I was able to get the Exchange client working in both a clean install of FC3 and an upgrade from FC2 to FC3. Make sure you have the correct Global Catalog server. I installed the Exchange client after the install/upgrade. Everything seemed to work fine including the calendaring However, I did run into a problem once it started running. My system became very sluggish, my memory utilization went up to 100% with 5% for cache. I then kill'd EVO, and the system memory utilization started dropping. I started EVO again, and the problem came back. So I disabled Exchange and restarted EVO. I have been running like this now for 3 days and my memory utilization is 85% with 19% cache. I hope they can fix this soon so I don't have to use Windoze.... On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 08:27 -0500, fedora-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx wrote: > Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 06:00:58 -0700 > From: Jamie Bohr <jamiebohr@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Evo and Exchange > To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <fd7c117a04111905007016cce8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII > > I guess I too will have to stick with Evo 1.4.6. Which is really too > bad, I like the features in Evo 2. This will not go over well with my > co-workers who also are eager to use Evo 2. Does any one know if > there is an ETA on when this might be fixed? > > Thank you, > Jamie > > On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:42:56 +0800, Ow Mun Heng <ow.mun.heng@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 08:27, David Malcolm wrote: > > > On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 15:19 -0700, Jamie Bohr wrote: > > > > Hello, > > > > > > > > Does any one have the Exchange connector working in FC3? If so please > > > > share what you did. > > > > > > Works for me. A good test is to try using Outlook Web Access; try > > > browsing to http://YOUR-EXCHANHE-SERVER-HERE/exchange and seeing if you > > > can use the web interface. > > > > There are a few problems with the connector versions. It does not work > > for me either. There is a patch that will make it work, and it's > > supposed to be in CVS, but it does not give you the calendering > > functions. > > > > I'm still on 1.4.6 because evo connector on version 2 is still lacking. > > > > Refer to this: > > http://bugzilla.ximian.com/show_bug.cgi?id=66926 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If that works, but you can't connect using Evolution's connector in FC3, > > > please file a bug in Red Hat's bugzilla against evolution-connector. > > > > > > HTH; good luck! > > > > > > Dave Malcolm > > > > > > > > > > > I am having major issues getting Evo to talk to an Exchange server. I > > > > have a RH9 system that works fine with the connector so I at least > > > > have some experience on getting it working - I think. Nothing but > > > > problems with Evo 2. I have looked at > > > > http://forums.novell.com/group/novell.support.ximian.connector/readerNoFrame.tpt/@thread@23@F@10@D-,D@ALL/@article@23 > > > > > > > > The above site susggests running > > > > > > > > /usr/sbin/bonobo-activation-sysconf > > > > --add-directory=/usr/local/lib/bonobo/servers > > > > > > > > The directory /usr/local/lib/bobobo does not exists in FC3 so I ran > > > > > > > > /usr/sbin/bonobo-activation-sysconf --add-directory=/usr/lib/bonobo/servers > > > > > > > > I am still getting the error message > > > > > > > > Could not connect to Evolution Exchange backend process: > > > > No such file or directory > > > > > > > > Here is some information about my install: > > > > > > > > $ rpm -qa | egrep 'libbonobo|evolution' > > > > evolution-data-server-1.0.2-3 > > > > libbonobo-2.8.0-2 > > > > libbonoboui-2.8.0.99cvs20040929-2 > > > > evolution-webcal-1.0.10-1 > > > > evolution-connector-2.0.2-1 > > > > evolution-2.0.2-3 > > > > $ > > > > > > > > I did install the connector after my inital install, should that > > > > affect how it works? Someone please help, I know there are other > > > > users having the same issue. > > > > > > > > Should I file a bug report against FC3? > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Jamie > > > > > > > > -- > > Ow Mun Heng > > Gentoo/Linux on D600 1.4Ghz > > CPU kernel 2.6.9-gentoo-r1 > > Neuromancer 14:40:46 up 5:25, 5 users, load average: 0.76, 0.51, 0.30 > > > > > > > > -- > > fedora-list mailing list > > fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > > To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 07:05:01 -0600 > From: Brian Fahrlander <brian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Firefox 1 FC2 > To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <1100869500.5010.1.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 02:44, HaJo Schatz wrote: > > On Fri, November 19, 2004 5:45, Eric Tanguy said: > > > > > In Dag I found firefox-0.8-3.1.fc2.dag.i386.rpm and mine is > > > firefox-0.9.3-0.fdr.4 and i'm looking for firefox-1.0. > > > Eric > > > > There's a very easy and nice document how to roll your own: > > http://fedoranews.org/tchung/firefox/ > > > > Just followed this yesterday, worked flawlessly for FC2 (except that you > > have to edit the .spec file and change "FC1" to "FC2" if you mind > > file-name accuracy). Upgrade from 0.9.3 (RPM) to 1.0 afterwards was smooth > > sailing as well. > > Just curious...if anyone can roll their own, why hasn't a maintainer > rolled one for all of us to use? > > Has the era of FC2 _already_ come to an end? > > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Brian Fahrlnder Christian, Conservative, and Technomad > Evansville, IN http://www.fahrlander.net > ICQ 5119262 > AIM: WheelDweller > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 189 bytes > Desc: This is a digitally signed message part > Url : /archives/fedora-list/attachments/20041119/3a865850/attachment.bin > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:05:35 +0100 > From: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: YUM and yum.conf - for the interested one's > To: peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, For users of Fedora Core releases > <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: roger@xxxxxxxx > Message-ID: <20041119130535.GP7349@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 12:55:21PM +0000, Peter Cannon wrote: > > On Friday 19 November 2004 12:05, Roger Grosswiler wrote: > > > > Hi Roger & Alex > > > > Thanks for the off-List mails > > > > Actually I have a little bit of common sense (always helps) things were crying > > for libFLAC.so.4 which was odd, I did rpm -q flac which said it was installed > > I then found a version on the web that 'would' install did an update (with > > ATrpms disabled) the relevant updates were now happy. > > That is bug http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=289 > > with the workaround > > yum install flac libFLAC4 libFLAC++2 libOggFLAC1 > > or using the old yum, or apt-get. > > > I did have one package lftp... that yum kept insisting it downloaded but then > > said was unsigned so wouldn't install it however this morning did yum update > > and everything worked fine. > > > > I think its a case of "phew that was close" :-) > -- > Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 189 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : /archives/fedora-list/attachments/20041119/a86ee6d8/attachment.bin > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:09:20 +0000 > From: James Wilkinson <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: FC3 Installation / Update > To: fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > Message-ID: <20041119130920.GA4886@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Roger Grosswiler wrote: > > > Is FC3 also installable via shell? > > >From scratch? Not reasonably, no. > > > Can i do an update from older versions via shell? If yes, how can i do > > this? > > "Sort of". > > Fedora itself is "unsupported", in that there's no support contract. > > A yum upgrade is "unsupported", in that it's not recommended. > > But it can work: see > http://linux.duke.edu/%7Eskvidal/misc/fc1-fc2-yum-hints.txt > for FC1 to FC2. > > For FC2 to FC3, see > http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2004-November/msg00309.html > > I wouldn't recommend going more than one stable release to the next this > way. > > Hope this helps, > > James. > > -- > E-mail address: james | When I was young I wanted to be a fireman, but I > @westexe.demon.co.uk | dropped that idea when they explained to me that > | firemen don't actually make fires. > | -- Konqi the dragon, KDE's mascot > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 20:18:14 +0800 > From: John Summerfield <debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: DVD burning in Core 3 with TDK IndiDVD > To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <200411192018.14815.debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Friday 19 November 2004 12:00, Phil Schaffner wrote: > > Today 12:00:48 > > > > On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 18:23 -0700, Calvin Dodge wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > I have a TDK IndiDVD CD/DVD writer (1280B) which won't write DVDs > > > properly in Core 3. > > > > > > FWIW, all available updates have been applied. > > > > > > It WILL burn CDs just fine, but when I burn a DVD, no DVD reader of mine > > > (including the aforementioned burner) can read it. > > > > Have you tried different DVD media? We have seen this type of problem, > > even with name-brand, with some batches of DVD-R media. > > I thought of telling him to use DVD- meda, but then when I saw he couldn't > read in in the same drive I decided it was a different problem. > > For the record, here's the position as I understand it. > DVD+R and DRV-R are write once. > DVD+RW and DVD-RW can be written 1000 or so times. > DVDs are not CDs and you need different programs two write DVDs though DVD > burners ca also burn CDs. > cdrecord does not burn DVD (but there might be a version with "inofficial" > patches that does). > growisofs does burn DVDs but not CDs. > growisofs currently can blank and write DVD+RW in one operation. But not > DVD-RW. > There are no CD+ media:-) > DVD+ media can be written in packet mode or some such. I don't know zactly > what that means butI suspect the kernel can do it. > DVD- media cannot be written that way. > DVD- media are more compatible with older DVD drives. I had a nasty shock when > I burned my first DVD+ disk and couldn't read it in my Powerbook 17" or in > the DVD-ROM drive I had the foresight to buy "just in case" qhen I acquired > my Athlon. > AFAIK "dual layer" applies only to DVD+R media. I've not yet see dual-layer > DVD+RW and don't expect to see dual layer DVD- for a while (different > standards group). > > Finally > DVD-RAM are entirely different. I've not yet ysed one, but I think they > compete with Jaz and such. > > Oh, finally finally > Specs on my DVD burner say it reads CDs at about 5 Mbytes/sec, DVDs at about > 20. If you want to read a CD often, consider burning the image to DVD > instead. > > Finally finally finally:-) > Eyeball your media. Especially if you buy at one of this islands in a shopping > mall. I saw a strange-looking scratch on the back of one of my newly-burned > DVDs. It looked like a a head or similar gouged it. > > I inspected the next DVD after I removed the wrapping and it looked like it > had been dropped on its edge; it was delaminating. I reckon inserting that > disk would have been followed up bu the purchase of a new burner, and the one > I have is new enough to support dual layer. > > Now, if someone wants to use this as the basis if a WIKI go for it. Just > mention "John Summerfield was here." > > > > > > -- > Cheers > John > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 19:57:03 +0800 > From: John Summerfield <debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: LVM is installed by default in Fedora Core 3?? > To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <200411191957.04287.debian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Friday 19 November 2004 12:28, Phil Schaffner wrote: > > On Thu, 2004-11-18 at 18:28 +0800, Wong Kwok-hon wrote: > > > But it failed to backup by ghost 8.0 > > > So I am finding a best way to backup it up to my FC3 to a image file > > > to windows server. > > > > Don't know about "a best way", but g4u has been highly recommended on > > the list - http://www.feyrer.de/g4u/ - no personal experience. > > > > I'd tend to go with a compressed tar archive of each partition to a smb- > > mounted Windoze share. > > > > tar zclf /windoze/dir/root.tgz / > > tar zclf /windoze/dir/boot.tgz /boot > > tar zclf /windoze/dir/usr.tgz /usr > > tar zclf /windoze/dir/home.tgz /home > > There's lotsa ways. > I'd not use that one, I'd create one tarball of everything: > tar cjlf /windoz/backups/${HOSTNAME}-backup.tar.bz2 -C / boot home var usr > which makes it easier to untar into a different partitioning scheem > > cd /;mkisofs -o /windows.bvackups/${HOSTNAME}-backup.iso -R -joliet etc > Watch your file sizes with that one. ISO9660 doesn't like big files. > > To take less space I've been playing with this recently. Windows isn't > involved, but that's a minor detail: > #!/bin/bash -xe > [ -d /mnt/backup ] || mkdir /mnt/backup > umount /mnt/backup || : > rm -fr /root/backup.img /var/tmp/backup > dd if=/dev/zero of=/root/backup.img count=0 bs=1024 \ > seek=$((3*1024*1024)) > ls -shog /root/backup.img > mke2fs -Fq /root/backup.img > mount -o loop /root/backup.img /mnt/backup/ > tar clC / --exclude=backup.img --exclude=/tmp --exclude=/var/tmp . \ > | buffer -m $((2*1024*1024)) -p 75\ > | tar xpC /mnt/backup > ls -go /mnt/backup > rm /root/backup.img > mkzftree --one-filesystem /mnt/backup/ /var/tmp/backup > umount /mnt/backup/ > mkisofs -R -z -quiet -nobak -o /var/tmp/backup-${HOSTNAME}.iso /var/tmp/backup > rm -rf /var/tmp/backup > ls -hog /var/tmp/backup* > scp -p /var/tmp/backup-${HOSTNAME}.iso backup.office.lan:/var/local/backups > > > Uf you need understanding with that, best learn to man. > > > This last ISO can only be read directly on Linux; on other platforms you need > to unpack wih mkzftree. If this matters, put it (and runtime libraries for > it) in the ISO. > > If you don't like these, hie yourself off to dar.sf.net. It doesn't of itself > involve Windows either, but placement of backup images is only a minor > detail. > > Lotsa ways. > > > > - > Cheers > John > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 05:11:38 -0800 > From: Mike Ramirez <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Firefox 1 FC2 > To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <1100869897.19593.6.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > > > Just curious...if anyone can roll their own, why hasn't a maintainer > > rolled one for all of us to use? > > > Got to fix changes and headaches with other things also. libFLAC I see > on the freshrpms list is not going smooth at all. Just an example from > dags repo > > > Has the era of FC2 _already_ come to an end? > > I pray not because I don't plan to upgrade this box to FC3. Dag also has > said to me that in about a year and half he will stop updating for FC2. > This is just for Dags repo. The rest I can't comment on. > -- > Mike Ramirez <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: not available > Type: application/pgp-signature > Size: 189 bytes > Desc: This is a digitally signed message part > Url : /archives/fedora-list/attachments/20041119/ab4e1ec2/attachment.bin > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:14:44 +0000 > From: Peter Cannon <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: YUM and yum.conf - for the interested one's > To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <200411191314.45114.peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Friday 19 November 2004 13:05, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > That is bug http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=289 > > > > with the workaround > > > > yum install flac libFLAC4 libFLAC++2 libOggFLAC1 > > > > or using the old yum, or apt-get. > > Oh, OK, I'm happy now, are you saying my system has a bug? or have I fixed it > (I know you cant answer that without seeing the thing) > > I would have preferred to use synaptic with apt-get but I don't want to go > back to the state I was in under FC2 I had used up2date, yum and apt-get all > together and was never very happy with what was and wasn't installed in fact > although it worked (and at the moment better than FC3) I had lots of half > loaded stuff and other bits of dross all over the place so after 2yrs of use > I wiped it and did a fresh install with FC3 so I was initially a bit upset > that I had messed it up but everything seems fine now. > > -- > Regards > Peter Cannon > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 15 > Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:16:44 +0000 > From: Paul Howarth <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: DVD burning in Core 3 with TDK IndiDVD > To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <419DF23C.5060501@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed > > John Summerfield wrote: > > cdrecord does not burn DVD (but there might be a version with "inofficial" > > patches that does). > > The versions supplied with FC2 and FC3 include these patches. > > Paul. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 16 > Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 13:21:58 +0000 > From: James Wilkinson <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: 8139too Ethernet Woes > To: fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx > Message-ID: <20041119132158.GB4886@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Bob Chiodini wrote: > > I can generally ssh into my home machine from work, but with FC3 I'm > > seeing the following in /var/log/messages: > > > > Nov 19 07:01:38 littlenail kernel: eth0: link down > > Nov 19 07:01:40 littlenail kernel: eth0: link up, 100Mbps, full-duplex, lpa 0x41E1 > > Nov 19 07:01:53 littlenail kernel: eth0: link down > > Nov 19 07:01:55 littlenail kernel: eth0: link up, 100Mbps, full-duplex, lpa 0x41E1 > > > > The ssh session usually recovers. I saw these messages in FC2 as well, > > but they did not seem as detrimental. Yum rarely recovers, at least not > > within my patience level. > > > > The driver loaded for the Ethernet interface is 8139too. Upstream is a > > DLink DI-624. Any insight? > > Looks like Ethernet problems to me. Can you try setting the Ethernet > link to 10 Mbit/s half duplex? 100 Mbit/s half duplex? (I have seen > Ethernet autoconfiguration cause major problems in the past). > > Use the ethtool command with the -s flag to play around with this: man > ethtool for more details. But I'd recommend: > ethtool eth0 > to see current settings, > > ethtool -s eth0 [speed 10|100|1000] [duplex half|full] [autoneg on|off] > > It might yet be dodgy cables. > > Hope this helps, > > James. > -- > E-mail address: james | "But alas, we don't need a car, so I have a bus > @westexe.demon.co.uk | timetable and one day the buses will read it too." > | -- Telsa Gwynne > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 17 > Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 14:26:32 +0100 > From: Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: YUM and yum.conf - for the interested one's > To: peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, For users of Fedora Core releases > <fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <20041119132632.GR7349@xxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > On Fri, Nov 19, 2004 at 01:14:44PM +0000, Peter Cannon wrote: > > On Friday 19 November 2004 13:05, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > > > That is bug http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=289 > > > > > > with the workaround > > > > > > yum install flac libFLAC4 libFLAC++2 libOggFLAC1 > > > > > > or using the old yum, or apt-get. > > > > Oh, OK, I'm happy now, are you saying my system has a bug? or have I fixed it > > (I know you cant answer that without seeing the thing) > > No, your system has no bug, the new yum has sometimes troubles finding > the right packages. Even though the packages are there it does not > resolve a transaction to install them, so you either have to tell yum > manually, or use another tool like yum20 or apt. > > > I would have preferred to use synaptic with apt-get but I don't want to go > > back to the state I was in under FC2 I had used up2date, yum and apt-get all > > together and was never very happy with what was and wasn't installed in fact > > although it worked (and at the moment better than FC3) I had lots of half > > loaded stuff and other bits of dross all over the place so after 2yrs of use > > I wiped it and did a fresh install with FC3 so I was initially a bit upset > > that I had messed it up but everything seems fine now. > > The tools should not interfere (unless you start them concurrently), > so you are safe to use them together. synaptic is really a nice UI for > checking out uninstalled packages, and simply clicking them onto your > system. -- Ed Gurski <ed@xxxxxxxxxx>
