> On Sep 8, 2016, at 10:01 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>
> Can you tell us the DNF for:-
Get ready to take notes, because this gets complex:
> yum update
dnf update
> yum groupinstall
dnf groupinstall
> yum reinstall
dnf reinstall
> yum erase
dnf erase
--
Jonath
On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 23:22 +0100, J Martin Rushton wrote:
> Under Fedora23 issuing a yum command gets you a warning, then it
> automatically runs the appropriate dnf command.
Can you tell us the DNF for:-
yum update
yum groupinstall
yum reinstall
yum erase
?
T
On Thu, 2016-09-08 at 14:12 -0700, Keith Keller wrote:
> On 2016-09-08, John R Pierce wrote:
> > On 9/7/2016 7:02 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
> >>> Staying with excellent C6 until the end.
> >> CentOS 7 is yum based, not dnf.
> >
> > "Always Learning" seems to have a distaste for anything new or di
On 08/09/16 03:02, Keith Keller wrote:
> On 2016-09-08, Always Learning wrote:
>>
>> In any single version of Centos there is only one YUM. Having multiple
>> and incompatible versions of Yum in the same software release is
>> bonkers.
>
> Fedora is the place to try out bonkers stuff. If RedHa
On 2016-09-08, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 9/7/2016 7:02 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
>>> Staying with excellent C6 until the end.
>> CentOS 7 is yum based, not dnf.
>
> "Always Learning" seems to have a distaste for anything new or different
> than what he already knows.
Don't we all? I'm not really
> Samba 4.x is an intimidating piece of software. If it can perfrom the same
> function and use the same config, I'm willing to try it.
Without log messages or process table info, it's hard to advise any further.
Generally speaking, Samba4 can do everything that Samba 3.6 does. If your
server
> 1. What is your output of testparm?
No errors or warnings, apart from
rlimit_max: increasing rlimit_max (1024) to minimum Windows limit (16384)
> 2. If you run top, are any Samba related processes (winbindd, smbd, etc)
> consuming excessively high amounts of CPU?
I did not observe this, a
> Other than the original 6.8 release version 3.6.23-33, samba has not been
> functioning correctly for me under 6.8.
>
> The symptoms are that about 6-7 days after starting the server, users start
> complaining that they can no longer open documents on their share. Upon
> inspection, I find sever
On 09/08/16 09:51, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
On Wed, September 7, 2016 9:59 pm, John R Pierce wrote:
On 9/7/2016 7:02 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
Staying with excellent C6 until the end.
CentOS 7 is yum based, not dnf.
"Always Learning" seems to have a distaste for anything new or different
than what
On Wed, September 7, 2016 9:59 pm, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 9/7/2016 7:02 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
>>> Staying with excellent C6 until the end.
>> CentOS 7 is yum based, not dnf.
>
> "Always Learning" seems to have a distaste for anything new or different
> than what he already knows.
>
Your, com
Other than the original 6.8 release version 3.6.23-33, samba has not been
functioning correctly for me under 6.8.
The symptoms are that about 6-7 days after starting the server, users start
complaining that they can no longer open documents on their share. Upon
inspection, I find several, somet
On Wed, 2016-09-07 at 19:59 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
> >> Staying with excellent C6 until the end.
> "Always Learning" seems to have a distaste for anything new or different
> than what he already knows.
My mind is never ever automatically closed to new 'things'.
I continually embrace ne
12 matches
Mail list logo
