First try Fedora 21 Alpha

Today, I update my Fedora 20 to Fedora 21 Alpha on my Laptop.
Some tips are listed here,


  • fedup didn't work for me as it is always complains "Couldn't get boot images".
    I am not luck to fix it today. So I switch to fedora-upgrade and yum ones.
    It works.
  • Commands I used to do the upgrade, before that I disabled all the third party repositories.

          # fedora-upgrade 
# yum update yum  
# yum clean all  
# yum --releasever=21 distro-sync 

  •  I removed some packages for example vlc-core and etc, they are prompted as yum --releasever can not resolve the package dependence when run it.
  • Update to now, there is no big issue for me and Gnome 3.13.9 is pretty good, but some gnome-shell extensions are not compatible with the new shell.
  • I didn't have the compatible issue with Google Chrome Stable version from google's official repository. Someone reported the libgcrypto compatible issue before.
    I think the guys just fixed it. :-)
  • One more question, The mail list in Evolution didn't apply the Dark Theme color correctly. I got the black text in Mail list view. 
  • More update come later.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

RPM Build Tips!

Now, I am trying to build a Linux system based on the Fedora Core Release! Working with the RPM system in deep.The unpackaged file terminate the build process under RPM 4.x! Unpackaged files message in RPM-4.1 and following RPM version 4.1 and following demonstrate a new behaviour in the rpmbuild process. Previously, a build process might place any number of files, say in the %install stanza, when running the make install part of a Makefile , in the customary /var/tmp/%{name}-root/ BuildRoot (the RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). Once through that part of the Makefile , it can then completely ignore these files in the %files binary packaging stanza. This often happens when an upstream maintainer adds, or deletes items from new directory spurs in the make install , and the change might be missed during an unattended or automated rebuild. This option permits careful packagers to cross check the quality of their packaging. So as a cross check, /usr/lib/rpm/check-files is now enabled during
Read more

关于.rpmnew和.rpmsave文件

.rpmnew和.rpmsave文件经常在RPM系统升级某些特定软件包时出现，很少有用户关心或在意这些文件或者明白这些文件和信息出现的真正意义！其实.rpmnew和.rpmsave都是RPM软件包升级策略的产物；当升级过程中，包含对默认配置文件的修改时，保留系统中当前的配置文件，因为那些文件可能包含了用户自定义的信息和修改；这时RPM系统会根据既有的策略来对系统中原来的配置文件做出处置。.rpmnew表示这些是新的默认配置文件，而原来的配置文件将被保留下来；相反的如果新的配置文件取代了原来系统中的文件，那么原来的文件将被更名为.rpmsave，而新版本的配置文件将使用原来的名字安装到系统中。这就是.rpmnew和.rpmsave的来源。 至于使用.rpmnew还是.rpmsave这是由RPM包维护者选择的策略决定的，最新的Fedora 8的维护者好像都倾向于使用.rpmnew的策略来保留原来的配置文件，以造成比较小的impact。 不推荐直接删除.rpmnew和.rpmsave文件的做法，因为在有些时候这些文件还是应该被慎重处理的，首先需要确认有多少文件需要处理，可以这么做， find / -print | egrep "rpmnew$|rpmsave$" 找出这些文件之后，至少应该使用diff之类的差异比较工具对新旧版本的配置文件进行一番比较，以确定新的配置文件确实需要或者确实影响到系统的正常运行，再行处理！ 这项工作应该是系统文件系统维护的例常工作之一！！
Read more

Linux block device commands

Most of Linux user use df, du or fdisk, parted to check file system, block devices on a Linux system, me too. How about trying some new staffs from the linux commands set? 1. lsblk - It is list the block devices info with friendly output, NAME                     MAJ:MIN RM   SIZE RO TYPE MOUNTPOINT sda                        8:0    0 238.5G  0 disk  ├─sda1                     8:1    0   976M  0 part /boot ├─sda2                     8:2    0  31.3G  0 part / └─sda3                     8:3    0 206.3G  0 part /home sdb                        8:16   0 931.5G  0 disk  └─sdb1                     8:17   0 931.5G  0 part /data sr0                       11:0    1  1024M  0 rom   loop0                      7:0    0   100G  0 loop  └─docker-8:2-266441-pool 253:0    0   100G  0 dm    loop1                      7:1    0     2G  0 loop  └─docker-8:2-266441-pool 253:0    0   100G  0 dm    2. blkid - List block device attributes  dev/sda3: LABEL="/home" UUID="
Read more