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
Intel's Clear Linux optimizations
by František Zatloukal
Hi,
Phoronix recently release article[1] about Intel's Clear Linux with some
cool graphs showing nice performance gain compared to Xubuntu.
I didn't have time to dig in and look how it's performing against Fedora,
but I'd assume Fedora can be compared to Xubuntu in terms of compiler
settings.
I think i'll be interesting to look into it and find out if Fedora can't
tweak compiler settings (eg use LTO for critical things like Mesa, Kernel,
...). I think it could be interesting fo Fedora users to have this enabled
if there are not any disadvantages other than compile time, compile memory
usage and so on.
What do you think?
[1]
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=intel-clr-opengl&num=1
--
Best regards / S pozdravem,
František Zatloukal
Project Coordinator
Red Hat
4 years, 1 month
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
iproute package update policy
by Phil Sutter
Hi,
So far my idea of maintaining Fedora's iproute package was to do full
version updates only in Rawhide and backport patches selectively to
stable versions on behalf of bug reports.
But since stable versions indeed receive full kernel updates (not just
backported patches), there is an understandable amount of frustration
amongst users when the shiny new kernel that comes with e.g. F22
provides features userspace does not support.
Especially since upstream iproute2 does not really have a concept of
stable versions, I'm in a bit of a dilemma here: update to keep in sync
with the kernel or not update to not unnecessarily destabilize the
system?
Any comments/advice are highly appreciated.
Thanks, Phil
6 years
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
RFC: static builds for user emulators in Fedora QEMU RPMs
by Daniel P. Berrange
For those who aren't familiar, QEMU actually provides two completely
different sets of emulators
- system emulators - they emulate a full virtual machine and thus run
a full guest OS.
- user emulators - they emulate the Linux userspace ABI letting you
run non-native arch executables directly.
The user emulators are what I'm concerned with in this mail, so ignore
the system emulators.
Currently all the user emulators are provided in the "qemu-user" RPM
which also includes files in /usr/lib/binfmt.d to register each emulator
binary as a binary format handler for its respective architecture.
This is ok if you have a non-native arch binary that's statically linked
and you just want to run it from context of your main OS root filesystem.
Running dynamic linked binaries won't fly because if say running an arm
binary on x86_64 host, it'll look for /lib/libc.so and find the i386 one,
instead of the arm one. You can't set LD_LIBRARY_PATH to override this
as the env var will apply to both qemu-arm (an x86_64 binary) and the
binary it is trying to run (an arm binary).
More typical though is that you have a directory containing an fullish
install tree of a non-native architecture and you just want to chroot
into that. When doing such a chroot, the qemu-$ARCH emulator must be
present inside the chroot too. ie the x86_64 build of /usr/bin/qemu-arm
must be present inside at /my/chroot/for/fedora-arm/usr/bin/qemu-arm.
So again you have the potential problem of clashing libc.so in /usr/lib
It is a shame Fedora doesn't have full multi-arch support, instead of
merely multi-lib to avoid these clashing lib dirs across architecture
RPMs.
The recommended way to deal with this for the qemu user emulator binaries
to be statically linked, so when copied inside the non-native arch chroot,
they never need to resolve any native arch libraries. Fedora's qemu user
binaries are all dynamic linked right now.
Debian handles this by having several packages [1]
- qemu-user - the dynamic linked qemu user binaries
- qemu-binfmt - binfmt rules registering the dynamic linked binaries
- qemu-user-static - the static linked qemu user binaries *and* binfmt
rules to register them. The static binaries all
have -static suffix on their name
NB, this means qemu-binfmt and qemu-user-static are mutually exclusive
since they both provide the same binfmt files. You can however have both
qemu-user and qemu-user-static installed as their binary names won't
clash, and in this case the static ones will be registered as binfmts
This nice thing about this multiple package approach is that when you
copied the x86_64 build of the "qemu-arm-static" binary into your arm
chroot, you still then have the possibility of installing the arm build
of the "qemu-arm" binary inside that chroot without filename clash.
An alternative simpler approach would be to just have one package,
qemu-user, which contains the static binaries and never ship any
dynamic linked qemu user binaries. This is slightly more restrictive
though, as explained in the previous paragraph, so I'd like to avoid
doing that.
I'd like to make using non-native arch chroots simple with Fedora without
people needing to manually build their own static QEMU binaries, or download
static binaries provided by another distro[2]. So I'm suggesting to make a
change to Fedora qemu packages to essentially copy the way Debian has done
things. Specifically I will
- Pull the binfmt registration files out of qemu-user and into a
new qemu-binfmt package which depends on qemu-user.
- Add static builds of qemu user emulators to a new qemu-user-static
package, along with binfmt registration files
The static build of QEMU user emulators is moderately light on
dependancies, only requiring glib2-static, pcre-static, zlib-static
and glibc-static packages.
The change to introduce a qemu-binfmt package has small upgrade
implications since anyone with qemu-user installed today, will loose
the binary format rules unless they manually install qemu-binfmt. I
think the number of people affected is probably quite small, and some
of them may well wish to use qemu-user-static instead anyway.
Obviously this would only be done in rawhide, not any existing stable
releases of Fedora.
Nothing will change about the rest of QEMU packaging - ie all system
emulators will continue to use dynamic linking
Regards,
Daniel
[1] https://wiki.debian.org/QemuUserEmulation
[2] https://rwmj.wordpress.com/2013/12/22/how-to-run-aarch64-binaries-on-an-x...
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
6 years, 2 months
