Re: Evo and Exchange

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 09:40 -0500, Ed Gurski wrote:
> 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....

Can you have a look here, and see if you have the unfeasibly large
cache.ics file described there:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=135531#c3

If this is the case, would it possible for you to zip up a copy of that
file and either attach it to the bug, or email it to me? (depending on
how private the data is in the file; contact me directly if need be)

Thanks
Dave Malcolm


> 
> 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>
> 


[Index of Archives]     [Current Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [Yosemite Photos]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]     [Fedora Docs]

  Powered by Linux