Am 08.05.10 17:25, schrieb Axel Thimm:
> In a nutshell: ATrpms does try hard to keep CentOS users happy. :)
And thank you for that >:)
Cheers,
Ralph
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Hi,
On Sat, May 08, 2010 at 04:11:15AM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> Am 05.05.10 08:32, schrieb Axel Thimm:
> > On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 03:37:52PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> >> You do not look for updates on 5.4, but for updates on5. And EPEL (as
> >> ATRPMS) tags along with RHEL - so you h
Am 05.05.10 08:32, schrieb Axel Thimm:
> On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 03:37:52PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>> You do not look for updates on 5.4, but for updates on5. And EPEL (as
>> ATRPMS) tags along with RHEL - so you have to be looking out for
>> things like that when you use CentOS.
>
> Until
Am 04.05.10 17:25, schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
> That seems reasonable to me. To rephrase, if I'm upgrading a CentOS 5.4
> system, and there's no CentOS 5.5, I don't see why yum should find a 5.5
> package.
Because there are no 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.x packages for yum.
There is only 5. Which i
Am 04.05.10 16:24, schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
> Ralph wrote:
>> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM, wrote:
>>> I believe I am looking for updates on 5. But, since 5.5 is *not*
>>> released, I should not see bits and pieces that require it. What next,
>>> glibc?
>>
>> 5.5 *is* released. Just not by Cen
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 03:37:52PM +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM, wrote:
> > I would have to agree with the repo being misconfigured. If I'm on 5.4,
> > and look for updates to 5.4, it should *not* tell me that one package
> > needs updating, but that, and an unno
On Tue, 2010-05-04 at 11:25 -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> if I'm upgrading a CentOS 5.4
> system, and there's no CentOS 5.5, I don't see why yum should find a
> 5.5
> package.
You're missing the point.
epel is a repo intended for RHEL, and by a happy coincidence you can use
their repo for Cen
Steve wrote:
> On May 4, 2010, at 10:24 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
>> And your point is? I mean, a) we're talking about CentOS yum update, and
>> b) a 5.5 update showing up before 5.5 is released.
>
> from your post here
>
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2010-May/093953.html
>
> i inf
On May 4, 2010, at 10:24 AM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> And your point is? I mean, a) we're talking about CentOS yum update, and
> b) a 5.5 update showing up before 5.5 is released.
mark,
from your post here
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2010-May/093953.html
i infer that the pack
On Tue, May 04, 2010 at 10:24:25AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Ralph wrote:
> > On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM, wrote:
> >> I believe I am looking for updates on 5. But, since 5.5 is *not*
> >> released, I should not see bits and pieces that require it. What next,
> >> glibc?
> >
> > 5.5 *is
Ralph wrote:
> On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM, wrote:
>> I believe I am looking for updates on 5. But, since 5.5 is *not*
>> released, I should not see bits and pieces that require it. What next,
>> glibc?
>
> 5.5 *is* released. Just not by CentOS yet.
And your point is? I mean, a) we're talking
On Tue, May 4, 2010 at 3:40 PM, wrote:
> I believe I am looking for updates on 5. But, since 5.5 is *not* released,
> I should not see bits and pieces that require it. What next, glibc?
5.5 *is* released. Just not by CentOS yet.
Ralph
___
CentOS maili
> On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM, wrote:
>> I would have to agree with the repo being misconfigured. If I'm on 5.4,
>> and look for updates to 5.4, it should *not* tell me that one package
>> needs updating, but that, and an unnoted dependency, are both actually
>> 5.5.
>
> You do not look for up
On Mon, May 3, 2010 at 8:38 PM, wrote:
> I would have to agree with the repo being misconfigured. If I'm on 5.4,
> and look for updates to 5.4, it should *not* tell me that one package
> needs updating, but that, and an unnoted dependency, are both actually
> 5.5.
You do not look for updates on
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 20:38 +0200 schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
> Chris wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 16:20 +0200 schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
> >> Chris wrote:
> >> > Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 16:07 +0200 schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
> >> >> Yum checkupdate tells me I should update memcached,
Chris wrote:
> Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 16:20 +0200 schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
>> Chris wrote:
>> > Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 16:07 +0200 schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
>> >> Yum checkupdate tells me I should update memcached, that the x86_64
>> >> 1.4.5-1.el5 needs an update, I go to do that, and it
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 16:20 +0200 schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
> Chris wrote:
> > Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 16:07 +0200 schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
> >> Yum checkupdate tells me I should update memcached, that the x86_64
> >> 1.4.5-1.el5 needs an update, I go to do that, and it complains that it's
Chris wrote:
> Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 16:07 +0200 schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
>> Yum checkupdate tells me I should update memcached, that the x86_64
>> 1.4.5-1.el5 needs an update, I go to do that, and it complains that it's
>> missing a dependency of libevent-1.4.so.2 (this is all 64 bit, CentOS
Am Montag, den 03.05.2010, 16:07 +0200 schrieb m.r...@5-cent.us:
> Yum checkupdate tells me I should update memcached, that the x86_64
> 1.4.5-1.el5 needs an update, I go to do that, and it complains that it's
> missing a dependency of libevent-1.4.so.2 (this is all 64 bit, CentOS
> 5.4).
>
> Clues
On Mon, May 03, 2010 at 10:07:20AM -0400, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Yum checkupdate tells me I should update memcached, that the x86_64
> 1.4.5-1.el5 needs an update, I go to do that, and it complains that it's
> missing a dependency of libevent-1.4.so.2 (this is all 64 bit, CentOS
> 5.4).
>
> Clu
Yum checkupdate tells me I should update memcached, that the x86_64
1.4.5-1.el5 needs an update, I go to do that, and it complains that it's
missing a dependency of libevent-1.4.so.2 (this is all 64 bit, CentOS
5.4).
Clues... or is this actually broken?
mark
__
21 matches
Mail list logo
