Hi,
Is there a CentOS4 rpm for Evolution 2.2.2 (I think that's the latest) ?
Thanks, Adrian
Adrian Coman wrote:
Hi,
Is there a CentOS4 rpm for Evolution 2.2.2 (I think that's the latest) ?
Thanks, Adrian
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 12:10 +0300, Adrian Coman wrote:
Did that, I only found rpms for Ferdora4, no CentOS. _______________________________________________
The Latest RPM for RHEL is evolution-2.0.2-16 ... so that is the latest for CentOS as well :)
On 7/7/05, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 12:10 +0300, Adrian Coman wrote:
Did that, I only found rpms for Ferdora4, no CentOS. _______________________________________________
The Latest RPM for RHEL is evolution-2.0.2-16 ... so that is the latest for CentOS as well :)
Johnny,
For people who want a stable desktop but with some packages upgraded to newer versions, what is the recommended method? Find an FC4 SRPM and rebuild it? Get the source and build that?
I'm personally generally very happy with the packages that are available in the base system, but I also understand that this is a vexing problem since you can't really go searching for "CentOS" RPMs on rpmfind.
Greg
Greg Knaddison wrote:
For people who want a stable desktop but with some packages upgraded to newer versions, what is the recommended method? Find an FC4 SRPM and rebuild it? Get the source and build that?
You want to try FC3 src.rpm's first - they are more likely to get you a better-fit.
But sometimes its just not that simple, eg. Evolution. To get the latest / greatest - you are looking to, pretty much, rebuild the entire gnome platform and move to 2.10
( you could do the garnome way if you like... not much fun, if its a simple drop in install you want )
- K
On 7/7/05, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Greg Knaddison wrote:
For people who want a stable desktop but with some packages upgraded to newer versions, what is the recommended method? Find an FC4 SRPM and rebuild it? Get the source and build that?
You want to try FC3 src.rpm's first - they are more likely to get you a better-fit.
But sometimes its just not that simple, eg. Evolution. To get the latest / greatest - you are looking to, pretty much, rebuild the entire gnome platform and move to 2.10
( you could do the garnome way if you like... not much fun, if its a simple drop in install you want )
I realize I asked a kind of ridiculous question - but was curious if there were a good answer - seems not. Especially as FC3 goes EOL in a few months...
Greg
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 14:40 -0600, Greg Knaddison wrote:
On 7/7/05, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
...
You want to try FC3 src.rpm's first - they are more likely to get you a better-fit.
But sometimes its just not that simple, eg. Evolution. To get the latest / greatest - you are looking to, pretty much, rebuild the entire gnome platform and move to 2.10
So it seems. Had a shot at building FC4 evolution and it turned into way more packages than I really wanted to replace to get an updated evolution. Gave up after about 6 rounds of building/installing/building-new-deps/installing and reverted to CentOS4 and/or FC3 evolution RPMS and dependencies, as documented elsewhere in the thread.
( you could do the garnome way if you like... not much fun, if its a simple drop in install you want )
I realize I asked a kind of ridiculous question - but was curious if there were a good answer - seems not. Especially as FC3 goes EOL in a few months...
Well, a more stable (IMHO and experience) FC3-rebuilt set of evolution RPMS might be an intermediate answer until a better solution comes from upstream. Still think it might be a candidate for centosplus.
Phil
P.S. FC3 evolution rebuild is working well for me on x86_64 as well as i386 arch.
Talking with a big Red Hat representative for Europe, he stated that Red Hat will stop providing updates for the current FCx 1-2 months before the official release of the next coming FCx+1. At my point of view, this could mean a further push to drive current FCx or FCx-1 installations to migrate either to RHEL -----> or to CentOS :-)). The reason that he gave me was that they need all the attention and man power to focus on the forthcoming FCx+1. Although this is something I haven't seen it in written yet on the official site, I consider it as an internal information, as my employer company is Red Hat Advanced Partner.
Cheers,
Zaharioudakis Nikos
On 7/7/05, Greg Knaddison greg.knaddison@gmail.com wrote:
On 7/7/05, Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote:
Greg Knaddison wrote:
For people who want a stable desktop but with some packages upgraded to newer versions, what is the recommended method? Find an FC4 SRPM and rebuild it? Get the source and build that?
You want to try FC3 src.rpm's first - they are more likely to get you a better-fit.
But sometimes its just not that simple, eg. Evolution. To get the latest / greatest - you are looking to, pretty much, rebuild the entire gnome platform and move to 2.10
( you could do the garnome way if you like... not much fun, if its a simple drop in install you want )
I realize I asked a kind of ridiculous question - but was curious if there were a good answer - seems not. Especially as FC3 goes EOL in a few months...
Greg _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Fri, 8 Jul 2005 at 12:56pm, Nikos Zaharioudakis wrote
Talking with a big Red Hat representative for Europe, he stated that Red Hat will stop providing updates for the current FCx 1-2 months before the official release of the next coming FCx+1. At my point of view, this could mean a further push to drive current FCx or FCx-1 installations to migrate either to RHEL -----> or to CentOS :-)). The reason that he gave me was that they need all the attention and man power to focus on the forthcoming FCx+1. Although this is something I haven't seen it in written yet on the official site, I consider it as an internal information, as my employer company is Red Hat Advanced Partner.
Err, that's not "internal information,", it's the official Fedora policy as stated at http://fedora.redhat.com/about/faq/ (see "What is the errata policy for The Fedora Project?").
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 12:56 +0300, Nikos Zaharioudakis wrote:
Talking with a big Red Hat representative for Europe, he stated that Red Hat will stop providing updates for the current FCx 1-2 months before the official release of the next coming FCx+1.
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 06:14 -0400, Joshua Baker-LePain wrote:
Err, that's not "internal information,", it's the official Fedora policy as stated at http://fedora.redhat.com/about/faq/ (see "What is the errata policy for The Fedora Project?").
I think the _current_ Policy is dropping FC[x-1] 1-2 months before FC[x +1], typically at FC[x+1] Test 2. FC[x] remains _until_ FC[x+2] Test 2.
I assume Nikos meant that the Red Hat rep stated the change would be dropping FC[x] 1-2 months before FC[x+1], possibly at FC[x+1] Test 2. That would mean there would be 1-2 months where _no_ Fedora Core release was considered "current."
On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 12:56 +0300, Nikos Zaharioudakis wrote:
At my point of view, this could mean a further push to drive current FCx or FCx-1 installations to migrate either to RHEL -----> or to CentOS :-)).
At my point of view, Red Hat would _shoot_themselves_in_the_foot_. As I have repeatedly stated, if Red Hat sacrifices Fedora Core adoption, they only hurt the adoption, testing and stability of the next Red Hat Enterprise Linux release.
So far, Red Hat has been very precise and consistent in all their Fedora Core moves, nothing unexpected. E.g., Much of Red Hat's policy on Fedora Core existed 2-3 years in Red Hat Linux before the creation of the project -- in many cases as a "clarification" that they don't like to support 6-7 simultaneous revisions and only do 2-3 (typically the "last .2/.3" until the "next .1/.2" came out).
So I chalk this up to either:
A) A utterly Fedora and, subsequently, RHEL destroying move
B) A Red Hat European sales rep with a "Joachim Kempin" syndrome -- someone Red Hat should _fire_immediately_
On Fri, Jul 08, 2005 at 06:20:03AM -0500, Bryan J. Smith wrote:
I think the _current_ Policy is dropping FC[x-1] 1-2 months before FC[x +1], typically at FC[x+1] Test 2. FC[x] remains _until_ FC[x+2] Test 2.
I assume Nikos meant that the Red Hat rep stated the change would be dropping FC[x] 1-2 months before FC[x+1], possibly at FC[x+1] Test 2. That would mean there would be 1-2 months where _no_ Fedora Core release was considered "current."
My guess is that the sales rep simply explained the above policy poorly.
On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 12:10 +0300, Adrian Coman wrote:
Did that, I only found rpms for Ferdora4, no CentOS.
After experiencing repeated Evolution crashes with CentOS4, I managed to rebuild FC3 evolution from sources under CentOS4. What worked for me was building/installing from the the following SRPMS in the order shown:
libsoup-2.2.2-1.FC3.src.rpm libgal2-2.2.5-1.src.rpm evolution-data-server-1.0.4-3.src.rpm evolution-2.0.4-4.src.rpm
to get the following RPMS:
libsoup-devel-2.2.2-1.FC3.i386.rpm libsoup-2.2.2-1.FC3.i386.rpm libgal2-devel-2.2.5-1.i386.rpm libgal2-2.2.5-1.i386.rpm evolution-devel-2.0.4-4.i386.rpm evolution-data-server-devel-1.0.4-3.i386.rpm evolution-data-server-1.0.4-3.i386.rpm evolution-2.0.4-4.i386.rpm
I expect a similar approach would work using the FC4 or development SRPMS if you want evolution-2.2.2.x. Perhaps this should be in [centosplus] given the buggy evolution versions still shipping. See:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=124512 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=115786
Phil
-
Adrian Coman -
Bryan J. Smith -
forum.me＠gmail.com -
Greg Knaddison -
Johnny Hughes -
Joshua Baker-LePain -
Karanbir Singh -
Matthew Miller -
Nikos Zaharioudakis -
Phil Schaffner