Mailing List Archive

Scientific Linux 6.2 - problem with yum releasever
The stock atrpms yum repo file uses $releasever to index dl.atrpms.net,
but on a fresh SL6 box I've just done, this manifests as “6.2” (from
sl-release's RPM version?).

However, dl.atrpms.net doesn't have a 6.2 dir. (only 6, 6.0 & 6.1).


Do I just manually frig the repo file to point to '6' (I don't want to
lock myself to 6.2, so the answer to this question is maybe more
wide-reaching than just atrpms)? This is what I'll do in the meantime, it
just feels ... dirty :)

--
[neil@fnx ~]# rm -f .signature
[neil@fnx ~]# ls -l .signature
ls: .signature: No such file or directory
[neil@fnx ~]# exit


_______________________________________________
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
Re: Scientific Linux 6.2 - problem with yum releasever [ In reply to ]
On 13/03/12 10:44, Neil Bird wrote:
>
> The stock atrpms yum repo file uses $releasever to index dl.atrpms.net,
> but on a fresh SL6 box I've just done, this manifests as “6.2” (from
> sl-release's RPM version?).
>
> However, dl.atrpms.net doesn't have a 6.2 dir. (only 6, 6.0 & 6.1).
>
>
> Do I just manually frig the repo file to point to '6' (I don't want to
> lock myself to 6.2, so the answer to this question is maybe more
> wide-reaching than just atrpms)? This is what I'll do in the meantime,
> it just feels ... dirty :)
>
I'm looking at my F15 box at present, but do you have 'atrpms-repo'
installed?



_______________________________________________
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
Re: Scientific Linux 6.2 - problem with yum releasever [ In reply to ]
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 10:44:35AM +0000, Neil Bird wrote:
>
> The stock atrpms yum repo file uses $releasever to index
> dl.atrpms.net, but on a fresh SL6 box I've just done, this manifests
> as “6.2” (from sl-release's RPM version?).
>
> However, dl.atrpms.net doesn't have a 6.2 dir. (only 6, 6.0 & 6.1).

Thanks for pointing this out, I added 6.2 symlinks. All point to the
same contents.

> Do I just manually frig the repo file to point to '6' (I don't
> want to lock myself to 6.2, so the answer to this question is maybe
> more wide-reaching than just atrpms)? This is what I'll do in the
> meantime, it just feels ... dirty :)
>
> --
> [neil@fnx ~]# rm -f .signature
> [neil@fnx ~]# ls -l .signature
> ls: .signature: No such file or directory
> [neil@fnx ~]# exit
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> atrpms-users mailing list
> atrpms-users@atrpms.net
> http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users

--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

_______________________________________________
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
Re: Scientific Linux 6.2 - problem with yum releasever [ In reply to ]
Around about 13/03/12 23:27, Axel Thimm typed ...
> Thanks for pointing this out, I added 6.2 symlinks. All point to the
> same contents.

Thanks!

--
[neil@fnx ~]# rm -f .signature
[neil@fnx ~]# ls -l .signature
ls: .signature: No such file or directory
[neil@fnx ~]# exit

_______________________________________________
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
Re: Scientific Linux 6.2 - problem with yum releasever [ In reply to ]
Around about 13/03/12 23:27, Axel Thimm typed ...
> Thanks for pointing this out, I added 6.2 symlinks. All point to the
> same contents.

Actually, sorry to be a pest, but the same applies to /src/sl6*

--
[neil@fnx ~]# rm -f .signature
[neil@fnx ~]# ls -l .signature
ls: .signature: No such file or directory
[neil@fnx ~]# exit

_______________________________________________
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users
Re: Scientific Linux 6.2 - problem with yum releasever [ In reply to ]
On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 09:13:19AM +0000, Neil Bird wrote:
> Around about 13/03/12 23:27, Axel Thimm typed ...
> >Thanks for pointing this out, I added 6.2 symlinks. All point to the
> >same contents.
>
> Actually, sorry to be a pest, but the same applies to /src/sl6*

OK, as well as for debuginfo packages. Done that as well. Although I'd
perfer if the distro wouldn't change releasever in an incompatible way
to RHEL.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

_______________________________________________
atrpms-users mailing list
atrpms-users@atrpms.net
http://lists.atrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/atrpms-users