Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

I have read a lot of people voice their opinion on what they think to be a flaw in the benchmark. How about we as a group put together a documented benchmark process along with justification as to why those methods were chosen to reflect "real world" scenarios and from there send it to reviewers su

Re: GDM Language list...

Jens Petersen wrote: The YumLangpackPlugin Feature that I am planning to propose for F12 may help with this providing langpack-support metapackages. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/YumLangpackPlugin About the gdm menu itself I chatted to Ankit earlier in the week and came up with this

Re: Updates testing for F-11

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 01:37:08PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > I tried to do an updates push earlier this week and it hit some > errors. That needs to be fixed and resumed. I won't be able to get > to this until Sunday at the earliest. If Jesse or Luke want to fix > that up, it might help. I fix

Re: GRUB 2 in Ubuntu 9.10

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 9:55 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 17:17:07 -0400, > Jeremy Katz wrote: > > we've been left in a position of maintaining it and we've added some > > real features that have been needed along the way as grub 2's progress > > has been slow at best an

Re: GRUB 2 in Ubuntu 9.10

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 05:03:56PM -0500, King InuYasha wrote: > > >Well, not necessarily Mac OS X itself. Wouldn't the Darwin kernel > require > >it anyway? I have been installing Chameleon so I could boot the > regular > >Dar

Re: RFE: Makefile.common patch to error out when no spec is present

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 15:23:25 -0700 Christopher Aillon wrote: > On 04/27/2009 03:07 PM, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > > On Monday 27 April 2009 04:54:56 pm Kevin Fenzi wrote: > >> On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 16:15:27 +0200 > >> Karsten Hopp wrote: > >> > >> ...snip... > >> > >>> This should fix builds from a s

Re: GDM Language list...

- "Bill Nottingham" wrote: > Well, there are languages we would support fine that don't have a > specific language-support group (most anything that uses a Latin-1 > like > charset, and no specific input method.) Moreover, the groups that are > installed aren't actually recorded anywhere on th

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

Christoph Wickert wrote: > IMO this is something we should discuss on this list. We need to find a > fine balance between pushing updates in time to make maintainers happy > and not too many updates for the users. Maybe something like > security/urgent updates daily, everything else once or twice a

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

Am Donnerstag, den 11.06.2009, 20:54 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Christoph > Wickert wrote: > > > > Some updates are processed after a day, others not for two weeks. > > I'm a bit confused where your date is coming from. 2 weeks seems > wrong lately. In fact, sin

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On 06/11/2009 10:07 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: It may be better to engage them, though, and try to make the tests more correct, transparent and relevant they do have a lot of momentum. Which makes the crazy stuff hurt even more. :) They use MP3 encoding as a "real world benchmark" of ext4: h

Re: Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 8:39 PM, Christoph Wickert wrote: > Am Donnerstag, den 11.06.2009, 13:37 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer: > >> Unfortunately, rawhide has been taking multiple days to spit out. >> Combine that with the fact that the two people that do sign/push for >> updates were both in a FAD thi

Signing server? (Re: Updates testing for F-11)

Am Donnerstag, den 11.06.2009, 13:37 -0400 schrieb Josh Boyer: > Unfortunately, rawhide has been taking multiple days to spit out. > Combine that with the fact that the two people that do sign/push for > updates were both in a FAD this week and you get a bit less response > time. > > I tried to d

Re: How to enable xorg.conf in F-11

On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 17:24 -0600, Pete Zaitcev wrote: > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:25:18 -0700, Adam Williamson > wrote: > > > (it may not be, > > and thanks to NetworkManager, if you can't get into X, you may well not > > have a network connection in order to install it...) > > Oh please. You're

Re: Fedora PPC console=? to get serial console

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:49:03PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote: >> On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 19:33 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: >> > It's useful to be able to run Fedora on qemu-system-ppc, if only >> > because it allows me to track down b

Re: How to enable xorg.conf in F-11

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 11:25:18 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > (it may not be, > and thanks to NetworkManager, if you can't get into X, you may well not > have a network connection in order to install it...) Oh please. You're descending below Mr. Lemekhov's levels of aggression into the passive-a

Packaging Request: pdftkgui

The GUI is well designed and is worth packaging http://www.paehl.de/pdf/gui_pdftk.html It is not present in the package database. Best A. Mani -- A. Mani ASL, CLC, AMS, CMS http://amani.topcities.com http://www.logicamani.co.cc -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.co

Re: Keyboard US Internacional

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 05:58:01PM +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > Le Mer 10 juin 2009 16:48, Glauber Costa a écrit : > > > > On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 10:21:07AM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote: > >> Rodrigo Padula de Oliveira wrote: > >> > In portuguese we don't have acent in the c > >> > >> But ot

mount, blkid, df stopped resolving VGs

Hello, I recently upgraded my raid array from 4 to 5 disks, and mount no longer shows lv names but is /dev/dm-* style instead. My setup is lvm on softraid blkid, cat /proc/mounts, df, etc.. are all affected How can I recover the normal behavior? Is it really caused by my upgrade? I recreated /etc

Plan for tomorrow's (20090612) FESCo meeting

Here's a list of topics for tomorrow's FESCo meeting, taking place in #fedora-meeting on freenode at 17:00UTC. 160 Announce EOL date for F-9 162 Milestone Adjustment Proposal 161 Proposal for fedora-release version-release naming for rawhide For more complete details, please visit eac

Re: How to enable xorg.conf in F-11

Peter Lemenkov wrote: > Unfortunately, I don't use nor Gnome, neither KDE. Then Ctrl+Alt+BkSp is supposed to be already working... It's supposed to be disabled by GNOME, or by KDE if custom keyboard layouts are enabled (and there you can also set the xkb option as in GNOME), it's enabled at boot t

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

Eric Sandeen wrote: > I don't know much about apache but I bet a default ./configure winds up > with different builds depending on the build environment, which in this > case is probably dictated by whatever the default generic OS intall > contains. > > And this is useful how? Geez. > > Me, I'd

Re: Fedora PPC console=? to get serial console

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 09:49:03PM +0300, Jussi Lehtola wrote: > On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 19:33 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > It's useful to be able to run Fedora on qemu-system-ppc, if only > > because it allows me to track down build problems that only affect the > > ppc builders. (Which in

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Xose Vazquez > Perez wrote: >> then compile apache ; exec it and run ab: >> $ ab -n 50 -c 100 http://localhost:8088/test.html > > So did they use the phoronix-test-suite that is packaged as part of > fedora and used fedora packaged apache

Some problems with preupgrade for f11

Hello, * problem 1 I upgraded a laptop with preupgrade from f10 to f11. The upgrade was very slow, it took about 15h to upgrade 2092 packages. The laptop has a ssd disk, maybe thats why its slow. At the end of the upgrade preupgrade spent several hours in the "finishing upgrade" step, doing aparen

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:44 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > then compile apache ; exec it and run ab: > $ ab -n 50 -c 100 http://localhost:8088/test.html So did they use the phoronix-test-suite that is packaged as part of fedora and used fedora packaged apache binaries? Or did they build the

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

James M. Leddy wrote: > On 06/11/2009 02:17 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: >> True, though over and over again I see things where I wish they'd at >> least dig into the discrepancies they find, rather than just reporting >> numbers. > > Seconded, I mean, wtf is this? > > "with the test profiles that str

Re: Keyboard US Internacional

Em 10-06-2009 21:09, Kevin Kofler escreveu: Petrus de Calguarium wrote: Please post the bug number to this list, so that we can correctly refute the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=505100 I just closed it as NOTABUG. Kevin Kofler Why in Fedora 1 to 9 it works ? W

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On 06/11/2009 02:17 PM, Eric Sandeen wrote: True, though over and over again I see things where I wish they'd at least dig into the discrepancies they find, rather than just reporting numbers. Seconded, I mean, wtf is this? "with the test profiles that stress the system disk, Fedora 11 gener

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > > All "Phoronix Test Suite"[1] tests run in *local* host. NO net. > > Basically the "apache" test do: > download http://archive.apache.org/dist/httpd/httpd-2.2.11.tar.gz > and > http://www.phoronix-test-suite.com/benchmark-files/apache-ab-test-files-1.tar.gz > > the

Re: Orphaning Packages: audacious and dependencies

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 1:28 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:09:24 -0300, Paulo wrote: > > > I would create a symbolic link audacious -> audacious2, so the previous > > bin can still be called. > > AFAIK, this is not done in Debian/Ubuntu either. The .desktop file has > been re

Re: How to enable xorg.conf in F-11

On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 14:34 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote: > > I should probably investigate and come up with a more comprehensive, > > hand-holdy note. > > My recollection is that s-c-d is not installed by default, but it does > have --set and --noui switches that allow you to turn off any attemp

Re: Orphaning Packages: audacious and dependencies

On 06/04/2009 12:29 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Wed, 3 Jun 2009 18:31:27 -0300, Paulo wrote: Hi. As I don't have the time to maintain audacious any more I'm orphaning the following packages: audacious audacious-plugins libmowgli mcs The last two are dependencies which, as far as I am awar

Re: Orphaning Packages: audacious and dependencies

On 06/11/2009 06:28 PM, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:09:24 -0300, Paulo wrote: I would create a symbolic link audacious -> audacious2, so the previous bin can still be called. AFAIK, this is not done in Debian/Ubuntu either. The .desktop file has been renamed, too, and addit

Re: Fedora PPC console=? to get serial console

On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 19:33 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > It's useful to be able to run Fedora on qemu-system-ppc, if only > because it allows me to track down build problems that only affect the > ppc builders. (Which in fact is what got me into this in the first > place). btw, we don't cur

Re: Fedora LaTeX SIG?

Le jeudi 11 juin 2009 à 19:17 +0100, Jonathan Underwood a écrit : > 2009/6/11 Nicolas Mailhot : > > The amount of work can probably be reduced by killing the source > > packages (we have srpms for that) and only shipping the most recent font > > formats (TEX people like to ship the same font in 2-3

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez > wrote: >> In Apache Benchmark: >> "Ubuntu was able to sustain more than 58% more requests per second than >> Fedora 11" >> >> > Why did

Re: Fedora LaTeX SIG?

Le jeudi 11 juin 2009 à 20:38 +0300, Jussi Lehtola a écrit : > On Fedora 11 > $ yum search fonts|wc -l > 467 Actually $ repoquery --repoid=rawhide --whatprovides "font(*)" | sed "s +-[0-9]*:.*++g"|wc -l 233 And every single package listed here was re-done for F11 because we only introduced the m

Re: How to enable xorg.conf in F-11

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 11:25:18AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 09:17 -0500, Jud Craft wrote: > > I think the Fedora release notes mention that if you run the tool > > system-config-display, it will automatically generate an xorg.conf for > > you. > > > > >From the Common

Re: Fedora PPC console=? to get serial console

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 01:34:25PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > I'm using qemu-system-ppc, not a real machine. > > I have no idea. I've never used that and the last time I looked it > was emulating some kind of really old system we don

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:51 AM, Eric Springer wrote: > Likely for the same reasons we have a bug tracker instead of a 'what > works list'. But I agree, Fedora performed quite favourably especially > taking into consideration the database benchmarks. The problem with knowing that Phoronix got a he

Re: How to enable xorg.conf in F-11

On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 09:17 -0500, Jud Craft wrote: > I think the Fedora release notes mention that if you run the tool > system-config-display, it will automatically generate an xorg.conf for > you. > > >From the Common F11 Bugs, under "Miscellaneous problems with Intel > graphics adapters ": > h

Re: Fedora LaTeX SIG?

Le jeudi 11 juin 2009 à 12:17 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit : > > "NM" == Nicolas Mailhot writes: > > NM> I didn't see this before but I can only agree with the replies: > NM> this is an insane plan. Nobody is ever going to review properly a > NM> 2.7 MiB spec file, updating will be hel

Re: Fedora LaTeX SIG?

2009/6/11 Nicolas Mailhot : > The amount of work can probably be reduced by killing the source > packages (we have srpms for that) and only shipping the most recent font > formats (TEX people like to ship the same font in 2-3 different formats, > that only encourages users not to convert to the lat

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

Eric Springer wrote: > 2009/6/12 Christoph Höger : >> Without knowing how exactly the benchmark works I >> would guess that most of those apache requests are >> kernel calls so SELinux _might_ make a huge difference >> here. > > Shouldn't be overly hard to test as phoronix-test-suite is available

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

2009/6/12 Christoph Höger : > Without knowing how exactly the benchmark works I > would guess that most of those apache requests are > kernel calls so SELinux _might_ make a huge difference > here. Shouldn't be overly hard to test as phoronix-test-suite is available in Fedora's repository. I'd run

Re: Fedora 11 and nvidia driver

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009, Oscar wrote: I don't know if this is the right place to ask, sorry if it isn't I want to upgrade my fedora 10 to the new release, but i've read that the new driver for nvidia cards is presenting some issues https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F11_bugs#nouveau-suspend ht

Re: Fedora 11 and nvidia driver

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 2:58 AM, Oscar wrote: > I don't know if this is the right place to ask, sorry if it isn't This is more for issues related to the development of Fedora rather than end-user questions > > I want to upgrade my fedora 10 to the new release, but i've read that the > new driver

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

> The question becomes what is significantly different in the Apache > test? Is the Apache test essentially a network i/o test? What is > significantly different here that would not end up being tracked to an > upstream kernel networking stack regression? Is the apache performance > collatoral dam

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 3:43 AM, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > Why did you cherry pick the bad news instead of the summary? Likely for the same reasons we have a bug tracker instead of a 'what works list'. But I agree, Fedora performed quite favourably especially taking into consideration the database ben

Re: [Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 9:26 AM, Xose Vazquez Perez wrote: > hi, > > In Apache Benchmark: > "Ubuntu was able to sustain more than 58% more requests per second than > Fedora 11" > > Why did you cherry pick the bad n

Re: Fedora LaTeX SIG?

On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 11:55 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "JL" == Jussi Lehtola writes: > > JL> On 06/02/2009 07:27 AM, Jindrich Novy wrote: > >> New version texlive-2008 (to be in f12): one single texlive package > >> generating 3944 subpackages / 1065 MiB > JL> Oh. My. God. > > Pl

Re: Updates testing for F-11

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 12:20 AM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: > On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 07:44:24 +0530, >  Rahul Sundaram wrote: >> On 06/11/2009 07:39 AM, Bojan Smojver wrote: >> > Bojan Smojver rexursive.com> writes: >> > >> >> Maybe I missed something, but it seems that some updates that have been

Re: Fedora PPC console=? to get serial console

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > > (Posting here because the fedora-ppc list is a bit overrun with spam > http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/fedora-ppc/ ) > > Does anyone know what 'console=...' parameter I should give the Fedora > PPC kernel to get it to use a serial

[Phoronix] Ubuntu 9.04 vs. Fedora 11 Performance

hi, In Apache Benchmark: "Ubuntu was able to sustain more than 58% more requests per second than Fedora 11" -thanks- regards, -- Polycommander, Erkowit, Urquiola, Andros Patria, Cason, Aegean Sea, Prestige, ..

Re: Fedora LaTeX SIG?

> "NM" == Nicolas Mailhot writes: NM> I didn't see this before but I can only agree with the replies: NM> this is an insane plan. Nobody is ever going to review properly a NM> 2.7 MiB spec file, updating will be hell, etc. Isn't it nice, then that the final plan is different from the initial

Re: Fedora LaTeX SIG?

Le jeudi 11 juin 2009 à 10:44 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III a écrit : > > "JL" == Jussi Lehtola writes: > > JL> Hi everyone, there seems to be quite a lot of room for improvement > JL> in the current Fedora LaTeX scheme. > > I will point out that there has been some discussion in this area an

Fedora 11 and nvidia driver

I don't know if this is the right place to ask, sorry if it isn't I want to upgrade my fedora 10 to the new release, but i've read that the new driver for nvidia cards is presenting some issues https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F11_bugs#nouveau-suspend https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F1

Re: Fedora LaTeX SIG?

> "JL" == Jussi Lehtola writes: JL> On 06/02/2009 07:27 AM, Jindrich Novy wrote: >> New version texlive-2008 (to be in f12): one single texlive package >> generating 3944 subpackages / 1065 MiB JL> Oh. My. God. Please read the whole thread; that was the initial proposal, not the final one.

Re: Orphaning Packages: audacious and dependencies

On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 12:09:24 -0300, Paulo wrote: > I would create a symbolic link audacious -> audacious2, so the previous > bin can still be called. AFAIK, this is not done in Debian/Ubuntu either. The .desktop file has been renamed, too, and additionally the Fedora "--vendor fedora" has had to b

Re: Fedora LaTeX SIG?

On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 10:44 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > "JL" == Jussi Lehtola writes: > > JL> Hi everyone, there seems to be quite a lot of room for improvement > JL> in the current Fedora LaTeX scheme. > > I will point out that there has been some discussion in this area and > pl

Re: GRUB 2 in Ubuntu 9.10

On Thursday, June 11 2009, Michael Schwendt said: > On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:17:07 -0400, Jeremy wrote: > > [1] So, the gory history for those who might be interested. Eight years > > ago (!), we decided that the advantage of not having to rerun lilo after > > changing the config file as you can jus

Re: Too eager?

Michael Schwendt wrote: On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:08:00 -0500, Jon wrote: 1. yum upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing 2. yumdownloader --repoid=updates-testing yum cat < In #2 one also needs --enablerepo=updates-testing instead of --repoid=... and one must be very careful with

Re: Fedora LaTeX SIG?

> "JL" == Jussi Lehtola writes: JL> Hi everyone, there seems to be quite a lot of room for improvement JL> in the current Fedora LaTeX scheme. I will point out that there has been some discussion in this area and plans formed, but for some bizarre reason the discussion happened on the rel-en

Re: Fedora LaTeX SIG?

2009/6/11 Neal Becker : > I'm interested.  Migration to texlive was discussed here before.  Died after > nobody wanted to try to inspect licences of all the packages, IIRC. Well, it's not so much that (Tom Callaway actually did go through a number of the files packaged). The problem is that the wa

Re: Fedora LaTeX SIG?

Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > Le Jeu 11 juin 2009 16:47, Jonathan Underwood a écrit : >> >> 2009/6/11 Jussi Lehtola : > >>> Would anyone be interested in creating/joining a LaTeX SIG? >> >> Count me in. > > As I wrote before, people willing to improve TEX in Fedora are welcome > to use the Font

Re: Fedora LaTeX SIG?

Le Jeu 11 juin 2009 16:47, Jonathan Underwood a écrit : > > 2009/6/11 Jussi Lehtola : >> Would anyone be interested in creating/joining a LaTeX SIG? > > Count me in. As I wrote before, people willing to improve TEX in Fedora are welcome to use the Fonts SIG infrastructure (mailing lists, etc).

Re: Fedora LaTeX SIG?

On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 4:36 PM, Jussi Lehtola wrote: > Would anyone be interested in creating/joining a LaTeX SIG? I can be an on-off contributor to this Latex SIG as I am preparing some latex packages for electronic papers. Chitlesh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@redhat.c

Re: Fedora LaTeX SIG?

2009/6/11 Jussi Lehtola : > Hi everyone, > > > there seems to be quite a lot of room for improvement in the current > Fedora LaTeX scheme. There are a lot of useful LaTeX packages that would > be nice to have on Fedora, however we don't have any LaTeX package > guidelines for now. > > Also somethin

Re: Too eager?

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 09:08:00 -0500, Jon wrote: > >> 1. yum upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing > >> > >> 2. yumdownloader --repoid=updates-testing yum > >>cat < >> upgrade > >> install yum-3.2.23-3.fc11.noarch.rpm > >> run > >> EOL > >> > >> #1 means you'll get all the other updates from upd

Fedora PPC console=? to get serial console

(Posting here because the fedora-ppc list is a bit overrun with spam http://lists.infradead.org/pipermail/fedora-ppc/ ) Does anyone know what 'console=...' parameter I should give the Fedora PPC kernel to get it to use a serial console? Debian uses the non-standard form console=ttyPZ0 I've also

Fedora LaTeX SIG?

Hi everyone, there seems to be quite a lot of room for improvement in the current Fedora LaTeX scheme. There are a lot of useful LaTeX packages that would be nice to have on Fedora, however we don't have any LaTeX package guidelines for now. Also something should be done about the TeX Live packa

Re: GRUB 2 in Ubuntu 9.10

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 08:27:23 -0400, Jesse wrote: > On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 10:12 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Why is GRUB reinstalled with every kernel update then? > > What makes you think that it is? Grubby is ran which inputs the new > stanza into the config file, however I was not aware

Re: How to enable xorg.conf in F-11

I think the Fedora release notes mention that if you run the tool system-config-display, it will automatically generate an xorg.conf for you. >From the Common F11 Bugs, under "Miscellaneous problems with Intel graphics adapters ": https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_F11_bugs#intel-misc-gfx "/et

Re: Too eager?

Michael Schwendt wrote: On Tue, 09 Jun 2009 23:30:37 -0400, James wrote: On Tue, 2009-06-09 at 20:22 -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: Given you are trying to update via. yum, just enabling updates-testing should be the most fun :). Or you can always just download the above yum, and use yum she

From the desk of Jim Whitehurst...

http://press.redhat.com/2009/06/11/fedora-11-%e2%80%93-wow/ The URL above links to a wonderful note from Jim Whitehurst, President and CEO of Red Hat, congratulating the community on the release of Fedora 11. I think it's fantastic that Fedora gets such solid support from the very top ranks at Re

Re: GRUB 2 in Ubuntu 9.10

On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 10:12 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Why is GRUB reinstalled with every kernel update then? What makes you think that it is? Grubby is ran which inputs the new stanza into the config file, however I was not aware of a 'reinstall' of grub. -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freed

Re: glib2 gio GSocket conflicts (Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-06-08 x86_64)

Michael Schwendt píše v Čt 11. 06. 2009 v 13:54 +0200: > On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:48:29 +0200, Dan wrote: > > > Michael Schwendt píše v Čt 11. 06. 2009 v 13:40 +0200: > > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:06:50 -0500, Matt wrote: > > > > > > > Fedora Rawhide-in-Mock Build Results for x86_64 > > > > using th

Re: How to enable xorg.conf in F-11

Peter Lemenkov wrote: 2009/6/11 Oscar Osta Pueyo : Hi, * How to enable traditinal ctrl+alt+backpsace behaviour ? http://ryanler.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/controlaltbackspace-shortcut-does-not-restart-the-x-server-in-fedora-11/ Unfortunately, I don't use nor Gnome, neither KDE. If you hav

Re: glib2 gio GSocket conflicts (Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-06-08 x86_64)

On Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:48:29 +0200, Dan wrote: > Michael Schwendt píše v Čt 11. 06. 2009 v 13:40 +0200: > > On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:06:50 -0500, Matt wrote: > > > > > Fedora Rawhide-in-Mock Build Results for x86_64 > > > using the first rawhide of the Fedora 12 development cycle, cut on > > > 6/8

Re: How to enable xorg.conf in F-11

2009/6/11 Oscar Osta Pueyo : > Hi, >> * How to enable traditinal ctrl+alt+backpsace behaviour ? > > http://ryanler.wordpress.com/2009/06/11/controlaltbackspace-shortcut-does-not-restart-the-x-server-in-fedora-11/ Unfortunately, I don't use nor Gnome, neither KDE. -- With best regards! -- fedo

Re: glib2 gio GSocket conflicts (Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-06-08 x86_64)

Michael Schwendt píše v Čt 11. 06. 2009 v 13:40 +0200: > On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:06:50 -0500, Matt wrote: > > > Fedora Rawhide-in-Mock Build Results for x86_64 > > using the first rawhide of the Fedora 12 development cycle, cut on 6/8/2008. > > > > Full logs at http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/F

Re: How to enable xorg.conf in F-11

Hi, 2009/6/11 Peter Lemenkov > Hello All! > I've got some issues with Xogr on F-11. On order to fix (or properly > describe them in bugzilla, at least) I need to change some parameters > of Xorg, and the only way to make it (AFAIK) is to change values in > xorg.conf. Also I need to restart X as

glib2 gio GSocket conflicts (Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-06-08 x86_64)

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:06:50 -0500, Matt wrote: > Fedora Rawhide-in-Mock Build Results for x86_64 > using the first rawhide of the Fedora 12 development cycle, cut on 6/8/2008. > > Full logs at http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/ > compat-wxGTK26-2.6.4-7 (build/make) mschwendt >

How to enable xorg.conf in F-11

Hello All! I've got some issues with Xogr on F-11. On order to fix (or properly describe them in bugzilla, at least) I need to change some parameters of Xorg, and the only way to make it (AFAIK) is to change values in xorg.conf. Also I need to restart X as usial (ctrl+alt+backpsace) So I have the

Re: Finding file conflicts

Am Dienstag, den 21.04.2009, 19:51 +0100 schrieb José Matos: > On Tuesday 21 April 2009 19:23:59 Michael Schwendt wrote: > > R-Matrix conflicts with R-core > > R-Matrix-devel conflict with R-core > > That was fixed yesterday but it is not yet on rawhide (it will be probably > today). You

Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-06-08 x86_64

Op donderdag 11-06-2009 om 10:25 uur [tijdzone +0100], schreef Richard W.M. Jones: > > mingw32-libxslt-1.1.24-7.fc12 (build/make) epienbro,rjones > > This is quite strange. Has there been a change to /usr/bin/install > recently? The Makefile is doing: > > /usr/bin/install -c -m 644 exslt.h exs

Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-06-08 x86_64

On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 05:06:50PM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote: > fakechroot-2.9-22.fc12 (build/make) athimm,rjones Yup, real build problem - will fix shortly. > libguestfs-1.0.41-1.fc12 (build/make) rjones,virtmaint Ditto. > mingw32-libxslt-1.1.24-7.fc12 (build/make) epienbro,rjones This is quit

Re: Fedora rawhide rebuild in mock status 2009-06-08 x86_64

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:06:50 -0500, Matt wrote: > Fedora Rawhide-in-Mock Build Results for x86_64 > using the first rawhide of the Fedora 12 development cycle, cut on 6/8/2008. > > Full logs at http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/ > audacious-1.5.1-8.fc12 (build/make) ertzing > a

Re: GRUB 2 in Ubuntu 9.10

On 2009/06/11 10:12 (GMT+0200) Michael Schwendt composed: > On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:17:07 -0400, Jeremy wrote: >> [1] So, the gory history for those who might be interested. Eight years >> ago (!), we decided that the advantage of not having to rerun lilo after >> changing the config file as you

Re: GRUB 2 in Ubuntu 9.10

On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 17:17:07 -0400, Jeremy wrote: > [1] So, the gory history for those who might be interested. Eight years > ago (!), we decided that the advantage of not having to rerun lilo after > changing the config file as you can just read the config file off the > filesystem with grub was

Re: x86_64 kernel + i586 F11 userspace + yum

Paul Jakma wrote: On Tue, 9 Jun 2009, Warren Togami wrote: setarch i386 chroot /path/to/i586root Do this and yum will behave properly. Ok, that should improve things if I want to do a series of installs. Thanks! It's still extra typing though. Also, any ideas on having the x86_64 kernel