-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
The MailScanner software requires Perl IO v1.23 but perl still ships
with v1.22 of the IO module.
In the past the IO version was even older and the conflict betwen
packages was limited to some manual pages. For that I could create a
workaround by putting the manual pages in a different package.
But with recent perl updates this no longer works. So the MailScanner
community advises one to do the following:
~ - rpm -e perl-IO
~ - yum update (to update perl)
~ - rpm -i --force perl-IO...
The bit about the --force option is something I am not at all
comfortable with. Using --force on the rm command is about as bad as
using it on the F* command.
So I was thinking of rebuilding perl to include a new version of the IO
module but I can not get my head around it.
The goal is to make a repository that can be used beside the normal
repositories of Centos and rpmforge to install and maintain MailScanner
and the minimal required packages.
Anyone any ideas on how to tackle this?
BTW the conflict shows up as:
~ file /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/IO.pm from
install of perl-IO-1.2301-1 conflicts with file from package
perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3
~ file /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/IO/Dir.pm from
install of perl-IO-1.2301-1 conflicts with file from package
perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3
~ file /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/IO/File.pm
from install of perl-IO-1.2301-1 conflicts with file from package
perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3
~ file /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/IO/Handle.pm
from install of perl-IO-1.2301-1 conflicts with file from package
perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3
~ file /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/IO/Socket.pm
from install of perl-IO-1.2301-1 conflicts with file from package
perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3
~ file /usr/lib/perl5/5.8.8/i386-linux-thread-multi/auto/IO/IO.so
from install of perl-IO-1.2301-1 conflicts with file from package
perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3
~ file /usr/share/man/man3/IO.3pm.gz from install of
perl-IO-1.2301-1 conflicts with file from package perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3
~ file /usr/share/man/man3/IO::Dir.3pm.gz from install of
perl-IO-1.2301-1 conflicts with file from package perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3
~ file /usr/share/man/man3/IO::File.3pm.gz from install of
perl-IO-1.2301-1 conflicts with file from package perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3
~ file /usr/share/man/man3/IO::Handle.3pm.gz from install of
perl-IO-1.2301-1 conflicts with file from package perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3
~ file /usr/share/man/man3/IO::Pipe.3pm.gz from install of
perl-IO-1.2301-1 conflicts with file from package perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3
~ file /usr/share/man/man3/IO::Poll.3pm.gz from install of
perl-IO-1.2301-1 conflicts with file from package perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3
~ file /usr/share/man/man3/IO::Seekable.3pm.gz from install of
perl-IO-1.2301-1 conflicts with file from package perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3
~ file /usr/share/man/man3/IO::Select.3pm.gz from install of
perl-IO-1.2301-1 conflicts with file from package perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3
~ file /usr/share/man/man3/IO::Socket.3pm.gz from install of
perl-IO-1.2301-1 conflicts with file from package perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3
~ file /usr/share/man/man3/IO::Socket::INET.3pm.gz from install of
perl-IO-1.2301-1 conflicts with file from package perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3
~ file /usr/share/man/man3/IO::Socket::UNIX.3pm.gz from install of
perl-IO-1.2301-1 conflicts with file from package perl-5.8.8-10.el5_2.3
Hugo.
- --
hvdkooij(a)vanderkooij.org http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/
PGP/GPG? Use: http://hugo.vanderkooij.org/0x58F19981.asc
A: Yes.
>Q: Are you sure?
>>A: Because it reverses the logical flow of conversation.
>>>Q: Why is top posting frowned upon?
Bored? Click on http://spamornot.org/ and rate those images.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFIecLEBvzDRVjxmYERAsikAJ9LJfU2a/7Ud6QceOS3K+c7RQS+owCfcaQM
xvYVSAZDtkapHoReTSJXnVc=
=d92R
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Hi all,
Not quite sure where best to float this idea so I thought I try here
first to reach a wider audience.
Recently we have seen a number of threads on the fora dealing with
broken 'yum update' issues during updates from 5.1 to 5.2. I guess the
mailing list has probably seen it's share of similar issues.
Here's an example of one such thread:
http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=14999&forum=37
I'm wondering if it would be useful to put together a *generic*
procedure to recover from such issues, one that should work in most cases.
In addition, maybe some advice/tips to minimise the risk of performing a
large update. I'm thinking of things like performing updates in a screen
session when remotely updating over an ssh login in case the ssh
connection gets lost mid-update. Also, I tend to perform updates in
smaller chunks like:
manually install new kernel packages
yum update yum\* rpm\*
yum update open\*
yum update gnome\* kde\* xorg\*
etc
to minimise the damage if it goes horribly wrong at any point. Not sure
if that's good practice or not but it works for me.
Plus any other advice relevant to the update procedure - how many times
did people ask the difference between 'yum upgrade' and 'yum update',
and which they should use :)
If it's deemed a good idea, I'm happy to help put together a Wiki page
or something although some help with the content (ie, a generic fix,
tips and advice) would be appreciated.
Hi all,
Which will be next stable release for CentOS 5.2?? Can i use on a production
enviromment??
Thanks.
--
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com
It would seem that yum-cron is missing from the x86_64 tree. Is there any
reason for this, or am I just missing something?
Thanks!
--
Joshua Baker-LePain
QB3 Shared Cluster Sysadmin
UCSF
Hi guys,
What do you think of adding some of modern-CentOS design into our
CentOS distro ?
Take a look at: http://wiki.centos.org/ArtWork/DistroDesign/modern-CentOS
I would like to collect comments of people how really know what things
must be changed, dimensions, CentOS Look and Feel, and stuff like
that, in order to focus the actions over what is really needed.
Here we propose:
1. Anaconda new designs (slides, splash, etc).
1. A Wallpaper
1. A LoginScreen
1. A GRUB Boot Image.
I would like to build that page like a Template with useful
information about the CentOS key elements that need to be changed, and
how they could be changed (note that some elements like rhgb need
modifications on a file splash.c that a "find / -iname splash.c"
did'nt find, maybe that's on my pc only). Also how could we test an
anaconda new design ? to make fixes and adjustments.
Anything else you consider useful is welcome.
This initial work is based on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Artwork/ThemingOverview
Cheers,
al.
Hi,
I thought those who don't monitor the fora might be interested in reading
this thread -
http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=15033&forum=14
After reading it, parsing it into a semblance of English & extracting the
pertinent information, I paused, took a couple of deep breaths and posted a
reply on behalf of us all.
Alan.
Morning,
we seem to have a packaging problem with httpd-devel.x86_64 and
apr-devel.x86_64.
If you install httpd-devel on an x86_64 machine, apr-devel is required
by this package.
It then goes on to install apr-devel - but the i386 version.
Because of this apxs dies with:
cannot open /httpd/build/config_vars.mk: No such file or directory at
/usr/sbin/apxs line 201.
See <http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=2934>
apr-devel.x86_64 does not provide apr-devel in a 64 bit version *and*
httpd-devel does not require apr-devel in a 64bit version.
This way only the i386 version gets installed, while pkg-config on a
64bit machine will look in /usr/lib64/pkgconfig for the apr-1.pc
package.
Same goes for the 64bit apr-util-devel package.
Can someone look into the RHEL 5.2 packages to see if that is an
upstream problem?
Strange thing: The Requires and Provides are the same in 5.1 - but there
the x86_64 versions of apr-devel and apr-util-devel get installed when
you install httpd-devel.x86_64 - and not the i386 versions.
Ralph
On Thu, Jul 03, 2008 at 10:50:35AM -0400, Jarod Wilson wrote:
> Red Hat suggests building once for each flavor/arch combo and being done
> with it. As long as the required kernel symbols are present, they'll
> keep working. You make the kernel module deps on the necessary kernel
> symbols, which are provided by the kernel package. For example, the
> packages provided here...
>
> http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2007-0654.html
>
> ...are designed to work with any version-release of a given arch/flavor
> RHEL5 kernel.
>
> But then maybe you already knew that, and don't like that scheme much...
> :)
I'd love it if it would work :)
> But that's what's recommended to all ISV's who build kernel modules
> for RHEL5, and so far, its worked out great. Of course, if some out
> of tree driver requires a symbol not on the whitelist (i.e., not in
> the kernel's Provides:), you lose, but...
My experience is that there is no guaranteed kernel ABI nor API by
RHEL. Otherwise the kmdl builds would not start to fail between say
the 53 series and the 92 ones. On every quarterly update I have to fix
several kmdl packages for RHEL due to backports. Usually with RHEL4/5
these are wireless updates.
Also at the very least I know of a glibc ABI discrepancy that was
fixed in 62, so I'm quite sure that there is no such stable ABI yet,
and since upstream will never provide one, it is very difficult for a
vendor to provide one (unless in deep maintenance mode where only
severe bugfixes/security issues, but no enhancements are addressed).
But speaking of policies I meant more the "you are required to update
withing XYZ days of an update to have Red Hat support etc.". If a
kernel is not anymore supported by Red Hat or CentOS then no kmdl
should be built for it.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Hi,
currently ATrpms builds kmdls for the following RHEL5/CentOS5 kernels
(actually for CentOS it also builds plus for plus kernels, but let's
keep the discussion simple):
el5/2.6.18-92.1.6.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-92.1.1.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-92.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-53.1.21.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-53.1.19.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-53.1.14.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-53.1.13.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-53.1.6.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-53.1.4.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-53.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-8.1.15.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-8.1.14.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-8.1.10.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-8.1.8.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-8.1.6.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-8.1.4.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-8.1.3.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-8.1.1.el5 \
el5/2.6.18-8.el5 \
Similar for RHEL4/3. This slows down kmdl updates as say for a new
nvidia driver one need to build kmdls for all these kernels in all
flavours/archs etc.
I start to think whether these kernels are indeed being all used to
the extend of justifying full kmdl support. Maybe it would make sense
to keep the full last series (2.6.18-92* above) and the highest one
from the series before (2.6.18-53.1.21.el5 and 2.6.18-8.1.15.el5).
Or is there any other idea? What are Red Hat's, CentOS' policies wrt
support of kernels? ATrpms should probably just copy that policy and
drop kernel support once the respective upstream support drops it.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
I've been trying to install a mythtv backend in centos 5.2 under Xen,
with PCI passthrough of a DVB-T tuner to the domU.
In theory I should just need to use the centosplus kernel to get the
additional video capture drivers. In practice I've got two problems, the
first of which I think is easy to solve.
Once I got the PCI device visible in the domU, I could load the saa7134
driver for the analogue section of the card, but I couldn't load the
saa7134_dvb driver for the digital section of the card, this driver is
missing from the centosplus kernel.
I've installed the kernel source, and modified the .config file as shown
in the patch below (the extra SAA7134_DVB settings are what my card
requires, but I figure there are potentially users of the BT848_DVB
driver that might appreciate that being included too).
After re-building the relevant modules, copying them to /lib/modules and
doing "depmod -a" I can load the saa7134_dvb module.
I saw another user who experienced the same issue with centos 5.1 and
Johnny Hughes said he would be willing to enable extra modules if they
would help.
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2007-December/091890.html
Could the relevant .config files for centosplus kernels be patched as
follows?
--- .config.pre 2008-06-29 00:41:18.000000000 +0100
+++ .config.post 2008-06-29 01:33:04.000000000 +0100
@@ -1,7 +1,7 @@
#
# Automatically generated make config: don't edit
# Linux kernel version: 2.6.18-prep
-# Sun Jun 29 00:41:10 2008
+# Sun Jun 29 01:33:04 2008
#
CONFIG_X86_64=y
CONFIG_64BIT=y
@@ -2035,7 +2035,7 @@
# CONFIG_VIDEO_ADV_DEBUG is not set
CONFIG_VIDEO_VIVI=m
CONFIG_VIDEO_BT848=m
-# CONFIG_VIDEO_BT848_DVB is not set
+CONFIG_VIDEO_BT848_DVB=y
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAA6588=m
CONFIG_VIDEO_BWQCAM=m
CONFIG_VIDEO_CQCAM=m
@@ -2057,7 +2057,8 @@
CONFIG_VIDEO_ZORAN_AVS6EYES=m
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAA7134=m
CONFIG_VIDEO_SAA7134_ALSA=m
-# CONFIG_VIDEO_SAA7134_DVB is not set
+CONFIG_VIDEO_SAA7134_DVB=m
+CONFIG_VIDEO_SAA7134_DVB_ALL_FRONTENDS=y
CONFIG_VIDEO_MXB=m
CONFIG_VIDEO_DPC=m
CONFIG_VIDEO_HEXIUM_ORION=m
My second problem is a bit harder, or possibly a sign that I've not
configured xen pciback/pcifront properly. When the saa7134 driver is
loaded in the domU, I see the following messages in dmesg
saa7130/34: v4l2 driver version 0.2.14 loaded
saa7130[0]: found at 0000:00:00.0, rev: 1, irq: 17, latency: 64, mmio:
0xfebffc00
saa7130[0]: subsystem: 185b:c901, board: Compro Videomate DVB-T200
[card=71,autodetected]
saa7130[0]: can't ioremap() MMIO memory
saa7134: probe of 0000:00:00.0 failed with error -5
I'm not sure if the saa7134 driver is unusual in trying to perform an
ioremap which is causing the error?
dev->lmmio = ioremap(pci_resource_start(pci_dev,0), 0x1000);
Any suggestions on that one?