Anthony Kamau wrote:
>
> Hi. I recently switched my CentOS kernel to 2.6.27, manually. Is there
> a way to take it "off the list" of possible yum updates? I want to
> handle kernel stuff myself.
>
Edit /etc/yum.conf
Below excerpt from `man yum.conf'
exclude List of packages to exclude fro
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2008 2:25 PM
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: [CentOS] yum: not updating kernel
>
> Hi. I recently switched my CentOS kernel
Hi. I recently switched my CentOS kernel to 2.6.27, manually. Is there
a way to take it "off the list" of possible yum updates? I want to
handle kernel stuff myself.
Thanks much.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mai
I'll lookand see, doesn't hurt.
Which repos did you have installed?
-Ross
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: CentOS mailing list
Sent: Thu Feb 28 02:32:20 2008
Subject: RE: [CentOS] Yum not updating kernel
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 15:
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 15:27 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
[big snip]
> I'd be interested in seeing a complete /var/log/yum.log file
> and the date of the last successful yum update.
I have attached both yum.log files. Possible dates of interest are:
Oct 10 09:14:15 Installed: kernel.i686 2.6.
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 12:19 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 06:29 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > >
> > > If we can nail down something that changed /etc/rpm/platform it would be
> > > good, as that file
Bob Taylor wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 06:29 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > Bob Taylor wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > > OK! Thanks Johnny. You just confirmed a bug here. Now I will, as time
> > > allows, see if I can discover why /etc/rpm/platform is incorrect. Since
> > > the file is in an rpm dire
On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:30 AM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 06:29 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >
> > If we can nail down something that changed /etc/rpm/platform it would be
> > good, as that file should never change.
>
> Thanks again Johnny for the info. Th
On Wed, 2008-02-27 at 06:29 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Bob Taylor wrote:
[snip]
> > OK! Thanks Johnny. You just confirmed a bug here. Now I will, as time
> > allows, see if I can discover why /etc/rpm/platform is incorrect. Since
> > the file is in an rpm directory, shall I look at rpm? I prom
Bob Taylor wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 16:09 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
[snip]
Would anaconda even allow C5 to install on such a class cpu?
no ... and we have no i386 kernel ... no idea how that file got changed,
but the only code to make it happen would be a pentium classic
processor. C
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 14:16 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Bob Taylor wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 08:14 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> what happens if you edit /etc/rpm/platform and change it too:
> >>
> >> i686-redhat-linux
> >
> > Nothing.
> >
> > I downloaded the cur
The problem which began this long an laborious thread has been solved
with an edit of /etc/rpm/platform replacing i386 with i686. Whatever
created this file thinks my cpu is not an i686.
Many thanks to all who helped track this down!
Hitler is dead. End of thread!
--
Bob Taylor
__
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 17:30 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
[snip]
> # rpm -qf /etc/rpm/platform
rpm -qf /etc/rpm/platform
file /etc/rpm/platform is not owned by any package
> On a default environment it should come back that no package owns
> that file. If a package does own it then there is t
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 16:09 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
[snip]
> > Would anaconda even allow C5 to install on such a class cpu?
>
> no ... and we have no i386 kernel ... no idea how that file got changed,
> but the only code to make it happen would be a pentium classic
> processor. C5 would
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 15:27 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
[snip]
> I think there may be a case or two of bad packages updating that file
> I believe these are some dumb Mozilla plugins though, googling got
> me these:
>
> http://dnmouse.webs.com/playdvdsmore.htm
>
> and here:
>
> http://www.
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 11:51 -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
[snip]
> > It looks like the problem may be in rpm after 4.4.2-37. Before I go to
> > the rpm people, I need to confer with Ray Van Dolson who says his is the
> > same as mine and he has no problem updating kernels. After Ray and I
> > reso
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 11:22 -0800, Garrick Staples wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:19:36AM -0800, Bob Taylor alleged:
> > I can not remove it with the command rpm -e kernel-2.6.18-53.1.13 but
> > can if I add .el5 to the end it does. Before I deleted it I ran the
>
> That's correct. 53.1.13 i
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> > > Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > >> Bob Taylor wrote:
> > >>> On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 08:14 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> [snip]
> > >>>
> > what happens if you edit /etc/rpm/platform and change it too:
> >
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> > Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >> Bob Taylor wrote:
> >>> On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 08:14 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >>>
> >>> [snip]
> >>>
> what happens if you edit /etc/rpm/platform and change it too:
>
> i686-redhat-linux
> >>> Nothing.
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
Bob Taylor wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 08:14 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
[snip]
what happens if you edit /etc/rpm/platform and change it too:
i686-redhat-linux
Nothing.
The problem was most likely the /etc/rpm/platform
if it is i386 and
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Bob Taylor wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 08:14 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> what happens if you edit /etc/rpm/platform and change it too:
> >>
> >> i686-redhat-linux
> >
> > Nothing.
> >
> > I downloaded the current rpm file this morning and ran
Bob Taylor wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 08:14 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
[snip]
what happens if you edit /etc/rpm/platform and change it too:
i686-redhat-linux
Nothing.
I downloaded the current rpm file this morning and ran rpm -Uvh
--force /home/brtaylor/rpm-4.4.2-47.el5.i386.rpm.
Rpm s
> I have done the following:
>
> rpm -Uvh --force /home/brtaylor/rpm-4.4.2-47.el5.i386.rpm
> edit /etc/rpm/platform to i686-redhat-linux
> rpm -e kernel-2.6.18-53.1.13.el5
> yum clean all
> yum upgrade kernel
> returned Installed: kernel.i686 0:2.6.18-53.1.13.el5
> Complete!
>
> It looks like the
Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Here is the cpu info of a more recent quad core Intel.
processor : 0
vendor_id : GenuineIntel
cpu family : 6
model : 15
model name : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU X3220 @ 2.40GHz
stepping: 7
This model is 10 cpu designs ahead, b
Ray Van Dolson please email me at [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Bob Taylor
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:19:36AM -0800, Bob Taylor alleged:
> I can not remove it with the command rpm -e kernel-2.6.18-53.1.13 but
> can if I add .el5 to the end it does. Before I deleted it I ran the
That's correct. 53.1.13 is the not same as 53.1.13.el5.
The version is 2.6.18 and the releas
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 08:14 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
[snip]
> what happens if you edit /etc/rpm/platform and change it too:
>
> i686-redhat-linux
Nothing.
I downloaded the current rpm file this morning and ran rpm -Uvh
--force /home/brtaylor/rpm-4.4.2-47.el5.i386.rpm.
Rpm seems to behave o
Bob Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 22:46 -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
> > Bob Taylor wrote:
> > > On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 00:19 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> > >
> > >> Bob Taylor wrote:
> > >>
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > >
> > >>> uname -imp:
> > >>>
> > >>> i686 i686 i386
> >
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 22:46 -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
> Bob Taylor wrote:
> > On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 00:19 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> >
> >> Bob Taylor wrote:
> >>
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >
> >>> uname -imp:
> >>>
> >>> i686 i686 i386
> >>>
> >>> Don't know why the kernel says it's
Bob Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 23:44 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Bob Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 12:10 -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
[snip]
Well, exactarch=0 might work around this from a yum
standpoint (as far
as downloading the updates), but if RPM is complaining this
Bob Taylor wrote:
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 00:19 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Bob Taylor wrote:
[snip]
uname -imp:
i686 i686 i386
Don't know why the kernel says it's an i386. Kernel bug? Gateway
purchase?
i386 is the architecture, in there you have processor flavors
whic
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 00:25 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
[snip]
> Then verify your Internet connection works properly
> with yum (are you behind a proxy server?), and see what that does.
Dunno about proxy server. I'm behind an HughesNet satellite modem. Most
likely that thingy that changes y
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 00:19 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> Bob Taylor wrote:
[snip]
> > uname -imp:
> >
> > i686 i686 i386
> >
> > Don't know why the kernel says it's an i386. Kernel bug? Gateway
> > purchase?
>
> i386 is the architecture, in there you have processor flavors
> which can be
On Tue, 2008-02-26 at 00:43 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> Garrick Staples wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:25:32AM -0500, Ross S. W. Walker alleged:
> > > Bob Taylor wrote:
> > > > On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 23:44 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> > > > > The contents of,
> > > > >
> > > > > #
Garrick Staples wrote:
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:25:32AM -0500, Ross S. W. Walker alleged:
Bob Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 23:44 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
The contents of,
# cat /etc/rpm/platform
i386-redhat-linux
Good
Isn't that the prob
Garrick Staples wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:25:32AM -0500, Ross S. W. Walker alleged:
> > Bob Taylor wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 23:44 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> > > > The contents of,
> > > >
> > > > # cat /etc/rpm/platform
> > >
> > > i386-redhat-linux
> >
> > Good
>
> I
On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 12:25:32AM -0500, Ross S. W. Walker alleged:
> Bob Taylor wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 23:44 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> > > The contents of,
> > >
> > > # cat /etc/rpm/platform
> >
> > i386-redhat-linux
>
> Good
Isn't that the problem? All of my machines say
Bob Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 23:44 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> > Bob Taylor wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 12:10 -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > Well, exactarch=0 might work around this from a yum
> > > standpoint (as far
> > > > as downloadin
Bob Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 21:22 +0100, Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
> > On Monday 25 February 2008, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> > > Lets get this fixed so we can kill this thread.
> >
> > Good initiative, but since the layer beneath also fails
> (rpm) maybe we should
> > start there. r
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 23:44 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> Bob Taylor wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 12:10 -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Well, exactarch=0 might work around this from a yum
> > standpoint (as far
> > > as downloading the updates), but if RPM is compla
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 21:22 +0100, Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
> On Monday 25 February 2008, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> > Lets get this fixed so we can kill this thread.
>
> Good initiative, but since the layer beneath also fails (rpm) maybe we should
> start there. rpm -qi kernel or maybe bad stuff
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 16:34 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> Bob Taylor wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 12:41 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Bob,
> > >
> > > Lets get this fixed so we can kill this thread.
> >
> > I agree totally! The problem is with rpm. It ref
Bob Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 12:10 -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Well, exactarch=0 might work around this from a yum
> standpoint (as far
> > as downloading the updates), but if RPM is complaining this
> is beyond
> > the control of yum. As someone else mentioned,
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 13:19 -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
> Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
> > On Monday 25 February 2008, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> >
> >> Lets get this fixed so we can kill this thread.
> >>
> >
> > Good initiative, but since the layer beneath also fails (rpm) maybe we
> > should
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 12:10 -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
[snip]
> Well, exactarch=0 might work around this from a yum standpoint (as far
> as downloading the updates), but if RPM is complaining this is beyond
> the control of yum. As someone else mentioned, taking a look at your
> ~/.rpmmacros f
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 15:02 -0500, Alfred von Campe wrote:
> Bob:
>
> > I agree totally! The problem is with rpm. It refuses to install a non
> > i386 rpm.
>
> What are the contents of the ~/.rpmmacros file (for root)?
Empty
--
Bob Taylor
___
CentO
John R Pierce wrote:
> Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
> > On Monday 25 February 2008, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> >
> >> Lets get this fixed so we can kill this thread.
> >>
> >
> > Good initiative, but since the layer beneath also fails
> (rpm) maybe we should
> > start there. rpm -qi kernel or
Bob Taylor wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 12:41 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Bob,
> >
> > Lets get this fixed so we can kill this thread.
>
> I agree totally! The problem is with rpm. It refuses to install a non
> i386 rpm. I have verified this by downloading the latest k
Peter Kjellstrom wrote:
On Monday 25 February 2008, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
Lets get this fixed so we can kill this thread.
Good initiative, but since the layer beneath also fails (rpm) maybe we should
start there. rpm -qi kernel or maybe bad stuff in /etc/sysconfig kernel.
The int
On Monday 25 February 2008, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
> Lets get this fixed so we can kill this thread.
Good initiative, but since the layer beneath also fails (rpm) maybe we should
start there. rpm -qi kernel or maybe bad stuff in /etc/sysconfig kernel.
The interesting error from RPM suggests th
> I agree totally! The problem is with rpm. It refuses to install a non
> i386 rpm. I have verified this by downloading the latest kernel rpm. I
> had to use --ignorearch flag to get rpm to install it. Now how do I get
> this flag to yum? I have exactarch=0 in /etc/yum.conf which I presumed
> was t
Bob:
I agree totally! The problem is with rpm. It refuses to install a non
i386 rpm.
What are the contents of the ~/.rpmmacros file (for root)?
Alfred
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 12:41 -0500, Ross S. W. Walker wrote:
[snip]
> Bob,
>
> Lets get this fixed so we can kill this thread.
I agree totally! The problem is with rpm. It refuses to install a non
i386 rpm. I have verified this by downloading the latest kernel rpm. I
had to use --ignorearch flag
Bob Taylor wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 00:19 -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > > I would love this. However I don't know what my IP is nor
> how to find
> > > out. It's been too long and too much has changed.
> >
> > Seriously?
> >
> > ifconfig will tell you your IP address. Or just go to
On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 00:19 -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > I would love this. However I don't know what my IP is nor how to find
> > out. It's been too long and too much has changed.
>
> Seriously?
>
> ifconfig will tell you your IP address. Or just go to
> www.whatsmyip.org or some similar si
> > Something is missing. It's probably something very simple. I still
> > think you should let someone log in as root into your box and figure it
> > out for you. :)
>
> That was the dumbest piece of advice so far.
>
Get a sense of humor.
Ray
___
C
> > Something is missing. It's probably something very simple. I still
> > think you should let someone log in as root into your box and figure it
> > out for you. :)
>
> I would love this. However I don't know what my IP is nor how to find
> out. It's been too long and too much has changed.
Se
On Sun, 2008-02-24 at 22:55 -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
[snip]
> Mine reports the same as yours and I have no problem updating kernels.
Sigh! So I have the same problem with rpm? It rejects installing an i686
rpm.
[snip]
> Something is missing. It's probably something very simple. I still
>
On Monday 25 February 2008, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > I reached the same conclusion Saturday myself. I yum remove yum and
> > reinstalled yum & pirut from my installation CD. The yum refused to
> > update the kernel. I gave up on yum and downloaded the current kernel
> > rpm. I rpm -i kernel* and r
> I reached the same conclusion Saturday myself. I yum remove yum and
> reinstalled yum & pirut from my installation CD. The yum refused to
> update the kernel. I gave up on yum and downloaded the current kernel
> rpm. I rpm -i kernel* and received the following error message from rpm:
>
> package
On Sat, 2008-02-23 at 10:54 -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> * Remove ALL plugins
> * Disable ALL third party repo's.
> * Do a yum clean all
> * Revert to the default CentOS .repo files
> * Revert to default yum.conf file
>
> If it works in this configuration, you can start adding things b
On Sat, 2008-02-23 at 10:51 -0800, Bob Taylor wrote:
> On Sat, 2008-02-23 at 06:25 -0500, William L. Maltby wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 23:45 -0800, Bob Taylor wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >
> Someone just said *not* to use protect and priority together.
Me. But I'm no authority on it. Just pass
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Someone just said *not* to use protect and priority together.
>
> Red Hat has a propensity to remove any documentation on a package that
> does not have a man page. Sometimes it's included in /usr/share/doc and
> someti
> Someone just said *not* to use protect and priority together.
>
> Red Hat has a propensity to remove any documentation on a package that
> does not have a man page. Sometimes it's included in /usr/share/doc and
> sometimes in /usr/lib and sometimes it's just not there. There is,
> hopefully *som
On Sat, 2008-02-23 at 06:25 -0500, William L. Maltby wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 23:45 -0800, Bob Taylor wrote:
[snip]
> == Useless/uninteresting lines snipped =
> [rpmforge] name = Red Hat Enterprise $releasever - RPMforge.net - dag
> mirrorlist = http://apt.sw
On Sat, Feb 23, 2008 at 10:24 AM, Ray Van Dolson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > installonlypkgs
> > List of packages that should only ever be installed, never
> > updated. Kernels in particular fall into this category. Defaults to
> > 'kernel, kernel-smp, kernel-bigmem, kernel-enterprise,
> installonlypkgs
> List of packages that should only ever be installed, never
> updated. Kernels in particular fall into this category. Defaults to
> ‘kernel, kernel-smp, kernel-bigmem, kernel-enterprise, kernel-debug,
> kernel-unsupported’.
>
> What I missed is "never updated". If this is
On Sat, 2008-02-23 at 03:47 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Bob Taylor wrote:
[snip]
> based on this output ... somehow your kernel is excluded in update set,
> even though it sees kernel-doc.noarch and kernel-headers.i386.
>
> This leads me to believe that there is a "exclude=kernel" somewhere i
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 23:45 -0800, Bob Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 19:56 -0500, William L. Maltby wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 15:37 -0800, Bob Taylor wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 14:41 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTE
Bob Taylor wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 18:25 -0700, Shad L. Lords wrote:
I misspoke. Yum installed kernel-2.6.18-8.1.14 October 13, 2007
according to yum.log. So, yum appears to have worked *once* updating the
kernel. Looking in CentOS vault, I saw .15 which gives me a time frame
for what it's
Bob Taylor wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 19:56 -0500, William L. Maltby wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 15:37 -0800, Bob Taylor wrote:
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 14:41 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[snip]
Priority *and* protect?
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 19:56 -0500, William L. Maltby wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 15:37 -0800, Bob Taylor wrote:
> > On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 14:41 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> > > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> >
[snip]
> Priority *and* protect? Su
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 18:25 -0700, Shad L. Lords wrote:
> > I misspoke. Yum installed kernel-2.6.18-8.1.14 October 13, 2007
> > according to yum.log. So, yum appears to have worked *once* updating the
> > kernel. Looking in CentOS vault, I saw .15 which gives me a time frame
> > for what it's worth
I misspoke. Yum installed kernel-2.6.18-8.1.14 October 13, 2007
according to yum.log. So, yum appears to have worked *once* updating the
kernel. Looking in CentOS vault, I saw .15 which gives me a time frame
for what it's worth. All I did was add rpmforge. I have removed it with
no help. I will po
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 15:37 -0800, Bob Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 14:41 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
>
>
> # CentOS-Base.repo
> #
> # This file uses a new mirrorlist system developed by Lance Davis for
> Cent
On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 14:41 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > It seems everybody is out of ideas why yum is not updating the kernel.
> > The following kernels are installed in /boot:
> >
> > vmlinuz-2.6.18-8.1.14.el5
> > vmlinuz
On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 1:02 PM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems everybody is out of ideas why yum is not updating the kernel.
> The following kernels are installed in /boot:
>
> vmlinuz-2.6.18-8.1.14.el5
> vmlinuz-2.6.18-8.el5
>
> I originally installed CentOS 5.0 via CD. Yum
It seems everybody is out of ideas why yum is not updating the kernel.
The following kernels are installed in /boot:
vmlinuz-2.6.18-8.1.14.el5
vmlinuz-2.6.18-8.el5
I originally installed CentOS 5.0 via CD. Yum automatically updated to
5.1 including kernel-2.6.18-8.1.14.el5.
I have traced the ker
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 09:28 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 10:58 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > OK .. lets go at this a different way :)
> > >
> > > what is the output of the follo
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 10:58 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > OK .. lets go at this a different way :)
> >
> > what is the output of the following comamnd (put it all on one line if
> > it wraps):
> >
> > rpm
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 10:58 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
[snip]
> OK .. lets go at this a different way :)
>
> what is the output of the following comamnd (put it all on one line if
> it wraps):
>
> rpm -qa yum\* sqlite\* python\* rpm\* centos\* | sort
centos-release-5-1.0.el5.centos.1
centos-
Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 02:22 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
My bad! It's there. I was looking in the wrong directory and didn't
notice until later. The file currently contains:
mirror.centos.org 1.90688800812
On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 7:57 AM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 02:22 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>
> My bad! It's there. I was looking in the wrong directory and didn't
> notice until later. The file currently contains:
>
> mirror.centos.org 1.90688800812
Is this
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 23:14 -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
> Bob Taylor wrote:
> > Hm. I just noticed http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5/updates/i386/RPMS/
> > kernel listings are i686.rpm. Could my problem be this is confusing yum
> > as I use i386 and this is the i386 directory? Doesn't make sense si
On Wed, 2008-02-20 at 02:22 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 14:27 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> > > On Feb 19, 2008 1:58 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Please look at the f
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 14:27 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> > On Feb 19, 2008 1:58 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > >
> > > Please look at the file "/var/cache/yum/timedhosts.txt" and see the
> > > first serv
Bob Taylor wrote:
Hm. I just noticed http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5/updates/i386/RPMS/
kernel listings are i686.rpm. Could my problem be this is confusing yum
as I use i386 and this is the i386 directory? Doesn't make sense since
no one else seems to have this. Of course their are most likely
Hm. I just noticed http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5/updates/i386/RPMS/
kernel listings are i686.rpm. Could my problem be this is confusing yum
as I use i386 and this is the i386 directory? Doesn't make sense since
no one else seems to have this. Of course their are most likely few
running Pentium
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 14:27 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2008 1:58 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Bob Taylor wrote:
> >
> > sounds like the mirror you are updating from is not up to date.
> >
> > We currently know that one mirror is bad:
> >
> > http://lists.centos.org/pi
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 04:59 -0800, Michael A. Peters wrote:
[snip]
> -=-=-=-=-
> #!/bin/sh
> # /etc/cron.daily/yum.cron
>
> if [ -f /var/lock/subsys/yum ]; then
> /usr/bin/yum clean headers
> /usr/bin/yum -e 0 -d 0 -y update yum
> sleep 300
> /usr/bin/yum -e 0
On Tue, 2008-02-19 at 15:58 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Bob Taylor wrote:
[snip]
> sounds like the mirror you are updating from is not up to date.
I *think* I'm using
http://mirror.centos.org/centos/$releasever/updates/$basearch/
I have found that there is no kernel at rpmforge so I have comm
On Feb 19, 2008 1:58 PM, Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bob Taylor wrote:
>
> sounds like the mirror you are updating from is not up to date.
>
> We currently know that one mirror is bad:
>
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-mirror/2008-February/002532.html
>
> Please look at th
Bob Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 23:02 -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:56:58PM -0800, Bob Taylor wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 20:24 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
[snip]
Coming in late on this thread, but...
1. Can you point your repo's at a different URL?
2.
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 23:02 -0800, Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 18, 2008 at 10:56:58PM -0800, Bob Taylor wrote:
> > On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 20:24 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
[snip]
> Coming in late on this thread, but...
>
> 1. Can you point your repo's at a different URL?
> 2. Have you t
On Tue, Feb 19, 2008 at 06:30:38AM -0500, Ed Donahue wrote:
> OK, that worked for me
>
> yum clean all
> yum --disablerepo=\* --enablerepo=updates update
>
> Should this be done on a weekly/monthly basis? " yum clean all"
>
> Or are my repos messed up?
>
>
> repo id repo name
Ed Donahue wrote:
OK, that worked for me
yum clean all
yum --disablerepo=\* --enablerepo=updates update
Should this be done on a weekly/monthly basis? " yum clean all"
Or are my repos messed up?
I run "yum clean headers" daily.
I disabled the yum update daemon and use the following:
Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Feb 18, 2008 10:56 PM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 20:24 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
repo id repo name status
priority
=== = ==
rpmforgeRed Hat
On Feb 18, 2008 10:56 PM, Bob Taylor <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-02-18 at 20:24 -0800, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>
> repo id repo name status
> priority
> === = ==
>
> rpmforgeRed Hat Enterpri
On Feb 19, 2008 3:30 AM, Ed Donahue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> repo id repo name status priority
> === = ==
> extras CentOS-5 - Extras enabled 1
> b
OK, that worked for me
yum clean all
yum --disablerepo=\* --enablerepo=updates update
Should this be done on a weekly/monthly basis? " yum clean all"
Or are my repos messed up?
repo id repo name status priority
=== =
1 - 100 of 112 matches
Mail list logo
