From: Aleksey Tsalolikhin
> Is there a way to update a CentOS 5.4 server to 5.6 (but not 5.7)?
> "yum update" takes me all the way up to 5.7.
First, this is normal; yum update will always take you to the most recent 5.x
Second, you will miss important security/bug fixes by staying at 5.6!
If you
On 09/22/11 2:13 AM, John Doe wrote:
> If you want to take the risk anyway, the following (untested) might work:
> Modify your /etc/yum.repos.d/CentOS-Base.repo
> try to replace the baseurl's $releasever with 5.6...
no, as the 5.6 specific files are removed when 5.7 is released. you'd
have to get
Am 22.09.11 11:59, schrieb John R Pierce:
> On 09/22/11 2:13 AM, John Doe wrote:
>> If you want to take the risk anyway, the following (untested) might work:
>> Modify your /etc/yum.repos.d/CentOS-Base.repo
>> try to replace the baseurl's $releasever with 5.6...
>
> no, as the 5.6 specific files ar
On 09/22/11 3:08 AM, Sebastian Schubert wrote:
> Am 22.09.11 11:59, schrieb John R Pierce:
>> > On 09/22/11 2:13 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>> >> If you want to take the risk anyway, the following (untested) might
>>> >> work:
>>> >> Modify your /etc/yum.repos.d/CentOS-Base.repo
>>> >> try to replac
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:37 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 09/22/11 3:08 AM, Sebastian Schubert wrote:
>> Am 22.09.11 11:59, schrieb John R Pierce:
>>> > On 09/22/11 2:13 AM, John Doe wrote:
>> If you want to take the risk anyway, the following (untested) might
>> work:
>> Modi
On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 03:37:38AM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 09/22/11 3:08 AM, Sebastian Schubert wrote:
> > Am 22.09.11 11:59, schrieb John R Pierce:
> >> > On 09/22/11 2:13 AM, John Doe wrote:
> >>> >> If you want to take the risk anyway, the following (untested) might
> >>> >> work:
>
Aleksey Tsalolikhin writes:
> Is there a way to update a CentOS 5.4 server to 5.6 (but not 5.7)?
>
> "yum update" takes me all the way up to 5.7.
>
Use the 5.6 repos from the vault in your yum configs:
http://vault.centos.org/5.6/
--
Nux!
www.nux.ro
___
On 09/22/2011 06:20 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:37 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 09/22/11 3:08 AM, Sebastian Schubert wrote:
>>> Am 22.09.11 11:59, schrieb John R Pierce:
> On 09/22/11 2:13 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>> If you want to take the risk anyway, the followin
On 09/22/2011 06:20 AM, Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 12:37 PM, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 09/22/11 3:08 AM, Sebastian Schubert wrote:
>>> Am 22.09.11 11:59, schrieb John R Pierce:
> On 09/22/11 2:13 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>> If you want to take the risk anyway, the followin
On Sep 22, 2011, at 10:32 AM, fred smith wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 22, 2011 at 03:37:38AM -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
>> On 09/22/11 3:08 AM, Sebastian Schubert wrote:
>>> Am 22.09.11 11:59, schrieb John R Pierce:
> On 09/22/11 2:13 AM, John Doe wrote:
>>> If you want to take the risk anyway,
On Thursday, September 22, 2011 07:20:15 AM Rudi Ahlers wrote:
> surely a few versions of the OS won't take up that much space? 1TB &
> 2TB HDD's these day cost a few dollars so I don't think that's the
> real reason. And it can't be bandwidth either since the files are
> mirrored to many other ser
11 matches
Mail list logo