dependency resolving issues
Rob Healey
robhealey1 at gmail.com
Tue Apr 7 04:35:08 UTC 2009
Greetings:
I guess that I just do not understand how things work around here -- that
being, an open community problem?
To me, I would not submit something if all it did was have broken
dependencies or broke the software!!!
Having three packages have dependency resolution problems, doesn't sound too
professional to me!
Sincerely,
Rob G. Healey
On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 6:22 PM, <fedora-test-list-request at redhat.com> wrote:
> Send fedora-test-list mailing list submissions to
> fedora-test-list at redhat.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> fedora-test-list-request at redhat.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> fedora-test-list-owner at redhat.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of fedora-test-list digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: F11 Beta KDE Live and nouveau (Adam Williamson)
> 2. Re: nouveau and double monitor error (Adam Williamson)
> 3. Re: missing dependency kernel >= 2.6.29.1-52.fc11
> (Antonio Olivares)
> 4. Re: Draft for 'Bugzilla processes and procedures' mail to
> developers (Adam Williamson)
> 5. Re: missing dependency kernel >= 2.6.29.1-52.fc11 (Kirk)
> 6. Re: installation issues (Paul W. Frields)
> 7. Reminder: Bug Triage Meeting Tomorrow (Tuesday) @ 15:00
> UTC/11 AM EDT (John Poelstra)
> 8. Re: F11 beta xfce i686 spin (Kevin Fenzi)
> 9. Re: missing dependency kernel >= 2.6.29.1-52.fc11
> (Antonio Olivares)
> 10. After install, Wrong DM (Janina Sajka)
> 11. python-libs segfault during setroubleshoot (Allen Kistler)
> 12. Re: installation issues (Craig White)
> 13. Kernel Builds Producing Corrupt RPMs On F-11 Beta (Janina Sajka)
> 14. evdev run amuck? (Tom Horsley)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:45:24 -0700
> From: Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: F11 Beta KDE Live and nouveau
> To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases
> <fedora-test-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <1239050724.8700.67.camel at adam.local.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> On Sun, 2009-04-05 at 19:59 -0600, Dariusz J. Garbowski wrote:
>
> > (*) Clone works fine, I was even able to set 1600x1200 on 1st monitor
> > (DELL P1110) and 1920x1200 on the 2nd (NEC LCD2690WUXi) "independently"
> > for each display. I didn't find a way to try Xinerama/TwinView using
> > standard KDE config tool.
> >
> > Unfortunately since I need TwinView, I will most likely still need
> > proprietary driver :( I'm tracking
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=487356 so hopefully when
> > it's fixed I'll be able to switch to nouveau.
>
> You can use the command line 'xrandr' tool, it should do the job. It's
> quite simple to use and you can script it up - it's just something like
> 'xrandr --output FOO --right-of output BAR'.
>
> The only wrinkle is that nouveau doesn't yet handle dynamic framebuffer
> resizing for side-by-side setups, so you'll need an xorg.conf with a
> Screen section with Virtual lines for the resolution you need. We really
> need to document this somewhere...
>
> > Bad news:
> >
> > 1. Selecting "rotate screen" in KDE display properties kills X
> > immediately. Anybody else seeing this on nouveau?
>
> File a bug on it! Actually we added a rotation test case for the Radeon
> test day since someone mentioned it's often an interesting failure, but
> it was too late for the nouveau day.
>
> > 2. I had X hang up on me once with two (out of three) blinking diodes on
> > the keyboard. The only way out was reboot :(
> >
> > # lspci -v
>
> I rather prefer lspci -nn, as it actually gives the PCI ID of the
> hardware (which is what identifies it uniquely).
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> http://www.happyassassin.net
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 13:57:25 -0700
> From: Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: nouveau and double monitor error
> To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases
> <fedora-test-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <1239051445.8700.68.camel at adam.local.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 15:26 +0200, Gianluca Cecchi wrote:
> > Hello,
> > just installed F11 beta x86_64 on my Dell XPS M1330 laptop.
> > Driver used by Xorg is nouveau.
> > All ok with installation, but I had these problems:
> > 1) It seems that at first reboot the screen size was not correctly
> autodetected.
> > I was not able to see the right side of the screen, so being unable to
> > select "Next" buttons....
> > With Tab key I was able to complete the registration and smolt sending
> > steps anyway
>
> Could you check if hitting the 'auto-adjust' button on the monitor fixes
> this or not?
>
> For the other issue, the other Gianluca pointed out the relevant bug
> report: it's a known limitation of the nouveau driver, you have to
> specify the total resolution you need via xorg.conf (after creating it,
> if necessary) for now. We should document this somewhere I guess...
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> http://www.happyassassin.net
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 14:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Antonio Olivares <olivares14031 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: missing dependency kernel >= 2.6.29.1-52.fc11
> To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday at crashcourse.ca>, For testers of Fedora
> Core development releases <fedora-test-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <551068.19034.qm at web52606.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Bruno Wolff III <bruno at wolff.to> wrote:
>
> > From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno at wolff.to>
> > Subject: Re: missing dependency kernel >= 2.6.29.1-52.fc11
> > To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday at crashcourse.ca>
> > Cc: "Fedora Test List" <fedora-test-list at redhat.com>
> > Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 12:47 PM
> > On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:33:37 -0400,
> > "Robert P. J. Day"
> > <rpjday at crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > >
> > > a small set of packages in this morning's update
> > can't be updated,
> > > looking for that dependency. i'm assuming i can
> > just give it a while
> > > and things will correct themselves?
> >
> > You didn't say which ones, but Airlie was working on
> > some ati stuff with
> > an API change. The first try at a kernel build failed and
> > the eventual
> > one which is needed wasn't done until after the
> > snapshot was taken.
> > This would have included libdrm for sure and maybe an
> > xorg-x11-drv-ati
> > build depending on where the cutoff happened. There was a
> > new mesa as well, but
> > I think they may have been after the cutoff.
> >
> > The rawhide summaries include a list of broken
> > dependencies. It isn't that
> > unusual for libraries to get upgraded, but not have all of
> > the dsependent
> > packages done at the same time.
> >
> > --
> > fedora-test-list mailing list
> > fedora-test-list at redhat.com
> > To unsubscribe:
> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
>
> Did not check the broken deps part, but did notice the new kernel
> requirement :(
>
> libdrm-2.4.5-4.fc11.i586 from rawhide has depsolving problems
> --> Missing Dependency: kernel >= 2.6.29.1-52.fc11 is needed by package
> libdrm-2.4.5-4.fc11.i586 (rawhide)
> libdrm-2.4.5-4.fc11.x86_64 from rawhide has depsolving problems
> --> Missing Dependency: kernel >= 2.6.29.1-52.fc11 is needed by package
> libdrm-2.4.5-4.fc11.x86_64 (rawhide)
> xorg-x11-drv-ati-6.12.1-5.fc11.x86_64 from rawhide has depsolving problems
> --> Missing Dependency: kernel >= 2.6.29.1-52.fc11 is needed by package
> xorg-x11-drv-ati-6.12.1-5.fc11.x86_64 (rawhide)
> --> Running transaction check
> ---> Package libdrm.i586 0:2.4.5-4.fc11 set to be updated
> --> Processing Dependency: libdrm = 2.4.5-4.fc11 for package: libdrm-devel
> ---> Package libdrm.x86_64 0:2.4.5-4.fc11 set to be updated
> --> Processing Dependency: libdrm = 2.4.5-4.fc11 for package: libdrm-devel
> ---> Package xorg-x11-drv-ati.x86_64 0:6.12.1-5.fc11 set to be updated
> --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> libdrm-devel-2.4.5-4.fc11.x86_64 from rawhide has depsolving problems
> --> Missing Dependency: libdrm = 2.4.5-4.fc11 is needed by package
> libdrm-devel-2.4.5-4.fc11.x86_64 (rawhide)
> libdrm-devel-2.4.5-4.fc11.x86_64 from rawhide has depsolving problems
> --> Missing Dependency: libdrm = 2.4.5-4.fc11 is needed by package
> libdrm-devel-2.4.5-4.fc11.x86_64 (rawhide)
>
> Regards,
>
> Antonio
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 15:06:38 -0700
> From: Adam Williamson <awilliam at redhat.com>
> Subject: Re: Draft for 'Bugzilla processes and procedures' mail to
> developers
> To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases
> <fedora-test-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <1239055598.8700.99.camel at adam.local.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:29 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > > I think it is great you want to tackle and clarify these things.
> Having
> > > gone through a round myself with this process I guess I learned that
> > > some ambiguity wasn't as harmful as I first thought. :)
> >
> > You're right, of course. Somehow I'd forgotten about that flow.
> >
> > So, I will revise the draft substantially. :) Here's my quick thoughts:
>
> I've revised my thinking on this again. It now seems to me that we don't
> really need to discuss much. All we need to do is flesh out the existing
> page to explain all the resolutions, and specifically state which
> statuses and resolutions don't apply to Fedora, to avoid confusion with
> things like 'NEXTRELEASE' and 'CURRENTRELEASE'.
>
> The 'technical' fix - don't display statuses and resolutions which don't
> apply to the product the bug is in - would be nice too, if we can get
> it. I'll try and follow that up.
>
> The only thing that still needs to be discussed is Priority and
> Severity, as we genuinely don't currently have a policy or procedure for
> those. So I'll write a new draft of a mail covering only that issue, and
> revise the Wiki as outlined above.
>
> Thanks all.
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> http://www.happyassassin.net
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:23:10 -0700
> From: Kirk <kirk202 at gmx.us>
> Subject: Re: missing dependency kernel >= 2.6.29.1-52.fc11
> To: olivares14031 at yahoo.com, For testers of Fedora Core development
> releases <fedora-test-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <1239060190.3404.2.camel at localhost.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 14:34 -0700, Antonio Olivares wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > --- On Mon, 4/6/09, Bruno Wolff III <bruno at wolff.to> wrote:
> >
> > > From: Bruno Wolff III <bruno at wolff.to>
> > > Subject: Re: missing dependency kernel >= 2.6.29.1-52.fc11
> > > To: "Robert P. J. Day" <rpjday at crashcourse.ca>
> > > Cc: "Fedora Test List" <fedora-test-list at redhat.com>
> > > Date: Monday, April 6, 2009, 12:47 PM
> > > On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:33:37 -0400,
> > > "Robert P. J. Day"
> > > <rpjday at crashcourse.ca> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > a small set of packages in this morning's update
> > > can't be updated,
> > > > looking for that dependency. i'm assuming i can
> > > just give it a while
> > > > and things will correct themselves?
> > >
> > > You didn't say which ones, but Airlie was working on
> > > some ati stuff with
> > > an API change. The first try at a kernel build failed and
> > > the eventual
> > > one which is needed wasn't done until after the
> > > snapshot was taken.
> > > This would have included libdrm for sure and maybe an
> > > xorg-x11-drv-ati
> > > build depending on where the cutoff happened. There was a
> > > new mesa as well, but
> > > I think they may have been after the cutoff.
> > >
> > > The rawhide summaries include a list of broken
> > > dependencies. It isn't that
> > > unusual for libraries to get upgraded, but not have all of
> > > the dsependent
> > > packages done at the same time.
> > >
> > > --
> > > fedora-test-list mailing list
> > > fedora-test-list at redhat.com
> > > To unsubscribe:
> > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
> >
> > Did not check the broken deps part, but did notice the new kernel
> requirement :(
> >
> > libdrm-2.4.5-4.fc11.i586 from rawhide has depsolving problems
> > --> Missing Dependency: kernel >= 2.6.29.1-52.fc11 is needed by package
> libdrm-2.4.5-4.fc11.i586 (rawhide)
> > libdrm-2.4.5-4.fc11.x86_64 from rawhide has depsolving problems
> > --> Missing Dependency: kernel >= 2.6.29.1-52.fc11 is needed by package
> libdrm-2.4.5-4.fc11.x86_64 (rawhide)
> > xorg-x11-drv-ati-6.12.1-5.fc11.x86_64 from rawhide has depsolving
> problems
> > --> Missing Dependency: kernel >= 2.6.29.1-52.fc11 is needed by package
> xorg-x11-drv-ati-6.12.1-5.fc11.x86_64 (rawhide)
> > --> Running transaction check
> > ---> Package libdrm.i586 0:2.4.5-4.fc11 set to be updated
> > --> Processing Dependency: libdrm = 2.4.5-4.fc11 for package:
> libdrm-devel
> > ---> Package libdrm.x86_64 0:2.4.5-4.fc11 set to be updated
> > --> Processing Dependency: libdrm = 2.4.5-4.fc11 for package:
> libdrm-devel
> > ---> Package xorg-x11-drv-ati.x86_64 0:6.12.1-5.fc11 set to be updated
> > --> Finished Dependency Resolution
> > libdrm-devel-2.4.5-4.fc11.x86_64 from rawhide has depsolving problems
> > --> Missing Dependency: libdrm = 2.4.5-4.fc11 is needed by package
> libdrm-devel-2.4.5-4.fc11.x86_64 (rawhide)
> > libdrm-devel-2.4.5-4.fc11.x86_64 from rawhide has depsolving problems
> > --> Missing Dependency: libdrm = 2.4.5-4.fc11 is needed by package
> libdrm-devel-2.4.5-4.fc11.x86_64 (rawhide)
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Antonio
> >
>
> >
> >
>
> I filed a bug on this today,
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494433
>
> -Kirk
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 18:50:11 -0400
> From: "Paul W. Frields" <stickster at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: installation issues
> To: fedora-test-list at redhat.com
> Message-ID: <20090406225011.GB11814 at localhost.localdomain>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> On Mon, Apr 06, 2009 at 11:00:47AM -0700, Craig White wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 22:06 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> > > Craig White wrote:
> > >
> > > > It seems to come up with a text screen that's immediately replaced by
> a
> > > > graphic screen that's blank and until I touch any key and what
> appears
> > > > to be the grub screen scrolls up saying something like Press [TAB] to
> > > > enter options.
> > > >
> > > > If I press the <Enter> key, I am given a box that says 'Password
> > > > Required' - wtf?
> > > >
> > > > What am I doing wrong?
> > >
> > > # yum --enablerepo=rawhide update syslinux and try again. Do read the
> > > release notes in detail as well.
> > ----
> > OK - I got this done and get all the way into GUI but am getting an
> > installer error - Unknown Device - The installation source given by
> > device /dev/sdb1 could not be found. Please check your parameters and
> > try again.
> >
> > vc std out indicates (forgive any typos here)
> > INFO anaconda called with cmdline = ['/usr/bin/anaconda', '--stage2',
> > 'hd:/dev/sdb1://images/install.ing', '--graphica', '--selinux',
> > '--lang', 'en_US.UTF-8', '--keymap', 'us', '--repo', 'hd:/dev/sdb1:/'
> >
> > and then the error is
> > DEBUG: failed to resolve '/dev/sdb1'
> >
> > and of course mount doesn't show it.
> >
> > I am booting as USB HDD, and it indeed is /dev/sdb1 and I am
> > choosing /dev/hdb1 as the installation source. I can't conceive of
> > another path to make it work. Ideas?
>
> My pet bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491781
>
> --
> Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/
> gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717
> http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/
> irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: not available
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 189 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url :
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20090406/94c18b59/attachment.bin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:11:52 -0700
> From: John Poelstra <poelstra at redhat.com>
> Subject: Reminder: Bug Triage Meeting Tomorrow (Tuesday) @ 15:00
> UTC/11 AM EDT
> To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases
> <fedora-test-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <49DA8C38.7050304 at redhat.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Bug Triage Meeting
> irc.freenode.net #fedora-meeting
> Tuesday @ 15:00 UTC/11 AM EDT
>
> Agenda--Continue discussing improvements to the wiki as proposed by beland:
>
> 1) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Beland/How_to_Triage to replace
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/ How_to_Triage
> * adamw emailing fedora-test-list with draft email to
> fedora-devel-list with outstanding questions, including process for
> deciding which bugs to upstream
> * Should a check for bugs filed in upstream Bugzillas be mandatory?
> (conflicting opinions so far)
> * Should NEW triagers be asked to do NEEDINFO updates in 30 and 60
> days if needed, or should this be left to triagers following the
> NEEDINFO checklist? (Beland doesn't, other people do)
> * We went over all sections up to 2.0.7 in the last meeting. Please
> review the remainder of the document before the meeting if you
> haven't already, and have comments ready. You can also e-mail comments
> now, and non-controversial improvements will get implemented
> sooner.
> * After these issues are decided, is this draft ready to go live?
> * Later improvements:
> o Add references to GreaseMonkey buttons in checklist
> instructions (adamw said he would do so)
> o Reorganize (poelcat proposes http://fpaste.org/paste/7456 )
>
> 2) https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Beland/Bugzilla_Legend
> * Consensus seems to be to try come up with unified definitions
> across both RHEL and Fedora.
> * adamw is sending email to fedora-devel-list (with draft to
> fedora-test-list) regarding this issue
>
> See you tomorrow,
>
> John
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:37:21 -0600
> From: Kevin Fenzi <kevin at scrye.com>
> Subject: Re: F11 beta xfce i686 spin
> To: fedora-test-list at redhat.com
> Message-ID: <20090406173721.4a49b4d9 at ohm.scrye.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> On Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:48:29 +0100
> psmith <johnsmithdoe14 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>
> > thanks kevin, that compose works perfectly and f11 beta is already on
> > 7 of the 11 aspire ones :), though i'm already hearing moans of
> > slower performance and the only thing i can think of (apart from
> > being beta) is the drop to the i586 kernel, although the atom is pae
> > compatable it isn't nx so no i686-pae kernel. i'm going to knock up
> > an i686 kernel tonight at home and install it to see if that brings
> > things back closer to f10 performance.
>
> Note that there is a good deal of debugging enabled in the kernel.
> This is a Beta after all, not a final release.
>
> > also wouldn't it be pertinant
> > to remove the official xfce i686 spin torrent link from the spins
> > torrent download page, save more people wasting time and bandwidth?
>
> Possibly. I am trying to find out if it works for anyone at all, or if
> it's just some hardware it fails on. ;(
>
> > phil
>
> kevin
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: signature.asc
> Type: application/pgp-signature
> Size: 198 bytes
> Desc: not available
> Url :
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20090406/7205fadd/signature.bin
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 17:25:13 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Antonio Olivares <olivares14031 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: missing dependency kernel >= 2.6.29.1-52.fc11
> To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases
> <fedora-test-list at redhat.com>, kirk202 at gmx.us
> Message-ID: <192295.54652.qm at web52602.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> >
> > I filed a bug on this today,
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=494433
> >
> > -Kirk
>
> Kirk,
>
> It was on the broken deps report:
> of today's rawhide report rawhide report: 20090406 changes
>
> libdrm-2.4.5-4.fc11.ppc requires kernel >= 0:2.6.29.1-52.fc11
> libdrm-2.4.5-4.fc11.ppc64 requires kernel >= 0:2.6.29.1-52.fc11
> libopensync-plugin-vformat-0.36-2.fc11.ppc requires libopensync.so.1
> perl-Catalyst-Runtime-5.71001-1.fc11.noarch requires
> perl(Term::Size::Any)
> xorg-x11-drv-ati-6.12.1-5.fc11.ppc requires kernel >= 0:2.6.29.1-52.fc11
>
> As soon as the problems are fixes, the bug will be closed immediately. I
> did not notice the broken deps report :(
>
> Regards,
>
> Antonio
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 20:31:17 -0400
> From: Janina Sajka <janina at rednote.net>
> Subject: After install, Wrong DM
> To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases
> <fedora-test-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <20090407003117.GA6556 at sonata.rednote.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> I successfully ran an install of F-11 Beta, updated it, and added
> allkinds of yum package groups.
>
> However, I find my gui login is coming up KDM, which is not friendly to
> a11y. I need direction getting this changed to GDM.
>
> I see /etc/event.d/prefdm sourcing /etc/X11/prefdm which sources
> /etc/sysconfig/desktop. This latter file, /etc/sysconfig/desktop,
> doesn't exist on my installation for some reason.
>
> All suggestions much appreciated.
>
> Janina
>
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.202.595.7777;
> sip:janina at CapitalAccessibility.Com
> Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC http://CapitalAccessibility.Com
>
> Marketing the Owasys 22C talking screenless cell phone in the U.S. and
> Canada
> Learn more at http://ScreenlessPhone.Com
>
> Chair, Open Accessibility janina at a11y.org
> Linux Foundation http://a11y.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 19:41:13 -0500
> From: Allen Kistler <an037-ooai8 at yahoo.com>
> Subject: python-libs segfault during setroubleshoot
> To: fedora-test-list at redhat.com
> Message-ID: <49DAA129.1010000 at yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> When I try to run setroubleshoot browser ("sealert -b"), it fails.
> Error messages in /var/log/messages report a segfault in libpython, as
> follows:
>
> Apr 5 23:24:15 localhost kernel: setroubleshootd[2964]: segfault at 95
> ip 05f81ca2 sp bfacf980 error 4 in libpython2.6.so.1.0[5f01000+14f000]
>
> Apr 5 23:24:15 localhost setroubleshoot: [dbus.ERROR] could not start
> dbus: org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.Spawn.ChildSignaled: Process
> /lib/dbus-1/dbus-daemon-launch-helper received signal 11
>
> Apr 5 23:24:15 localhost setroubleshoot: [dbus.proxies.ERROR]
> Introspect error on :1.44:/org/fedoraproject/Setroubleshootd:
> dbus.exceptions.DBusException: org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.NoReply:
> Message did not receive a reply (timeout by message bus)
>
> Apr 5 23:24:15 localhost setroubleshoot: [dbus.ERROR] could not start
> dbus: org.freedesktop.DBus.Error.ServiceUnknown: The name :1.44 was not
> provided by any .service files
>
> My test install is pretty vanilla from the i386 Beta DVD, then kept up
> to date from rawhide as of this posting. There's been a bug report
> filed by others (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=492737)
> that seems to assert that the problem is fixed, but I still see it.
> Anyone else, or am I alone?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 2009 18:06:13 -0700
> From: Craig White <craigwhite at azapple.com>
> Subject: Re: installation issues
> To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases
> <fedora-test-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <1239066373.869.130.camel at lin-workstation.azapple.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain
>
> On Mon, 2009-04-06 at 18:50 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
>
> > > OK - I got this done and get all the way into GUI but am getting an
> > > installer error - Unknown Device - The installation source given by
> > > device /dev/sdb1 could not be found. Please check your parameters and
> > > try again.
> > >
> > > vc std out indicates (forgive any typos here)
> > > INFO anaconda called with cmdline = ['/usr/bin/anaconda', '--stage2',
> > > 'hd:/dev/sdb1://images/install.ing', '--graphica', '--selinux',
> > > '--lang', 'en_US.UTF-8', '--keymap', 'us', '--repo', 'hd:/dev/sdb1:/'
> > >
> > > and then the error is
> > > DEBUG: failed to resolve '/dev/sdb1'
> > >
> > > and of course mount doesn't show it.
> > >
> > > I am booting as USB HDD, and it indeed is /dev/sdb1 and I am
> > > choosing /dev/hdb1 as the installation source. I can't conceive of
> > > another path to make it work. Ideas?
> >
> > My pet bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=491781
> ----
> it's not as if I couldn't install in many other ways,
> nfs/http/yum_upgrade but I didn't see any work arounds suggested either.
>
> I don't need to have F11-Beta installed on this Aspire One...I was
> thinking that I could see if xorg fixed virtual scrolling as suggested
> here...
>
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/archives/xorg/2009-March/044290.html
>
> where Alex says "Virtual desktop scrolling got dropped when xrandr 1.2
> support was added to the driver. It has since been re-added, but
> requires xserver 1.6 and xrandr 1.3."
>
> because it's hard to use 1024x600 without some extra virtual screen but
> I don't know that those versions are in F11-Beta anyway and thought if I
> went for the Beta, I could provide other feedback (and if necessary, beg
> for these updates).
>
> Thanks Paul, I should have looked in Bugzilla...
>
> Craig
>
>
> --
> This message has been scanned for viruses and
> dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
> believed to be clean.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:12:41 -0400
> From: Janina Sajka <janina at rednote.net>
> Subject: Kernel Builds Producing Corrupt RPMs On F-11 Beta
> To: For testers of Fedora Core development releases
> <fedora-test-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <20090407011241.GC6556 at sonata.rednote.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1
>
> We've been attempting to build kernels on our fully updated F-11 Beta
> installation (x86_64). The kernel builds, but produces a corrupt
> System.map. Thus we can't unpack/install.
>
> Anyone else seeing this? Should we file a bug?
>
>
> Janina
>
> --
>
> Janina Sajka, Phone: +1.202.595.7777;
> sip:janina at CapitalAccessibility.Com
> Partner, Capital Accessibility LLC http://CapitalAccessibility.Com
>
> Marketing the Owasys 22C talking screenless cell phone in the U.S. and
> Canada
> Learn more at http://ScreenlessPhone.Com
>
> Chair, Open Accessibility janina at a11y.org
> Linux Foundation http://a11y.org
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 14
> Date: Mon, 6 Apr 2009 21:21:57 -0400
> From: Tom Horsley <tom.horsley at att.net>
> Subject: evdev run amuck?
> To: fedora-test-list <fedora-test-list at redhat.com>
> Message-ID: <20090406212157.1b1a5602 at zooty>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
>
> I was just looking through my X log file to see that the nvidia
> driver I installed from rpmfusion was actually being used, and
> I spotted this in the log:
>
> (II) config/hal: Adding input device UVC Camera (046d:08c9)
> (**) UVC Camera (046d:08c9): always reports core events
> (**) UVC Camera (046d:08c9): Device: "/dev/input/event11"
> (II) UVC Camera (046d:08c9): Found keys
> (II) UVC Camera (046d:08c9): Configuring as keyboard
> (II) XINPUT: Adding extended input device "UVC Camera (046d:08c9)" (type:
> KEYBOARD)
>
> I don't see no keyboard on my webcam :-).
>
> Has someone got an experimental image processor layer that looks for
> your hands in captured video frames and reads sign language?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> --
> fedora-test-list mailing list
> fedora-test-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list
>
> End of fedora-test-list Digest, Vol 62, Issue 34
> ************************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20090406/9ddcc700/attachment.htm>
More information about the fedora-test-list
mailing list