On Tuesday 18 November 2003 01:10 am, Todd Lyons wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Todd Lyons wanted us to know:
Just checking if I'm the only one experiencing weirdness with urpmi? I
have a local mirror syncing from mirrors.usc.edu and have a pretty
current sync. I did
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Just checking if I'm the only one experiencing weirdness with urpmi? I
have a local mirror syncing from mirrors.usc.edu and have a pretty
current sync. I did a urpmi --auto-select and I got about 8 packages
updated. I thought that was odd. So I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Todd Lyons wanted us to know:
Just checking if I'm the only one experiencing weirdness with urpmi? I
have a local mirror syncing from mirrors.usc.edu and have a pretty
current sync. I did a urpmi --auto-select and I got about 8 packages
updated. I
Pascal Terjan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I guess it tries on the first one, fails, tries on the second one, only tells
it failed on the last one.
Yes, this is exactly the case, in fact, you can check it works by using it on
updated mirror and see only one download is done.
Francois.
When you urpmi from two mirror, files are download twice:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] olivier]# rpm -q urpmi
urpmi-4.4-42mdk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] olivier]$ urpmi kdebase-common --clean
Pour satisfaire les dépendances, les paquetages suivants vont être installés
(127 Mo):
kdebase-common-3.1.93-14mdk.i586
Olivier Thauvin wrote:
When you urpmi from two mirror, files are download twice:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] olivier]# rpm -q urpmi
urpmi-4.4-42mdk
[EMAIL PROTECTED] olivier]$ urpmi kdebase-common --clean
Pour satisfaire les dépendances, les paquetages suivants vont être installés
(127 Mo):
Hi,
Since cooker has been defrosted, perhaps this is the right moment to
discuss putting the .noarch.rpm packages into a seperate (shared)
location. This is already being done at PLF, see:
ftp://ftp.easynet.fr/plf/mandrake/cooker
With the recent upload of a number of rather large noarch.rpm
Hello,
I was wondering, if there is some way to upgrade (or install) new
packages form src.rpm source packages, rather than from precompiled
i586.rpm packages, with the ease urpmi provides, so that one could fully
benefit from his/her CPU.
urpmi --auto-selects can only be used to upgrade
Am Donnerstag, 30. Oktober 2003, 13:06:51 Uhr MET, schrieb Tomasz Chmielewski:
I was wondering, if there is some way to upgrade (or install) new
packages form src.rpm source packages, rather than from precompiled
i586.rpm packages, with the ease urpmi provides, so that one could fully
Pascal Terjan [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I just tryied urpmi --root /tmp/mdk basesytem, it worked really
nicer than the first time I did it months ago.
Only got 2 errors (except for kernel but that's not a problem) :
8:glibc
Hello,
I was wondering, if there is some way to upgrade (or install) new
packages form src.rpm source packages, rather than from precompiled
i586.rpm packages, with the ease urpmi provides, so that one could fully
benefit from his/her CPU.
urpmi --auto-selects can only be used to upgrade
On Sunday 26 October 2003 01:58, Greg Meyer wrote:
On Saturday 25 October 2003 06:39 pm, Michael Scherer wrote:
On Sunday 26 October 2003 00:12, Greg Meyer wrote:
This appears to be an undocumented feature. Are there any others
that are interesting?
a lot.
but since they are
I just tryied urpmi --root /tmp/mdk basesytem, it worked really nicer
than the first time I did it months ago.
Only got 2 errors (except for kernel but that's not a problem) :
8:glibc ##
/var/tmp/rpm-tmp.27792: line 24: rm:
On Saturday 25 October 2003 04:32 pm, Pascal Terjan wrote:
I just tryied urpmi --root /tmp/mdk basesytem, it worked really nicer
than the first time I did it months ago.
Only got 2 errors (except for kernel but that's not a problem) :
8:glibc
On Saturday 25 October 2003 04:32 pm, Pascal Terjan wrote:
I just tryied urpmi --root /tmp/mdk basesytem, it worked really nicer
than the first time I did it months ago.
Only got 2 errors (except for kernel but that's not a problem) :
8:glibc
On Sunday 26 October 2003 00:12, Greg Meyer wrote:
On Saturday 25 October 2003 04:32 pm, Pascal Terjan wrote:
I just tryied urpmi --root /tmp/mdk basesytem, it worked really
nicer than the first time I did it months ago.
Only got 2 errors (except for kernel but that's not a problem) :
On Saturday 25 October 2003 06:39 pm, Michael Scherer wrote:
On Sunday 26 October 2003 00:12, Greg Meyer wrote:
This appears to be an undocumented feature. Are there any others
that are interesting?
a lot.
but since they are undocumented, we do not always know them.
have you ever
Per Lindström [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When I run urpmi --auto-select --auto --keep urpmi tells me that the rpm
packages have faulty signatures. When I run urpmi /var/cache/urpmi/rpms/*.rpm
the packages are installed without any problems.
The faulty signature is in fact a missing signature
When I run urpmi --auto-select --auto --keep urpmi tells me that the
rpm packages have faulty signatures. When I run urpmi
/var/cache/urpmi/rpms/*.rpm the packages are installed without any
problems.
# urpmi.update -aurpmi --auto-select --auto --keep;date
undersöker MD5SUM-fil
[SNIP]
On Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 07:34:54PM +0200, François Pons wrote:
Why don't you make genhdlist /mnt/BIG2/updates/9.1/RPMS ? it should have been
done that way no ? because by doing it the way you are doing them now, list file
are wrong. If you have an error message, let me known what it is.
Vincent Danen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I didn't ever have any errors... but I've been using the root directory as
the pointer to hdlist for three years. =) Anyways, I tried 9.1 and point
genhdlist to updates/9.1/RPMS instead of updates/9.1 and it seems to work
fine.
Perfect, so now
On Fri Oct 03, 2003 at 07:27:01PM +0200, François Pons wrote:
I didn't ever have any errors... but I've been using the root directory as
the pointer to hdlist for three years. =) Anyways, I tried 9.1 and point
genhdlist to updates/9.1/RPMS instead of updates/9.1 and it seems to work
Vincent Danen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Updates always worked, except for 9.2. 9.2 was the one that changed so that
how it used to be done no longer worked.
I don't understand very well, but anyway, it is still perfect that way...
Francois.
Vincent Danen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Vincent, how do you fixed it ?
For 8.2-9.1 I do:
genhdlist /mnt/BIG2/updates/[dist]
For 9.2 I have to do:
genhdlist /mnt/BIG2/updates/9.2/RPMS
So something in 9.2 changed. And not in the installer.
Ok, I see the point, I used genhdlist
On Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 12:05:16PM +0200, François Pons wrote:
Vincent, how do you fixed it ?
For 8.2-9.1 I do:
genhdlist /mnt/BIG2/updates/[dist]
For 9.2 I have to do:
genhdlist /mnt/BIG2/updates/9.2/RPMS
So something in 9.2 changed. And not in the installer.
Ok, I
Vincent Danen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu Oct 02, 2003 at 12:05:16PM +0200, François Pons wrote:
Why don't you make genhdlist /mnt/BIG2/updates/9.1/RPMS ? it should have been
done that way no ? because by doing it the way you are doing them now, list file
are wrong. If you have an
Vincent Danen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you tried adding the media and downloading the updates? It should work
regardless of what's in the list file.
My bad. You're right, it doesn't work.
It's fixed now. The way urpmi handles this changed, so now all the old
distribs do it one
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (François Pons) writes:
Vincent Danen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you tried adding the media and downloading the updates? It should work
regardless of what's in the list file.
My bad. You're right, it doesn't work.
It's fixed now. The way urpmi handles
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 17:15, François Pons wrote:
Vincent Danen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Have you tried adding the media and downloading the updates? It
should work regardless of what's in the list file.
My bad. You're right, it doesn't work.
Did for me. Posting from a 9.1 system upped to
Leon Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
No, urpmi didn't change on this, but DrakX has changed the way the
update media are defined, I check to see if I made something wrong on
this...
I didn't use DrakX, if that makes any difference.
Yes, it looks like list file are different now...
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (François Pons) writes:
No, urpmi didn't change on this, but DrakX has changed the way the update media
are defined, I check to see if I made something wrong on this...
I don't known how it worked before, the list file has an additional RPMS/ string
inside...
Ok, I see
On Wed Oct 01, 2003 at 11:15:59AM +0200, François Pons wrote:
Have you tried adding the media and downloading the updates? It should work
regardless of what's in the list file.
My bad. You're right, it doesn't work.
It's fixed now. The way urpmi handles this changed, so now all
On Wed Oct 01, 2003 at 11:34:12AM +0200, François Pons wrote:
Have you tried adding the media and downloading the updates? It should work
regardless of what's in the list file.
My bad. You're right, it doesn't work.
It's fixed now. The way urpmi handles this changed, so
On Wed Oct 01, 2003 at 12:07:47PM +0200, François Pons wrote:
No, urpmi didn't change on this, but DrakX has changed the way the update media
are defined, I check to see if I made something wrong on this...
I don't known how it worked before, the list file has an additional RPMS/
Greg Meyer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Awhile back I had tried to setup urpmi sources with multiple mirrors for each
source, thinking that if one mirror was busy, urpmi would move to the next.
In this way, I wouldn't have to worry about not being able to login and try
again, urpmi would
why /updates/9.2/base/list contain ./ at beggining all files?
traditionally way to urpmi.addmedia (which is described in man page) is
urpmi.addmedia ../RPMS with ../base/hdlist.cz and with this
definition is there a problem with downloadind these updates.
is this normal?
--
member of
On Wed Oct 01, 2003 at 12:41:10AM +0200, Tibor Pittich wrote:
why /updates/9.2/base/list contain ./ at beggining all files?
traditionally way to urpmi.addmedia (which is described in man page) is
urpmi.addmedia ../RPMS with ../base/hdlist.cz and with this
definition is there a
On Tue Sep 30, 2003 at 05:01:21PM -0600, Vincent Danen wrote:
why /updates/9.2/base/list contain ./ at beggining all files?
traditionally way to urpmi.addmedia (which is described in man page) is
urpmi.addmedia ../RPMS with ../base/hdlist.cz and with this
definition is there a
Awhile back I had tried to setup urpmi sources with multiple mirrors for each
source, thinking that if one mirror was busy, urpmi would move to the next.
In this way, I wouldn't have to worry about not being able to login and try
again, urpmi would simply move to the next preferred mirror.
# urpmi --keep -v -p --noclean kdebase
Some package requested cannot be installed:
kdebase-3.1.3-79mdk.i586 (due to missing kdebase-kdeprintfax-3.1.3-79mdk.i586)
kdebase-kate-3.1.3-79mdk.i586 (in order to keep kdebase-3.1.3-78mdk.i586)
kdebase-kdeprintfax-3.1.3-79mdk.i586 (in order to
so since the mirrors got fixed, I updated one of our 9.1 machines to
Cooker (i.e., practically 9.2) via urpmi, and it worked absolutely
flawlessly! Admittedly it's a clean machine - no non-mdk packages - but
even so, this is impressive and better than 9.0 - 9.1. I just defined
cooker sources for
On Friday 19 September 2003 06:12 pm, Adam Williamson wrote:
so since the mirrors got fixed, I updated one of our 9.1 machines
to Cooker (i.e., practically 9.2) via urpmi, and it worked
absolutely flawlessly! Admittedly it's a clean machine - no non-mdk
packages -
I did the same the other
I did this last night on my wife's computer and it mostly worked. The
glitches that I had were related to urpmi not removing previous versions
of packages. So I would have something like:
libfoo1-1.2-2mdk
libfoo1-1.2-4mdk
both installed after the upgrade. Some packages would not upgrade
because
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lamikr]# urpmi --auto-select --no-verify-rpm
The following packages have to be removed for others to be upgraded:
drakconf-9.2-4mdk.i586 (due to unsatisfied harddrake-ui = 9.2-6mdk)
harddrake-9.2-11mdk.i586 (due to unsatisfied drakxtools-newt == 9.2-11mdk)
Le Mercredi 17 Septembre 2003 09:37, lamikr_mdk a écrit :
[EMAIL PROTECTED] lamikr]# urpmi --auto-select --no-verify-rpm
The following packages have to be removed for others to be upgraded:
drakconf-9.2-4mdk.i586 (due to unsatisfied harddrake-ui = 9.2-6mdk)
harddrake-9.2-11mdk.i586 (due to
Leon Brooks [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:04, François Pons wrote:
Without a urpmi bug report, I can't do nothing on this topic, please
send me a urpmi bug report.
Hint: '--bug directory'
Yes ;-) I forget to add this...
Francois.
The command urpmi apache is not working properly but urpmi apache2 is working
properly (see bug 5667).
Laurent
Levi Ramsey [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
# urpmi OpenOffice.org
One of the following packages is needed:
1- OpenOffice.org-l10n-es-1.1-0.rc4.1mdk.i586
2- OpenOffice.org-l10n-ar-1.1-0.rc4.1mdk.i586
3- OpenOffice.org-l10n-ca-1.1-0.rc4.1mdk.i586
4- OpenOffice.org-l10n-cs-1.1-0.rc4.1mdk.i586
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
September 15, 2003 03:04 am, François Pons wrote:
snip
Without a urpmi bug report, I can't do nothing on this topic, please
send me a urpmi bug report.
François.
I had the same problem but don't have a bug report. I did get my install
fixed
On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 17:04, François Pons wrote:
Without a urpmi bug report, I can't do nothing on this topic, please
send me a urpmi bug report.
Hint: '--bug directory'
Cheers; Leon
# urpmi OpenOffice.org
One of the following packages is needed:
1- OpenOffice.org-l10n-es-1.1-0.rc4.1mdk.i586
2- OpenOffice.org-l10n-ar-1.1-0.rc4.1mdk.i586
3- OpenOffice.org-l10n-ca-1.1-0.rc4.1mdk.i586
4- OpenOffice.org-l10n-cs-1.1-0.rc4.1mdk.i586
5- OpenOffice.org-l10n-da-1.1-0.rc4.1mdk.i586
Hi,
Apt4rpm (http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/) have the same fonctionality as
URPMI.
URPMI is a greet tool but why reinvent the wheel ?
Mdk team is not big at this time, why loose time with a redundant software
devel ?
And Rpmdrake could be changed to use apt-get, no ?
thanks
On Fri, 2003-09-12 at 12:02, vbnh fdgfd wrote:
Hi,
Apt4rpm (http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/) have the same fonctionality as
URPMI.
URPMI is a greet tool but why reinvent the wheel ?
Mdk team is not big at this time, why loose time with a redundant software
devel ?
And Rpmdrake could
Le ven 12/09/2003 à 13:02, vbnh fdgfd a écrit :
Hi,
Apt4rpm (http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/) have the same fonctionality as
URPMI.
URPMI is a greet tool but why reinvent the wheel ?
Mdk team is not big at this time, why loose time with a redundant software
devel ?
And Rpmdrake
On Friday 12 September 2003 13:02, vbnh fdgfd wrote:
Hi,
Apt4rpm (http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/) have the same fonctionality
as URPMI.
URPMI is a greet tool but why reinvent the wheel ?
yes.
so, can you tell to people who ported apt that urpmi was here before
apt-rpm, and then, they
Le Vendredi 12 Septembre 2003 13:27, Teletchéa Stéphane a écrit :
urpmi is THE killer feature of Mandrake above all others distributions.
Apt was a must, but for now, it seems urpmi is better (from my point of
view ...)
Free software always need a friendly competition with at least two great
Le ven 12/09/2003 à 14:49, Pierre Jarillon a écrit :
Le Vendredi 12 Septembre 2003 13:27, Teletchéa Stéphane a écrit :
urpmi is THE killer feature of Mandrake above all others distributions.
Apt was a must, but for now, it seems urpmi is better (from my point of
view ...)
Free software
Le Vendredi 12 Septembre 2003 15:11, Teletchéa Stéphane a écrit :
Le ven 12/09/2003 à 14:49, Pierre Jarillon a écrit :
Le Vendredi 12 Septembre 2003 13:27, Teletchéa Stéphane a écrit :
urpmi is THE killer feature of Mandrake above all others distributions.
Apt was a must, but for now, it
I could agree if apt and urpmi were only for the same purpose, but did
urpmi-parallel (possibility to install on many differents machines of a
cluster -may be a subnetwork-) exists for apt for example ?
If this feature is so great, why don't include it in apt4rpm ?
Both are opensource, no ?
If
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:28:50 +
_ cosmicflo [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I could agree if apt and urpmi were only for the same purpose, but did
urpmi-parallel (possibility to install on many differents machines of a
cluster -may be a subnetwork-) exists for apt for example ?
If this
On Friday 12 September 2003 16:19, Pierre Jarillon wrote:
Le Vendredi 12 Septembre 2003 15:11, Teletchéa Stéphane a écrit :
Le ven 12/09/2003 à 14:49, Pierre Jarillon a écrit :
Le Vendredi 12 Septembre 2003 13:27, Teletchéa Stéphane a écrit :
urpmi is THE killer feature of Mandrake above
Marcel Pol [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I quote a reply from Pixel here, from February 24 2002 (Yes, it was discussed
before :-) )
quote
there was a moment where we had 2 solutions, both time costly:
- dump urpmi, and switch to apt-get
- enhance urpmi
cons for switching to apt-get:
-
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Michael Scherer wrote:
On Friday 12 September 2003 13:02, vbnh fdgfd wrote:
Apt4rpm (http://apt4rpm.sourceforge.net/) have the same fonctionality
as URPMI.
Note that apt4rpm and apt-rpm are different tools, apt-rpm is a fork of
debian apt, apt4rpm is some kind of
On Friday 12 September 2003 22:09, Christiaan Welvaart wrote:
On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Michael Scherer wrote:
or you can use synaptics.
it reminds me that it is not packaged for contribs :/
I packaged it months ago, after I fixed apt to work with cooker
mirrors directly. But it looks like I
Le Vendredi 12 Septembre 2003 17:07, Michael Scherer a écrit :
It would be nice to make a package for Mandrake and
Debian with the same tool.
what would be the benefit ?
To reduce the amount of time needed and spent to make packages.
being able to install the same package on the 2 distros
Ainsi parlait Pierre Jarillon :
Le Vendredi 12 Septembre 2003 17:07, Michael Scherer a écrit :
It would be nice to make a package for Mandrake and
Debian with the same tool.
what would be the benefit ?
To reduce the amount of time needed and spent to make packages.
You're kidding ?
Le Samedi 13 Septembre 2003 04:05, Guillaume Rousse a écrit :
Ainsi parlait Pierre Jarillon :
If you're interested in xml, see what was done in JPackage project to
produce redhat and mandrake spec from the same base XML file.
can anyone explain to me why this package is installing:
# urpmi -v libfreetype6
examining synthesis file [/var/lib/urpmi/synthesis.hdlist.main0.cz]
examining synthesis file [/var/lib/urpmi/synthesis.hdlist.contrib0.cz]
examining synthesis file [/var/lib/urpmi/synthesis.hdlist.plf.cz]
skipping
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:18:21 +0200
Kim Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but still it takes the plf one and also skips the mdk package.
Which release did you have installed, plf or mdk?
Calling as urpmi pkg Name will override that entry in the skip.list
but when the version-release are the
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:45:21 -0400
Charles A Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:18:21 +0200
Kim Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but still it takes the plf one and also skips the mdk package.
Which release did you have installed, plf or mdk?
Calling as urpmi pkg
On Thu, 2003-09-11 at 20:46, Kim Schulz wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 15:45:21 -0400
Charles A Edwards [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 21:18:21 +0200
Kim Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but still it takes the plf one and also skips the mdk package.
Which release did
Hi,
When upgrading from 9.1 to cooker (after having done urpmi urpmi), I get
the following error if I try to urpmi a package :
# urpmi libarts1-devel --bug bad_array_ref
Can't use string (libm.so) as an ARRAY ref while strict refs in use
at /usr/lib/perl5/vendor_perl/5.8.1/urpm.pm line 3208.
#
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 13:17:05 +0200
Olivier Blin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi,
When upgrading from 9.1 to cooker (after having done urpmi urpmi), I
get the following error if I try to urpmi a package :
# urpmi libarts1-devel --bug bad_array_ref
Can't use string (libm.so) as an ARRAY ref
update your perl-URPM and make sure you have the latest urpmi too.
those two should be required by each other because missing one of the
in the right version will break the other.
Hi,
I've the latest urpmi and perl-URPM.
Regards
--
Olivier Blin
Olivier Blin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hi,
Hi Olivier,
When upgrading from 9.1 to cooker (after having done urpmi urpmi), I get
the following error if I try to urpmi a package :
# urpmi libarts1-devel --bug bad_array_ref
Can't use string (libm.so) as an ARRAY ref while strict refs in
Hi,
I'm updating one of the machines at the office what was running an early
post-9.1 cooker, before the lib-ilization of KDE. When I tried to update of
course it complained about all the dependencies.. so I'm updating with the
command line:
urpmi --auto-select --allow-nodeps
installation de
//var/mirror/cooker/cooker/i586/Mandrake/RPMS/bootloader-utils-1.6-1mdk.i586.rpm
Préparation...
##
L'installation a échoué:
file /etc/rc.d/init.d/kheader from install of
bootloader-utils-1.6-1mdk conflicts with file from
Pascal Terjan wrote:
installation de
//var/mirror/cooker/cooker/i586/Mandrake/RPMS/bootloader-utils-1.6-1mdk.i586.rpm
Préparation... ##
L'installation a échoué:
file /etc/rc.d/init.d/kheader from install of
bootloader-utils-1.6-1mdk
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 22:28:14 +0200
Pascal Terjan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A conflict between bootloader-utils-1.6-1mdk and initscripts =
7.06-23mdk would solve that.
I had suggested a prereq in bootloader utils for initscripts =
7.06-21mdk, since the conflict only occurs because
On Friday 05 September 2003 04:52 pm, Charles A Edwards wrote:
On Fri, 05 Sep 2003 22:28:14 +0200
Pascal Terjan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A conflict between bootloader-utils-1.6-1mdk and initscripts =
7.06-23mdk would solve that.
I had suggested a prereq in bootloader utils for
Guillaume Rousse wrote:
Ainsi parlait Liam Quin :
urpmi now installs RPMs in batches - generally a good improvement.
However, if I'm asked, say,
package has bad signature, continue anyway?
I might be asked that question 10 times.
The actual problem comes from signature checking. That
hi
After upgrading urpmi and perl-URPM (why isn't there a version
requirement between these two?) yesterday I now cant do
urpmi --auto-select
It just stands still at the prompt until I ^C out of it (I had it
stading like this for 5 hours).
I can see in the process list that it runs and that it in
Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A media is marked update only if the user declares it using --update when
adding this media through urpmi.addmedia. Or is it some way for a media to
declare itself as update ?
Using rpmdrake, there is a check box to declare media as update (if my
Liam Quin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd like it to prompt
yes/always/No/reject all
I can't do that for 9.2, but I can make yes act as always and no act as reject
all.
It could be fixed more cleanly after 9.2
François.
Kim Schulz [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
hi
After upgrading urpmi and perl-URPM (why isn't there a version
requirement between these two?) yesterday I now cant do
urpmi --auto-select
It just stands still at the prompt until I ^C out of it (I had it
stading like this for 5 hours).
I can see in
François Pons wrote:
Liam Quin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd like it to prompt
yes/always/No/reject all
I can't do that for 9.2, but I can make yes act as always and no act as
reject
all.
It could be fixed more cleanly after 9.2
Call me overcautious, but I'd prefer not to have that
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (François Pons) writes:
Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
A media is marked update only if the user declares it using --update when
adding this media through urpmi.addmedia. Or is it some way for a media to
declare itself as update ?
Using rpmdrake, there
Paul Dorman [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
You can add the missing keys yourself with two commands:
gpg -a --export key mykey.gpg (where key is the key you want to add)
rpm --import mykey.gpg
Once you have the keys added, you can use
urpmi --auto-select --auto
These information are in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Liam Quin wrote:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 11:32:00AM +1200, Paul Dorman wrote:
You can add the missing keys yourself with two commands:
gpg -a --export key mykey.gpg (where key is the key you want to add)
rpm --import mykey.gpg
Yes. Actually
Liam Quin [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 11:32:00AM +1200, Paul Dorman wrote:
You can add the missing keys yourself with two commands:
gpg -a --export key mykey.gpg (where key is the key you want to add)
rpm --import mykey.gpg
Yes. Actually urpmi could usefully
On Thursday 04 September 2003 04:31 am, François Pons wrote:
After upgrading urpmi and perl-URPM (why isn't there a version
requirement between these two?) yesterday I now cant do
urpmi --auto-select
It just stands still at the prompt until I ^C out of it (I had it
stading like this for
s [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I can confirm that urpmi seems broken. mine does nothing but sit
there when calling up urpmi.update or urpmi. As far as bug report,
it doesn't say much/anything, if I'm looking in the right place.
in /var/log/urpmi.log all I get is:
Thu Sep 4 09:05:53 2003
--update was introduced many times ago to allow a primitive way of excluding
some media when using urpmi. It is primitive in the sense that you have to
declare those media at configuration time, when using urpmi.addmedia. It is
confusing because many people think of it as an equivalent of
Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--update was introduced many times ago to allow a primitive way of excluding
some media when using urpmi. It is primitive in the sense that you have to
declare those media at configuration time, when using urpmi.addmedia. It is
confusing because
Ainsi parlait François Pons :
Guillaume Rousse [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
--update was introduced many times ago to allow a primitive way of
excluding some media when using urpmi. It is primitive in the sense that
you have to declare those media at configuration time, when using
urpmi now installs RPMs in batches - generally a good improvement.
However, if I'm asked, say,
package has bad signature, continue anyway?
I might be asked that question 10 times.
The problem is that I want to leave a urpmi --auto-select
running, not having to check up on it every few
Ainsi parlait Liam Quin :
urpmi now installs RPMs in batches - generally a good improvement.
However, if I'm asked, say,
package has bad signature, continue anyway?
I might be asked that question 10 times.
The actual problem comes from signature checking. That should be fixed first.
--
On Thursday 04 September 2003 10:19, Liam Quin wrote:
urpmi now installs RPMs in batches - generally a good improvement.
However, if I'm asked, say,
package has bad signature, continue anyway?
I might be asked that question 10 times.
The problem is that I want to leave a urpmi
Paul Dorman wrote:
On Thursday 04 September 2003 10:19, Liam Quin wrote:
However, if I'm asked, say,
package has bad signature, continue anyway?
I might be asked that question 10 times.
The problem is that I want to leave a urpmi --auto-select
running, not having to check up on it every few
On Thu, Sep 04, 2003 at 11:32:00AM +1200, Paul Dorman wrote:
You can add the missing keys yourself with two commands:
gpg -a --export key mykey.gpg (where key is the key you want to add)
rpm --import mykey.gpg
Yes. Actually urpmi could usefully offer to do that automatically,
I suppose.
1 - 100 of 1196 matches
Mail list logo
