then it sat there for hours.
Oh my! You have been too patient! (I guess it's the dog.)
Have you looked into the consoles 2 to 8, to
50 matches
Mail list logo
