6:11 p.m.
I tried updating this computer from F7 to F8 earlier today. I booted it off a
CDR, pointed it to the DVD image on my fileserver, and let 'er rip. It got to
about the 26% mark on "resolving dependencies" that others have mentioned, and
then sat. And sat. I saw a bit of network activity and a bit of hard drive
activity once in a while so it wasn't hung up.
About 3 hours later I gave up for the moment and rebooted the computer so I'm
back at F7.
I'm thinking of trying this again overnight tonight -- firing it up just before
I go to bed and see what it looks like in the morning. However, it occurs to
me that after it finishes "resolving dependencies" it will sit there and ask me
to confirm that it's ok to start writing to the hard drive.
Is there any way that I can tell it to proceed at that point without having to
be here to click on "next"?
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
11:44 p.m.
On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 16:56:24 -0800
Kam Leo <kam.leo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Mplayer plugin got installed in the usual place,
/user/lib/mozilla/plugins/, on my system. I needed to copy the files
over to /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-2.0.0.8/plugins before they appeared.
It was installed in /usr/lib64/mozilla/plugins here, but didn't show up under
"about:plugins". I created symbolic links to each of the
"mplayerplug-in-*"
files in ~/.mozilla/plugins and now it shows up.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
4:50 p.m.
On Monday 12 November 2007 10:20:25 Claude Jones wrote:
though, I did notice that pulse-audio was installed on this
system...haven't
figured out what it does, or how to use it yet, but, it's definitely there.
Just in case you are using KDE, kde-settings-pulseaudio is *not*
installed during the yum upgrade. You need to install it after the
upgrade.
--
Garry T. Williams --- +1 678 656-4579
2:48 p.m.
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 12:36:55 -0800 (PST)
alan <alan(a)clueserver.org> wrote:
According to a friend who has run tests, it will run about twice as
fast
in 64-bit mode.
Cool. It occurred to me earlier today that if I'm going to have to set this
machine up from scratch again I might was well try it with the 64-bit setup and
see what I get. It could indeed be worth the effort.
I do not have F8 on my laptop yet. With F7 I have issues with
suspend.
Flash is a bit of an issue. (Adobe still does not have a 64-bit Flash
plug-in, but there are open source solutions that work on about 85% of
sites.) Some other minor issues, all web plug in related. Other than
that, it works great.
I was just doing some reading about that and it appears that if you run 32-bit
Firefox then none of those issues arise. I wonder if there is any benefit to
running 64-bit Firefox anyway -- download speed seems to be more of a limiting
factor than rendering speed for web browsing.
My only other real concern is Adobe acroread, because I use that to create
plates for offset presses and unfortunately none of the open-source PDF viewer
programs seem to be up to the job (so far). I was just reading a write-up on
Adobe's website that talks about this issue and it seems that acoread can also
be made to run even though it's a 32-bit application.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
12:49 p.m.
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 09:48:18 -0700
Paul Lemmons <paul.lemmons(a)tmcaz.com> wrote:
Highly interesting! I have added myself to the cc list on that bug and posted
my experience as well.
Thanks!
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
10:48 a.m.
Track bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=366641
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: long wait...
From: Frank Cox <theatre(a)sasktel.net>
To: fedora-list(a)redhat.com
Date: 11/08/2007 05:11 PM
I tried updating this computer from F7 to F8 earlier today. I booted
it off a
CDR, pointed it to the DVD image on my fileserver, and let 'er rip. It got to
about the 26% mark on "resolving dependencies" that others have mentioned, and
then sat. And sat. I saw a bit of network activity and a bit of hard drive
activity once in a while so it wasn't hung up.
About 3 hours later I gave up for the moment and rebooted the computer so I'm
back at F7.
I'm thinking of trying this again overnight tonight -- firing it up just before
I go to bed and see what it looks like in the morning. However, it occurs to
me that after it finishes "resolving dependencies" it will sit there and ask
me
to confirm that it's ok to start writing to the hard drive.
Is there any way that I can tell it to proceed at that point without having to
be here to click on "next"?
3:21 a.m.
Kam Leo:
> Just save your data and start a new install. It will be much
faster.
> After the initial installation there are still the 3rd party
> repository packages to install. What joy!
Frank Cox:
I considered that. The only third-party repository that I have
actively
installed is Livna, but I have a number of cron jobs and several bits of
custom-compiled (non-rpm) software that I also run on this computer, plus it
is a LTSP server. (I have a nifty little Neoware terminal behind the counter in
my theatre lobby that I use to read books and whatnot while the show is on.)
As this is my main computer where all of my stuff lives, setting the whole thing
up again from scratch would probably take the better part of a day and a fair
bit of thought, not to mention that there is always one little thing that I
manage to forget about until something suddenly doesn't happen the way that it
should.
In the dim and distant past, I'd tried upgrades, and spent ages ironing
out the bugs. Later, I did fresh installs, and spent a much lesser
amount of time customising the new install. Apart from the time, this
seemed to be the differences: One is just re-configuring, the other is
sorting out all the problems that aren't handled by the update process.
I would think that it'd be good to, prior to an update, scan a system
and look for system configuration files that aren't the same as provided
by the RPM when installed, back them up, and then use them as templates
for re-configuring a new system.
--
[tim@bigblack ~]$ uname -ipr
2.6.23.1-10.fc7 i686 i386
Using FC 4, 5, 6 & 7, plus CentOS 5. Today, it's FC7.
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
4:53 p.m.
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:29:17 +0100
Nigel Henry <cave.dnb(a)tiscali.fr> wrote:
Anyway Frank. What film (movie) are you running today? I hope
it's not a
naughty one.
Two, actually, and both are naughty! Mr Woodcock (classified PG -- coarse and
sexual language, sexually suggestive scenes) and Good Luck Chuck (classified
18A -- sexually suggestive scenes and nudity).
Might get the trench-coat brigade in to watch the shows this week. *tee hee*
There one skinny old guy who comes to every show that I play that might possibly
include naked women. I never see him at anything else, but if a film has a
suggestive name or advertising photo, or if it has a sex-whatever warning, he's
guaranteed to be here. I remember that he came to see Wild Things three times.
Hope you resolve the upgrade problem.
I have now pretty much convinced myself that I want to install F8-64bit on this
machine. I downloaded it just a few minutes ago and will probably set that up
tomorrow. There isn't really enough time to do much more now before showtime
tonight.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
2:36 p.m.
On Fri, 9 Nov 2007, Frank Cox wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:17:03 +0100
Marcel Janssen <korgull(a)home.nl> wrote:
> Giving up on this for the time being (until there's a fixed installer I
> guess).
I'm thinking that now might be a good time to switch this computer over to
64-bit F8. I'm not really clear on what benefits one gets by doing so simply
because I've never set up a computer that way before.
According to a friend who has run tests, it will run about twice as fast
in 64-bit mode.
I run 64-bit on my mail server and laptop. The mail server has no
problems with 64-bit code. (Other than absurdly low load levels, as if
that is a problem...)
I do not have F8 on my laptop yet. With F7 I have issues with suspend.
Flash is a bit of an issue. (Adobe still does not have a 64-bit Flash
plug-in, but there are open source solutions that work on about 85% of
sites.) Some other minor issues, all web plug in related. Other than
that, it works great.
--
Truth is stranger than fiction because fiction has to make sense.
2:28 p.m.
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:17:03 +0100
Marcel Janssen <korgull(a)home.nl> wrote:
Giving up on this for the time being (until there's a fixed
installer I
guess).
I'm thinking that now might be a good time to switch this computer over to
64-bit F8. I'm not really clear on what benefits one gets by doing so simply
because I've never set up a computer that way before.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
2:17 p.m.
On Friday 09 November 2007, Frank Cox wrote:
I tried updating this computer from F7 to F8 earlier today. I booted
it
off a CDR, pointed it to the DVD image on my fileserver, and let 'er rip.
It got to about the 26% mark on "resolving dependencies" that others have
mentioned, and then sat. And sat. I saw a bit of network activity and a bit
of hard drive activity once in a while so it wasn't hung up.
About 3 hours later I gave up for the moment and rebooted the computer so
I'm back at F7.
I just fixed the /sbin/loader issue and now hit this issue. Not on one laptop,
but on 2 laptops (with completely different specs).
Giving up on this for the time being (until there's a fixed installer I
guess).
regards,
Marcel
12:46 p.m.
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:33:55 -0700
Craig White <craig(a)tobyhouse.com> wrote:
Personally, I have faith that it would probably continue on and
finish
if left alone.
After 9 hours of nothing at all changing other than the odd bit of disk or
network activity? You have a lot of faith.
I just tried it again with the "img" update that was posted here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=366641
I left it for an hour but nothing changed.
It will be interesting to watch this bug report.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
12:33 p.m.
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 10:59 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:51:14 +1030
Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
> In the dim and distant past, I'd tried upgrades, and spent ages ironing
> out the bugs. Later, I did fresh installs, and spent a much lesser
> amount of time customising the new install. Apart from the time, this
> seemed to be the differences: One is just re-configuring, the other is
> sorting out all the problems that aren't handled by the update process.
It looks like I'm going to have to bite the bullet and install from scratch if
I want to put F8 on this computer.
I fired up the update process again last night just before 2am. It's now
almost 11am the following day and the screen was still at the exact same place
that it got to on "resolving dependencies" when I left it last night.
----
Personally, I have faith that it would probably continue on and finish
if left alone.
Craig
10:59 a.m.
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 19:51:14 +1030
Tim <ignored_mailbox(a)yahoo.com.au> wrote:
In the dim and distant past, I'd tried upgrades, and spent ages
ironing
out the bugs. Later, I did fresh installs, and spent a much lesser
amount of time customising the new install. Apart from the time, this
seemed to be the differences: One is just re-configuring, the other is
sorting out all the problems that aren't handled by the update process.
It looks like I'm going to have to bite the bullet and install from scratch if
I want to put F8 on this computer.
I fired up the update process again last night just before 2am. It's now
almost 11am the following day and the screen was still at the exact same place
that it got to on "resolving dependencies" when I left it last night.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
4:30 a.m.
Frank Cox wrote:
I tried updating this computer from F7 to F8 earlier today. I booted
it
off a
CDR, pointed it to the DVD image on my fileserver, and let 'er rip. It
got to about the 26% mark on "resolving dependencies" that others have
mentioned, and then sat. And sat. I saw a bit of network activity and a
bit of hard drive activity once in a while so it wasn't hung up.
When I've had this problem in the past,
I have managed to get an absolutely minimal installation going
(choosing Custom Install, and then opting for almost no packages).
Once the system was running, I installed what I wanted
with yum group-install.
4:26 a.m.
Tim wrote:
> As this is my main computer where all of my stuff lives, setting
the
> whole thing up again from scratch would probably take the better part of
> a day and a fair bit of thought, not to mention that there is always one
> little thing that I manage to forget about until something suddenly
> doesn't happen the way that it should.
In the dim and distant past, I'd tried upgrades, and spent ages ironing
out the bugs. Later, I did fresh installs, and spent a much lesser
amount of time customising the new install. Apart from the time, this
seemed to be the differences: One is just re-configuring, the other is
sorting out all the problems that aren't handled by the update process.
My experience is the opposite.
I've had more problems with clean installations than with upgrades.
The worst problem is if you do a clean installation
and it just does not work.
I don't recall ever having "bugs" with an upgrade.
What kind of bugs did you have?
But with all the spare disk space nowadays, I usually do both;
upgrade on the current partition,
and if that works I do a clean installation on another partition.
Incidentally, I upgraded to F-8 on one machine (AMD-64) last night,
and it was astonishingly fast;
it took less than 45 minutes to install around 950 packages.
1:45 a.m.
On Thu, 08 Nov 2007 23:32:23 -0800
Kam Leo <kam.leo(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Just save your data and start a new install. It will be much faster.
After the initial installation there are still the 3rd party
repository packages to install. What joy!
I considered that. The only third-party repository that I have actively
installed is Livna, but I have a number of cron jobs and several bits of
custom-compiled (non-rpm) software that I also run on this computer, plus it
is a LTSP server. (I have a nifty little Neoware terminal behind the counter in
my theatre lobby that I use to read books and whatnot while the show is on.)
As this is my main computer where all of my stuff lives, setting the whole thing
up again from scratch would probably take the better part of a day and a fair
bit of thought, not to mention that there is always one little thing that I
manage to forget about until something suddenly doesn't happen the way that it
should.
Upgrading it appears to be destined to take a half-day at least, but the
majority of the job can run unattended and, hopefully, overnight. My plan is to
boot from the CD later tonight, run the upgrade, then tomorrow morning I
will update the Livna rpm to v8 and run "yum update" after that; hopefully
everything will just work.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
1:32 a.m.
On Nov 8, 2007 9:52 PM, Frank Cox <theatre(a)sasktel.net> wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:10:13 +0900
John Summerfield <debian(a)herakles.homelinux.org> wrote:
> Frank Cox wrote:
> > I tried updating this computer from F7 to F8 earlier today. I booted it off a
> > CDR, pointed it to the DVD image on my fileserver, and let 'er rip. It got
to
> > about the 26% mark on "resolving dependencies" that others have
mentioned, and
> > then sat. And sat. I saw a bit of network activity and a bit of hard drive
> > activity once in a while so it wasn't hung up.
> >
>
> Computer specs?
3GHz Intel Pentium 4, 2 GB of ram.
> My laptop (Celeron [0M>] 1.5 Ghz, 256 Mbytes) took a good 12 hours to go
> from FC3 to FC5.
It took a while for this machine to update itself from FC6 to F7 as well -- it
sat at that "resolving dependencies" screen for quite a while. But not three
hours.
Just save your data and start a new install. It will be much faster.
After the initial installation there are still the 3rd party
repository packages to install. What joy!
11:52 p.m.
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 14:10:13 +0900
John Summerfield <debian(a)herakles.homelinux.org> wrote:
Frank Cox wrote:
> I tried updating this computer from F7 to F8 earlier today. I booted it off a
> CDR, pointed it to the DVD image on my fileserver, and let 'er rip. It got to
> about the 26% mark on "resolving dependencies" that others have mentioned,
and
> then sat. And sat. I saw a bit of network activity and a bit of hard drive
> activity once in a while so it wasn't hung up.
>
Computer specs?
3GHz Intel Pentium 4, 2 GB of ram.
My laptop (Celeron [0M>] 1.5 Ghz, 256 Mbytes) took a good 12 hours
to go
from FC3 to FC5.
It took a while for this machine to update itself from FC6 to F7 as well -- it
sat at that "resolving dependencies" screen for quite a while. But not three
hours.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
11:10 p.m.
Frank Cox wrote:
I tried updating this computer from F7 to F8 earlier today. I booted
it off a
CDR, pointed it to the DVD image on my fileserver, and let 'er rip. It got to
about the 26% mark on "resolving dependencies" that others have mentioned, and
then sat. And sat. I saw a bit of network activity and a bit of hard drive
activity once in a while so it wasn't hung up.
Computer specs?
About 3 hours later I gave up for the moment and rebooted the
computer so I'm
back at F7.
I'm thinking of trying this again overnight tonight -- firing it up just before
I go to bed and see what it looks like in the morning. However, it occurs to
me that after it finishes "resolving dependencies" it will sit there and ask
me
to confirm that it's ok to start writing to the hard drive.
My laptop (Celeron [0M>] 1.5 Ghz, 256 Mbytes) took a good 12 hours to go
from FC3 to FC5.
--
Cheers
John
-- spambait
1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu Z1aaaaaaa(a)coco.merseine.nu
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375
Please do not reply off-list
10:53 p.m.
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 18:11 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
I'm thinking of trying this again overnight tonight -- firing it
up
just before I go to bed and see what it looks like in the morning.
However, it occurs to me that after it finishes "resolving
dependencies" it will sit there and ask me to confirm that it's ok to
start writing to the hard drive.
Is there any way that I can tell it to proceed at that point without
having to be here to click on "next"?
The obvious thought about doing an unattended install would be to do it
using a kickstart file. It has all the answers already provided in it,
so it shouldn't need user interaction.
--
[tim@bigblack ~]$ uname -ipr
2.6.23.1-10.fc7 i686 i386
Using FC 4, 5, 6 & 7, plus CentOS 5. Today, it's FC7.
Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored.
I read messages from the public lists.
6:56 p.m.
On Nov 11, 2007 10:12 PM, Frank Cox <theatre(a)sasktel.net> wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:28:37 -0500
Claude Jones <cjones(a)levitjames.com> wrote:
> I was having the same problem. I decided to update my two
> machines on F7 using yum. Both went off without great
> complications overnight. They both have 'issues' this morning,
> but they seem fairly trivial, so far.
I decided to bite the bullet and did a scratch install of F8 x86_64 on this
computer. The format and initial installation took only an hour or so. I've
been copying data and putting Humpty Dumpty back together again ever since.
The only three things that I have left to do are to compile Scribus (the one
that's included in the F8 repository is 1.3.4 which is the development version
and not recommended for production work), set up LTSP so my terminal will
work again, and figure out how to make the plugins work with this new Firefox.
I see that I have only NPAPI Plugins Wrapper and GCJ Web Browser Plugin at the
moment. I did install the Livna mplayerplug-in rpm so I wonder what happened
to that...
Mplayer plugin got installed in the usual place,
/user/lib/mozilla/plugins/, on my system. I needed to copy the files
over to /usr/lib/firefox/firefox-2.0.0.8/plugins before they appeared.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
4:55 p.m.
On Monday November 12 2007 5:50:42 pm Garry T. Williams wrote:
> though, I did notice that pulse-audio was installed on this
> system...haven't figured out what it does, or how to use it
> yet, but, it's definitely there.
Just in case you are using KDE, kde-settings-pulseaudio is
*not* installed during the yum upgrade. You need to install
it after the upgrade.
thanks, I did see that was mentioned in the faq posted elsewhere
in this thread, and I've installed it
--
Claude Jones
Brunswick, MD, USA
2:13 a.m.
Christopher A. Williams wrote:
Really? I have never been able to get the 32-bit plugins for Flash or
Acrobat to work. If you have the magic incantation for these to work
with F8_X64, please do tell. I switched to a 32-bit PAE kernel instead.
That's probably because you use a 64 bit compied web browser.... which
indeed needs
64 bits compiled plugins which adobe does not provide. You can make all
this work by
installing and running the 32 bits version of your web browser.
Theo.
4:29 p.m.
On Friday 09 November 2007 19:46, Frank Cox wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:33:55 -0700
Craig White <craig(a)tobyhouse.com> wrote:
> Personally, I have faith that it would probably continue on and finish
> if left alone.
After 9 hours of nothing at all changing other than the odd bit of disk or
network activity? You have a lot of faith.
I just tried it again with the "img" update that was posted here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=366641
I left it for an hour but nothing changed.
It will be interesting to watch this bug report.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
OT, but I remember when I started off with linux and FC1, and that horrible
redhat update manager. I was on dialup, and getting only 2hrs at a time,
before having to re-connect. The update manager would present you with a list
of updates, including an install all option. I never did get the install
option to do much, as that too took forever in resolving dependencies. Even
individual updates took ages to resolve dependencies. Some time later, and
dependencies resolved, and the clock ticking on my Internet connection, the
update would start. If it was a big one, OO for example, I'd run out of time,
and Redhat update manager having no resume support (at least that's what I
experienced) I would have to start again, and pick a smaller package to
upgrade.
I also had a "pay by the minute" Internet connection , and tried the OO update
on that. IIRC it got almost to completion, then I lost the connection, and
back to square one with no resume support.
Then I found Apt at Planetccrma. No more resume support problems, and the
synaptic GUI is nice too. I still use Apt although Yum is the default on
Fedora, but that's my preference.
All that said, I can appreciate your frustration with the Fedora 8 upgrade
hanging. Seeing the odd flicker on the harddrive, and a bit of network
activity now and again is really frustrating. You just don't know what is
going on, or if anything is going on.
I've never upgraded a Fedora install, allways fresh installs, but I'm not
doing anything serious on my 2 machines, so it doesn't matter too much if I
re-use partitions that were previously being used by an earlier version of
Fedora, but I appreciate that if you upgrade, it needs to be a clean
upgrade, with few problems, if you are using your machine for serious work.
I also have Debian installs, and have upgraded these over the Internet, with
hardly any problems, but I have seen others having problems.
Rambling mode off:
Anyway Frank. What film (movie) are you running today? I hope it's not a
naughty one.
Hope you resolve the upgrade problem.
Nigel.
11:38 a.m.
Frank Cox wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 11:33:55 -0700
Craig White <craig(a)tobyhouse.com> wrote:
> Personally, I have faith that it would probably continue on and finish
> if left alone.
>
After 9 hours of nothing at all changing other than the odd bit of disk or
network activity? You have a lot of faith.
I just tried it again with the "img" update that was posted here:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=366641
I left it for an hour but nothing changed.
It will be interesting to watch this bug report.
I think the servers were getting beaten up on pretty badly.
Yesterday I couldn't get anywhere with updates, today it seems a little
better.
Looks like everybody climbed on the band wagon at once.
9:20 a.m.
On Mon November 12 2007, Frank Cox wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:28:37 -0500
Claude Jones <cjones(a)levitjames.com> wrote:
> I was having the same problem. I decided to update my two
> machines on F7 using yum. Both went off without great
> complications overnight. They both have 'issues' this morning,
> but they seem fairly trivial, so far.
I decided to bite the bullet and did a scratch install of F8 x86_64 on this
computer. The format and initial installation took only an hour or so.
I've been copying data and putting Humpty Dumpty back together again ever
since.
The only three things that I have left to do are to compile Scribus (the
one that's included in the F8 repository is 1.3.4 which is the development
version and not recommended for production work), set up LTSP so my
terminal will work again, and figure out how to make the plugins work with
this new Firefox. I see that I have only NPAPI Plugins Wrapper and GCJ Web
Browser Plugin at the moment. I did install the Livna mplayerplug-in rpm
so I wonder what happened to that...
I'm real happy about the yum upgrade approach. It took some considerable
number of hours (I let them run overnight, so I can't be precise), but, I
have only had to spend under an hour to clear up post upgrade issues - a far
cry from the usual hours spent after a clean install. You chose to go with
64-bit so I think yum would not have functioned for your case at that point.
My avahi problem turned out to be simple to fix, and so did the vmserver
issue. After a couple of days, I can't say there are no other 'issues' but,
so far so good. Upgrading does have the down-side that it doesn't result in
installing anything that's new from the previous distro - if you don't have
the new package/feature already, it's not going to be installed by upgrade --
though, I did notice that pulse-audio was installed on this system...haven't
figured out what it does, or how to use it yet, but, it's definitely there.
Upgrade definitely has the advantage of ending up with your machine already
configured as it was before the process, without hours and hours of work to
get back to your personal customizations/configuration.
--
Claude Jones
Levit & James, Inc.
Leesburg, VA, USA
12:12 a.m.
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 14:28:37 -0500
Claude Jones <cjones(a)levitjames.com> wrote:
I was having the same problem. I decided to update my two
machines on F7 using yum. Both went off without great
complications overnight. They both have 'issues' this morning,
but they seem fairly trivial, so far.
I decided to bite the bullet and did a scratch install of F8 x86_64 on this
computer. The format and initial installation took only an hour or so. I've
been copying data and putting Humpty Dumpty back together again ever since.
The only three things that I have left to do are to compile Scribus (the one
that's included in the F8 repository is 1.3.4 which is the development version
and not recommended for production work), set up LTSP so my terminal will
work again, and figure out how to make the plugins work with this new Firefox.
I see that I have only NPAPI Plugins Wrapper and GCJ Web Browser Plugin at the
moment. I did install the Livna mplayerplug-in rpm so I wonder what happened
to that...
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
11:06 p.m.
On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 09:13 +0100, Theodore Papadopoulo wrote:
Christopher A. Williams wrote:
>
> Really? I have never been able to get the 32-bit plugins for Flash or
> Acrobat to work. If you have the magic incantation for these to work
> with F8_X64, please do tell. I switched to a 32-bit PAE kernel instead.
>
That's probably because you use a 64 bit compied web browser.... which
indeed needs
64 bits compiled plugins which adobe does not provide. You can make all
this work by
installing and running the 32 bits version of your web browser.
Close. Actually I already got this fixed with someone else's help.
Using nspluginwrapper (masquerading as mozilla-plugin-config) allows you
to use 32-bit plugins with 64-bit Firefox. Works like a champ!
Cheers,
Chris
--
====================================================
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice there is.
--Yogi Berra
10:32 p.m.
On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 08:55 -0700, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 10:50 +0100, Patrick wrote:
> On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 16:27 -0700, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
> [snip]
> > Really? I have never been able to get the 32-bit plugins for Flash or
> > Acrobat to work. If you have the magic incantation for these to work
> > with F8_X64, please do tell. I switched to a 32-bit PAE kernel instead.
>
> You can use nspluginwrapper to get Firefox (64 bit) to use the 32 bit
> flash plugin. Works for me. More info about nspluginwrapper here:
> http://gwenole.beauchesne.info/projects/nspluginwrapper/
>
> That website suggests doing this:
> nspluginwrapper -i ~/downloads/npjp2-0.0.2/src/npjp2.so
>
> Which won't work on F8 since nspluginwrapper rpm does not come with that
> binary. Instead iirc you need to use /usr/bin/mozilla-plugin-config
> Should that not work check the rpm for alternatives with:
> rpm -ql nspluginwrapper
OK - Thanks. I'll give this a try. I was confused by the command you
listed for a sec, but then realized from the Website that this is an
example of a command to enable a particular plugin. There's apparently
another set of parameters that will update all plugins in a specific set
of directories usually including /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins among others.
nspluginwrapper -v -a -u
I also checked via rpm -ql as you mentioned and it does appear that the
correct binary to use is /usr/bin/mozilla-plugin-config. If that's the
case, the correct command in F8 to search for and update all plugins in
specific directories is:
/usr/bin/mozilla-plugin-config -v -a -u
I'll post back if I get this working.
Cheers,
Chris
Worked as advertized!
--
====================================================
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice there is.
--Yogi Berra
1:28 p.m.
On Friday November 9 2007 11:59:21 am Frank Cox wrote:
> In the dim and distant past, I'd tried upgrades, and spent
> ages ironing out the bugs. Later, I did fresh installs, and
> spent a much lesser amount of time customising the new
> install. Apart from the time, this seemed to be the
> differences: One is just re-configuring, the other is
> sorting out all the problems that aren't handled by the
> update process.
It looks like I'm going to have to bite the bullet and install
from scratch if I want to put F8 on this computer.
I fired up the update process again last night just before
2am. It's now almost 11am the following day and the screen
was still at the exact same place that it got to on "resolving
dependencies" when I left it last night.
I was having the same problem. I decided to update my two
machines on F7 using yum. Both went off without great
complications overnight. They both have 'issues' this morning,
but they seem fairly trivial, so far.
Avahi was not replaced/upgraded and I know have both the fc7 and
fc8 versions installed. Remove fails with a cryptic error:
# rpm -qa avahi
avahi-0.6.17-1.fc7
avahi-0.6.21-6.fc8
[root@vrproductions3 ~]# rpm -e avahi-0.6.17-1.fc7
error: %postun(avahi-0.6.17-1.fc7.i386) scriptlet failed, exit
status 1
On my home machine, vmware-server wouldn't start and the
configuration script wouldn't work - I tried the latest 114
any-any patch but it wouldn't run very far, either. I had to
leave before gathering up the info and posting more details.
Otherwise, so far, so good
I'll be more sanguine after a couple of more days
--
Claude Jones
Brunswick, MD, USA
12:34 p.m.
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 14:48 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
My only other real concern is Adobe acroread, because I use that to
create
plates for offset presses and unfortunately none of the open-source PDF viewer
programs seem to be up to the job (so far). I was just reading a write-up on
Adobe's website that talks about this issue and it seems that acoread can also
be made to run even though it's a 32-bit application.
The 32 bit Acrobat runs fine under 64-bit. It can run 32 bit as well,
that is why 32 and 64 bit libraries get installed. It is just hard to
mix 32 and 64 in one app without serious hackage.
Just make sure you get the very latest Acrobat. There is a problem with
earlier ones having problems with the version numbering on the latest
versions of the Gnome libraries. (They expect the version number to be
2.x, not 2.xx.)
2:50 a.m.
On Saturday 10 November 2007, Frank Cox wrote:
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:04:18 +0100
Marcel Janssen <korgull(a)home.nl> wrote:
> Well, my laptop is a 32bit system so 64bit Fedora can't be used.
Are you sure? You can check here:
http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/FAQ_79_10346.shtm
Well, even if I could run 64bit I need it to be 32bit because of some drivers
which I use that only come in 32bit versions (closed source).
Meanwhile I tried upgrading another PC and that fails too with the F8 DVD.
I have given up on F8 after 3 systems failing to upgrade. Hopefully some fixed
DVD images will be available soon.
regards,
Marcel
2:06 a.m.
On Sat, 10 Nov 2007 09:04:18 +0100
Marcel Janssen <korgull(a)home.nl> wrote:
Well, my laptop is a 32bit system so 64bit Fedora can't be used.
Are you sure? You can check here:
http://kbase.redhat.com/faq/FAQ_79_10346.shtm
I also think it's not possible to upgrade 32bit F7 to 64bit F8.
That would
require a new install I think.
I'm pretty sure you're right.
--
MELVILLE THEATRE ~ Melville Sask ~ http://www.melvilletheatre.com
2:04 a.m.
On Friday 09 November 2007, Frank Cox wrote:
On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 21:17:03 +0100
Marcel Janssen <korgull(a)home.nl> wrote:
> Giving up on this for the time being (until there's a fixed installer I
> guess).
I'm thinking that now might be a good time to switch this computer over to
64-bit F8. I'm not really clear on what benefits one gets by doing so
simply because I've never set up a computer that way before.
Well, my laptop is a 32bit system so 64bit Fedora can't be used.
I also think it's not possible to upgrade 32bit F7 to 64bit F8. That would
require a new install I think.
regards,
Marcel
9:55 a.m.
On Sun, 2007-11-11 at 10:50 +0100, Patrick wrote:
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 16:27 -0700, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
[snip]
> Really? I have never been able to get the 32-bit plugins for Flash or
> Acrobat to work. If you have the magic incantation for these to work
> with F8_X64, please do tell. I switched to a 32-bit PAE kernel instead.
You can use nspluginwrapper to get Firefox (64 bit) to use the 32 bit
flash plugin. Works for me. More info about nspluginwrapper here:
http://gwenole.beauchesne.info/projects/nspluginwrapper/
That website suggests doing this:
nspluginwrapper -i ~/downloads/npjp2-0.0.2/src/npjp2.so
Which won't work on F8 since nspluginwrapper rpm does not come with that
binary. Instead iirc you need to use /usr/bin/mozilla-plugin-config
Should that not work check the rpm for alternatives with:
rpm -ql nspluginwrapper
OK - Thanks. I'll give this a try. I was confused by the command you
listed for a sec, but then realized from the Website that this is an
example of a command to enable a particular plugin. There's apparently
another set of parameters that will update all plugins in a specific set
of directories usually including /usr/lib/mozilla/plugins among others.
nspluginwrapper -v -a -u
I also checked via rpm -ql as you mentioned and it does appear that the
correct binary to use is /usr/bin/mozilla-plugin-config. If that's the
case, the correct command in F8 to search for and update all plugins in
specific directories is:
/usr/bin/mozilla-plugin-config -v -a -u
I'll post back if I get this working.
Cheers,
Chris
--
====================================================
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice there is.
--Yogi Berra
3:50 a.m.
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 16:27 -0700, Christopher A. Williams wrote:
[snip]
Really? I have never been able to get the 32-bit plugins for Flash
or
Acrobat to work. If you have the magic incantation for these to work
with F8_X64, please do tell. I switched to a 32-bit PAE kernel instead.
You can use nspluginwrapper to get Firefox (64 bit) to use the 32 bit
flash plugin. Works for me. More info about nspluginwrapper here:
http://gwenole.beauchesne.info/projects/nspluginwrapper/
That website suggests doing this:
nspluginwrapper -i ~/downloads/npjp2-0.0.2/src/npjp2.so
Which won't work on F8 since nspluginwrapper rpm does not come with that
binary. Instead iirc you need to use /usr/bin/mozilla-plugin-config
Should that not work check the rpm for alternatives with:
rpm -ql nspluginwrapper
Regards,
Patrick
5:27 p.m.
On Sat, 2007-11-10 at 10:34 -0800, Alan wrote:
On Fri, 2007-11-09 at 14:48 -0600, Frank Cox wrote:
> My only other real concern is Adobe acroread, because I use that to create
> plates for offset presses and unfortunately none of the open-source PDF viewer
> programs seem to be up to the job (so far). I was just reading a write-up on
> Adobe's website that talks about this issue and it seems that acoread can also
> be made to run even though it's a 32-bit application.
>
The 32 bit Acrobat runs fine under 64-bit. It can run 32 bit as well,
that is why 32 and 64 bit libraries get installed. It is just hard to
mix 32 and 64 in one app without serious hackage.
Just make sure you get the very latest Acrobat. There is a problem with
earlier ones having problems with the version numbering on the latest
versions of the Gnome libraries. (They expect the version number to be
2.x, not 2.xx.)
Really? I have never been able to get the 32-bit plugins for Flash or
Acrobat to work. If you have the magic incantation for these to work
with F8_X64, please do tell. I switched to a 32-bit PAE kernel instead.
Cheers,
Chris
--
====================================================
In theory there is no difference between theory and practice.
In practice there is.
--Yogi Berra
6022
days inactive
6026
days old
37 comments
16 participants
participants (16)
-
Alan -
Christopher A. Williams -
Claude Jones -
Craig White -
Frank Cox -
Garry Williams -
John -
John Summerfield -
Kam Leo -
korgull -
Nigel Henry -
Patrick Lists -
Paul Lemmons -
Theodore Papadopoulo -
Tim -
Timothy Murphy