Si St wrote:
I am aware of the force-option in rpm, but I did not want to use it before as a
last resort. I also usually download manually the new clamav packages and
install them from console, and it usually works fine except in the case of this
RC without the force-argument. But that is over
;ClamAV users ML"
> Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] clamav-0.96rc1-19.1.i586.rpm;ThankYou
> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 2010 08:03:52 -0700
>
>
> Si St wrote:
> > OK. That clearyfied most of it.
> >
> > I had to uninstall from YaST both clamav and database in order to
> >
Si St wrote:
OK. That clearyfied most of it.
I had to uninstall from YaST both clamav and database in order to manage an
update with none-RC. The rpm-update from console would only receive a newer RC
(from 18 to 19) and not the appearently newer none-RC clamav.
And a console rpm-erase would no
..rpm" that wouldnt go in the first place.
___
> - Original Message -
> From: aCaB
> To: "ClamAV users ML"
> Subject: Re: [Clamav-users] clamav-0.96rc1-19.1.i586.rpm
> Date: Sun, 18 Ap
Si St wrote:
> Whats the difference between:
> clamav-0.96rc1-19.1.i586.rpm
> and:
> clamav-0.96-27.1.i586.rpm
> ?
The RC is a release canditate package. It was issued before the final
0.96 release (the non-RC package).
> I am thinking of the "RC" specification of the package.
> Which one should
Whats the difference between:
clamav-0.96rc1-19.1.i586.rpm
and:
clamav-0.96-27.1.i586.rpm
?
I am thinking of the "RC" specification of the package.
Which one should I choose for my SLED_10_SP3?
I have usually installed and updated the rpms without the RC
specification, but by a coincidence I chos
