JP Rosevear <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not bumping the rev would be fine if no source and no deps changed, but
> the problem is that deps of the RPM will change right now and the rev
> will not be bumped, which seems incorrect.
See the discussion we have in bugzilla. The important point is th
On Mon, 2006-10-02 at 12:29 +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:14:22AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> >> Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> > No, you don't. You updated the db package (which is definitely part of
On Oct 02, 06 11:26:08 +0200, Robert Schiele wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:14:22AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> > Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > No, you don't. You updated the db package (which is definitely part of
> > > the
> >
> > That's a bug ;-(
Sorry, my fault. I
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 12:29:40PM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> I was a bit short: The problem is especially with release products.
> Your release today -9 and in a month -20 - with just one change. This
> confused a lot of customers and partners, they asked for the other 10
> changes...
You mu
Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:14:22AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> > No, you don't. You updated the db package (which is definitely part of the
>>
>> That's a bug ;-(
>
> This is what I am saying for years
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:14:22AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No, you don't. You updated the db package (which is definitely part of the
>
> That's a bug ;-(
This is what I am saying for years now but received only really stupid answers
in respo
Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:30:30AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
>> Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>> > Ok, sice nobody could answer this for more than 5 months now it seems that
>> > there is nobody here that has a clue about this bug.
>
On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 09:30:30AM +0200, Andreas Jaeger wrote:
> Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Ok, sice nobody could answer this for more than 5 months now it seems that
> > there is nobody here that has a clue about this bug.
>
> Sorry, if this got lost.
>
> > Just wanted to
Robert Schiele <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Ok, sice nobody could answer this for more than 5 months now it seems that
> there is nobody here that has a clue about this bug.
Sorry, if this got lost.
> Just wanted to inform you that YaST cannot handle this situation correctly and
> decides on up
On Mon, Aug 14, 2006 at 08:05:06PM +0200, Robert Schiele wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 03:28:04PM +0200, Robert Schiele wrote:
> > On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 11:46:18AM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:
> > > No, we don't raise the release number with every rebuild at the moment.
> >
> > So, now is yo
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 03:28:04PM +0200, Robert Schiele wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 11:46:18AM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:
> > No, we don't raise the release number with every rebuild at the moment.
>
> So, now is your chance to explain why this is the case. This was mentioned
> already o
On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 11:46:18AM +0200, Christoph Thiel wrote:
> No, we don't raise the release number with every rebuild at the moment.
So, now is your chance to explain why this is the case. This was mentioned
already once before only with the reason that there were some problems when
you did
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Pascal Bleser wrote:
> > Let's say that the compiler changes between releases, and the foo
> > oackage gets rebuilt. Now, foo's source and packaging didn't change,
> > so the version and release number don't change either. However, the
> > contents did change.
>
> In theor
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jon Nelson wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Tim Harper wrote:
...
>> That should at least upgrade all of your packges to the version of the next
>> distro. I've upgraded many a times fedora core from an entire number to the
>> next via yum, I don't see
On Thursday 13 April 2006 15:30, Jon Nelson wrote:
> Let's say that the compiler changes between releases, and the foo
> oackage gets rebuilt. Now, foo's source and packaging didn't change, so
> the version and release number don't change either. However, the
> contents did change.
Also, why would
On Thursday 13 April 2006 15:30, Jon Nelson wrote:
> One very good reason is that sometimes the version (and package) number
> of a package between betas (or rc's) and final may not change but the
> actual content may.
>
> What I mean is this: let's say you have a package 'foo' version 1.0,
> relea
On Thursday 13 April 2006 15:30, Jon Nelson wrote:
> Why oh *why* would you disable gpgcheck?
Because I don't know where to get the gpg key, and I don't want to take the
time to figure that out right now :P
Want to shed some enlightenment on the subject?
On Thu, 13 Apr 2006, Tim Harper wrote:
> If you can find the RPM repository, you could just create a yum repository
> file in /etc/yum.repos/suse-base to a install source (a url that contains the
> repodata folder)
>
> For example:
>
> [suse-base]
> name=suse-base
> baseurl=http://ftp.opensuse
If you can find the RPM repository, you could just create a yum repository
file in /etc/yum.repos/suse-base to a install source (a url that contains the
repodata folder)
For example:
[suse-base]
name=suse-base
baseurl=http://ftp.opensuse.org/pub/opensuse/distribution/SL-OSS-factory/inst-source/
Hi,
Also can you go from 10.1 RC1 to 10.1 final by just doing and online
update using YAST?
Thanks
Rene
Thomas Börkel wrote:
HI!
Is it already known, if I will be able to update a 10.1 RC1 installation
to 10.1 final (when available) by simply updating all changed RPMs?
Thanks!
Thomas
HI!
Is it already known, if I will be able to update a 10.1 RC1 installation
to 10.1 final (when available) by simply updating all changed RPMs?
Thanks!
Thomas
-
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional comm
21 matches
Mail list logo
