8:18 a.m.
I'm using Firefox for browsing, and Thunderbird for mail. However, I
still seem to have mozilla installed. I wonder, is there any reason I
should keep mozilla around? (Does any program depends specifically on
the existence of mozilla installed?)
Thanks,
--
--
----------------------------------
Gustavo Seabra - Graduate Student
Chemistry Department
Kansas State University
----------------------------------
8:27 a.m.
New subject: Kernel 2.6.10
Will it be part of next Fedora or updated from 2.6.9 in 3?
I want to se this apart of RHEL 4 since it has quite a bugfix list and some new hardware
and bsd runlevels- wich I hope can be active.
8:47 a.m.
New subject: Kernel 2.6.10
Am Mo, den 27.12.2004 schrieb Thomas Skybakmoen um 15:27:
Please don't hijack foreign threads by replying to other's postings
while you want to start a new topic.
Will it be part of next Fedora or updated from 2.6.9 in 3?
I am sure in a few days there will be pre-rawhide kernel RPMs available
under
http://people.redhat.com/davej/kernels/Fedora/
and later - in a few weeks - an FC3 (FC2 probably too) update kernel.
I want to se this apart of RHEL 4 since it has quite a bugfix list
and some new hardware and bsd
runlevels- wich I hope can be active.
For RHEL (4) questions you will have to use a different mailing list.
Alexander
--
Alexander Dalloz | Enger, Germany | new address - new key: 0xB366A773
legal statement: http://www.uni-x.org/legal.html
Fedora GNU/Linux Core 2 (Tettnang) on Athlon kernel 2.6.9-1.6_FC2smp
Serendipity 15:44:01 up 4 days, 17:28, load average: 2.78, 1.30, 0.94
10:46 a.m.
New subject: Kernel 2.6.10
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Thomas Skybakmoen wrote:
Will it be part of next Fedora or updated from 2.6.9 in 3?
I want to se this apart of RHEL 4 since it has quite a bugfix list and some new hardware
and bsd runlevels- wich I hope can be active.
There's a merge to 2.6.10 already in CVS.
I'll do a build sometime in the next few days for rawhide.
FC2/FC3 will stick on 2.6.9 for a while, whilst the rough
edges of 2.6.10 have been polished off.
Dave
12:49 p.m.
New subject: Kernel 2.6.10
On Monday 27 December 2004 11:46, Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Thomas Skybakmoen wrote:
> Will it be part of next Fedora or updated from 2.6.9 in 3?
> I want to se this apart of RHEL 4 since it has quite a bugfix
> list and some new hardware and bsd runlevels- wich I hope can be
> active.
There's a merge to 2.6.10 already in CVS.
I'll do a build sometime in the next few days for rawhide.
FC2/FC3 will stick on 2.6.9 for a while, whilst the rough
edges of 2.6.10 have been polished off.
Dave
Pay attention to samba things, and to amanda things in 2.6.10 Dave,
I've had to revert to a 2.6.10-rc3-mm1 + realtime 33-04 here.
Both amanda and samba are getting tummy aches here in less than 24
hours, and should be un-related as my amanda install does not use
anything from samba that I'm aware of.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.30% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
12:05 a.m.
New subject: Kernel 2.6.10
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 01:49:25PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
On Monday 27 December 2004 11:46, Dave Jones wrote:
>On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Thomas Skybakmoen wrote:
> > Will it be part of next Fedora or updated from 2.6.9 in 3?
> > I want to se this apart of RHEL 4 since it has quite a bugfix
> > list and some new hardware and bsd runlevels- wich I hope can be
> > active.
>
>There's a merge to 2.6.10 already in CVS.
>I'll do a build sometime in the next few days for rawhide.
>FC2/FC3 will stick on 2.6.9 for a while, whilst the rough
>edges of 2.6.10 have been polished off.
>
> Dave
Pay attention to samba things
I wonder if thats the missing part of the security hole fix that
we carried in the -ac patch on which our 2.6.9 kernels were based.
It'll likely go out with 2.6.10-acX when I get around to building
it anyway, so if that is the case, we'll pick that bit back up.
, and to amanda things in 2.6.10 Dave,
That I hadn't heard about. Make sure upstream (linux-kernel)
hears about these problems too. Unheard problems go unfixed.
Dave
6:30 a.m.
New subject: Kernel 2.6.10
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 01:49:25PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 27 December 2004 11:46, Dave Jones wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Thomas Skybakmoen wrote:
> > > Will it be part of next Fedora or updated from 2.6.9 in 3?
> > > I want to se this apart of RHEL 4 since it has quite a bugfix
> > > list and some new hardware and bsd runlevels- wich I hope can be
> > > active.
> >
> >There's a merge to 2.6.10 already in CVS.
> >I'll do a build sometime in the next few days for rawhide.
> >FC2/FC3 will stick on 2.6.9 for a while, whilst the rough
> >edges of 2.6.10 have been polished off.
> >
> > Dave
>
> Pay attention to samba things
I wonder if thats the missing part of the security hole fix that
we carried in the -ac patch on which our 2.6.9 kernels were based.
It'll likely go out with 2.6.10-acX when I get around to building
it anyway, so if that is the case, we'll pick that bit back up.
> , and to amanda things in 2.6.10 Dave,
That I hadn't heard about. Make sure upstream (linux-kernel)
hears about these problems too. Unheard problems go unfixed.
I had filed 142745 (against Amanda) and I just filed 143803 (against
kernel) in RH's Bugzilla to track the Amanda issue.
--
Matthew Saltzman
Clemson University Math Sciences
mjs AT clemson DOT edu
http://www.math.clemson.edu/~mjs
8:31 a.m.
New subject: Kernel 2.6.10
On Tuesday 28 December 2004 07:30, Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Tue, 28 Dec 2004, Dave Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 01:49:25PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> > On Monday 27 December 2004 11:46, Dave Jones wrote:
> > >On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Thomas Skybakmoen
wrote:
> > > > Will it be part of next Fedora or updated from
2.6.9 in 3?
> > > > I want to se this apart of RHEL 4 since it has quite a
> > > > bugfix list and some new hardware and bsd runlevels- wich I
> > > > hope can be active.
> > >
> > >There's a merge to 2.6.10 already in CVS.
> > >I'll do a build sometime in the next few days for rawhide.
> > >FC2/FC3 will stick on 2.6.9 for a while, whilst the rough
> > >edges of 2.6.10 have been polished off.
> > >
> > > Dave
> >
> > Pay attention to samba things
>
> I wonder if thats the missing part of the security hole fix that
> we carried in the -ac patch on which our 2.6.9 kernels were based.
> It'll likely go out with 2.6.10-acX when I get around to building
> it anyway, so if that is the case, we'll pick that bit back up.
>
> > , and to amanda things in 2.6.10 Dave,
>
> That I hadn't heard about. Make sure upstream (linux-kernel)
> hears about these problems too. Unheard problems go unfixed.
I had filed 142745 (against Amanda) and I just filed 143803 (against
kernel) in RH's Bugzilla to track the Amanda issue.
This was with snapshot amanda-2.4.5b1-200411221, built by the same
configuration script I've used for months now. I'm also on the
amanda list, basicly functioning as the miners canary by building
each new snapshot as they come out. There is nothing in the ChangeLog
about amandad for quite a few versions past. I've rebooted, just
like I did yesterday morning, and a fresh dump was started about 10
minutes ago. Still in the estimate phase just yet. Which is
apparently where amandad is doing the fail... 10 minutes later, it
made it through that ok, so I'd assume the catchup backup is going to
be ok *this* time.
There was a patch of some kind not too long after the 2.6.9 release
that killed amanda and it was backed out IIRC, did that get put back
into 2.6.10-rc3-mm1 maybe? Although the 2.6.10-rc3-mm1-V033-04 did
run flawlessly for 8 days here once before, but its not now, thats
what I was running when it made a zombie out of amandad last night.
That zombie was apparently reaped at some point in the night, it was
gone this morning before I rebooted. I wish I could give more clues,
but the amandad logs aren't at all helpfull.
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.30% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
7:25 a.m.
New subject: Kernel 2.6.10
I went to bed w/o sending this, sorry.
On Tuesday 28 December 2004 01:05, Dave Jones wrote:
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 01:49:25PM -0500, Gene Heskett wrote:
> On Monday 27 December 2004 11:46, Dave Jones wrote:
> >On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 03:27:58PM +0100, Thomas Skybakmoen
wrote:
> > > Will it be part of next Fedora or updated from 2.6.9
in 3?
> > > I want to se this apart of RHEL 4 since it has quite a bugfix
> > > list and some new hardware and bsd runlevels- wich I hope can
> > > be active.
> >
> >There's a merge to 2.6.10 already in CVS.
> >I'll do a build sometime in the next few days for rawhide.
> >FC2/FC3 will stick on 2.6.9 for a while, whilst the rough
> >edges of 2.6.10 have been polished off.
> >
> > Dave
>
> Pay attention to samba things
I wonder if thats the missing part of the security hole fix that
we carried in the -ac patch on which our 2.6.9 kernels were based.
It'll likely go out with 2.6.10-acX when I get around to building
it anyway, so if that is the case, we'll pick that bit back up.
> , and to amanda things in 2.6.10 Dave,
That I hadn't heard about. Make sure upstream (linux-kernel)
hears about these problems too. Unheard problems go unfixed.
Dave
Humm, cancel my thoughts that amanda might be ok, I am in the middle
of the run, and amstatus says the estimates are missing for this
machine, and I have 2 amandad's showing in an htop report, one with
the telltale Z label in its status column. So I've missed 2 backups
in a row on this box. Damn!
--
Cheers, Gene
"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)
99.30% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly
Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message
by Gene Heskett are:
Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved.
9:02 a.m.
Unfortunately, and for some inexplicable reason, mplayer-plugin seems to
require it....
HTH, thanks!
GT
--- Gustavo Seabra <seabra(a)ksu.edu> wrote:
I'm using Firefox for browsing, and Thunderbird for mail.
However, I
still seem to have mozilla installed. I wonder, is there any reason I
should keep mozilla around? (Does any program depends specifically on
the existence of mozilla installed?)
Thanks,
--
--
----------------------------------
Gustavo Seabra - Graduate Student
Chemistry Department
Kansas State University
----------------------------------
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list(a)redhat.com
To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
9:15 a.m.
Le Lundi 27 Décembre 2004 16:02, Globe Trotter a écrit :
mplayer-plugin seems to
require it....
and devhelp, epiphany, ...
--
GA> Pas grave va, je me calmerai, je pondrai peut être un autre AÀD, et
GA> on le découpera à la tronçonneuse ce fcolc.
D'accord, mais alors on s'arrange pour qu'il n'y ait aucun survivant.
-+-AGV in: <http://www.le-gnu.net> - Les neuneux fligueurs -+-
9:25 a.m.
On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 07:02:09 -0800 (PST), Globe Trotter
<itsme_410(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Unfortunately, and for some inexplicable reason, mplayer-plugin seems
to
require (Mozilla)
I noticed some yum strangeness the other day, related to this. I went
to install mplayerplug-in with yum, and it wanted to install Mozilla.
I went along with it, but then the Mozilla 1.73 rpm depended upon
Firefox 0.93 (why?). I already had Firefox 1.0 installed, so yum quit,
since it didn't want to replace Firefox 1.0 with 0.93.
To get it to work, I had to uninstall firefox, and run 'yum install
mplayerplug-in' again. I let it install all dependencies, including
Mozilla 1.73 and Firefox 0.93. Then I ran 'yum update firefox' to get
Firefox back up to 1.0.
I'm using the yum.conf from http://fedorafaq.org/samples/yum.conf, so
I shouldn't be having any repository conflicts, right? Why did this
happen? Did I work around it the right way?
I have never had an ounce of trouble with yum, so this makes me a
little nervous.
Thanks,
Matt
9:30 a.m.
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:18:31AM -0600, Gustavo Seabra wrote:
I'm using Firefox for browsing, and Thunderbird for mail.
However, I
still seem to have mozilla installed. I wonder, is there any reason I
should keep mozilla around? (Does any program depends specifically on
the existence of mozilla installed?)
Use yum to remove it; see what happens.
--
Matthew Miller mattdm(a)mattdm.org <http://www.mattdm.org/>
Boston University Linux ------> <http://linux.bu.edu/>
10:07 a.m.
On Monday 27 December 2004 08:18, Gustavo Seabra wrote:
I'm using Firefox for browsing, and Thunderbird for mail.
However, I still seem to have mozilla installed. I wonder, is
there any reason I should keep mozilla around? (Does any program
depends specifically on the existence of mozilla installed?)
On a fairly vanilla "everything" installation of FC3 this is the
results of the rpm query here:
# rpm -q --whatrequires mozilla
epiphany-1.4.4-4
devhelp-0.9.2-2
mozilla-chat-1.7.3-17
mozilla-dom-inspector-1.7.3-17
mozilla-js-debugger-1.7.3-17
mozilla-mail-1.7.3-17
mozilla-devel-1.7.3-17
Regards, Mike Klinke
10:37 p.m.
On Mon, Dec 27, 2004 at 08:18:31AM -0600, Gustavo Seabra wrote:
I'm using Firefox for browsing, and Thunderbird for mail.
However, I
still seem to have mozilla installed. I wonder, is there any reason I
should keep mozilla around? (Does any program depends specifically on
the existence of mozilla installed?)
Thanks,
When I do 'yum erase mozilla' I get devhelp.i386 0:0.9.2-2 as the only
dependency. So on my system I could remove mozilla as long as I don't
need devhelp. This is FC3, of course. You didn't specify which OS you
are using.
So become root, do 'yum erase mozilla', and see what it tells you. Yum
will confirm before it deletes anything, so this command is safe as long
as you don't accidently tell is 'yes' instead of 'no' when it asks for
confirmation.
To further answer your question, it's nice to have more than one browser
around, but if you're short on space, removing Mozilla won't hurt.
7062
days inactive
7068
days old
14 comments
12 participants
participants (12)
-
Alexander Dalloz -
Aph -
Dave Jones -
Gene Heskett -
Globe Trotter -
Gustavo Seabra -
Jeff Ratliff -
Matt Morgan -
Matthew Miller -
Matthew Saltzman -
Mike Klinke -
Thomas Skybakmoen