Thank You All
Advice worked perfectly and is appreciated.
Since we don't use adobe I think we can just get rid of the adobe-linux stuff.
Again
Thank You
Larry Linder
On Sunday 22 July 2012 12:08 pm, you wrote:
On Sun, Jul 22, 2012 at 11:02 AM, Larry Linder
larry.lin...@micro-controls.com
Either there is something in your /etc/yum.repos.d that is pointing to that
site
Or there is one of the mirrorlists that your /etc/yum.repos.d is pointing to,
that is.
What happens if you do
Yum --disablerepo=adobe-linux list
Steve
-Original Message-
From:
I think he needs to exclude the mono repo; the adobe one seems fine from his
output (thanks for including it!).
yum --disablerepo=mono list
On 07/22/2012 12:06 PM, Steven C Timm wrote:
Either there is something in your /etc/yum.repos.d that is pointing to that site
Or there is one of the
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, FRANCHISSEUR Robert wrote:
Hello,
Back from vacation, I notice that somme of our 5.2 machines were not =
updated
and I don't understand why.
yum is OK every where :
Updating:
yum noarch 3.2.19-25.sl sl-security =
925 k
but some machines
-- Le (On) 2009-07-21 -0500 à (at) 16:28:35 Connie Sieh écrivit (wrote): --
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, FRANCHISSEUR Robert wrote:
Hello,
Back from vacation, I notice that somme of our 5.2 machines were not =
updated
and I don't understand why.
yum is OK every where :
Updating:
yum
-- Le (On) 2009-07-22 +0200 à (at) 00:58:22 Franchisseur Robert écrivit
(wrote): --
-- Le (On) 2009-07-21 -0500 à (at) 16:28:35 Connie Sieh écrivit (wrote): --
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009, FRANCHISSEUR Robert wrote:
snip
Can you try to upgrade these manually via yum and send back the error
06/02/2009 в 17:42 +0100, Urs Beyerle:
As a separate question, how do I easily deduce which SL version I am
running?
cat /etc/redhat-release
Or go by the way of Linux Standard Base -- use lsb_release utility. For
example, in our SL-incarnation for Russian school education named
Troy J Dawson wrote:
WILLIAM J LUTTER wrote:
Following a Feb 06 update of the sudo package to sudo.i386 1.6.9p17-3.el5_3.1 I find that its behavior has changed for my simple usage. The linux box runs SL5.1 (earliest SL5 as I remember).
As a separate question, how do I easily deduce which SL
