Revisor / yum odd error with f9 updates.newkey repo: Missing Dependency: glibc-common = 2.8-3 is needed by package glibc-2.8-3.i386
by Martin Langhoff
Right now, revisor can build a pristine F9 installer CD but cannot
build a F9 + updates installer CD.
The problem appears by merely enabling the additional repo in the
stock F9 config files that ship with Revisor. It has also been
reported elsewhere: https://fedorahosted.org/genome/ticket/28
The error is
Missing Dependency: glibc-common = 2.8-3 is needed by package
glibc-2.8-3.i386
even though the updates.newkey repo clearly has the full set of
glibc-* packages at 2.8-8
The OLPC XS installer CD will be installed in many servers that are
disconnected or have a horrible internet connection. Additionally, we
*need* some of the updates from the updates.newkey repo. So I really
need this to work. It looks like a bug to me, but I'm unsure if it's
in revisor, anaconda, yum...
Is there any workaround I can use?
cheers,
m
--
martin.langhoff(a)gmail.com
martin(a)laptop.org -- School Server Architect
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
15 years, 7 months
Fedora Live CD for Sugar
by Greg DeKoenigsberg
I have:
* A livecd for Fedora 10 devel (rawhide) that allows a Sugar 0.82 boot
option via GDM. We're missing activites, but as those make their way into
rawhide for F10, we will close these gaps quickly.
* A kickstart file that can be used by any Fedora user to generate such an
image trivially.
So. Where shall we host them? Somewhere in Fedora-land, or somewhere in
Sugar-land?
--g
15 years, 7 months
XO demo Saturday in Rochester NY
by Karlie Robinson
A brief FYI that I'll be taking the XO to a ROCGeeks Meet-up [1] on
Saturday.
I'll be doing show and tell with the machine as well as talking about
G1G1 and the Fedora install option.
~Karlie
[1] http://rocgeeks.com/
15 years, 7 months
Looking at the turtleart activity
by Bryan Kearney
This is a new maintainer question. The turtle art activity has a custom
license. It appears (although IANAL) to be FOSS friendly. Is the process
for packaging to ask the owner to re-licese, or ask fedora-legal to review?
-- bk
15 years, 7 months
