astall...@regalmann.com wrote:
> I am running Scientific Linux 4.3 and I want to upgrade to the latest
> version 5.4. Now, I have downloaded the two .iso files. If I install these,
> will I be able to keep my existing file system, or will the volume in my
> hard drive be erased, and hence I will
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, astall...@regalmann.com wrote:
I am running Scientific Linux 4.3 and I want to upgrade to the latest
version 5.4. Now, I have downloaded the two .iso files. If I install
these, will I be able to keep my existing file system, or will the
volume in my hard drive be erased, and
When you do any upgrade its always important to make a backup of critical
system files along with the user space. If you have any special daemons running
make sure to backup the config files for those as well. From 4 to 4 there were
some base level changes, so you may have to do a bit of tweakin
Quoting Donald Tripp :
When you do any upgrade its always important to make a backup of
critical system files along with the user space. If you have any
special daemons running make sure to backup the config files for
those as well. From 4 to 4 there were some base level changes, so
you m
On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, astall...@regalmann.com wrote:
Thank you all for that helpful information. However, I have run into another
problem. I have mounted the first .iso file but I can not find where the
installation file--is it .sh or .exe?--is. Does anybody know what file to
look for in order t
Tim,
It's interesting that the rpms for the 3.05 version of syslog-ng are
correctly named with a "x86_64.rpm" extension. Perhaps you could use
those and sidestep this problem?
-Ed
Tim Edwards wrote:
These packages are from the syslog-ng site. The name seems to match
what's inside the pack
astall...@regalmann.com wrote:
...
Thank you all for that helpful information. However, I have run into
another problem. I have mounted the first .iso file but I can not find
where the installation file--is it .sh or .exe?--is. Does anybody know
what file to look for in order to get this s
Ed Brown wrote:
> Tim,
>
> It's interesting that the rpms for the 3.05 version of syslog-ng are
> correctly named with a "x86_64.rpm" extension. Perhaps you could use
> those and sidestep this problem?
>
> -Ed
Thanks, I didn't notice they'd released that but it fixes the problem. I
also checked
Tim Edwards wrote:
I also checked again and it looks like RHEL5.4 has the same behaviour
(ignoring amd64 arch) so I guess there's no fault in SL.
I wondered about that. I believe the naming convention for architecture
is built into rpm itself, that this would not just be a yum problem.
-Ed
