I have the yarrow's iso files on my HD in a RH9 system. Let's say I want
to upgrade selected packages using an "apt-get install" pointing to my
iso-mounted files, how do I do it?
i.e I mount the iso into some /mnt/yarrow1, /mnt/yarrow 2 etc..
Then what is the complete procedure to make my apt look into my own HD to
upgrade packages. Can anybody redirect me to the correct
resource or some literature hanging on the web? Thanks.
Assume also that I do not wish to burn CDs! I do not want to use
With kind regards,
Singapore Synchrotron Light Source (SSLS)
5 Research Link,
Email: slsbdfc at nus dot edu dot sg \or\
didierbe at sps dot nus dot edu dot sg
I just git a "broken dependencies" notice for a package that I maintain.
The reason is that "pdftk" got retired just the other day.
I may have missed a corresponding post on fedora-devel, but I think a
heads up notice to maintainers of depending packages may be in order
before you retire a package, as a general idea.
You see, unretiring a package is so much more work than changing
As for pdftk: I see 2 failed builds for version 1.45 and none for the
current version 2.02 (which probably breaks the api anyways). What are
the plans? Retire pdftk completely? Start fresh with pdftk2?
pdflabs, the maker of pdftk, provide binary as well as source rpms for
pdftk 2.02, by the way. I might even look into packaging it but don't
want to duplicate any existing efforts.
I just had to setup a new machine, and new ssh keys.
I chose my new id_rsa.pub to upload.
But I get:
git push --verbose
Pushing to ssh://email@example.com/mercurial
Permission denied (publickey).
fatal: The remote end hung up unexpectedly
apitrace 5.0 bundles libbacktrace, which looks like is living within the
gcc sources. libbacktrace is not build as a shared library from the gcc
sources, and not packaged.
Is it feasible to build libbacktrace as a shared library and ship it in
a corresponding package? Or should I rather go for a bundling exception
Some time back there was discussion of being able to rollback yum updates via
btrfs snapshotting. As I recall, it turned out that the default btrfs install
was not setup correctly to make this feasible (I had briefly tested it on my
machine). I haven't heard anything since - this seems like a great idea.
-- Those who don't understand recursion are doomed to repeat it
Over the past week, we've been dealing with a kernel bug that
prevents i686 machines from booting. Help was requested and given,
and it has been excellent and most welcome. This email has no
reflection on that, and is instead focused on the reality of where
i686 stands today.
In February we sent out an email highlighting that the kernel team
was not going to treat i686 bugs as a priority. Since that time, we
have held true to our word and have not focused on fixing i686 bugs at
all. It seems that the wider community is also treating i686
similarly. The kernel bug that was made automatic blocker because of
existing criteria was present in Fedora since the 4.1-rc6 kernel,
which was released May 31. It has been in every boot.iso created
since that date. Not a single person reported this issue until last
week. That is a timespan of two months.
The kernel team has autotesting for i686 kernels, but the environment
there does not utilize boot.iso so it did not detect this. The QA
team has automated testing for some of this, but nothing for the i686
architecture at all. It is not a priority there either.
Perhaps it is time that we evaluate where i686 stands in Fedora more
closely. For a starting suggestion, I would recommend that we do not
treat it as a release blocking architecture. This is not the same as
demotion to secondary architecture status. That has broader
implications in both buildsys and ecosystem. My suggestion is
narrowly focused so that builds still proceed as today, but if there
is something broken for i686 it does not block the release of whatever
milestone we are pursuing.
(To be clear, I would support a move to secondary arch status for
i686, but I am not suggesting it at this time.)
Making i686 non-release blocking would actually match reality. None
of the Fedora Editions appear at all concerned with i686. Cloud is
demoting i686 from its offering. Workstation has been fairly
ambivalent about it and recommends x86_64. Server does the same.
Given the lack of focus on it, and the fact that the broader community
is not testing the development releases for i686, I believe this would
be a good first step.
Today, I noticed that mock build root prepared by DNF is significantly
larger then prepared by YUM (see attached logs). Owners of packages
installed into minimal buildroot probably wants to review their
I also reported the issue against DNF  in case DNF guys wants to
improve this situation.
Currently the #fedora channel on freenode requires some kind of
registration. In my opinion it is pretty difficult to register on
freenode (I have tried but haven't managed). Do you think it would be
possible to drop the registration requirement? It is a pretty big
barrier to newbies and people like me who can't find IRC help easily.
I know there are a lot of bots and spam, but maybe it would be
possible to try and see if it really gets bad?