-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Pierre Fortin wrote on Tue, Nov 26, 2002 at 03:20:45PM -0500 :
>
> > Note that users'
> > interpretation of errors is usually different from developers'
> > interpretation. It's not an error if the program keeps running and
> > works properly, it's
On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 10:31, Todd Lyons wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jack Coates wrote on Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 09:37:53PM -0800 :
> > >
> > > Configuration is in /etc/urpmi. Data is in /var/lib/urpmi.
> > I agree in principle, but I also feel that if this were tru
On Tue, 26 Nov 2002 10:23:52 -0800 Todd Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Note that users'
> interpretation of errors is usually different from developers'
> interpretation. It's not an error if the program keeps running and
> works properly, it's only a warning. It's an error if the program
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jack Coates wrote on Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 09:37:53PM -0800 :
> >
> > Configuration is in /etc/urpmi. Data is in /var/lib/urpmi.
> I agree in principle, but I also feel that if this were truly the case,
> backing up and restoring /etc/urpmi/ or mailin
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Pierre Fortin wrote on Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 09:42:29PM -0500 :
> >
> > Configuration is in /etc/urpmi. Data is in /var/lib/urpmi.
> The file that seems to be interfering is
> hdlist.Updates for Mandrake Linux 8.2 (ftp1u).cz
If there's no definition
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 17:23, Todd Lyons wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jack Coates wrote on Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:12:20PM -0800 :
> > >
> > > Anyway, unless there is some implied version info, there is nothing
> > > specifying version in this (unless I'm blind):
>
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 16:12, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 15:09, Pierre Fortin wrote:
> > On 25 Nov 2002 09:37:51 -0800 Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > > did you delete the 8.2 entries from urpmi's config?
> >
> > Shouldn't that have been done by 9.0...? I've always d
On Mon, 25 Nov 2002 17:23:22 -0800 Todd Lyons <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Jack Coates wrote on Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:12:20PM -0800 :
> > >
> > > Anyway, unless there is some implied version info, there is nothing
> > > specifying version in
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jack Coates wrote on Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 04:12:20PM -0800 :
> >
> > Anyway, unless there is some implied version info, there is nothing
> > specifying version in this (unless I'm blind):
> One thing about urpmi that doesn't thrill me is that its conf
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 15:09, Pierre Fortin wrote:
> On 25 Nov 2002 09:37:51 -0800 Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > did you delete the 8.2 entries from urpmi's config?
>
> Shouldn't that have been done by 9.0...? I've always done "rpm -ivh"
> installs in the past... thought I'd try the
On 25 Nov 2002 09:37:51 -0800 Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 07:40, Pierre Fortin wrote:
> > On my new ThinkPad, I first installed LM8.2, then *upgraded* to 9.0...
> >
> > now, when I try to install additional s/w, urpmi fails; but MCC/SPI
> > works... what gives?
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 07:40, Pierre Fortin wrote:
> On my new ThinkPad, I first installed LM8.2, then *upgraded* to 9.0...
> now, when I try to install additional s/w, urpmi fails; but MCC/SPI
> works... what gives??? For example, I get the following response BOTH
> before and after a successful
On my new ThinkPad, I first installed LM8.2, then *upgraded* to 9.0...
now, when I try to install additional s/w, urpmi fails; but MCC/SPI
works... what gives??? For example, I get the following response BOTH
before and after a successful MCC/SPI install:
# urpmi
/mnt/cdrom/Mandrake/RPMS2/libg
13 matches
Mail list logo
