I want to buy fedora linux 7 system .But I can't bought is recently
Please tell me who have fedroa linux7 system,
I am from China
tel:13771201604
> -----原始邮件----- > 发件人: fedora-devel-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx > 发送时间: 2009年9月1日 星期二 > 收件人: fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > 抄送: > 主题: fedora-devel-list Digest, Vol 66, Issue 126 > > Send fedora-devel-list mailing list submissions to > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > fedora-devel-list-request@xxxxxxxxxx > > You can reach the person managing the list at > fedora-devel-list-owner@xxxxxxxxxx > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of fedora-devel-list digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: another spin of TeX Live 2009 packages (Jindrich Novy) > 2. Re: another spin of TeX Live 2009 packages (Patrice Dumas) > 3. Re: #! /usr/bin/perl preferred (P?draig Brady) > 4. Re: maven2 broken deps? (Re: rawhide report: 20090830 > changes) (Andrew Overholt) > 5. fscanf problem in glibc shipped with latest F11 updates. > (Maz The Northener) > 6. Re: fscanf problem in glibc shipped with latest F11 updates. > (Jakub Jelinek) > 7. Re: fscanf problem in glibc shipped with latest F11 updates. > (Maz The Northener) > 8. Correction: #! /usr/bin/perl NOT preferred (Stepan Kasal) > 9. Re: fscanf problem in glibc shipped with latest F11 updates. > (Maz The Northener) > 10. Re: how to determain those no longer required packages > (James Antill) > 11. Re: fscanf problem in glibc shipped with latest F11 updates. > (Ulrich Drepper) > 12. Re: how to determain those no longer required packages > (Seth Vidal) > 13. Re: Dragonfly Mail Agent (Casey Dahlin) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:32:01 +0200 > From: Jindrich Novy <jnovy@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: another spin of TeX Live 2009 packages > To: Development discussions related to Fedora > <fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <20090831113201.GC3138@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Sat, Aug 29, 2009 at 05:14:33PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote: > > Package texlive-dvips is obsoleted by texlive, trying to install > > texlive-2009-0.3.20090827.fc11.i586 instead > > > > This is obviously wrong obsolete, as dvips is actually provided by > > texlive-dvips, but for some reason unless I tell yum to specifically > > install the noarch package (by running yum install > > texlive-dvips.noarch), it insists on obsoleting it by texlive (i.e. when > > doing yum install texlive-dvips)... Otherwise the installation as well > > as short testing went smooth. > > > > Indeed. It will be fixed in the next build. > > Thanks, > Jindrich > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > -- > > fedora-devel-list mailing list > > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > > > -- > Jindrich Novy <jnovy@xxxxxxxxxx> http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/ > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:48:51 +0200 > From: Patrice Dumas <pertusus@xxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: another spin of TeX Live 2009 packages > To: fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > Message-ID: <20090831114851.GA20794@xxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hello, > > I haven't followed closely the new packaging of texlive, so you should > take my comments with caution... > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 01:15:21PM +0200, Jindrich Novy wrote: > > > > The new packages obsolete the ancient tetex stuff: > > tetex-tex4ht > > I think that the stand-alone tex4ht could be better than the texlive one. > It was updated many time a year in the past (but it may change). > > > tetex-elvevier > > In the past, the version in CTAN of this package used to lag a lot. I'd > still advise taking the files from the web, especially since there is also > the old style in the stand-alone package. > > > and these utilities: > > dvipdfm > > dvipdfmx > > dvipng > > xdvi > > xdvipdfmx > > Haven't some of those an upstream different from texlive? > > -- > Pat > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 13:39:48 +0100 > From: P?draig Brady <P@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: #! /usr/bin/perl preferred > To: Fedora development <fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx>, Fedora perl > development team <fedora-perl-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <4A9BC494.2040004@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1" > > Stepan Kasal wrote: > > Hello, > > at certain periods of time, it was recommended to use #!/usr/bin/env . > > > > Some people consider it ugly. (The humble opinion of the author of > > this mail is the same.) > > > > Currently there is popular mood to remove "/usr/bin/env python", see > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/SystemPythonExecutablesUseSystemPython > > That page says there "Should be no user-visible change for non-Python experts." > However I notice that the output from `ps` lists the actual script name, rather > than just "python". The same is true for perl. This is a worth mentioning both > for the benefit it provides and the minimal chance for breaking stuff. > > cheers, > Pádraig. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 09:20:15 -0400 > From: Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: maven2 broken deps? (Re: rawhide report: 20090830 > changes) > To: Development discussions related to Fedora > <fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <20090831132010.GA2773@xxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > * Alex Lancaster <alexl@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> [2009-08-31 04:21]: > > >>>>> Rawhide Report writes: > > > > [...] > > > > A whole slew of broken deps caused by a new maven2 have been sitting > > in rawhide for about the last week with no attempted rebuilds to fix > > it. Anybody know what's going on? > > This was my fault. Sorry. I mistakenly added some versioned > dependencies on things that I have yet to have a chance to rebuild. I > didn't notice it with my local builds and was progressing on the rest of > the work hoping to finish very soon. It will be done this week but I > can untag the latest build if it's bothering people. > > Andrew > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:45:17 +0300 > From: Maz The Northener <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: fscanf problem in glibc shipped with latest F11 updates. > To: Development discussions related to Fedora > <fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: > <f5100bbb0908310645k362a2824jaf754e955d7a8bf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Hi dee Ho peeps. > > I found out that after I updated my F11 a few days ago, fscanf started > missbehaving. > > I filed a bug report in bugzilla. (bug 520414) > > but since I have not heard anyone else yelling about this, I thought > that maybe this is my fault after all... Any suggestions how to verify > this? > > (I do not need any help overcoming it, workaround is quite > straightforward for me - remove GNU extension usage. I just would like > to know if the bug is on my side.) > > -Matti > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:10:10 +0200 > From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: fscanf problem in glibc shipped with latest F11 updates. > To: Development discussions related to Fedora > <fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <20090831141010.GC2884@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 04:45:17PM +0300, Maz The Northener wrote: > > I found out that after I updated my F11 a few days ago, fscanf started > > missbehaving. > > > > I filed a bug report in bugzilla. (bug 520414) > > > > but since I have not heard anyone else yelling about this, I thought > > that maybe this is my fault after all... Any suggestions how to verify > > this? > > > > (I do not need any help overcoming it, workaround is quite > > straightforward for me - remove GNU extension usage. I just would like > > to know if the bug is on my side.) > > This is just a user error. You are not using any feature test macros > (see > info libc 'Feature Test Macros' > ), and with that glibc headers when not using strict ISO C modes (-ansi, > -std=c89, -std=c99) default to _POSIX_C_SOURCE=200809L in recent glibcs, > which among other things mean XPG6 compliant *scanf. As %a is a POSIX > floating point in hex specifier, it conflicts with the GNU extension > where a if followed by s, S or [ is treated as allocatable modifier. > So, to make your code work either compile with -D_GNU_SOURCE, or, better, > just use POSIX 2008 way, %m[a-z]. > > Jakub > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:26:05 +0300 > From: Maz The Northener <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: fscanf problem in glibc shipped with latest F11 updates. > To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@xxxxxxxxxx>, Development discussions related > to Fedora <fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: > <f5100bbb0908310726v14dd8b6chdfe0dddbfb399e8d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > Thanks for quick answer :) I was just puzzled because this seemed to > work without extra defines with older glibc. > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Jakub Jelinek<jakub@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 04:45:17PM +0300, Maz The Northener wrote: > >> I found out that after I updated my F11 a few days ago, fscanf started > >> missbehaving. > >> > >> I filed a bug report in bugzilla. (bug 520414) > >> > >> but since I have not heard anyone else yelling about this, I thought > >> that maybe this is my fault after all... Any suggestions how to verify > >> this? > >> > >> (I do not need any help overcoming it, workaround is quite > >> straightforward for me - remove GNU extension usage. I just would like > >> to know if the bug is on my side.) > > > > This is just a user error. You are not using any feature test macros > > (see > > info libc 'Feature Test Macros' > > ), and with that glibc headers when not using strict ISO C modes (-ansi, > > -std=c89, -std=c99) default to _POSIX_C_SOURCE=200809L in recent glibcs, > > which among other things mean XPG6 compliant *scanf. As %a is a POSIX > > floating point in hex specifier, it conflicts with the GNU extension > > where a if followed by s, S or [ is treated as allocatable modifier. > > So, to make your code work either compile with -D_GNU_SOURCE, or, better, > > just use POSIX 2008 way, %m[a-z]. > > > > Jakub > > > > -- > > fedora-devel-list mailing list > > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > > > > > > -- > > -Matti "Maz" Vaittinen > CWF coding team leader > http://www.curlysworldoffreeware.com/ > > BrakesAreForCowards!!! > When you feel blue, no one sees your tears... When your down, no one > understands your struggle... > When you feel happy, no one notices your smile... > But fart just once... > I would love to create a freeware game with C - unless I was working at NSN. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:27:55 +0200 > From: Stepan Kasal <skasal@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Correction: #! /usr/bin/perl NOT preferred > To: fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > Cc: Fedora perl development team <fedora-perl-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <20090831142755.GA3935@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Hello all. > > In short: "#!/usr/bin/env perl" is OK in Fedora. > > In my previous mail, I asked you to delete the (/usr)?/bin/env calls > from #! lines of Fedora scripts. > > I would like to withdraw that request. > > A discussion followed that post on fedora-perl-devel-list, which > actually proved that "/usr/bin/env perl" is the preferred > alternative, not the deprecated one. > > But the most important bit of information has been pointed out by > Ralf Corsepius: > Fedora Packaging Committee considered a proposal to forbid > /usr/bin/env on 2009-08-19, but it did not agreed upon it. > > (For details, see > http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2009-08-19/fedora-meeting.2009-08-19-16.01.log.html#l-38 > ) > > Both alternatives are OK, follow your own preferrence. > > Have a nice day, > Stepan > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 17:31:38 +0300 > From: Maz The Northener <mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: fscanf problem in glibc shipped with latest F11 updates. > To: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@xxxxxxxxxx>, Development discussions related > to Fedora <fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: > <f5100bbb0908310731x53d699d4tcb9e834b21148b8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > And just a öast nail in coffin: I tried with -D_GNU_SOURCE and it > worked like you told. > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Maz The > Northener<mazziesaccount@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Thanks for quick answer :) I was just puzzled because this seemed to > > work without extra defines with older glibc. > > > > On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Jakub Jelinek<jakub@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 04:45:17PM +0300, Maz The Northener wrote: > >>> I found out that after I updated my F11 a few days ago, fscanf started > >>> missbehaving. > >>> > >>> I filed a bug report in bugzilla. (bug 520414) > >>> > >>> but since I have not heard anyone else yelling about this, I thought > >>> that maybe this is my fault after all... Any suggestions how to verify > >>> this? > >>> > >>> (I do not need any help overcoming it, workaround is quite > >>> straightforward for me - remove GNU extension usage. I just would like > >>> to know if the bug is on my side.) > >> > >> This is just a user error. You are not using any feature test macros > >> (see > >> info libc 'Feature Test Macros' > >> ), and with that glibc headers when not using strict ISO C modes (-ansi, > >> -std=c89, -std=c99) default to _POSIX_C_SOURCE=200809L in recent glibcs, > >> which among other things mean XPG6 compliant *scanf. As %a is a POSIX > >> floating point in hex specifier, it conflicts with the GNU extension > >> where a if followed by s, S or [ is treated as allocatable modifier. > >> So, to make your code work either compile with -D_GNU_SOURCE, or, better, > >> just use POSIX 2008 way, %m[a-z]. > >> > >> Jakub > >> > >> -- > >> fedora-devel-list mailing list > >> fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > >> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > >> > > > > > > > > -- > > > > -Matti "Maz" Vaittinen > > CWF coding team leader > > http://www.curlysworldoffreeware.com/ > > > > BrakesAreForCowards!!! > > When you feel blue, no one sees your tears... When your down, no one > > understands your struggle... > > When you feel happy, no one notices your smile... > > But fart just once... > > I would love to create a freeware game with C - unless I was working at NSN. > > > > > > -- > > -Matti "Maz" Vaittinen > CWF coding team leader > http://www.curlysworldoffreeware.com/ > > BrakesAreForCowards!!! > When you feel blue, no one sees your tears... When your down, no one > understands your struggle... > When you feel happy, no one notices your smile... > But fart just once... > I would love to create a freeware game with C - unless I was working at NSN. > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:42:12 -0400 > From: James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: how to determain those no longer required packages > To: Development discussions related to Fedora > <fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <1251729732.22005.35.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > On Sat, 2009-08-29 at 19:06 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > >>>>> "AT" == Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > > AT> I don't think apt traces whether a packages was a pulled in manually > > AT> or automatically, does it? > > > > yum does keep track of many things in the yumdb and I think the "reason" > > key is supposed to track this, but for me it seems reason is always > > "user". I think the intent is to track packages which were installed > > because the user requested them directly separately from packages which > > were pulled in purely because of dependencies. > > Yes, the reason attribute in yumdb is there primarily to start on > "solving" this "problem". > yumdb hasn't been around an entire release yet, which makes it's data > somewhat problematic (and the testing somewhat limited). Also atm. we > don't carry reason=dep across updates, so if you do "yum update" with a > new version of a package you got as a dep. that would be considered a > user install of the new package. Both of which should explain why almost > nothing has reason=dep¹. > Atm. I have: > > % yumdb search reason dep > Loaded plugins: presto > fipscheck-1.2.0-1a.fc11.x86_64 > reason = dep > > ...so it does work, at what it does atm. > > Probably the sanest request here is that if you do: > > 1. yum install blah > 2. <try out blah, don't like it> > 3. yum remove blah > > ...you don't get rid of any extra stuff you got with blah, hopefully > "yum history undo" will solve that in a better way by recording what > happened at #1 and undoing it instead of trying to piece together what > might have happened at #1 after the fact. > > > ¹ It's also true that saving 1 cent of disk space isn't at the top of my > list of things to do. > > -- > James Antill <james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Fedora > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 07:43:13 -0700 > From: Ulrich Drepper <drepper@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: fscanf problem in glibc shipped with latest F11 updates. > To: Development discussions related to Fedora > <fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Cc: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <4A9BE181.2020201@xxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > > On 08/31/2009 07:26 AM, Maz The Northener wrote: > > Thanks for quick answer :) I was just puzzled because this seemed to > > work without extra defines with older glibc. > > Only by accident. We had no C99-compatibility version of *scanf in > those older versions. We have now. > > -- > ➧ Ulrich Drepper ➧ Red Hat, Inc. ➧ 444 Castro St ➧ Mountain View, CA â– > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 10:47:07 -0400 (EDT) > From: Seth Vidal <skvidal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: how to determain those no longer required packages > To: Development discussions related to Fedora > <fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: > <alpine.LFD.2.00.0908311046170.16127@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed > > > > On Mon, 31 Aug 2009, James Antill wrote: > > > ...you don't get rid of any extra stuff you got with blah, hopefully > > "yum history undo" will solve that in a better way by recording what > > happened at #1 and undoing it instead of trying to piece together what > > might have happened at #1 after the fact. > > > > > > let's not go promising things like yum history undo which are not > committed, not tested and, in the case of large update/install > transactions, unlikely to do what the user wants. > > -sv > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Mon, 31 Aug 2009 11:05:21 -0400 > From: Casey Dahlin <cdahlin@xxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: Dragonfly Mail Agent > To: Development discussions related to Fedora > <fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx> > Message-ID: <4A9BE6B1.9010202@xxxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On 08/30/2009 12:11 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote: > > 2009/8/30 Christoph Höger <choeger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > >> Hi, > >> > >> is dma packaged by someone? That would be the first step and I would > >> happily test that thing (having postfix installed after Paul Frields > >> advice which works well). > >> > > I think I'll do the packaging -- it's in Dragonfly's Git, and the one > > thing I regret about Git vis-a-vis Subversion is that you cannot just > > grab a subdirectory, so our source verification might get a bit > > tricky. > > > > Regards, > > > > Maybe if you ask nicely they will submodule it. > > --CJD > > > > ------------------------------ > > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list > > End of fedora-devel-list Digest, Vol 66, Issue 126 > **************************************************
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
