upgrading RH 9 system->Fedora with iso files and apt only
by Didier Casse
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
apt-cdrom. Thanks.
With kind regards,
Didier.
---
PhD student
Singapore Synchrotron Light Source (SSLS)
5 Research Link,
Singapore 117603
Email: slsbdfc at nus dot edu dot sg \or\
didierbe at sps dot nus dot edu dot sg
Website: http://ssls.nus.edu.sg
1 year, 2 months
pdftk retired?
by Michael J Gruber
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
maintainership.
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.
Michael
1 year, 6 months
Rstudio
by Steve Grubb
Hello,
I like to have everything on my system in a package. So, I looked around and
found no recipe or rpm for Rstudio. This is really a shame because every
tutorial on R kinda tells you to install it. Even the Coursera classes in the
Data Science track make you install it and send a screenshot to prove it.
So, I spent some time getting it packaged and working. I am placing the spec
file and necessary patch here so that google finds it and saves other people the
trouble. I'm not wanting to submit the package to Fedora because its more work
than I have time for. If anyone else wants to take it from here and submit
and/or maintain it, feel free.
http://people.redhat.com/sgrubb/files/Rstudio/
Enjoy...
-Steve
5 years, 2 months
apitrace, bundled libbacktrace
by Sandro Mani
Hi,
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
request?
Thanks,
Sandro
5 years, 3 months
Xulrunner - intent to remove from Fedora 24
by Martin Stransky
Hi,
does anyone use the xulrunner package? (and gecko-devel actually).
Mozilla does not maintain it any more and the XUL as technology is going
to be removed/deprecated. I'd like to remove the package from Fedora 24.
ma.
5 years, 9 months
whatever happened to yum + btrfs snapshotting?
by Neal Becker
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
6 years
GPG2 as default /usr/bin/gpg
by Christopher
I just ran into this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1309175
It's not a huge deal (and there are several workarounds, for git and for
other tools which default ot using 'gpg'), but it highlights the mismatch
between the default /usr/bin/gpg running gpg1, when other tools, like
gpg-agent, are tailored for gpg2.
RHEL/CentOS has shipped /usr/bin/gpg with gnupg2 since at least sometime in
RHEL6.
I'm not saying we shouldn't continue to ship gnupg1, but can we at least
rename it, so gnupg package is version 2, and gnupg1 provides /usr/bin/gpg1
instead? This seems overdue. Is there any reason not to do this?
6 years, 8 months
Validity of i686 as a release blocker
by Josh Boyer
Hello,
Over the past week, we've been dealing with a kernel bug[1] 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[2] 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[3] 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.
josh
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1247382
[2] https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/2015-February/208368.html
[3] https://fedorahosted.org/cloud/ticket/106
6 years, 11 months
