On 07/18/2012 03:20 PM, Christophe Fergeau wrote:
> Hey,
>
> 2012/7/18 José Matos :
>> Could your repeat that after
>>
>> # yum clean metadata
> It's working better now, though there were still a few packages
> failing after running yum install texlive. When I tried a second time,
> it managed to d
2012/7/18 José Matos :
> I suspect that it could be a transient behaviour due to the latest
> packages update.
>
> Probably you were unlucky and updated during a small window when the
> metadata was inconsistent, at least I remember other cases where the
> failure reason was this.
If the small win
José Matos writes:
>
> I suspect that it could be a transient behaviour due to the latest
> packages update.
>
> Probably you were unlucky and updated during a small window when the
> metadata was inconsistent, at least I remember other cases where the
> failure reason was this.
I experienced t
Andrew McNabb wrote:
José Matos writes:
I suspect that it could be a transient behaviour due to the latest
packages update.
Probably you were unlucky and updated during a small window when the
metadata was inconsistent, at least I remember other cases where the
failure reason was this.
I ex
Johannes Lips writes:
>
> I think the reason for this were not changes to the repo but changes to
> the servers, which were done by the fedora infrastructure team.
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2012-July/003092.html
>
> I think this could explain the problems accessing the
The GUI updater (in F17, at least) complains about the format of
changelog entries in the tex and texlive RPMs. It says it expects the
header line to contain
FirstName LastName release-number
or something similar, and won't display the actual changelog entry.
That's pretty minor, obvio
