Le 07/01/2013 15:12, Patrick Serru a écrit : Hello, it looks like you are installing a 32 bits application on a 64 bits machine. I guess the 32 bits library /lib/ld-lsb.so.3 is missing on your system. To find which package to install, just type: yum provides /lib/ld-lsb.so.3 Then install the package (I guess the name: yum install redhat-lsb.i686 Francois

Le 08/01/2013 06:29, Patrick Serru a écrit : I see, yum searches for QT3 3.3.8d for 32 bits, but it is not available in the 64 bits repository. I will fix this in the next Trinity release. Until then, you can manually download and install the following packages: http://ppa.quickbuild.pearsoncomputing.net/.../qt3-3.3.8.d-9.fc17.i686.rpm .../qt3-config-3.3.8.d-9.fc17.i686.rpm Then install them: rpm -Uvh qt3-*.i686.rpm

Then try again to install redhat-lsb.i686 and then googleearth. Francois

Le 10/01/2013 03:31, Patrick Serru a écrit : OK you have no 32 bits library at all on your computer. Then try to install the files with yum: yum localinstall --nogpgcheck qt3-*.i686.rpm Francois

Le 12/01/2013 00:49, Patrick Serru a écrit : > Le jeudi 10 janvier 2013, François ANDRIOT a écrit : >> Le 10/01/2013 03:31, Patrick Serru a écrit : >>> Thank you, François >>> >>> Le mercredi 09 janvier 2013, François ANDRIOT a écrit : >>>> Le 08/01/2013 06:29, Patrick Serru a écrit : >>>>> Le lundi 07 janvier 2013, François ANDRIOT a écrit : >>>>>> Le 07/01/2013 15:12, Patrick Serru a écrit : >>>>>>> Hi All, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If I lauch GE from a Konsol, it gives: >>>>>>> /opt/google/earth/free/google-earth: ./googleearth-bin: /lib/ld-lsb.so.3: >>>>>>> bad ELF interpreter: Aucun fichier ou dossier de ce type >>>>>>> >>>>>>> During some previous installation tryes, I sow that the >>>>>>> problem was coming from a library requested by a component of >>>>>>> Trinity. Can someone tell me, please, how to do to be able to run >>>>>>> Google Earth, while using TDE as windows manager? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thank you >>>>>>> Patrick >>>>>>> >>>>>> Hello, >>>>>> it looks like you are installing a 32 bits application on a 64 bits >>>>>> machine. >>>>>> I guess the 32 bits library /lib/ld-lsb.so.3 is missing on your >>>>>> system. >>>>>> >>>>>> To find which package to install, just type: >>>>>> yum provides /lib/ld-lsb.so.3 >>>>>> >>>>>> Then install the package (I guess the name: >>>>>> yum install redhat-lsb.i686 >>>>>> >>>>>> Francois >>>>>> >>>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> Thank you François, >>>>> >>>>> The resulting text of the command is attached. The tail of it >>>>> being: >>>>> protection contre les différentes versions de bibliothèques : >>>>> qt3-3.3.8b-41.fc17.i686 != 1:qt3-3.3.8.d-9.fc17.x86_64 >>>>> >>>>> The previous tryed command was >>>>> "install redhat-lsb-4.1-5.fc17.i686"... >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Patrick >>>> I see, yum searches for QT3 3.3.8d for 32 bits, but it is not

>>>> in the 64 bits repository. >>>> I will fix this in the next Trinity release. >>>> >>>> Until then, you can manually download and install the following >>>> packages: >>>> http://ppa.quickbuild.../qt3-3.3.8.d-9.fc17.i686.rpm >>>> .../qt3-config-3.3.8.d-9.fc17.i686.rpm >>>> >>>> Then install them: >>>> rpm -Uvh qt3-*.i686.rpm >>> The result is: >>> [user@lin-pat Telechargements]# rpm -Uvh qt3-*.i686.rpm >>> erreur: Dépendances requises: >>> libXinerama.so.1 est nécessaire pour qt3-1:3.3.8.d-9.fc17.i686 >>> libXrandr.so.2 est nécessaire pour qt3-1:3.3.8.d-9.fc17.i686 >>> libmng.so.1 est nécessaire pour qt3-1:3.3.8.d-9.fc17.i686 >>> libXinerama.so.1 est nécessaire pour

Now that QT3 is installed, don't forget to install redhat-lsb.i686 yum install redhat-lsb.i686 Francois

So, I hope we can convince folks to trim their replies a little more.

Just throwing an idea like that: Wouldn't a forum be a better platform than mailling list? It also avoid top-posting and trim problems...

On 13/01/13 11:21, Alexandre Couture wrote: No it wouldn't be better, and no forums don't avoid posting issues. Forums are a "pull" technology: I have to actively decide to go to some website and look for new comments or questions, then keep refreshing the page periodically to see replies to questions. Even if there is some sort of notification service (like a RSS feed), nevertheless I must still make the decision to actively open a tab in a browser and go to the forum. Email is a "push" technology: new comments and questions just appear in my inbox without me needing to go out and look for them. So long as I monitor this one location, my inbox, I will see these messages.

I already have, at quick count, well over 120 assorted tabs open in five different browsers on two machines. If I had to actively monitor this list by viewing a web page, I wouldn't. As for posting issues, it is probably true that web forums *reduce* the hassle caused by top-posting and failure to trim. But that's only because forum software usually defaults to "no quote" replies: replies have have no context, except that they are part of some thread. In small threads, or in sufficiently well-written and explicit replies, you don't need much to establish context. But as threads get bigger, or as writers get lazier or less competent, you still need to establish context. I cannot begin to tell you how many forum discussions I have seen with replies that give *no clue* who, or which specific comment, they are replying to.

Similar: 2 machines, 7 browsers, way too many tabs to count with any ease, because there are more than will fit in view at once. The tab scroller appears at either or both ends on more than one browser window. The two with the probable most I counted via scroller select list, 43 & 40. Total tabs could easily be 180+ across all 9 windows (8 & 9 are Chatzilla @ 10-13 each), and are certainly more than 120 even without Chatzilla or Konsole (8 ATM across 2 windows). I've been using "tabs" since sometime before 1990, although back then, in DOS, they had other names according to the app. > until I hear from other contendas, I'm going to declare you, Steven, > "King of the Tabs" -- 120 tabs open at once!

> > On Sun, 13 Jan 2013, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > > >> I already have, at quick count, well over 120 assorted tabs open in five > >> different browsers on two machines.

> > Similar: 2 machines, 7 browsers, way too many tabs to count with any ease,

Oh, I think that my small Asus EEE (first-gen) would explode with so many opened tabs!

On 01/12/2013 01:37 AM, Francois Andriot wrote: Maybe a word about trimming replies is in order. I don't mean to pick on Francois and Patrick -- they just have the misfortune of having presented the opportunity. :) It seems to be a very common problem here.

So, I hope we can convince folks to trim their replies a little more.

On 01/12/2013 01:37 AM, Francois Andriot wrote: <troll> </troll>