Re: [Unichrome-users] Unichrome r30 RPMs for FC2 & FC3
Brought to you by:
dwdeath
From: Xavier B. <xb...@ke...> - 2005-02-12 15:15:42
|
Hi Raimund, Newsgroup wrote: > Hi Xavier, > > thanks for the rpms. I am just about to enable hw acceleration on my > Epia ME6000 using Fedora Core 2 and kernel 2.6.9-1.6_FC2_1. > > The line: "baseurl=http://washington.kelkoo.net/epia/FC$releasever" in > my yum.conf file only gave me an error 404 (file not found), so I > searched with google for "repomd.xml" on the site > "washington.kelkoo.net". I only can find a "repomd.xml" for FC3. > You are not using the standard yum package from FC2, do you ? Yum 1.x, which comes with FC2, doesn't use the same repository's data format as yum 2.x. I guess you have replaced the yum package with the one from another repository (yum20 from ATrpms ?). Also, $releasever should be automatically replaced by yum to fit your release version. In your case, 2. > So I changed the line in my yum.conf to > "baseurl=http://washington.kelkoo.net/epia/FC3/RPM/" and this works when > running "yum list available". I get about 20 packages, but would that > work with my FC2? > Nope, xorg for FC2 and xorg for FC3 are not exactly packaged in the same way. If yum is still unable to determine the correct repo you need, you should modify your yum.conf to read "baseurl=http://washington.kelkoo.net/epia/FC2". I don't currently have have access to my FC2 machine right now, so I can't test, but I feel pretty confortable not to be telling stupidities ;-) As a workaround for this sort of pbs, I can also generate yum 2 metadatas for the FC2 repository, but is there a lot of people replacing the original package from FC2 ? > How should I go ahead? > After fixing the above, 'yum update' should be enough. > Thankful for any advise > > Raimund You're welcome. Regards, Xavier |