On 10/08/11 5:47 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote:
[root@VIRTCENT11:/usr/local/src/ganglia-3.2.0] #locate librrd.so.2
/usr/lib/librrd.so.2
/usr/lib/librrd.so.2.0.13
Does anyone have any ideas on how to get past this point?
it appears there are rrdtool's in both rpmforge and epel. odds are,
these
Vreme: 10/09/2011 02:56 AM, John R Pierce piše:
On 10/08/11 5:47 PM, Tim Dunphy wrote:
[root@VIRTCENT11:/usr/local/src/ganglia-3.2.0] #locate librrd.so.2
/usr/lib/librrd.so.2
/usr/lib/librrd.so.2.0.13
Does anyone have any ideas on how to get past this point?
it appears there are rrdtool's
From: John R. Dennison j...@gerdesas.com
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:09:11PM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
I should care what you believe?
Is this vitriol really necessary?
I think it is just a reaction to the I don't believe you at all, which some
people would take as you are a liar...
That's
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:22:35PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
Is this vitriol really necessary? I installed ganglia; not a
single conflict.
Why yes, John, it is. The fine man said outright he didn't believe my honest
account, accusing me of making something up when I was only
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:10:29PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:01:02PM -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
That being said, it's trivial to recompile the F13 RPM for 3.1.2 for
centos-5.
And that would be the proper route to go instead of building
Whit Blauvelt wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:22:35PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
snip
If you want shiny and new, why not do it properly and build
rpms?
long snip
On the whole, this list is professional. I like that. But look,
./configure, make, make install is _always_ a
Whit Blauvelt wrote:
You installed without a conflict, good. Perhaps you were installing on a
32-bit system rather than a 64-bit? Perhaps your system didn't have some of
the packages already installed for other functionality that mine did? All I
can say is that, for my system, yum saw version
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:19:46PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
I just tried a ganglia install from EPEL; absolutely no issues
at all. Perhaps if you'd bother to actually document these
conflicts one of us might be able to help. That is if we're
still willing.
Now
Whit Blauvelt wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:10:29PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:01:02PM -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
That being said, it's trivial to recompile the F13 RPM for 3.1.2 for
centos-5.
And that would be the proper route to go instead of
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:14:02AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:22:35PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
Is this vitriol really necessary? I installed ganglia; not a
single conflict.
Why yes, John, it is. The fine man said outright he didn't believe my
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:19:46PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
If there were a good CentOS build of 3.1.7 I'd happily use it. But getting
stuff from EPEL, which is essentially Redhat testing, is as silly as
mixing
Uh, you've confused EPEL and Fedora apparently.
Hey John,
On 6/18/2010 9:01 AM, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
If there were a good CentOS build of 3.1.7 I'd happily use it. But getting
stuff from EPEL, which is essentially Redhat testing, is as silly as mixing
Uh, you've confused EPEL and Fedora apparently.
Hey John,
On 6/18/2010 8:20 AM, Jerry McAllister wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:14:02AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:22:35PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
Is this vitriol really necessary? I installed ganglia; not a
single conflict.
Why yes, John, it is. The
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:14:02AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
Why yes, John, it is. The fine man said outright he didn't believe my honest
account, accusing me of making something up when I was only giving the
facts. He was calling me a liar. He preferred to see my account as a lie so
as
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:25:56AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
To get 3.1.7? Disregarding that, I should jump through the hoops of
recompiling a F13 RPM rather than just compile from the tar? Why? Every
extra stage like that introduces the chance of incidental errors, of stuff
that doesn't
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:41:26AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
Now you're threatening to expel me from the community? For posting notes on
workarounds to get a useful package to work? What's this about? Ganglia's
working fine for me.
I'm honored that you think I have that much sway
John R. Dennison wrote:
On the whole, this list is professional. I like that. But look,
./configure, make, make install is _always_ a proper option. Any serious
No, it's not.
indeed, doing exactly this could very well lead to the conflicts he
reported when he tried to
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 10:01:38AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
Extra Packages for Enterprise Linux (EPEL) is a volunteer-based community
effort from the Fedora project to create a repository of high-quality add-on
...
Enough said.
Apparently not as that bears no indication of it
John R. Dennison wrote:
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 08:41:26AM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
snip
My issues were your building from native source doing the
standard three-step; it's wrong to do so in an rpm-managed
distro.
Up until now, I had to build the gspca driver separately,
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 03:15:41PM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Up until now, I had to build the gspca driver separately, every time I
upgraded those servers with the cameras attached. I also *always* have to
do something - mostly reinstall - when I upgrade the boxes, mostly older,
with
On 19/06/2010 02:02, Karanbir Singh wrote:
ganglia - I still think you don't think you what you are talking about.
s/.*/ganglia - I still think you are confused about the issue./
I blame too much mongodb in one day for crazy language skilz :! ( or in
my case, lack of )
- KB
On 17/06/2010 23:20, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
- best complied from source, there are big dependency problems with the
available rpms
I find that very hard to believe - to the extent that I don't believe
you at all. Or did you mean to say that its not easy to locate a well
done rpm set for
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:20:03PM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
- best complied from source, there are big dependency problems with the
available rpms
Very few packages are ever best compiled from source on an
enterprise distro.
What, specifically, is wrong with the
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 at 6:51pm, John R. Dennison wrote
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:20:03PM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
- best complied from source, there are big dependency problems with the
available rpms
Very few packages are ever best compiled from source on an
enterprise
On Fri, Jun 18, 2010 at 12:37:11AM +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 17/06/2010 23:20, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
- best complied from source, there are big dependency problems with the
available rpms
I find that very hard to believe - to the extent that I don't believe
you at all. Or did you
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 06:51:52PM -0500, John R. Dennison wrote:
Very few packages are ever best compiled from source on an
enterprise distro.
What, specifically, is wrong with the 3.0.7 in EPEL?
Um, that yum install ganglia produces a long list of package conflicts on
a
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:01:02PM -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
That being said, it's trivial to recompile the F13 RPM for 3.1.2 for
centos-5.
And that would be the proper route to go instead of building
from native source :)
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:21:00PM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
Um, that yum install ganglia produces a long list of package conflicts on
a current CentOS system? Or that only 3.1.7 has a fully working multicpu
module, plus a number of significant bug fixes?
I just tried a ganglia
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 08:09:11PM -0400, Whit Blauvelt wrote:
I should care what you believe? Stay ignorant, if you like. If not, take a
CentOS system, add the EPEL repository for ganglia, try yum install
ganglia, and prepare to see all sorts of package conflicts. Plus it's not
the current
29 matches
Mail list logo
