Hello all,
Well, my local mirror now has CentOS 5.6! Yay! But, I cannot
get it to install. A yum update and a yum --skip-broken
yields me this:
-- Processing Conflict: firefox conflicts xulrunner = 1.9.2.14
-- Finished Dependency Resolution
firefox-3.6.13-2.el5.centos.i386 from installed has
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf
Of Gilbert Sebenste
Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 4:03 PM
To: centos@centos.org
Subject: [CentOS] CentOS 5.6 will not install due to Firefox error
Any ideas? All the packages seem
KB, please don't top post.
/hides
On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
top posting
you need to wait for 5.6 to actually be released
- KB
On 04/06/2011 03:02 PM, Gilbert Sebenste wrote:
Hello all,
Well, my local mirror now has CentOS 5.6! Yay!
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 10:06:54 AM Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/06/2011 03:02 PM, Gilbert Sebenste wrote:
Well, my local mirror now has CentOS 5.6! Yay! But, I cannot
get it to install. A yum update and a yum --skip-broken
yields me this:
you need to wait for 5.6 to actually be
On 04/06/11 7:56 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
I really really wish repositories would be ACID compliant.
I concur, but I'm not sure how you'd do this, since some users will be
in process with an update under 1 state while the repo switches to the
new state, even if that state switch is instantaneous.
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 02:33:24 PM John R Pierce wrote:
On 04/06/11 7:56 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
I really really wish repositories would be ACID compliant.
I concur, but I'm not sure how you'd do this, since some users will be
in process with an update under 1 state while the repo
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 03:22:48 PM Lamar Owen wrote:
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 02:33:24 PM John R Pierce wrote:
On 04/06/11 7:56 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
I really really wish repositories would be ACID compliant.
I concur, but I'm not sure how you'd do this, since some users will
Peter A wrote:
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 03:22:48 PM Lamar Owen wrote:
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 02:33:24 PM John R Pierce wrote:
On 04/06/11 7:56 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
I really really wish repositories would be ACID compliant.
I concur, but I'm not sure how you'd do this, since
instead, what I think would make more sense would be a modified repo
architecture where the current repoinfo file is versioned, and there's a
master file which refers to the name of the 'current' version.
so, to update the repo, you first copy all the new packages, and the new
versioned
[Ah! Peter! Back from the loonybin I see we're still using the sun QFE
boards and the Ex500 CPU cards, thanks again]
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 03:48:14 PM Peter A wrote:
On Wednesday, April 06, 2011 03:22:48 PM Lamar Owen wrote:
Pipe dream: MultiVersion Concurrency Control, like
On 4/6/2011 2:52 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
This is very different than the delta rpms though... delta rpms and all
that still works with a simple http server. For a mvcc you'd need a
backend to
have an actual DB, scripting backend and such...
Ah, yes, sort of like, well, a real version
Les Mikesell wrote:
On 4/6/2011 2:52 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
This is very different than the delta rpms though... delta rpms and all
that still works with a simple http server. For a mvcc you'd need a
backend to
have an actual DB, scripting backend and such...
Ah, yes, sort of like,
On 4/6/2011 3:49 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
Les Mikesell wrote:
On 4/6/2011 2:52 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
This is very different than the delta rpms though... delta rpms and all
that still works with a simple http server. For a mvcc you'd need a
backend to
have an actual DB, scripting
13 matches
Mail list logo
