On 12 March 2008, William L. Maltby CentOS4Bill at triad.rr.com wrote: <snip>
I just tried again and got the same errors as in my original post. I'll run a verify on my system and see if something got corrupted. I have seen two unreadable sectors from smartctl selftest output in a currently unused portion of one of my HDs. The rpm verify and another smartctl selftest may provide a clue or two.
I hope no more bad sectors show up. If I see more than just a few I believe things tend over successive self tests, I tend to have a pessimistic outlook for the drive.
Bill: I get the Digest version of the ML each morning, but I read the above online. Suggest you download the Diagnostics from the manufacturer of the drive and run that. You may be spinning your wheels here, and wasting a lot of your valuable time, if the drive is bad and needs to be replaced. FWIW, below is the output of the yum command you ran, so you can see what I have installed and what I don't have installed, of Evolution, on CentOS 5. GL, Lanny
[root@dell2400 ~]# yum list 'evo*' Loading "installonlyn" plugin Loading "priorities" plugin Setting up repositories adobe-linux-i386 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 google 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 rpmforge 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 base 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 updates 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 addons 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 Reading repository metadata in from local files 239 packages excluded due to repository priority protections Installed Packages evolution.i386 2.8.0-40.el5_1.1 installed evolution-connector.i386 2.8.0-3.fc6 installed evolution-data-server.i386 1.8.0-15.el5 installed evolution-webcal.i386 2.7.1-6 installed Available Packages evolution-bogofilter.i386 0.2.0-1.el5.rf rpmforge evolution-data-server.i386 1.8.0-25.el5 base evolution-data-server-devel.i386 1.8.0-25.el5 base evolution-devel.i386 2.8.0-40.el5_1.1 updates evolution-rss.i386 0.0.7-1.el5.rf rpmforge evolution-sharp.i386 0.14.0.1-1.el5.centos extras evolution-sharp-devel.i386 0.14.0.1-1.el5.centos extras [root@dell2400 ~]#
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 13:57 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
On 12 March 2008, William L. Maltby CentOS4Bill at triad.rr.com wrote:
<snip> >I just tried again and got the same errors as in my original post. I'll >run a verify on my system and see if something got corrupted. I have >seen two unreadable sectors from smartctl selftest output in a currently >unused portion of one of my HDs. The rpm verify and another smartctl >selftest may provide a clue or two.
I hope no more bad sectors show up. If I see more than just a few I believe things tend over successive self tests, I tend to have a pessimistic outlook for the drive.
Bill: I get the Digest version of the ML each morning, but I read the above online. Suggest you download the Diagnostics from the manufacturer of the drive and run that. You may be spinning your wheels here, and wasting a lot of your valuable time, if the drive is bad and needs to be replaced. FWIW, below is the output of the yum command you ran, so you can see what I have installed and what I don't have installed, of Evolution, on CentOS 5. GL, Lanny
By the time you read this in the A.M. I should have a new smartctl extended selftest completed. Then I'll get the diags if it seems things have deteriorated from my comfort level.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch ...
[root@dell2400 ~]# yum list 'evo*' Loading "installonlyn" plugin Loading "priorities" plugin Setting up repositories adobe-linux-i386 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 google 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 rpmforge 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 base 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 updates 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 addons 100% |=========================| 951 B 00:00 extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 Reading repository metadata in from local files 239 packages excluded due to repository priority protections Installed Packages evolution.i386 2.8.0-40.el5_1.1 installed evolution-connector.i386 2.8.0-3.fc6 installed evolution-data-server.i386 1.8.0-15.el5 installed evolution-webcal.i386 2.7.1-6 installed Available Packages evolution-bogofilter.i386 0.2.0-1.el5.rf rpmforge evolution-data-server.i386 1.8.0-25.el5 base evolution-data-server-devel.i386 1.8.0-25.el5 base evolution-devel.i386 2.8.0-40.el5_1.1 updates evolution-rss.i386 0.0.7-1.el5.rf rpmforge evolution-sharp.i386 0.14.0.1-1.el5.centos extras evolution-sharp-devel.i386 0.14.0.1-1.el5.centos extras [root@dell2400 ~]#
Looks just like mine looked. I did go a-googling and found some possibilities.
None are related to evolution, but I'm hoping that clues lie there for discovery by some skilled viewers of this thread.
Here, they claim that the oasis site is broken. But since I did a wget successfully, I still suspect my installation has something wrong. But rpm --verify doesn't give a clue, more later.
# Wrapped line http://www.archivum.info/debian-bugs- dist.lists.debian.org/2004-12/msg07181.html
And in the follow-up to this, they mention the need to have a version of docbook installed and using --disable-gtk-doc. But this has to do with building pacakages.
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2005-08/msg00315.html
In the next, broken rpm macros are suggested. It starts here, but I'd skip to the second URL as it seems to get closer to the germ of truth..
<warning> Site seem to take great glee in presenting lots of "cutesy" animated little ads that slow things noticeably. </warning>
The stuff beginning here doesn't *seem* related to my ignorant eyes, but maybe it does have meaning to others. Mostly petty sniping typical of ... UH-OH! Almost got politically incorrect there.
http://osdir.com/ml/linux.pld.devel.english/2005-05/msg00095.html
Anyway, my error appears in this one.
http://osdir.com/ml/linux.pld.devel.english/2005-05/msg00106.html
But, I can't see that it relates and no solution jumps out at me.
Here is from another bug tracker at Debian. Maybe some hope there?
# wrapped, from 5/2004, maybe not relevant any longer?
http://www.archivum.info/debian-bugs- dist.lists.debian.org/2004-12/msg07144.html
It includes a link to here.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook-tc/200405/msg00000.html
But it's subject is "FYI: OASIS site not ECN standards-compliant" and leads absolutely nowhere.
So, anyone with time, interest, knowledge, a beer... ?
Hoping the the mention of docbook is relevant...
# yum list doc* Loading "changelog" plugin <crewcut> . . extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile Reading repository metadata in from local files 268 packages excluded due to repository priority protections Installed Packages docbook-dtds.noarch 1.0-30.1 installed Available Packages docbook-simple.noarch 1.0-2.1.1 base docbook-slides.noarch 3.3.1-2.1.1 base docbook-style-dsssl.noarch 1.79-4.1 base docbook-style-xsl.noarch 1.69.1-5.1 base docbook-utils.noarch 0.6.14-5.1 base docbook-utils-pdf.noarch 0.6.14-5.1 base docbook2odf.noarch 0.244-2.el5.rf rpmforge #
Maybe I need to install one of these? One would think that yum would have recognized this though.
<snip sig stuff>
TIA for any/all help.
BTW, saw the RH bugzilla entry for the nautilus-sender issue with pidgin/gaim. Real responsive crew when you don't have a contract, eh? I bet the promise of having a fix in 5.3 (? how many months from now?) is not how they jump in when you send them a fix.
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 16:41 -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 13:57 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
On 12 March 2008, William L. Maltby CentOS4Bill at triad.rr.com wrote:
<snip> >I just tried again and got the same errors as in my original post. I'll >run a verify on my system and see if something got corrupted.
Well, no luck. The only errors of note were the missing gaim dependency for nautilus-sender (now replaced by pidgin and reported upstream by Johnny) and a missing dev entry. The rest were size and configuration files. I forgot to re-run with the md5sum checks turned on last night, but I have no *other* indications that there might be a problem there.
I've started it up now. It's early enough that I should have some results before the day ends.
I have
seen two unreadable sectors from smartctl selftest output in a currently unused portion of one of my HDs. The rpm verify and another smartctl selftest may provide a clue or two.
I hope no more bad sectors show up. If I see more than just a few I believe things tend over successive self tests, I tend to have a pessimistic outlook for the drive.
Well, we can put this one to bed. Over the last two weeks, only 1 bad sector showed up in the automatic short test and one more in the extended offline self test. No signs of further deterioration.
As I mentioned earlier, the two sectors are in unused portions of the disk *and* the HD is not my root, something I overlooked earlier. So it contains only backup, my LFS boot/work areas, and a part used for /home for my migration to 5.x. Further, each HD is on a separate SATA port (DUH!), so there's not a single failure point in the cables or port.
My feeling is this isn't related to my evolution update problem.
<snip further options of HD diags>
<snip Lanny's yum list of evo-related stuff that my node matches> . . .
evolution-sharp-devel.i386 0.14.0.1-1.el5.centos extras [root@dell2400 ~]#
Looks just like mine looked. I did go a-googling and found some possibilities.
I've left the rest of the previous post, the rest of this message, JIC anyone who's interested missed the earlier parts of the thread. If you read the others or are uninterested, stop reading now.
Bill
None are related to evolution, but I'm hoping that clues lie there for discovery by some skilled viewers of this thread.
Here, they claim that the oasis site is broken. But since I did a wget successfully, I still suspect my installation has something wrong. But rpm --verify doesn't give a clue, more later.
# Wrapped line http://www.archivum.info/debian-bugs- dist.lists.debian.org/2004-12/msg07181.html
And in the follow-up to this, they mention the need to have a version of docbook installed and using --disable-gtk-doc. But this has to do with building pacakages.
http://www.cygwin.com/ml/cygwin-apps/2005-08/msg00315.html
In the next, broken rpm macros are suggested. It starts here, but I'd skip to the second URL as it seems to get closer to the germ of truth..
<warning> Site seem to take great glee in presenting lots of "cutesy" animated little ads that slow things noticeably.
</warning>
The stuff beginning here doesn't *seem* related to my ignorant eyes, but maybe it does have meaning to others. Mostly petty sniping typical of ... UH-OH! Almost got politically incorrect there.
http://osdir.com/ml/linux.pld.devel.english/2005-05/msg00095.html
Anyway, my error appears in this one.
http://osdir.com/ml/linux.pld.devel.english/2005-05/msg00106.html
But, I can't see that it relates and no solution jumps out at me.
Here is from another bug tracker at Debian. Maybe some hope there?
# wrapped, from 5/2004, maybe not relevant any longer?
http://www.archivum.info/debian-bugs- dist.lists.debian.org/2004-12/msg07144.html
It includes a link to here.
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/docbook-tc/200405/msg00000.html
But it's subject is "FYI: OASIS site not ECN standards-compliant" and leads absolutely nowhere.
So, anyone with time, interest, knowledge, a beer... ?
Hoping the the mention of docbook is relevant...
# yum list doc* Loading "changelog" plugin <crewcut> . . extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile Reading repository metadata in from local files 268 packages excluded due to repository priority protections Installed Packages docbook-dtds.noarch 1.0-30.1 installed Available Packages docbook-simple.noarch 1.0-2.1.1 base docbook-slides.noarch 3.3.1-2.1.1 base docbook-style-dsssl.noarch 1.79-4.1 base docbook-style-xsl.noarch 1.69.1-5.1 base docbook-utils.noarch 0.6.14-5.1 base docbook-utils-pdf.noarch 0.6.14-5.1 base docbook2odf.noarch 0.244-2.el5.rf rpmforge #
Maybe I need to install one of these? One would think that yum would have recognized this though.
<snip sig stuff>
TIA for any/all help.
BTW, saw the RH bugzilla entry for the nautilus-sender issue with pidgin/gaim. Real responsive crew when you don't have a contract, eh? I bet the promise of having a fix in 5.3 (? how many months from now?) is not how they jump in when you send them a fix.
On Thu, 2008-03-13 at 05:33 -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 16:41 -0400, William L. Maltby wrote:
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 13:57 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote:
On 12 March 2008, William L. Maltby CentOS4Bill at triad.rr.com wrote:
<snip> >I just tried again and got the same errors as in my original post. I'll >run a verify on my system and see if something got corrupted.
Well, no luck. The only errors of note were the missing gaim dependency for nautilus-sender (now replaced by pidgin and reported upstream by Johnny) and a missing dev entry. The rest were size and configuration files. I forgot to re-run with the md5sum checks turned on last night, but I have no *other* indications that there might be a problem there.
I've started it up now. It's early enough that I should have some results before the day ends.
Well, nothing catches my ey, but I've shown the results at the end if anyone wants to look. Maybe there's something there I just don't recognize.
<snip potential HD failure stuff>
Hoping the the mention of docbook is relevant...
# yum list doc* Loading "changelog" plugin <crewcut> . . extras 100% |=========================| 1.1 kB 00:00 Loading mirror speeds from cached hostfile Reading repository metadata in from local files 268 packages excluded due to repository priority protections Installed Packages docbook-dtds.noarch 1.0-30.1 installed Available Packages docbook-simple.noarch 1.0-2.1.1 base docbook-slides.noarch 3.3.1-2.1.1 base docbook-style-dsssl.noarch 1.79-4.1 base docbook-style-xsl.noarch 1.69.1-5.1 base docbook-utils.noarch 0.6.14-5.1 base docbook-utils-pdf.noarch 0.6.14-5.1 base docbook2odf.noarch 0.244-2.el5.rf rpmforge #
Maybe I need to install one of these? One would think that yum would have recognized this though.
<snip>
If y'all don't spot something in the below or wherever, I gues my next shot is the evolution home, since google didn't provide anything.
rmp --very output follows.
Thanks to all that tried to help,
-
Lanny Marcus -
William L. Maltby