Looking at http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewcvs/comps/comps-f9.xml.in?view=markup
I find that Glade2 and Anjuta are marked as default and optional
respectively. While Glade 3.4.1 (separate package from Glade2) is
already there in the repositories, we are soon going to have a fresh
new Anjuta package (atleast 2.2.3) in Fedora.
However, the latest versions of Anjuta -- both 2.2.3 (stable) and
2.3.x (unstable) -- need Glade3 for its Glade plugin to work. So can
we consider replacing Glade2 by Glade3 in the comps-f9.xml.in for
Fedora 9? As far as I know, this would affect the Live Developer Spin
and the non-live GNOME DVD.
What do you think?
Free software for the Indian community:
* ftp://fedora.glug-nith.org/ (Fedora)
* http://gnu.glug-nith.org/ (GNU)
* http://mirror.wbut.ac.in/ (CRAN, Fedora, Mozilla, TLDP)
What is the reason that OTRS has been removed from Fedora since F8?
-- Jos Vos <jos(a)xos.nl>
-- X/OS Experts in Open Systems BV | Phone: +31 20 6938364
-- Amsterdam, The Netherlands | Fax: +31 20 6948204
Since this morning, initializing fedora-rawhide-i386 mock chroots fail
for me on FC9:
# mock -r fedora-rawhide-i386 init
INFO: mock.py version 0.9.9 starting...
ERROR: Command failed:
# /usr/bin/yum --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/
/bin/sh: error while loading shared libraries: libtinfo.so.5: cannot
open shared object file: No such file or directory
error: %post(bash-3.2-28.fc10.i386) scriptlet failed, exit status 127
I am able to reproduce this error on different fedora-9-i386 and
For whatever reason, so far, on fedora-9-x86_64, "mock -r
fedora-rawhide-x86_64 init" doesn't fail, nor have I encountered this
error on a fedora-rawhide-i386/fedora-9.92-i386 test-machine.
I put this for discussion here
http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=202573 and got no
helpful comments, so i put it here on the devel list.
When copying and moving files bigger than ~ 100 mb I get different
sha1 sums between the copy and the original file. Once I issued the
sha1 sommand 2 consequitive times on one and the same file and got 2
(!!!) different results. This is impossible!
I tested the hdd with smartmontools (short and long tests) and got no
errors of any kind. then used fsck and e2fsck on the partition and
they corrected something. I thought the problem was gone but here it
Maybe I should file a bug report. but against what? ext3? Any ideas
what this can be?
In a few hours, updates for Fedora 8 and Fedora 9 will start hitting
mirrors. These updates are designed to transition users from our old
repo locations to new locations that have all our updates re-signed with
a new set of keys.
Most users will simply need to apply the offered updates, and later
apply any further updates, and verify/import the new GPG key.
The process to getting new updates is two stage.
Stage 1) Users configured to get updates from existing repos will see a
small set of updates available in the next few hours/days. These
updates include fedora-release, PackageKit, gnome-packagekit, and unique
(for Fedora 8, only fedora-release is offered). These updates should be
applied as soon as possible.
Stage 2) Once the above updates have been applied, your update tools
(yum, PackageKit, pirut) will see a new repository and a larger set of
updates available. This is your new standard flow of updates, that will
continue to see new updates as the lifetime of Fedora 8 and 9 progress.
There will be further milestones in the future that involve redirection
of release package repos to match that of updates, and removing of old
gpg key from rpm trust.
For more details and an FAQ, please see
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
Fedora-devel-announce mailing list
Back in December, I had made a change that blocked kernel-devel packages
from winding up in the install media for the Fedora spin. I don't
recall getting any push back at the time, but I've gotten at least one
angry comment since then. So I'm putting it out for more discussion.
Do we feel that the kernel-devel (5~megs) should be in the install
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!