Mailing List Archive

Hi Jarod.

> I've finally got some feedback on the DVD...

Better late than never :)

> xmltv -- I think it'd be best if there were a single checkbox for
> installing xmltv and all its dependencies. I'm not sure what any of
> those sub-packages would be used for besides xmltv, at least under
> typical use, so I think it'd be worth abstracting them out of there for
> the main package selection screens.

I'll look at it and see what I can do about it.

> alsa -- one of the selectable items is
> alsa-kmdl-2.4.22-2166.nptl_35.rhfc1.at. Probably not the best label
> there, since it has to be changed when the kernel changes, and it isn't
> correct if I'm running an smp kernel.

*point to Axel* Don't blame me :)

The base name of the package is just that so that's why it needs to be
like that in the comps file.

There is code in there to install the SMP kmdl package if need be so
that thing is just so that someone can decide if he wants it at all
or not, not to specifically chose which as I don't think anyone
really cares if he needs the SMP modules or not and also - if you would
chose the SMP modules by hand and the SMP kernel wouldn't be installed
you'd be in trouble. A HT machine can be misdetected as UP at times
and if someone thinks he's got a machine that needs SMP then he would
chose the SMP modules but the installer might not install the modules.

That's why I simply check if the smp kernel will be installed and if so,
I also chose the alsa-kmdl-smp-xxxxxx package.

Same goes for all the other kmdl packages.

> start of installation -- there's a heavily pixellated Fedora image in
> black and white. What happened there?!?

Umm.. I haven't seen that ? Is that the one that greets you when
you insert the DVD ?

If so, did it occur on the first DVD you got from me?

> lm_sensors -- I didn't choose to install it, but I was greeted at
> startup by failures on the lm_sensors init script, so I guess it got
> installed anyhow. I haven't looked at comps to see what might have made
> it install...

The problem (if you call it that) isn't in the comps file.

The lm_sensors RPM that comes with FC1 is version 2.8.1.
lm_sensors 2.8.1 contains libsensors.so.2.
lm_sensors 2.8.2 contains libsensors.so.3.
The DVD contains both lm_sensors 2.8.2 (package name lm_sensors)
AND lm_sensors 2.8.1 (package name lm_sensors281).

Now, kdebase depends on "lm_sensors" and libsensors.so.2.

Result, both are installed. The actual diff I believe is that
lm_sensors will autostart directly when installed compared to
the FC1 one that you have to enable yourself. That's why
the failure.

> Other than that, its working just fine on an Athlon system here. I
> haven't had a chance to throw it on a dual processor machine yet, but
> should be able to tomorrow.

Excellent.

I've run into very many problems with the DVD in the last few days
and I'm working my way through them right now. We'll see how it goes.
I might have to go back to 0.1 as it doesn't have the problems ...

Jarod - Can you try out the first one I sent you and tell me if you
get a question wether you should make a bootdisk or not?

I'm a little perplexed as the 0.1 version asks that and the anaconda
itself is only changed in 4 places between 0.1 and the latest iteration
of the installer and none of those changes should have any influence
whatsoever with if it should ask that or not.

Mind you that I'm talking all files from 0.1 DVD + installer 1
compared to 0.1 DVD + installer 3.

It's really odd.

I haven't released a new status update as I've been fighting my ass
off with the problems.

That's why there hasn't been any new ISO for you to grab either.

// Stefan

On Feb 15, 2004, at 23:31, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:

>> xmltv -- I think it'd be best if there were a single checkbox for
>> installing xmltv and all its dependencies. I'm not sure what any of
>> those sub-packages would be used for besides xmltv, at least under
>> typical use, so I think it'd be worth abstracting them out of there
>> for the main package selection screens.
>
> I'll look at it and see what I can do about it.

Cool.

>> alsa -- one of the selectable items is
>> alsa-kmdl-2.4.22-2166.nptl_35.rhfc1.at. Probably not the best label
>> there, since it has to be changed when the kernel changes, and it
>> isn't correct if I'm running an smp kernel.
>
> *point to Axel* Don't blame me :)

Heh. ;-)

> The base name of the package is just that so that's why it needs to be
> like that in the comps file.

Can the same thing I proposed w/xmltv be done? Only make alsa-driver
selectable, and force the kmdl to be installed along with it, since
neither does much good without the other. It'd then obfuscate the
naming problem and reduce the package selection list at the same time.

> There is code in there to install the SMP kmdl package if need be so
> that thing is just so that someone can decide if he wants it at all
> or not, not to specifically chose which as I don't think anyone
> really cares if he needs the SMP modules or not and also - if you would
> chose the SMP modules by hand and the SMP kernel wouldn't be installed
> you'd be in trouble. A HT machine can be misdetected as UP at times
> and if someone thinks he's got a machine that needs SMP then he would
> chose the SMP modules but the installer might not install the modules.
>
> That's why I simply check if the smp kernel will be installed and if
> so,
> I also chose the alsa-kmdl-smp-xxxxxx package.

Ooh. Messy.

>> start of installation -- there's a heavily pixellated Fedora image in
>> black and white. What happened there?!?
>
> Umm.. I haven't seen that ? Is that the one that greets you when
> you insert the DVD ?

Just after package selection when you see "preparing for installation,
this may take a few minutes". It isn't a graphic, per se, but rather
the text "Fedora Core", but it is badly pixellated like its a low-res
bitmap.

> If so, did it occur on the first DVD you got from me?

It was the 0.1 DVD. I forgot the second one at work, and didn't want to
burn another just yet.

>> lm_sensors -- I didn't choose to install it, but I was greeted at
>> startup by failures on the lm_sensors init script, so I guess it got
>> installed anyhow. I haven't looked at comps to see what might have
>> made it install...
>
> The problem (if you call it that) isn't in the comps file.
>
> The lm_sensors RPM that comes with FC1 is version 2.8.1.
> lm_sensors 2.8.1 contains libsensors.so.2.
> lm_sensors 2.8.2 contains libsensors.so.3.
> The DVD contains both lm_sensors 2.8.2 (package name lm_sensors)
> AND lm_sensors 2.8.1 (package name lm_sensors281).
>
> Now, kdebase depends on "lm_sensors" and libsensors.so.2.
>
> Result, both are installed. The actual diff I believe is that
> lm_sensors will autostart directly when installed compared to
> the FC1 one that you have to enable yourself. That's why
> the failure.

Ah, okay, no biggie.

>> Other than that, its working just fine on an Athlon system here. I
>> haven't had a chance to throw it on a dual processor machine yet, but
>> should be able to tomorrow.
>
> Excellent.
>
> I've run into very many problems with the DVD in the last few days
> and I'm working my way through them right now. We'll see how it goes.
> I might have to go back to 0.1 as it doesn't have the problems ...

I haven't had an opportunity to play with the second one myself, but
perhaps Tuesday (unless I burn another DVD, but my DVD-R stockpile
isn't that big -- I wish DVD-RW would work for me...).

> Jarod - Can you try out the first one I sent you and tell me if you
> get a question wether you should make a bootdisk or not?

It hasn't, but then the machines I've been testing on thus far have no
floppy, so that is the expected behavior (at least, thats what I've
seen with stock Red Hat FC1).

> I'm a little perplexed as the 0.1 version asks that and the anaconda
> itself is only changed in 4 places between 0.1 and the latest iteration
> of the installer and none of those changes should have any influence
> whatsoever with if it should ask that or not.
>
> Mind you that I'm talking all files from 0.1 DVD + installer 1
> compared to 0.1 DVD + installer 3.
>
> It's really odd.

No clue here.

> I haven't released a new status update as I've been fighting my ass
> off with the problems.

Fun, fun, fun... :-\

> That's why there hasn't been any new ISO for you to grab either.

Not that I'd have had the time anyhow. Gotta get to sleep, I have to
work on my day off tomorrow... :-(

--jarod
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-devel/attachments/20040215/9301fbcb/PGP.bin

Hi,

On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 08:31:47AM +0100, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
> >alsa -- one of the selectable items is
> >alsa-kmdl-2.4.22-2166.nptl_35.rhfc1.at. Probably not the best label
> >there, since it has to be changed when the kernel changes, and it isn't
> >correct if I'm running an smp kernel.
>
> *point to Axel* Don't blame me :)
>
> The base name of the package is just that so that's why it needs to be
> like that in the comps file.

Can the displayed string be altered, or does anaconda require showing
the base name of the rpm?

Alternatively, all but the lirc kmdl rpms have a master packages that
requires in the kmdl packages, e.g. alsa-driver for alsa, bttv for
bttv-kmdl etc.

> >lm_sensors -- I didn't choose to install it, but I was greeted at
> >startup by failures on the lm_sensors init script, so I guess it got
> >installed anyhow. I haven't looked at comps to see what might have made
> >it install...

I am meaning to look into the automatic enabling of lm_sensors for
quite some time now and am forgetting it. That's where a nagging
bugzilla would have been helpful. I believe the bugzilla instance is
ready to be launched.

Stefan, is it possible and does it make sense to test the DVD in NFS
network install? Most parts of anaconda like the package selection
algorithms would be the same, I suppose.

It would make testing easier, as one would only need to download a
couple of files and us local mirrors of the packages. Shorter testing
cycles and testers w/o DVD burners would be able to jump in.
--
Axel.Thimm@physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-devel/attachments/20040216/002ed4f0/attachment.bin

Hi Axel.

>>>alsa -- one of the selectable items is
>>>alsa-kmdl-2.4.22-2166.nptl_35.rhfc1.at. Probably not the best label
>>>there, since it has to be changed when the kernel changes, and it isn't
>>>correct if I'm running an smp kernel.
>>
>>*point to Axel* Don't blame me :)
>>
>>The base name of the package is just that so that's why it needs to be
>>like that in the comps file.
>
> Can the displayed string be altered, or does anaconda require showing
> the base name of the rpm?

It just displays the base name of the RPM. I guess with some hackery
it might be able to do other things BUT the problem is that there is
a number of other sub-programs of anaconda (used when making the ISO,
etc) that parse the comps.xml file so they would simply not find
what they're looking for meaning I'd have to find all instances that
reads the comps.xml file and change them and I don't think I should
do that as it means a likelyhood of bugs.

> Alternatively, all but the lirc kmdl rpms have a master packages that
> requires in the kmdl packages, e.g. alsa-driver for alsa, bttv for
> bttv-kmdl etc.

Yes, I know. But also note that someone might want to install
for instance lm_sensors but not the additional kernel modules and
just use what's in the stock kernel.

Either we find a generic solution or we leave it as is imo.

>>>lm_sensors -- I didn't choose to install it, but I was greeted at
>>>startup by failures on the lm_sensors init script, so I guess it got
>>>installed anyhow. I haven't looked at comps to see what might have made
>>>it install...
>
>
> I am meaning to look into the automatic enabling of lm_sensors for
> quite some time now and am forgetting it. That's where a nagging
> bugzilla would have been helpful. I believe the bugzilla instance is
> ready to be launched.

Good. Tell me what you find out. Bugzilla will help alot in these
areas. Is it possible to add my DVD to it? After we find a suitable
name for it of course.

> Stefan, is it possible and does it make sense to test the DVD in NFS
> network install? Most parts of anaconda like the package selection
> algorithms would be the same, I suppose.

Is it possible: I don't know, I haven't tested those features :)

Does it make sense: Of course. Only thing you need is to burn
out the boot.iso to a CD-R(W). One for each spin of the installer.

If you're really interested I could set up an rsync that a selected
number of people can use to get the latest testing incarnation from.

Yes, it means an initial bandwidth hogging but it will get better
as people have 'it all'.

So I would in that case want a personal email (not to the list)
of every person that has an interest in rsyncing the whole
DVD and testing it. What I want in that case is the name
of the person, who that person is, the static IP or ip-ranges
that person might use and the level of interest of that person.

Jarod/Axel are given people of course, but I still want an email
from you two. Anyone else reading this are welcome to send me a
mail about it. I don't want too many people as testers right from
the start but a few would be handy.

> It would make testing easier, as one would only need to download a
> couple of files and us local mirrors of the packages. Shorter testing
> cycles and testers w/o DVD burners would be able to jump in.

Absolutely. I agree entirely.

// Stefan

Hi Stefan,

On Mon, Feb 16, 2004 at 03:18:48PM +0100, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
> > Can the displayed string be altered, or does anaconda require showing
> > the base name of the rpm?
> [...]
> Either we find a generic solution or we leave it as is imo.

I don*t know, if we can now find a better solution, and it is purely
aesthetic IMHO, so let's leave it as it is :)

> > I am meaning to look into the automatic enabling of lm_sensors for
> > quite some time now and am forgetting it. That's where a nagging
> > bugzilla would have been helpful. I believe the bugzilla instance
> > is ready to be launched.
>
> Good. Tell me what you find out. Bugzilla will help alot in these
> areas. Is it possible to add my DVD to it? After we find a suitable
> name for it of course.

Yes, of course. Have a look at bugzilla.atrpms.net where it is being
tested.

> > Stefan, is it possible and does it make sense to test the DVD in NFS
> > network install? Most parts of anaconda like the package selection
> > algorithms would be the same, I suppose.
>
> Is it possible: I don't know, I haven't tested those features :)
>
> Does it make sense: Of course. Only thing you need is to burn
> out the boot.iso to a CD-R(W). One for each spin of the installer.

Or even boot from floppy or PXE.

> If you're really interested I could set up an rsync that a selected
> number of people can use to get the latest testing incarnation from.
>
> Yes, it means an initial bandwidth hogging but it will get better
> as people have 'it all'.

Maybe you could offer all but the unmodified Fedora Core/ATrpms rpms
that people would have to pull from other sources? Or maybe you want
to host it on an atrpms.net place, where these rpms are available
anyway (would only need some linking)?
--
Axel.Thimm@physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-devel/attachments/20040218/42bc319b/attachment.bin

Hi.

>>Either we find a generic solution or we leave it as is imo.
>
> I don*t know, if we can now find a better solution, and it is purely
> aesthetic IMHO, so let's leave it as it is :)

It's only aesthetic and unless we figure something out I'm leaving it
as is.

>>>I am meaning to look into the automatic enabling of lm_sensors for
>>>quite some time now and am forgetting it. That's where a nagging
>>>bugzilla would have been helpful. I believe the bugzilla instance
>>>is ready to be launched.
>>
>>Good. Tell me what you find out. Bugzilla will help alot in these
>>areas. Is it possible to add my DVD to it? After we find a suitable
>>name for it of course.
>
> Yes, of course. Have a look at bugzilla.atrpms.net where it is being
> tested.

Alright. I don't see mine there though (I have seen your bugzilla
though) and I wanted to add it under RHL/FC1 somehow, but I would
need a name (there we go again) for my DVD.

>>If you're really interested I could set up an rsync that a selected
>>number of people can use to get the latest testing incarnation from.
>>
>>Yes, it means an initial bandwidth hogging but it will get better
>>as people have 'it all'.
>
>
> Maybe you could offer all but the unmodified Fedora Core/ATrpms rpms
> that people would have to pull from other sources? Or maybe you want
> to host it on an atrpms.net place, where these rpms are available
> anyway (would only need some linking)?

That IS a thought but for initial testing I thought of simply letting
people grab the diff via rsync which shouldn't be all that much.

That way they just rsync when they want to try the latest one.

It is of course premade and all you need to do is do an mkisofs (Or
run a script which does mkisofs) and burn it to media (or whatever
way one does it).

// Stefan

Hi Stefan,

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 01:04:33AM +0100, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
> Alright. I don't see mine there though (I have seen your bugzilla
> though) and I wanted to add it under RHL/FC1 somehow, but I would
> need a name (there we go again) for my DVD.

Pick a name and I will place it as a component. I think one can change
the components names w/o having too much trouble, so you can
reconsider later.

I am currently rebuilding kernels and kernel modules for syncing with
the latest FC1 release and also took the chance to updat
ei2c/lm_sensors. The new kernel id is 2.4.22-1.2174.nptl_37.rhfc1.at,
the packages will appear later today.
--
Axel.Thimm@physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-devel/attachments/20040221/ec496d67/attachment.bin

Axel Thimm wrote:

> Hi Stefan,
>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 01:04:33AM +0100, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
>
>>Alright. I don't see mine there though (I have seen your bugzilla
>>though) and I wanted to add it under RHL/FC1 somehow, but I would
>>need a name (there we go again) for my DVD.
>
> Pick a name and I will place it as a component. I think one can change
> the components names w/o having too much trouble, so you can
> reconsider later.
>
> I am currently rebuilding kernels and kernel modules for syncing with
> the latest FC1 release and also took the chance to updat
> ei2c/lm_sensors. The new kernel id is 2.4.22-1.2174.nptl_37.rhfc1.at,
> the packages will appear later today.

Yeah, I noticed. I grabbed all the updates yesterday evening.

Um.. Before you build the next release I believe I have a new libata
patch for you. I also thought of using the SiI (SiliconImage) driver
over from using the ide driver to the libata one as the libata one
is simply better nowadays and has support for more SiS controllers.

So if you do have plans "soon", let me know and I'll prepare the patch
for you.

How about STSM/ATrpms DVD or something? I want to give credit where
credit is due and yo've done alot of it.

// Stefan

On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 12:29:41PM +0100, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
> Axel Thimm wrote:
> >On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 01:04:33AM +0100, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
> >
> > > Alright. I don't see mine there though (I have seen your bugzilla
> > > though) and I wanted to add it under RHL/FC1 somehow, but I would
> > > need a name (there we go again) for my DVD.

> How about STSM/ATrpms DVD or something? I want to give credit where
> credit is due and yo've done alot of it.

Sounds OK to me, should I create the bugzilla component with that
name?

> > I am currently rebuilding kernels and kernel modules for syncing
> > with the latest FC1 release and also took the chance to updat
> > ei2c/lm_sensors. The new kernel id is
> > 2.4.22-1.2174.nptl_37.rhfc1.at, the packages will appear later
> > today.
>
> Yeah, I noticed. I grabbed all the updates yesterday evening.
>
> Um.. Before you build the next release I believe I have a new libata
> patch for you. I also thought of using the SiI (SiliconImage) driver
> over from using the ide driver to the libata one as the libata one
> is simply better nowadays and has support for more SiS controllers.
>
> So if you do have plans "soon", let me know and I'll prepare the
> patch for you.

The builds are underway since a couple of hours already, so we are
quite after freeze :)

I want to push it out as soon as possible due to the ugly security
flaw. But the libata patch can be done nevertherless for the next
release (at this pace in 1-2 weeks ...).
--
Axel.Thimm@physik.fu-berlin.de
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.atrpms.net/pipermail/atrpms-devel/attachments/20040221/b68f43ac/attachment.bin

Axel Thimm wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 21, 2004 at 12:29:41PM +0100, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
>
>>Axel Thimm wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 01:04:33AM +0100, Stefan Smietanowski wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Alright. I don't see mine there though (I have seen your bugzilla
>>>>though) and I wanted to add it under RHL/FC1 somehow, but I would
>>>>need a name (there we go again) for my DVD.
>
>
>>How about STSM/ATrpms DVD or something? I want to give credit where
>>credit is due and yo've done alot of it.
>
>
> Sounds OK to me, should I create the bugzilla component with that
> name?
>
>
>>>I am currently rebuilding kernels and kernel modules for syncing
>>>with the latest FC1 release and also took the chance to updat
>>>ei2c/lm_sensors. The new kernel id is
>>>2.4.22-1.2174.nptl_37.rhfc1.at, the packages will appear later
>>>today.
>>
>>Yeah, I noticed. I grabbed all the updates yesterday evening.
>>
>>Um.. Before you build the next release I believe I have a new libata
>>patch for you. I also thought of using the SiI (SiliconImage) driver
>>over from using the ide driver to the libata one as the libata one
>>is simply better nowadays and has support for more SiS controllers.
>>
>>So if you do have plans "soon", let me know and I'll prepare the
>>patch for you.
>
>
> The builds are underway since a couple of hours already, so we are
> quite after freeze :)
>
> I want to push it out as soon as possible due to the ugly security
> flaw. But the libata patch can be done nevertherless for the next
> release (at this pace in 1-2 weeks ...).

Alright. Sounds good to me. It's libata 1.0 that I'm talking about.

And yes, please make the bugzilla entry.

// Stefan