Hi Folks,
I have an x86_64 box that I'm trying to install
openldap-servers.x86_64 on and its pulling in strange dependencies
ie:
# yum install openldap-servers
Loading "protectbase" plugin
Loading "kernel-module" plugin
Setting up Install Process
Setting up repositories
Reading repository metad
Hi All,
I can' install gnumeric under SL 6. I can't find it in the EPEL
repository anymore.
How can gnumeric install it under SL 6 on a X86_64 machine?
-Mauricio
Hi,
I'm looking into this.
Your subject says SL4x. Is that really where your yum is pointing or is
that just generic.
Can you send the output of
rpm -qa | grep yum | sort
Thanks
Troy
On 04/13/2011 06:32 AM, Andrew Elwell wrote:
Hi Folks,
I have an x86_64 box that I'm trying to install
open
> Your subject says SL4x. Is that really where your yum is pointing or is
> that just generic.
we try and follow the x versions
> Can you send the output of
> rpm -qa | grep yum | sort
[root@vtb-generic-34 ~]# rpm -qa | grep yum | sort
warning: only V3 signatures can be verified, skipping V4 si
Hello,
I'm going to trim some of this and do "middle posts" hope you don't mind.
...
On 04/13/2011 06:32 AM, Andrew Elwell wrote:
...
# yum install openldap-servers
...
Dependencies Resolved
=
Package
Aha! found the issue
> Yum should be getting openldap-servers version 2.2.13-12.el4_8.3
> Do you not have your sl-security repo enabled?
It was enabled, but, because we had 'protect=1' on sl-base it wasn't
being picked up:
[root@vtb-generic-34 yum.repos.d]# yum search openldap-servers
Loading "
Several users started complaining today about various X apps, such as
xterm and emacs, that no longer look the way they want. It looks like
the resources they set in their .Xresources files are no longer set.
In ~/.xsession-errors I find the following:
sh: -c: line 0: unexpected EOF while look
David M. Cooke writes:
> Several users started complaining today about various X apps, such
> as xterm and emacs, that no longer look the way they want. It looks
> like the resources they set in their .Xresources files are no longer
> set.
Same in EL6. The changelog for this package says:
* Wed
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 7:47 AM, Alec T. Habig wrote:
> David M. Cooke writes:
>> Several users started complaining today about various X apps, such
>> as xterm and emacs, that no longer look the way they want. It looks
>> like the resources they set in their .Xresources files are no longer
>> se
Hi all,
I'm new t Scientific Linux but not to Linux, I'm trying SL because I'm
looking for a RHEL 6 free distribution and at CentOS they are still
working.
I tried to install using SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso
into a VirtualBox virtual machine. I verified the ISO using sha256
On 13/04/11 15:47, Alec T. Habig wrote:
David M. Cooke writes:
Several users started complaining today about various X apps, such
as xterm and emacs, that no longer look the way they want. It looks
like the resources they set in their .Xresources files are no longer
set.
Same in EL6. The cha
On 04/13/2011 08:11 AM, Stefano Canepa wrote:
Hi all,
I'm new t Scientific Linux but not to Linux, I'm trying SL because I'm
looking for a RHEL 6 free distribution and at CentOS they are still
working.
I tried to install using SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso
into a VirtualBox v
Hi,
I've been a CentOS user for a few years, and I just decided to switch to
SL. I installed it on two of my sandbox PCs in my office. First reaction
: I like it a lot!
I expect a few things to be different than CentOS, and maybe the odd
rough edge here and there. First things first.
Does
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:
I've been a CentOS user for a few years, and I just decided to switch to SL.
I installed it on two of my sandbox PCs in my office. First reaction
: I like it a lot!
I expect a few things to be different than CentOS, and maybe the odd rough
edge her
Stefano Canepa wrote on 04/13/2011 11:11 AM:
...
I tried to install using SL-60-i386-2011-03-03-Everything-DVD1.iso
into a VirtualBox virtual machine. I verified the ISO using sha256sum
and also inside installer but it stops installing MAKEDEV claiming it is
corrupted on DVD.
I have done multip
Nicolas Kovacs wrote on 04/13/2011 02:48 PM:
I'm aware this question could possible (also?) belong on the RPMForge
mailing list, though I'm not exactly sure.
Did you install the rpmforge-release package provided by SL?
Which third party repo do you guys recommend?
This seems like a pretty d
Le 13/04/2011 20:59, Dag Wieers a écrit :
I would be interested to know what yum errors you got, and
distribution/arch and other relevant information. :-)
Here goes :
# cat /etc/issue
Scientific Linux release 6.0 (Carbon)
# yum repolist
repo id repo name sta
On 04/13/2011 12:38 PM, Phil Schaffner wrote:
Can't say it is perfect, but "riddled with bugs" seems a bit
exaggerated. My overall experiences with VB have been very positive.
Phil
Not "exaggerated". Years of pain and experience.
Wait until you get your job threatened over it. Fortunate
On 04/13/2011 01:00 PM, Phil Schaffner wrote:
Nicolas Kovacs wrote on 04/13/2011 02:48 PM:
I'm aware this question could possible (also?) belong on the RPMForge
mailing list, though I'm not exactly sure.
Did you install the rpmforge-release package provided by SL?
Which third party repo do y
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:
Le 13/04/2011 20:59, Dag Wieers a écrit :
I would be interested to know what yum errors you got, and
distribution/arch and other relevant information. :-)
Here goes :
# cat /etc/issue
Scientific Linux release 6.0 (Carbon)
# yum repolist
repo id
Le 13/04/2011 22:33, Dag Wieers a écrit :
These requirements are all SL 6.0 packages, so I assume there's
something wrong with your yum configuration.
[dag@moria ~]# rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libesd.so.0
esound-libs-0.2.41-3.1.el6.x86_64
[dag@moria ~]# rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libcppunit-1.12.so.1
cppunit-
On Wed, 13 Apr 2011, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:
Le 13/04/2011 22:33, Dag Wieers a =E9crit :
These requirements are all SL 6.0 packages, so I assume there's
something wrong with your yum configuration.
[dag@moria ~]# rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libesd.so.0
esound-libs-0.2.41-3.1.el6.x86_64
[dag@moria ~]# r
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Nicolas Kovacs wrote:
> Le 13/04/2011 22:33, Dag Wieers a écrit :
>
>>
>> These requirements are all SL 6.0 packages, so I assume there's
>> something wrong with your yum configuration.
>>
>> [dag@moria ~]# rpm -qf /usr/lib64/libesd.so.0
>> esound-libs-0.2.41-3.1.e
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Todd And Margo Chester
wrote:
> On 04/13/2011 12:38 PM, Phil Schaffner wrote:
>>
>> Can't say it is perfect, but "riddled with bugs" seems a bit exaggerated.
>> My overall experiences with VB have been very positive.
>>
>> Phil
>>
> Not "exaggerated". Years of pa
On 04/13/2011 07:35 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 4:08 PM, Todd And Margo Chester
wrote:
On 04/13/2011 12:38 PM, Phil Schaffner wrote:
Can't say it is perfect, but "riddled with bugs" seems a bit exaggerated.
My overall experiences with VB have been very positive.
Ph
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:58 PM, Todd And Margo Chester
wrote:
> I tried VB 4.0.x, but it was so much slower that 3.2.12 with my XP
> guest that I ripped it back off and replaced it with 3.2.12. I
> will be trying KVM on a new server to see how it fares.
You need to go *straight* to VMWare. D
Le 14/04/2011 03:39, Nico Kadel-Garcia a écrit :
Yeah, I just hopped over from CentOS due to the delays in release and
the invisibility of the build process there. I'm pretty happy with SL
6.0.
+1.
Quite some familiar names around this mailing list. As far as I'm
concerned, I expected some so
27 matches
Mail list logo
