RE: Java 1.50 not installed in FC4? Use Sun's version?
by Dan Thurman
>From: fedora-list-bounces(a)redhat.com
>[mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com]On Behalf Of Sam Varshavchik
>Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 5:36 PM
>To: For users of Fedora Core releases
>Subject: Re: Java 1.50 not installed in FC4? Use Sun's version?
>
>
>Daniel B. Thurman writes:
>
>>
>> One more thing is not clear to me, even though I
>> want to install the JDK, do I still need to install
>> the JRE?
>
>If you are referring to Sun's stuff, their JDK includes JRE, so no.
>
>> Installing the JDK the proper way is to rebuild the rpm
>> but nothing is said about the JRE, assuming that it needed.
>
>With JDK, you can build stuff and run stuff.
>
>With JRE, you can only run stuff.
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/152 - Release
>Date: 10/31/2005
>
Thanks for the clarification!
Dan
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/152 - Release Date: 10/31/2005
18 years, 6 months
RE: Java 1.50 not installed in FC4? Use Sun's version?
by Dan Thurman
One more thing is not clear to me, even though I
want to install the JDK, do I still need to install
the JRE?
Installing the JDK the proper way is to rebuild the rpm
but nothing is said about the JRE, assuming that it needed.
Can you clarify this please?
Thanks alot.
Dan
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/152 - Release Date: 10/31/2005
18 years, 6 months
RE: Java 1.50 not installed in FC4? Use Sun's version?
by Dan Thurman
>-----Original Message-----
>From: fedora-list-bounces(a)redhat.com
>[mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com]On Behalf Of Alexander Dalloz
>Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 4:14 PM
>To: For users of Fedora Core releases
>Subject: Re: Java 1.50 not installed in FC4? Use Sun's version?
>
>
>Am Mi, den 02.11.2005 schrieb Daniel B. Thurman um 0:54:
>
>> So, where did you get the rpm's for FC4? Just
>> go to sun's site, download the java bin file,
>> and follow their install instructions? Is that
>> it?
>
>http://www.fedorafaq.org/#java
>
>http://fedoranews.org/mediawiki/index.php/JPackage_Java_for_FC4
>
>Sun's Java is not free and thus can't be shipped with Fedora.
>
>Alexander
>
>P.S. Please don't top-post.
>
>
>--
>Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | GPG http://pgp.mit.edu 0xB366A773
>legal statement: http://www.uni-x.org/legal.html
>Fedora Core 2 GNU/Linux on Athlon with kernel 2.6.11-1.35_FC2smp
>Serendipity 01:11:51 up 3 days, 23:12, load average: 0.35, 0.51, 0.52
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/152 - Release
>Date: 10/31/2005
>
Thanks Alexander! Now is this what you call "bottom posting"
as in bottom-feeder? :-)
Dan
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/152 - Release Date: 10/31/2005
18 years, 6 months
RE: Java 1.50 not installed in FC4? Use Sun's version?
by Dan Thurman
So, where did you get the rpm's for FC4? Just
go to sun's site, download the java bin file,
and follow their install instructions? Is that
it?
>-----Original Message-----
>From: fedora-list-bounces(a)redhat.com
>[mailto:fedora-list-bounces@redhat.com]On Behalf Of Paul Smith
>Sent: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 3:51 PM
>To: For users of Fedora Core releases
>Subject: Re: Java 1.50 not installed in FC4? Use Sun's version?
>
>
>On 11/1/05, Daniel B. Thurman <dant(a)cdkkt.com> wrote:
>> Well, I checked. Java 1.50 is not installed on FC4, even with all
>> the updates. I searched the RPMs and see references to v1.4.2?
>> Is that it??
>>
>> Can I install Sun's v1.50 or what is recommended.
>>
>> I noticed this problem since FireFox did not find *any*
>> java installed as a module ....
>
>The Sun's one works fine here.
>
>Paul
>
>--
>fedora-list mailing list
>fedora-list(a)redhat.com
>To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Free Edition.
>Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/152 - Release
>Date: 10/31/2005
>
>
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.6/152 - Release Date: 10/31/2005
18 years, 6 months
not able to make xmms
by Sujit Sugathan
i have fc4 installed on my system. i wanted to install xmms onto it . but
when i tried to "make" the file there were some errors due to which i
couldnt compile the program. anyone please help me since i'm relatively new
to linux
sujit
18 years, 6 months
Windows install disc can't see my FC4 partitions
by Ken Schutte
I need to setup a dual boot system on my x40 Thinkpad laptop. I've done
it without problems before, but this time I have FC4 installed first,
and now want to add a Windows XP partition. On intial FC4 setup, I used
disk druid and kept some open space, then later used qtparted in knoppix
to create an NTFS partition. Currently fdisk -l shows:
Disk /dev/hda: 40.0 GB, 40007761920 bytes
255 heads, 63 sectors/track, 4864 cylinders
Units = cylinders of 16065 * 512 = 8225280 bytes
Device Boot Start End Blocks Id System
/dev/hda1 * 1 13 104391 83 Linux
/dev/hda2 14 3582 28667992+ 83 Linux
/dev/hda3 3583 3647 522112+ 82 Linux swap / Solaris
/dev/hda4 3648 4864 9775552+ 7 HPFS/NTFS
When I try to boot from a Windows XP disc to install Windows, it quickly
flashes some text saying something like "please wait while checks your
system...", then the screen is blank and nothing happens and I have to
just reset. Should I be able to boot and install from a WinXP disc
given that partition table?
Sorry if this it a bit of a windows question, but all these partions
were created in linux, so maybe somebody could help.
Thanks!
Ken
18 years, 6 months
internet access via a wireless phone ?
by Kevin Kempter
Hi List;
I'm working at a client site which has decided to take extreme measures so they can continue to use insecure M$ products. The latest is that they have shut down virtually all external internet access outside of their intranet.
Is there a way I could use my treo phone to allow my laptop running FC3 to connect to the internet ?
18 years, 6 months
linux-2.6.14 won't compile FC2/FC3
by Bill Rees
Has anyone had any luck completing a "make modules_install" of the
2.6.14
linux kernel on a gcc3.3 sytstem? I've tried two systems, one an FC2
and one
an FC3, and both fail with the following error message:
if [ -r System.map -a -x /sbin/depmod ]; then /sbin/depmod -ae -F
System.map 2.6.14; fi
make: *** [_modinst_post] Error 137
Running the commnad "/sbin/depmod -ae -F System.map 2.6.14" from the cli
results in a "Killed" message.
I'm running with the depmod contained in the package:
module-init-tools-3.1-0.pre5.3
I havent found a good definition for Error 137 and google results imply
it means
"Value not recognized."
The make modules_install works just fine on an FC4 system (with gcc4).
Bill
18 years, 6 months
firefox 1.0.1 and java
by Gerhard Magnus
Once I installed the new firefox 1.0.1 I lost the java runtime
environment I had finally been able to get working with firefox 1.0.
The "About Mozilla Firefox" window says I'm running "Firefox/1.0.1
Fedora/1.0.1-1.3.2". I assume this new version of firefox is using
files from the directory tree that starts /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.1, which
means I need to make a symbolic link (using the ln -s command)
from /usr/java/jre1.5.0/plugin/i386/ns7/libjavaplugin_oji.so
to /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.1/plugins. This is the same procedure I
successfully used before to make the link in
the /usr/lib/firefox-1.0/plugins directory.
For some reason this procedure is not working -- the new link
in /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.1/plugins appears in red instead of blue. I've
tried deleting the link (using rm -r) from both
the /usr/lib/firefox-1.0/plugins and the /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.1/plugins
directories. Although they no longer show up (using ls -al) the link
creation (using ln -s) still gives a non-functioning link. Then when I
do a locate libjavaplugin_oji.so I get --
/usr/java/j2re1.4.2_06/plugin/i386/ns610/libjavaplugin_oji.so
/usr/java/j2re1.4.2_06/plugin/i386/ns610-gcc32/libjavaplugin_oji.so
/usr/java/jre1.5.0/plugin/i386/ns7/libjavaplugin_oji.so
/usr/java/jre1.5.0/plugin/i386/ns7-gcc29/libjavaplugin_oji.so
/usr/lib/firefox-1.0/plugins/libjavaplugin_oji.so
/usr/lib/firefox-1.0.1/plugins/libjavaplugin_oji.so
which seems to be saying the links are still there in both firefox
directories! When I try ls -l on the /usr/lib/firefox-1.0.1/plugins
directory I get:
lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 20 Mar 6 16:51 libjavaplugin_oji.so ->
libjavaplugin_oji.so
flashing in red -- it looks like the link is linking to itself. Or
something.... Any suggestions on how to clean this up or at least to
hack through it further?
18 years, 6 months
Re: OT - Please Help with sane / scanner
by Michael Wiktowy
Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:01:25 -0700
From: kevin.kempter(a)dataintellect.com
>Hi List ;
>
>I bought a Plustek OpticSlim M12 sheetfeed usb scanner.
>If I run sane-find-scanner I see the following:
>found USB scanner (vendor=0x07b3, product=0x0412 [600dpi USB Scanner],
>chip=GT-6816?) at libusb:002:004
> # Your USB scanner was (probably) detected. It may or may not be supported
>by
> # SANE. Try scanimage -L and read the backend's manpage.
>
>However if I run scanimage -L I get this:
>No scanners were identified. If you were expecting something different,
>check that the scanner is plugged in, turned on and detected by the
>sane-find-scanner tool (if appropriate). Please read the documentation
>which came with this software (README, FAQ, manpages).
>
>I dont know where to go from here...
>
>Thanks in advance for any help
>
If you check out the SANE Projects Supported Devices list here:
http://www.sane-project.org/sane-mfgs.html#Z-PLUSTEK
It looks like your scanner is not supported ... yet.
Since there is some similarity with other scanners from Plustek, it
looks like it may be supported in the near future but there is no way of
telling how near that future will be.
You could try uncommenting the backend in dll.conf that is indicated to
be similar (sane-gt68xx
<http://www.sane-project.org/man/sane-gt68xx.5.html>) but it is known to
not *specifically* encompass your chipset ... but you could get lucky
and get partial functionality.
If all else fails, file a bug report with the SANE project requesting
your chipset to be supported and provide them some details of your
hardware if asked.
http://www.sane-project.org/bugs.html
/Mike
18 years, 6 months
