Evo and Exchange
Ed Gurski
ed at gurski.com
Fri Nov 19 14:40:07 UTC 2004
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....
On Fri, 2004-11-19 at 08:27 -0500, fedora-list-request at redhat.com wrote:
> Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 06:00:58 -0700
> From: Jamie Bohr <jamiebohr at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: Evo and Exchange
> To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <fd7c117a04111905007016cce8 at mail.gmail.com>
> 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 at wdc.com> 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 at redhat.com
> > 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 at fahrlander.net>
> Subject: Re: Firefox 1 FC2
> To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <1100869500.5010.1.camel at aquila.kamakiriad.local>
> 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 at ATrpms.net>
> Subject: Re: YUM and yum.conf - for the interested one's
> To: peter at cannon3.wanadoo.co.uk, For users of Fedora Core releases
> <fedora-list at redhat.com>
> Cc: roger at gwch.net
> Message-ID: <20041119130535.GP7349 at neu.nirvana>
> 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 at westexe.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: FC3 Installation / Update
> To: fedora-list at redhat.com
> Message-ID: <20041119130920.GA4886 at howells.westexe.demon.co.uk>
> 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 at herakles.homelinux.org>
> Subject: Re: DVD burning in Core 3 with TDK IndiDVD
> To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <200411192018.14815.debian at herakles.homelinux.org>
> 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 at herakles.homelinux.org>
> Subject: Re: LVM is installed by default in Fedora Core 3??
> To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <200411191957.04287.debian at herakles.homelinux.org>
> 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 at thexxxhost.com>
> Subject: Re: Firefox 1 FC2
> To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <1100869897.19593.6.camel at gmike.5150wtwm.com>
> 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 at thexxxhost.com>
> -------------- 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 at cannon3.wanadoo.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: YUM and yum.conf - for the interested one's
> To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <200411191314.45114.peter at cannon3.wanadoo.co.uk>
> 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 at city-fan.org>
> Subject: Re: DVD burning in Core 3 with TDK IndiDVD
> To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <419DF23C.5060501 at city-fan.org>
> 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 at westexe.demon.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: 8139too Ethernet Woes
> To: fedora-list at redhat.com
> Message-ID: <20041119132158.GB4886 at howells.westexe.demon.co.uk>
> 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 at ATrpms.net>
> Subject: Re: YUM and yum.conf - for the interested one's
> To: peter at cannon3.wanadoo.co.uk, For users of Fedora Core releases
> <fedora-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <20041119132632.GR7349 at neu.nirvana>
> 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 at gurski.com>
More information about the fedora-list
mailing list