[ATrpms-devel] STSM/ATrpms FC1 DVD
Jarod C. Wilson
jcw at wilsonet.com
Mon Feb 16 08:50:15 CET 2004
On Feb 15, 2004, at 23:31, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
>> xmltv -- I think it'd be best if there were a single checkbox for
>> installing xmltv and all its dependencies. I'm not sure what any of
>> those sub-packages would be used for besides xmltv, at least under
>> typical use, so I think it'd be worth abstracting them out of there
>> for the main package selection screens.
> I'll look at it and see what I can do about it.
>> alsa -- one of the selectable items is
>> alsa-kmdl-2.4.22-2166.nptl_35.rhfc1.at. Probably not the best label
>> there, since it has to be changed when the kernel changes, and it
>> isn't correct if I'm running an smp kernel.
> *point to Axel* Don't blame me :)
> The base name of the package is just that so that's why it needs to be
> like that in the comps file.
Can the same thing I proposed w/xmltv be done? Only make alsa-driver
selectable, and force the kmdl to be installed along with it, since
neither does much good without the other. It'd then obfuscate the
naming problem and reduce the package selection list at the same time.
> There is code in there to install the SMP kmdl package if need be so
> that thing is just so that someone can decide if he wants it at all
> or not, not to specifically chose which as I don't think anyone
> really cares if he needs the SMP modules or not and also - if you would
> chose the SMP modules by hand and the SMP kernel wouldn't be installed
> you'd be in trouble. A HT machine can be misdetected as UP at times
> and if someone thinks he's got a machine that needs SMP then he would
> chose the SMP modules but the installer might not install the modules.
> That's why I simply check if the smp kernel will be installed and if
> I also chose the alsa-kmdl-smp-xxxxxx package.
>> start of installation -- there's a heavily pixellated Fedora image in
>> black and white. What happened there?!?
> Umm.. I haven't seen that ? Is that the one that greets you when
> you insert the DVD ?
Just after package selection when you see "preparing for installation,
this may take a few minutes". It isn't a graphic, per se, but rather
the text "Fedora Core", but it is badly pixellated like its a low-res
> If so, did it occur on the first DVD you got from me?
It was the 0.1 DVD. I forgot the second one at work, and didn't want to
burn another just yet.
>> lm_sensors -- I didn't choose to install it, but I was greeted at
>> startup by failures on the lm_sensors init script, so I guess it got
>> installed anyhow. I haven't looked at comps to see what might have
>> made it install...
> The problem (if you call it that) isn't in the comps file.
> The lm_sensors RPM that comes with FC1 is version 2.8.1.
> lm_sensors 2.8.1 contains libsensors.so.2.
> lm_sensors 2.8.2 contains libsensors.so.3.
> The DVD contains both lm_sensors 2.8.2 (package name lm_sensors)
> AND lm_sensors 2.8.1 (package name lm_sensors281).
> Now, kdebase depends on "lm_sensors" and libsensors.so.2.
> Result, both are installed. The actual diff I believe is that
> lm_sensors will autostart directly when installed compared to
> the FC1 one that you have to enable yourself. That's why
> the failure.
Ah, okay, no biggie.
>> Other than that, its working just fine on an Athlon system here. I
>> haven't had a chance to throw it on a dual processor machine yet, but
>> should be able to tomorrow.
> I've run into very many problems with the DVD in the last few days
> and I'm working my way through them right now. We'll see how it goes.
> I might have to go back to 0.1 as it doesn't have the problems ...
I haven't had an opportunity to play with the second one myself, but
perhaps Tuesday (unless I burn another DVD, but my DVD-R stockpile
isn't that big -- I wish DVD-RW would work for me...).
> Jarod - Can you try out the first one I sent you and tell me if you
> get a question wether you should make a bootdisk or not?
It hasn't, but then the machines I've been testing on thus far have no
floppy, so that is the expected behavior (at least, thats what I've
seen with stock Red Hat FC1).
> I'm a little perplexed as the 0.1 version asks that and the anaconda
> itself is only changed in 4 places between 0.1 and the latest iteration
> of the installer and none of those changes should have any influence
> whatsoever with if it should ask that or not.
> Mind you that I'm talking all files from 0.1 DVD + installer 1
> compared to 0.1 DVD + installer 3.
> It's really odd.
No clue here.
> I haven't released a new status update as I've been fighting my ass
> off with the problems.
Fun, fun, fun... :-\
> That's why there hasn't been any new ISO for you to grab either.
Not that I'd have had the time anyhow. Gotta get to sleep, I have to
work on my day off tomorrow... :-(
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-devel/attachments/20040215/9301fbcb/PGP.bin
More information about the atrpms-devel