[ale] rpm.pbone.net
Chuck Payne
I am having issues getting thos rpm.pbone.net, can anyone hit it. Is it down?
--
-----------------------------------------
Discover it! Enjoy it! Share it! openSUSE Linux.
-----------------------------------------
openSUSE -- en.opensuse.org/User:Terrorpup
openSUSE Ambassador/openSUSE Member
skype,twiiter,identica,friendfeed -- terrorpup
freenode(irc) --terrorpup/lupinstein
Have you tried SUSE Studio? Need to create a Live CD, an app you want
to package and distribute , or create your own linux distro. Give SUSE
Studio a try. www.susestudio.com
_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
A...@ale.org
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
See JOBS, ANNOUNCE and SCHOOLS lists at
http://mail.ale.org/mailman/listinfo
Jim Sculley
> Guys,
>
> I am having issues getting thos rpm.pbone.net, can anyone hit it. Is it down?
>
Paul Cartwright
> I am having issues getting thos rpm.pbone.net, can anyone hit it. Is it
> down?
Debian, on Atlantic Nexus.net DSL:
Iceweasel can't establish a connection to the server at rpm.pbone.net.
Though the site seems valid, the browser was unable to establish a connection.
--
Paul Cartwright
Registered Linux user # 367800
Registered Ubuntu User #12459
http://usdebtclock.org/
Chuck Payne
I can't hit from my house either. I was on Cox Network at the office,
now I am on Abraxis. Hmmmm, very strange.
--
-----------------------------------------
Discover it! Enjoy it! Share it! openSUSE Linux.
-----------------------------------------
openSUSE -- en.opensuse.org/User:Terrorpup
openSUSE Ambassador/openSUSE Member
skype,twiiter,identica,friendfeed -- terrorpup
freenode(irc) --terrorpup/lupinstein
Have you tried SUSE Studio? Need to create a Live CD, an app you want
to package and distribute , or create your own linux distro. Give SUSE
Studio a try. www.susestudio.com
Dan Lambert
9.10, Firefox 3.6.
It's a good URL.
Dan
On Tue, 2010-02-16 at 20:48 -0500, Paul Cartwright wrote:
> rpm.pbone.net
Avery Ceo
Comcast, Norcross
Avery
Jeff Hubbs
and Red-Hat-derived distributions and package repositories? I am seeing
situations where people seem to go "RPM fishing" from the Internet's
hinterlands and others seem to have to add this or that repository to a
list in order to obtain such-and-such a package via yum. This stuff
isn't part of a Gentooista's world, which is why it lies out in my fringes.
- Jeff
Lightner, Jeff
etc...
Fedora an RPM based distribution supported as a project by RedHat is
bleeding edge so will include a lot of things that are brand new.
However, they won't include some things that due to the way they are
licensed.
RedHat Enterprise Linux (RHEL) which is a commercial distribution
directly supported by RedHat typically builds on "stable" versions of
products that have already been vetted in Fedora. It will include some
things that Fedora doesn't. It is designed for stability and long life
so typically they don't install the latest version of underlying
products (e.g. BIND) but rather backport bug and security fixes into the
base version they initially released.
CentOS is a binary build from RHEL sources so more or less has the same
philosophy as RHEL though isn't supported by RedHat.
RHEL has "base" repositories as well as "extended" repositories" (e.g.
virtualization and java packages come from the latter.) Additionally
there are repositories for addons that RHEL doesn't officially include
that you can add such as the Extended RHEL repository that is actually
provided by Fedora project even though it is for RHEL.
However, there are some things that are not in any of the above. There
are dozens of competing products for things like sound players, movie
players, systems monitoring and a plethora of other items that could not
possibly all be in any base distro without requiring it to ship with
dozens of DVDs. These projects are typically supported by their own
teams (as is almost everything that IS included as well) on sites like
sourceforge or on their project pages. Often they'll setup repositories
for use just to gain wider acceptance. (And often they won't - I've run
across many a thing that builds deb packages but doesn't bother with
rpms and tells you to do it from source and others that don't do either
- they just provide a tarball of the source.) Others have found certain
tools more widely useful than the people that run distros chose so have
set up their own repositories like Dag Weeirs.
Not having used Gentoo I can't really comment on its world except to say
that I doubt it has any all encompassing repository of every possible
OSS any more than RedHat style distributions do.
- Jeff
Proud partner. Susan G. Komen for the Cure.
Please consider our environment before printing this e-mail or attachments.
----------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.
----------------------------------
Jeff Hubbs
> Not having used Gentoo I can't really comment on its world except to say
> that I doubt it has any all encompassing repository of every possible
> OSS any more than RedHat style distributions do.
>
but a complete repository of packages is 106GiB (pats his
updated-twice-a-day local repository). We don't traffic in stacks of
CDs or DVDs and personally I don't bother with Bittorrent. A tens-of-MB
install cd to create an initial instance for a given architecture that
can then be flown into various and snbdry hardware in that arch is
plenty. Apps for which there is no package in Portage can either be
built from source (a fully functional build system is implicit in the
Gentoo design) or you can fairly readily make a package yourself (in
which case you can get it added to the repository or make an overlay for
your own use).
There is a mechanism for augmenting the repository with "overlays" -
sometimes people create overlays for code that's developed locally, for
instance - and there's something called "virtual packages" where, for
instance, you have a "virtual-jdk" package that aliases to whichever JDK
you've got dialed up. There's no GUI installer to absorb distro
development team effort and whose intentions can be misunderstood
(wasn't there an AIEE! INSTALLER NUKED MY DISK! message here not long
ago?).
Overall, a great way to produce lean, efficient Linux systems.
- Jeff
Lightner, Jeff
wouldn't be so many different distros. FOSS includes "free" including
"free" choices on how to best do things.
So in your setup does Gentoo for example include both lesstif and motif
as options from a single location or does it pick one or the other and
make you create your "overlay" for the other? How is having to create
"overlays" better than having to choose additional repositories in the
RH model?
-----Original Message-----
From: ale-b...@ale.org [mailto:ale-b...@ale.org] On Behalf Of Jeff
Hubbs
your own use).
Proud partner. Susan G. Komen for the Cure.
Please consider our environment before printing this e-mail or attachments.
----------------------------------
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail may contain privileged or confidential information and is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution, or use of the contents of this information is prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please reply immediately to the sender that you have received the message in error, and delete it. Thank you.
----------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Brian Pitts
> Can someone run me through what the current situation is w.r.t. Red Hat
> and Red-Hat-derived distributions and package repositories? I am seeing
> situations where people seem to go "RPM fishing" from the Internet's
> hinterlands and others seem to have to add this or that repository to a
> list in order to obtain such-and-such a package via yum.
RHEL provides (and hence supports) a relatively small number of packages.
# lsb_release -d && yum list all | wc -l
Description: Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.4 (Tikanga)
6476
Fedora provides a lot more.
$ lsb_release -d && yum list all | wc -l
Description: Fedora release 12 (Constantine)
27151
There are various efforts to provide additional packages for RHEL.
There's a good overview on the CentOS wiki. [0]
Since Fedora has a stringent free software licensing policy (the only
non-free software allowed is firmware), their 27,000 packages exclude
some software that some people find useful. The main effort to provide
that software for Fedora is RPM Fusion. [1]
[0] http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories
[1] http://rpmfusion.org/
--
All the best,
Brian Pitts
Brian Pitts
> RHEL provides (and hence supports) a relatively small number of packages.
>
> # lsb_release -d && yum list all | wc -l
> Description: Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.4 (Tikanga)
> 6476
>
> Fedora provides a lot more.
>
> $ lsb_release -d && yum list all | wc -l
> Description: Fedora release 12 (Constantine)
> 27151
As soon as I sent this, I realized both of these systems had extra
repositories enabled. D'oh. The RHEL number should be in the mid 3000s.
I don't know about Fedora.
Jeff Hubbs
> And if there were agreement on the best way to do all this there
> wouldn't be so many different distros. FOSS includes "free" including
> "free" choices on how to best do things.
>
its adaptability to an "imperfect" (as per RMS) software world; emerging
certain packages does nothing but tell you how to hand-download/install
it because the license allows use but not repackaging. I have also for
the first time recently seen one package block another specifically by
virtue of its license!
> So in your setup does Gentoo for example include both lesstif and motif
> as options from a single location or does it pick one or the other and
> make you create your "overlay" for the other? How is having to create
> "overlays" better than having to choose additional repositories in the
> RH model?
>
Apparently there was a bit of a dust-up a couple years ago about
lesstif; right now, it's not in Portage at all. See
http://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?format=multiple&id=193505.
Openmotif 2.3.2 is what's current for x86 in Portage now. If one just
has to have lesstif right now, one is encouraged to create an overlay,
apparently.
Suppose you were in a development shop and you had a non-OSS toolset
that was written and maintained internally. You could just make the
source available and tell your folks to build it themselves or you could
build and maintain binaries for various architectures. But suppose it's
got a lot of dependencies and suppose further those dependencies are
version-twitchy. You'd make an ebuild for your toolset just as you
would if you were going to push it to the Gentoo repository, but instead
you'd make the ebuild available via overlay and configure the target
systems to use that overlay. On the target system side, then, your
toolset installs just like any other package and its dependencies get
handled according to how you set it up in the ebuild.
But for normal all-OSS systems work in Gentoo, you would typically only
make use of an overlay if you were sort of "going rogue" or taking
advantage of the work of someone else doing the same. I've been working
with Gentoo for about seven years now and I've never made or used one.
Geoffrey
> On 02/17/2010 09:22 AM, Jeff Hubbs wrote:
>> Can someone run me through what the current situation is w.r.t. Red Hat
>> and Red-Hat-derived distributions and package repositories? I am seeing
>> situations where people seem to go "RPM fishing" from the Internet's
>> hinterlands and others seem to have to add this or that repository to a
>> list in order to obtain such-and-such a package via yum.
>
> RHEL provides (and hence supports) a relatively small number of packages.
>
> # lsb_release -d && yum list all | wc -l
> Description: Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server release 5.4 (Tikanga)
> 6476
With the addition of epel repository to RHEL I get: 9462
>
> Fedora provides a lot more.
>
> $ lsb_release -d && yum list all | wc -l
> Description: Fedora release 12 (Constantine)
> 27151
>
> There are various efforts to provide additional packages for RHEL.
> There's a good overview on the CentOS wiki. [0]
>
> Since Fedora has a stringent free software licensing policy (the only
> non-free software allowed is firmware), their 27,000 packages exclude
> some software that some people find useful. The main effort to provide
> that software for Fedora is RPM Fusion. [1]
>
> [0] http://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories
> [1] http://rpmfusion.org/
>
--
Until later, Geoffrey
"I predict future happiness for America if they can prevent
the government from wasting the labors of the people under
the pretense of taking care of them."
- Thomas Jefferson
Jeff Hubbs
Lightner, Jeff
point is that people are making choices as to what to include or
exclude.
I know lesstif works because I use it on Fedora so it isn't a bug in
lesstif itself but rather its implementation on Gentoo (or perhaps a
conflict with motif if that is provided).
Fedora provides lesstif because their licensing model doesn't allow for
motif (though of course I could have gotten motif myself somewhere
outside the Fedora repositories). On the flip side RHEL comes with
motif and I'd have to go get lesstif somewhere else if I wanted it..
For my purposes I needed the library so it didn't really matter to me
which I used as they both provide it. I did have to beat some folks
into submission to use lesstif because their documentation said to use
motif and they couldn't understand the requirement was really just for
the library not the specific package. They were very surprised when
their install worked without complaining about it.
For most installs I've not needed to add anything not provided by the
default repositories for Fedora or RHEL and haven't really been too put
out by the few times I have.
-----Original Message-----
From: ale-b...@ale.org [mailto:ale-b...@ale.org] On Behalf Of Jeff
Hubbs
Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2010 9:55 PM
To: Atlanta Linux Enthusiasts - Yes! We run Linux!