Just my luck,
None of my CentOS systems or my Fedora systems can #yum groupinstall
"Development Tools" "Development Libraries"?
Both are having dep issues? Is that a coincidence, or what's going on?
The CentOS boxes all complain:
--> Processing Dependency: glibc-common = 2.5-18.el5_1.1 for packa
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:26 PM, Joseph L. Casale
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Just my luck,
> None of my CentOS systems or my Fedora systems can #yum groupinstall
> "Development Tools" "Development Libraries"?
> Both are having dep issues? Is that a coincidence, or what's going on?
>
> The CentO
>There are two times when this becomes an issue. One is on x86_64
>systems where build deps can cross architectures, and the other is
>when using systems like openvz/virtuozzo where the glibc is often
>replaced or otherwise lobotomized.
>
>Which one is yours?
Ahh, all the CentOS boxes are either x
On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 10:45 PM, Joseph L. Casale
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>There are two times when this becomes an issue. One is on x86_64
>>systems where build deps can cross architectures, and the other is
>>when using systems like openvz/virtuozzo where the glibc is often
>>replaced or oth
>which xen rpms did you install? The ones from centos, or the ones from
>xensource?
Rolled my own from the 3.2.0 srpm.
>Generally when building for x86_64, it's best to remove all traces of
>x86 packages on the system.
How do you do this at install? Wouldn't that be cleaner? I suppose a
rpm comm
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Joseph L. Casale
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>which xen rpms did you install? The ones from centos, or the ones from
>>xensource?
>
> Rolled my own from the 3.2.0 srpm.
>
>>Generally when building for x86_64, it's best to remove all traces of
>>x86 packages on the s
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 at 9:37am, Akemi Yagi wrote
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Joseph L. Casale
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
which xen rpms did you install? The ones from centos, or the ones from
xensource?
Rolled my own from the 3.2.0 srpm.
Generally when building for x86_64, it's best to
>Actually, both of those commands should be looking for i[36]86, otherwise
>you'll miss, e.g., glibc.i686.
Joshua,
Any way to simply not install them when doing an install?
jlc
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/lis
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 at 11:41am, Joseph L. Casale wrote
Actually, both of those commands should be looking for i[36]86, otherwise
you'll miss, e.g., glibc.i686.
Any way to simply not install them when doing an install?
Unfortunately, not that I'm aware of.
--
Joshua Baker-LePain
QB3 Shared
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Joshua Baker-LePain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 at 11:41am, Joseph L. Casale wrote
>
>>> Actually, both of those commands should be looking for i[36]86, otherwise
>>> you'll miss, e.g., glibc.i686.
>>
>>
>> Any way to simply not install them wh
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 at 11:22am, Akemi Yagi wrote
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Joshua Baker-LePain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 at 11:41am, Joseph L. Casale wrote
Actually, both of those commands should be looking for i[36]86, otherwise
you'll miss, e.g., glibc.i686.
>> For people who are interested, yum-3.2.17-0_beta is in the *testing*
>> repo at this moment.
That fixed it! Its installing now...
>When Joseph said "when doing an install", I assumed that meant at system
>install time. I know of no way of doing a pure x86_64 install via
>anaconda (although I'
On Fri, Aug 22, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Joshua Baker-LePain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 at 11:22am, Akemi Yagi wrote
Any way to simply not install them when doing an install?
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, not that I'm aware of.
>>
>> There is a known issue with yum. See, for example,
13 matches
Mail list logo
