Re: [CentOS] Silly question about 5.1

On Dec 3, 2007 7:33 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > IT'S ON PURPOSE, IT'S A FEATURE, NOT A BUG :-) Yes, I know, I've read it. I didn't add "report" to that statment. My bad. :) -- Curt Micol "Fear is winning, refuse to be terrorized, people." -- Bruce Schneier ___

Re: [CentOS] Silly question about 5.1

Curt Micol wrote: > Hello, > > Yes, there is a bug open for this, listed here: > http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=2481 IT'S ON PURPOSE, IT'S A FEATURE, NOT A BUG :-) > > On Dec 3, 2007 2:30 PM, David G. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I just rebooted my desktop system to pick up the 5.1

Re: [CentOS] Silly question about 5.1

Hello, Yes, there is a bug open for this, listed here: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=2481 On Dec 3, 2007 2:30 PM, David G. Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I just rebooted my desktop system to pick up the 5.1 kernel, etc. One > oddity I noticed is that the contents of /etc/redhat-release

[CentOS] Silly question about 5.1

I just rebooted my desktop system to pick up the 5.1 kernel, etc. One oddity I noticed is that the contents of /etc/redhat-release still says: [EMAIL PROTECTED] etc]# cat /etc/redhat-release CentOS release 5 (Final) but: [EMAIL PROTECTED] etc]# rpm -q --whatprovides /etc/redhat-release centos