Scott R. Ehrlich wrote:
Is there a detailed history/diff of what 5.1 adds/removes/changes from
5.0, and the same for 5.2 from 5.1 and 5.0?
I checked around the centos.org but couldn't obviously find this.
Look through the release notes for 5.1 and 5.2
_
On Tue, Jun 24, 2008 at 12:20 PM, Scott R. Ehrlich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Is there a detailed history/diff of what 5.1 adds/removes/changes from 5.0,
> and the same for 5.2 from 5.1 and 5.0?
>
> I checked around the centos.org but couldn't obviously find this.
More than what's in the wiki?
Ignore. I found it.
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008, Scott R. Ehrlich wrote:
Is there a detailed history/diff of what 5.1 adds/removes/changes from 5.0,
and the same for 5.2 from 5.1 and 5.0?
I checked around the centos.org but couldn't obviously find this.
Thanks.
Scott
__
Martin Marques wrote:
If you've been running yum update, you're already at 5.1. You may just
need to reboot to load the new kernel.
Nope, I don't run yum. I do manual updates. So I've rsynced the
updates to a local drives, and then ran rpm against them. There's
something about runnin
Ashley M. Kirchner escribió:
Jim Perrin wrote:
If you've been running yum update, you're already at 5.1. You may just
need to reboot to load the new kernel.
Nope, I don't run yum. I do manual updates. So I've rsynced the
updates to a local drives, and then ran rpm against them. There's
Ashley M. Kirchner a écrit :
Nope, I don't run yum. I do manual updates.
In my native Austria, we call this: "To bear the church around the cross."
(Cultural context: during catholic processions, folks use to bear the
cross around the church.)
:oD
_
Les Mikesell wrote:
when has anyone seen a Centos system die from an update?
Just a few months ago, one of the Samba updates caused it to drop all
our Windows systems' mapped drives every 10 minutes or so. You'd be in
the middle of a big copy, and boom, there goes your share, and you have
t
MHR wrote:
If you've been running yum update, you're already at 5.1. You may just
need to reboot to load the new kernel.
Nope, I don't run yum. I do manual updates. So I've rsynced the
updates to a local drives, and then ran rpm against them. There's
something about running un-attended
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 9:17 AM, Ashley M. Kirchner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jim Perrin wrote:
> > If you've been running yum update, you're already at 5.1. You may just
> > need to reboot to load the new kernel.
> >
>Nope, I don't run yum. I do manual updates. So I've rsynced the
> upda
Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
Jim Perrin wrote:
If you've been running yum update, you're already at 5.1. You may just
need to reboot to load the new kernel.
Nope, I don't run yum. I do manual updates. So I've rsynced the
updates to a local drives, and then ran rpm against them. There's
s
Jim Perrin wrote:
If you've been running yum update, you're already at 5.1. You may just
need to reboot to load the new kernel.
Nope, I don't run yum. I do manual updates. So I've rsynced the
updates to a local drives, and then ran rpm against them. There's
something about running un-a
Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
Hi folks,
I have a production server that's currently running 5.0 with all
updates. What's the easiest, or perhaps best way to upgrade it to 5.1,
with minimal down time? The downtime is critical, so I need to have it
be a short as possible. I can live with
Yum upgrade
john
Ashley M. Kirchner wrote:
Hi folks,
I have a production server that's currently running 5.0 with all
updates. What's the easiest, or perhaps best way to upgrade it to
5.1, with minimal down time? The downtime is critical, so I need to
have it be a
On Wed, Mar 05, 2008 at 09:58:27AM -0700, Ashley M. Kirchner enlightened us:
>Hi folks,
>
>I have a production server that's currently running 5.0 with all
> updates. What's the easiest, or perhaps best way to upgrade it to 5.1,
> with minimal down time? The downtime is critical, so I
On Wed, Mar 5, 2008 at 11:58 AM, Ashley M. Kirchner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I have a production server that's currently running 5.0 with all
> updates. What's the easiest, or perhaps best way to upgrade it to 5.1,
> with minimal down time? The downtime is critical, so I need to have i
> > I finally solved my update problems by using rpm command. I found that I
> > had 2 versions of e2fsprogs installed, one ending with EL4. Don't know
> > where this came from, because there was never a EL4 on this machine. But
> > when I removed it, yum update run fine.
>
> thats the i386 packag
Andreas Kuntzagk wrote:
Hi,
I finally solved my update problems by using rpm command. I found that I
had 2 versions of e2fsprogs installed, one ending with EL4. Don't know
where this came from, because there was never a EL4 on this machine. But
when I removed it, yum update run fine.
thats th
Hi,
I finally solved my update problems by using rpm command. I found that I
had 2 versions of e2fsprogs installed, one ending with EL4. Don't know
where this came from, because there was never a EL4 on this machine. But
when I removed it, yum update run fine.
Thanks, Andreas
___
--- Andreas Kuntzagk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > run your yum update with -d7 and pastebin.ca the
> output ( make sure to
> > set expire to never or > 7 days), and pastebin the
> url here. make sure
> > you include _ALL_ of the yum output not just
> snippets of it.
>
> Don't know wha
Andreas Kuntzagk wrote:
>
> AFAIK I have no excludes and disabled all plugins.
>
are you sure you dont have an exclude for i386 pkgs ? pastebin.ca,
google knows all about it.
--
Karanbir Singh : http://www.karan.org/ : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
CentOS mai
Hi,
> run your yum update with -d7 and pastebin.ca the output ( make sure to
> set expire to never or > 7 days), and pastebin the url here. make sure
> you include _ALL_ of the yum output not just snippets of it.
Don't know what pastebin.ca is. Did not find that on this machine. So
I'm attaching
Andreas Kuntzagk wrote:
> ---> Package e2fsprogs.x86_64 0:1.39-10.el5 set to be updated
> --> Running transaction check
> # of Deps = 3
> --> Processing Conflict: kernel conflicts e2fsprogs < 1.37-4
> Error: No Package Matching kernel.x86_64
run your yum update with -d7 and pastebin.ca the output
> Andreas Kuntzagk wrote:
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# yum update kernel
> >> try running a yum update or a : yum update kernel e2fsprogs,
> >> so they both get updated in the same transaction.
> >
> > Did that - to no avail. Shouldn't package dependencies take care for
> > them to update in the sa
Andreas Kuntzagk wrote:
>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# yum update kernel
>> try running a yum update or a : yum update kernel e2fsprogs,
>> so they both get updated in the same transaction.
>
> Did that - to no avail. Shouldn't package dependencies take care for
> them to update in the same transaction
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# yum update kernel
>
> try running a yum update or a : yum update kernel e2fsprogs,
> so they both get updated in the same transaction.
Did that - to no avail. Shouldn't package dependencies take care for
them to update in the same transaction?
> > Loading "allowdowngrad
Andreas Kuntzagk wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]# yum update kernel
try running a yum update or a : yum update kernel e2fsprogs,
so they both get updated in the same transaction.
> Loading "allowdowngrade" plugin
this might be whats causing the kernel package to not get updated..
> Loading mirror
John Thomas wrote:
My kernel is "2.6.18-53.el5.centos.plus-i686", but I figured I must of
gotten me some backported stuff in there (i.e. I'm in over my head).
I upgraded to the lm_sensors in ATRPMS testing repo, and the problem
went away. (lm_sensors-2.10.5-52.el5)
I had the same problem w
27 matches
Mail list logo
