Re: new FC1 install problems
From: Gene Heskett (gene.heskett_at_verizon.net)
Date: 05/03/04
- Previous message: William Hooper: "Re: Change log for FC1 kernel RPM builds?"
- In reply to: Alexander Dalloz: "Re: new FC1 install problems"
- Next in thread: duncan brown: "Re: new FC1 install problems"
- Reply: duncan brown: "Re: new FC1 install problems"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
To: For users of Fedora Core releases <fedora-list@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 3 May 2004 10:32:22 -0400
On Monday 03 May 2004 08:20, Alexander Dalloz wrote:
>Am Mo, den 03.05.2004 schrieb Gene Heskett um 03:31:
>> Greetings;
>>
>> My main box lost its ability to run anything gtk or gnome related,
>> so I put in FC1 disk1 and did an upgrade from my well modified
>> RH8.0 install. Running gcc3.2, kde3.2, qt3.2 and the best kernel
>> so far, 2.6.5-mm6.
>
>[ snipped the story ]
>
>> Where do I go from here folks?
>>
>> No Cheers for FC1 at this point, Gene
>
>Gene,
>
>your are either very, very optimistic or blue eyed.
Both :) And an old fart (69) to boot. I started on much much simpler
machines back in the 70's, writing a commercialy used app for the RCA
1802 cpu with nothing but the programmer manual and the machines hex
monitor. Unforch, thats ill-equipt me to deal with os's whose src
code is in the general area of 200 megabytes. :(
>At least you
>overestimate what an automatic upgrade process can handle. And that
> is no limitation of Fedora nor of RPM in specific.
>
>You did not say, but I guess all the never software versions on your
> RH8 were installed from source and where no RPM packages. So how
> should the package manager handle that situation? And even it were
> RPM installed packages, it had to handle dependencies and
> downgrading to versions FC1 does deliver. And on top there is the
> situation that FC1 is not kernel 2.6 ready. Of course not to forget
> that even your system was broken before you started upgrading (you
> mentioned that in your first sentence).
>
>Conclusion: all that was to be expected. In cases of such heavily
>customized installations - your RH8 did not look any more like RH8 -
>there is only the way of a fresh new install.
>
>Alexander
Well, I have now managed to get at least as much working as was
working before. Including the now very old version of mozilla-1.4.
I did have 1.6, so I put that back in after a while.
I got yum from the update site with it and let yum trundle thru it
last night, updateing 296 packages, but I haven't rebooted yet. And
my gtk stuff is still very iffy, see another post showing the
gftp-2.0.17 output and segfault. This may be something related to
the original having been installed from a tarball without using
checkinstall -R.
So things are looking up at a slight angle :)
-- Cheers, Gene "There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order." -Ed Howdershelt (Author) 99.22% setiathome rank, not too shabby for a WV hillbilly Yahoo.com attorneys please note, additions to this message by Gene Heskett are: Copyright 2004 by Maurice Eugene Heskett, all rights reserved. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@redhat.com To unsubscribe: http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
- Previous message: William Hooper: "Re: Change log for FC1 kernel RPM builds?"
- In reply to: Alexander Dalloz: "Re: new FC1 install problems"
- Next in thread: duncan brown: "Re: new FC1 install problems"
- Reply: duncan brown: "Re: new FC1 install problems"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
