> -Original Message-
> From: Hersh Parikh [mailto:hershparik...@yahoo.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 28, 2014 7:05 AM
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] GLIBC_2.7 not found
>
> Sure. Will do so.
>
> Thanks!! :)
>
>
>
> On Friday,
Sure. Will do so.
Thanks!! :)
On Friday, 28 March 2014 4:18 PM, Tru Huynh wrote:
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 02:33:05AM -0700, Hersh Parikh wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Thanks for your valuable suggestion. I will keep them in mind. I have
> checked whether there is a way to update to Centos to 5.10
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 02:33:05AM -0700, Hersh Parikh wrote:
> Hi Guys,
>
> Thanks for your valuable suggestion. I will keep them in mind. I have
> checked whether there is a way to update to Centos to 5.10 without
> damaging the cluster suite and I was suggested the best way is to
> reinstall th
Hi Guys,
Thanks for your valuable suggestion. I will keep them in mind. I have checked
whether there is a way to update to Centos to 5.10 without damaging the cluster
suite and I was suggested the best way is to reinstall the entire cluster
suite. There are few suggestions around this but they
Am 27.03.2014 um 14:10 schrieb Steve Clark :
> On 03/27/2014 08:51 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> that certainly does happen and individual packages can be excluded (and
>> the bugs reported) ... but upgrades still need to happen whenever possible.
>>
>> We have released 4 different kernels since 6.
Robert Heller wrote:
> At Thu, 27 Mar 2014 02:52:51 -0700 (PDT) CentOS mailing list
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the info. I know its quite old but I cant update as its
>> running with cluster suite and its a production unit. Â Moreover its not
>> feasible to upgrade as I have hundreds for apps and da
You wrote:
> Thanks for the explanation. yes I do understand that critical patches needs
> to be applied for any OS. But in this case it is not a stand alone machine,
> it is a cluster suite and OS was not installed separately. I would have
> definitely upgraded the system if this was stand alone b
On 03/27/2014 08:51 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 03/27/2014 07:37 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
>> On 03/27/2014 08:26 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
>>> At Thu, 27 Mar 2014 02:52:51 -0700 (PDT) CentOS mailing list
>>> wrote:
>>>
Hi Alexnder,
Thanks for the info. I know its quite old but I can
On 03/27/2014 07:37 AM, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 03/27/2014 08:26 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
>> At Thu, 27 Mar 2014 02:52:51 -0700 (PDT) CentOS mailing list
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Alexnder,
>>>
>>> Thanks for the info. I know its quite old but I cant update as its running
>>> with cluster suite and its
On 03/27/2014 08:26 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
> At Thu, 27 Mar 2014 02:52:51 -0700 (PDT) CentOS mailing list
> wrote:
>
>> Hi Alexnder,
>>
>> Thanks for the info. I know its quite old but I cant update as its running
>> with cluster suite and its a production unit. Â Moreover its not feasible to
>
At Thu, 27 Mar 2014 02:52:51 -0700 (PDT) CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> Hi Alexnder,
>
> Thanks for the info. I know its quite old but I cant update as its running
> with cluster suite and its a production unit. Â Moreover its not feasible to
> upgrade as I have hundreds for apps and data lyi
Hi Johnny,
Thanks for the explanation. yes I do understand that critical patches needs to
be applied for any OS. But in this case it is not a stand alone machine, it is
a cluster suite and OS was not installed separately. I would have definitely
upgraded the system if this was stand alone box.
On 03/27/2014 04:52 AM, Hersh Parikh wrote:
> Hi Alexnder,
>
> Thanks for the info. I know its quite old but I cant update as its running
> with cluster suite and its a production unit. Moreover its not feasible to
> upgrade as I have hundreds for apps and data lying on the system. Backing all
Hi Alexnder,
Thanks for the info. I know its quite old but I cant update as its running with
cluster suite and its a production unit. Moreover its not feasible to upgrade
as I have hundreds for apps and data lying on the system. Backing all of this
not very continent.
Regards
Hersh
On Thu
Am 27.03.2014 06:22, schrieb Hersh Parikh:
> Hi Frank,
>
> Thanks for quick response. Does it mean that I cant have glib 2.7 on centos
> 5.4?
Right, you can't. If you install a different glibc than the one provided
by CentOS 5, then your system will be completely broken. The glibc is a
very imp
Hi Frank,
Thanks for quick response. Does it mean that I cant have glib 2.7 on centos
5.4?
Regards
Hersh
On Thursday, 27 March 2014 10:27 AM, Frank Cox
wrote:
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
Hersh Parikh wrote:
> Examining glibc-2.7-12.2mnb1.x86_64.rpm: 6:glibc-2.7-12.2mnb1.x86
On Wed, 26 Mar 2014 21:37:07 -0700 (PDT)
Hersh Parikh wrote:
> Examining glibc-2.7-12.2mnb1.x86_64.rpm: 6:glibc-2.7-12.2mnb1.x86_64
I think "mnb" means that you have a Mandriva rpm there; nothing to do with
Centos.
The current version of glibc on Centos 5 is glibc-2.5-118.el5_10.2
--
MELVILL
17 matches
Mail list logo