FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 01-10-2012, 02:13 AM
email builder
 
Default

After solving my problem by downgrading perl-NetAddr-IP to the CentOS
repo's version, yum is of course telling me perl-NetAddr-IP is out of date
and needs to be updated (back to the buggy one in RepoForge).

So looks like yum-priorities is in order (ha! the pun!), but I have a question

>> Hmm, OK, prioritze CentOS repo over RepoForge then will yum update

>> figure out the rest?* I don't see any priority settings in my yum conf
>> files...
>
> # yum list | grep priorities
> yum-priorities.noarch********************* 1.1.16-16.el5.centos******* installed
>
> # cat /etc/yum/pluginconf.d/priorities.conf
> [main]
> enabled = 1
> check_obsoletes=1
>
> Then add "priority=n" to the repos sections.
> n=1 for CentOS
> n=2 for repo 2
> etc...

If I already have a bunch of packages from RepoForge, some of which
might also be in the CentOS repo (some presumably with lower version
numbers), what happens after installing and configuring yum-priorities?*

Do those packages automatically get downgraded?* Does yum complain
and tell me I should downgrade?* I assume upgrades would happen per
usual if there are newer versions of packages in CentOS repo.

I'm slightly concerned because I have a handful of packages that got
installed automatically from RepoForge when I installed amavisd-new
from there, and I'd hate to break something.

Thanks for any preemptive advice!!!!
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-10-2012, 02:59 AM
Anthony
 
Default

On 2012-01-10 14:13, email builder wrote:
...
<snip>
...
> If I already have a bunch of packages from RepoForge, some of which
> might also be in the CentOS repo (some presumably with lower version
> numbers), what happens after installing and configuring
> yum-priorities?*
>
> Do those packages automatically get downgraded?* Does yum complain
> and tell me I should downgrade?* I assume upgrades would happen per
> usual if there are newer versions of packages in CentOS repo.
>
> I'm slightly concerned because I have a handful of packages that got
> installed automatically from RepoForge when I installed amavisd-new
> from there, and I'd hate to break something.

If the packages are _NEWER_ than those in CentOS, then no, they will
not be overwritten.

You might also consider installing yum-protectbase.

You'd then have to make a conscious effort to overwrite the base
packages!

Cheers,
ak.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-10-2012, 05:04 AM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default

On 01/09/2012 09:59 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On 2012-01-10 14:13, email builder wrote:
> ...
> <snip>
> ...
>> If I already have a bunch of packages from RepoForge, some of which
>> might also be in the CentOS repo (some presumably with lower version
>> numbers), what happens after installing and configuring
>> yum-priorities?
>>
>> Do those packages automatically get downgraded? Does yum complain
>> and tell me I should downgrade? I assume upgrades would happen per
>> usual if there are newer versions of packages in CentOS repo.
>>
>> I'm slightly concerned because I have a handful of packages that got
>> installed automatically from RepoForge when I installed amavisd-new
>> from there, and I'd hate to break something.
> If the packages are _NEWER_ than those in CentOS, then no, they will
> not be overwritten.
>
> You might also consider installing yum-protectbase.
>
> You'd then have to make a conscious effort to overwrite the base
> packages!
You need to do the same thing with yum-priorities as well ... basically,
yum-protectbase and yum-priorities are the same thing, with protectbase
having 2 priority groups (1 and 0) with priorities has 99 priority
groups (99 down to 1). I would use yum-priorities and not yum-protectbase.

In both cases, you are not going to be told about packages already
installed that are newer than those in the CentOS.

You can find those RPMs though by doing this:

rpm -qa | egrep ".rf" | sort


that will tell you all repoforge rpms installed ... then do this to see
which ones also have duplicates from base or updates:


yum --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=base --enablerepo=updates
--showduplicates list all $(rpm -q --qf '%{name} ' $(rpm -qa | grep ".rf"))


That should work to tell you which .rf packages are also in base or
updates.


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-10-2012, 05:04 AM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default

On 01/09/2012 09:59 PM, Anthony wrote:
> On 2012-01-10 14:13, email builder wrote:
> ...
> <snip>
> ...
>> If I already have a bunch of packages from RepoForge, some of which
>> might also be in the CentOS repo (some presumably with lower version
>> numbers), what happens after installing and configuring
>> yum-priorities?
>>
>> Do those packages automatically get downgraded? Does yum complain
>> and tell me I should downgrade? I assume upgrades would happen per
>> usual if there are newer versions of packages in CentOS repo.
>>
>> I'm slightly concerned because I have a handful of packages that got
>> installed automatically from RepoForge when I installed amavisd-new
>> from there, and I'd hate to break something.
> If the packages are _NEWER_ than those in CentOS, then no, they will
> not be overwritten.
>
> You might also consider installing yum-protectbase.
>
> You'd then have to make a conscious effort to overwrite the base
> packages!
You need to do the same thing with yum-priorities as well ... basically,
yum-protectbase and yum-priorities are the same thing, with protectbase
having 2 priority groups (1 and 0) with priorities has 99 priority
groups (99 down to 1). I would use yum-priorities and not yum-protectbase.

In both cases, you are not going to be told about packages already
installed that are newer than those in the CentOS.

You can find those RPMs though by doing this:

rpm -qa | egrep ".rf" | sort


that will tell you all repoforge rpms installed ... then do this to see
which ones also have duplicates from base or updates:


yum --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=base --enablerepo=updates
--showduplicates list all $(rpm -q --qf '%{name} ' $(rpm -qa | grep ".rf"))


That should work to tell you which .rf packages are also in base or
updates.


_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-10-2012, 07:06 AM
Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
 
Default

Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 01/09/2012 09:59 PM, Anthony wrote:
>
> In both cases, you are not going to be told about packages already
> installed that are newer than those in the CentOS.
>
> You can find those RPMs though by doing this:
>
> rpm -qa | egrep ".rf" | sort
>
>
> that will tell you all repoforge rpms installed ... then do this to see
> which ones also have duplicates from base or updates:
>
>
> yum --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=base --enablerepo=updates
> --showduplicates list all $(rpm -q --qf '%{name} ' $(rpm -qa | grep ".rf"))
>
>
> That should work to tell you which .rf packages are also in base or
> updates.

and if you find any that are .rf (not .rfx==repoforge extras), you can
report them to the repoforge mailing list or on their github, because
packages that conflict with base+updates are supposed to be in rfx now,
not rf.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-10-2012, 08:07 AM
Arch Website Notification
 
Default

=== Signoff report for [community-testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/

There are currently:
* 16 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 4 fully signed off packages
* 39 packages missing signoffs
* 5 packages older than 14 days

(Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by
pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one
package per architecture, even if it is a split package.)


== New packages in [community-testing] in last 24 hours (16 total) ==

* dsniff-2.4b1-21 (i686)
* exim-4.77-2 (i686)
* libgda3-3.1.5-11 (i686)
* librcc-0.2.6-5 (i686)
* perl-berkeleydb-0.50-2 (i686)
* poedit-1.4.6.1-6 (i686)
* python-bsddb-5.2.0-3 (i686)
* xemacs-21.5.31-4 (i686)
* dsniff-2.4b1-21 (x86_64)
* exim-4.77-2 (x86_64)
* libgda3-3.1.5-11 (x86_64)
* librcc-0.2.6-5 (x86_64)
* perl-berkeleydb-0.50-2 (x86_64)
* poedit-1.4.6.1-6 (x86_64)
* python-bsddb-5.2.0-3 (x86_64)
* xemacs-21.5.31-4 (x86_64)


== Incomplete signoffs for [community] (37 total) ==

* dsniff-2.4b1-21 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* exim-4.77-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* expac-0.07-1 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* fcron-3.0.6-5 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* gogglesmm-0.12.6-1 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* libgda3-3.1.5-11 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* librcc-0.2.6-5 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* me-tv-2.0.1-3 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* ndiswrapper-1.57-3 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* openscenegraph-3.0.1-3 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* packagekit-0.6.19-5 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* perl-berkeleydb-0.50-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* pkgtools-23-3 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* poedit-1.4.6.1-6 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* python-bsddb-5.2.0-3 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* tomoyo-tools-2.5.0.20111025-1 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* vdrift-2011.10.22-3 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* virtualbox-modules-4.1.8-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* xemacs-21.5.31-4 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* xfmedia-0.9.2-10 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* dsniff-2.4b1-21 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* exim-4.77-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* fcron-3.0.6-5 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* gogglesmm-0.12.6-1 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* libgda3-3.1.5-11 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* librcc-0.2.6-5 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* me-tv-2.0.1-3 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* ndiswrapper-1.57-3 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* openscenegraph-3.0.1-3 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* packagekit-0.6.19-5 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* perl-berkeleydb-0.50-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* poedit-1.4.6.1-6 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* python-bsddb-5.2.0-3 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* tomoyo-tools-2.5.0.20111025-1 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* vdrift-2011.10.22-3 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* xemacs-21.5.31-4 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* xfmedia-0.9.2-10 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs

== Incomplete signoffs for [unknown] (2 total) ==

* percona-server-5.5.18_rel23.0-1 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* percona-server-5.5.18_rel23.0-1 (x86_64)
1/2 signoffs


== Completed signoffs (4 total) ==

* pacman-contrib-4.0.1-1 (any)
* expac-0.07-1 (x86_64)
* pkgtools-23-3 (x86_64)
* virtualbox-modules-4.1.8-2 (x86_64)


== All packages in [community-testing] for more than 14 days (5 total) ==

* expac-0.07-1 (i686), since 2011-10-13
* expac-0.07-1 (x86_64), since 2011-10-13
* pacman-contrib-4.0.1-1 (any), since 2011-11-25
* percona-server-5.5.18_rel23.0-1 (i686), since 2011-12-23
* percona-server-5.5.18_rel23.0-1 (x86_64), since 2011-12-23


== Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==

1. stephane - 8 signoffs
2. ttopper - 4 signoffs
3. dreisner - 4 signoffs
 
Old 01-10-2012, 08:07 AM
Arch Website Notification
 
Default

=== Signoff report for [testing] ===
https://www.archlinux.org/packages/signoffs/

There are currently:
* 46 new packages in last 24 hours
* 0 known bad packages
* 0 packages not accepting signoffs
* 14 fully signed off packages
* 88 packages missing signoffs
* 3 packages older than 14 days

(Note: the word 'package' as used here refers to packages as grouped by
pkgbase, architecture, and repository; e.g., one PKGBUILD produces one
package per architecture, even if it is a split package.)


== New packages in [testing] in last 24 hours (46 total) ==

* db-5.3.15-1 (i686)
* iproute2-3.2.0-1 (i686)
* libsasl-2.1.23-9 (i686)
* openldap-2.4.28-2 (i686)
* pam-1.1.5-2 (i686)
* perl-5.14.2-6 (i686)
* db-5.3.15-1 (x86_64)
* iproute2-3.2.0-1 (x86_64)
* libsasl-2.1.23-9 (x86_64)
* openldap-2.4.28-2 (x86_64)
* pam-1.1.5-2 (x86_64)
* perl-5.14.2-6 (x86_64)
* apr-util-1.3.12-5 (i686)
* bogofilter-1.2.2-4 (i686)
* claws-mail-3.8.0-2 (i686)
* cyrus-sasl-2.1.23-9 (i686)
* evolution-data-server-3.2.3-2 (i686)
* evolution-exchange-3.2.1-2 (i686)
* evolution-groupwise-3.2.1-2 (i686)
* hplip-3.11.12-1 (i686)
* java7-openjdk-7.b147_2.0-5 (i686)
* libetpan-1.0-4 (i686)
* libreoffice-3.4.4-5 (i686)
* moc-20110528-5 (i686)
* php-5.3.8-7 (i686)
* postfix-2.8.7-2 (i686)
* redland-1:1.0.15-3 (i686)
* ruby-1.9.3_p0-3 (i686)
* subversion-1.7.2-2 (i686)
* apr-util-1.3.12-5 (x86_64)
* bogofilter-1.2.2-4 (x86_64)
* claws-mail-3.8.0-2 (x86_64)
* cyrus-sasl-2.1.23-9 (x86_64)
* evolution-data-server-3.2.3-2 (x86_64)
* evolution-exchange-3.2.1-2 (x86_64)
* evolution-groupwise-3.2.1-2 (x86_64)
* hplip-3.11.12-1 (x86_64)
* java7-openjdk-7.b147_2.0-5 (x86_64)
* libetpan-1.0-4 (x86_64)
* libreoffice-3.4.4-5 (x86_64)
* moc-20110528-5 (x86_64)
* php-5.3.8-7 (x86_64)
* postfix-2.8.7-2 (x86_64)
* redland-1:1.0.15-3 (x86_64)
* ruby-1.9.3_p0-3 (x86_64)
* subversion-1.7.2-2 (x86_64)


== Incomplete signoffs for [core] (17 total) ==

* db-5.3.15-1 (i686)
1/2 signoffs
* iproute2-3.2.0-1 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* kernel26-lts-2.6.32.53-1 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* libsasl-2.1.23-9 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* linux-3.2-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* openldap-2.4.28-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* pacman-4.0.1-3 (i686)
1/2 signoffs
* pam-1.1.5-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* perl-5.14.2-6 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* util-linux-2.20.1-2 (i686)
1/2 signoffs
* db-5.3.15-1 (x86_64)
1/2 signoffs
* iproute2-3.2.0-1 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* kernel26-lts-2.6.32.53-1 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* libsasl-2.1.23-9 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* openldap-2.4.28-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* pam-1.1.5-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* perl-5.14.2-6 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs

== Incomplete signoffs for [extra] (71 total) ==

* apr-util-1.3.12-5 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* bogofilter-1.2.2-4 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* claws-mail-3.8.0-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* claws-mail-extra-plugins-3.8.0-2 (i686)
1/2 signoffs
* cmake-2.8.7-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* cyrus-sasl-2.1.23-9 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* evolution-data-server-3.2.3-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* evolution-exchange-3.2.1-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* evolution-groupwise-3.2.1-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* fcpci-31107-66 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* fcpcmcia-31107-62 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* gvfs-1.10.1-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* hplip-3.11.12-1 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* hydrogen-0.9.5-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* java7-openjdk-7.b147_2.0-5 (i686)
1/2 signoffs
* k9copy-2.3.8-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* kaffeine-1.2.2-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* kdebase-runtime-4.7.4-3 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* kdelibs-4.7.4-5 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* kdeutils-4.7.4-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* kmod-3-5 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* libetpan-1.0-4 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* libreoffice-3.4.4-5 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* lirc-1:0.9.0-10 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* moc-20110528-5 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* nvidia-290.10-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* opencv-2.3.1_a-3 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* oxine-0.7.1-5 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* php-5.3.8-7 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* postfix-2.8.7-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* redland-1:1.0.15-3 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* ruby-1.9.3_p0-3 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* subversion-1.7.2-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* totem-plparser-2.32.6-2 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* xine-lib-1.2.0-1 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* xine-ui-0.99.6-4 (i686)
0/2 signoffs
* apr-util-1.3.12-5 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* bogofilter-1.2.2-4 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* claws-mail-3.8.0-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* claws-mail-extra-plugins-3.8.0-2 (x86_64)
1/2 signoffs
* cmake-2.8.7-2 (x86_64)
1/2 signoffs
* cyrus-sasl-2.1.23-9 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* evolution-data-server-3.2.3-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* evolution-exchange-3.2.1-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* evolution-groupwise-3.2.1-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* fcpci-31107-66 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* fcpcmcia-31107-62 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* gvfs-1.10.1-2 (x86_64)
1/2 signoffs
* hplip-3.11.12-1 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* hydrogen-0.9.5-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* java7-openjdk-7.b147_2.0-5 (x86_64)
1/2 signoffs
* k9copy-2.3.8-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* kaffeine-1.2.2-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* kdebase-runtime-4.7.4-3 (x86_64)
1/2 signoffs
* kdelibs-4.7.4-5 (x86_64)
1/2 signoffs
* kdeutils-4.7.4-2 (x86_64)
1/2 signoffs
* kmod-3-5 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* libetpan-1.0-4 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* libreoffice-3.4.4-5 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* lirc-1:0.9.0-10 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* moc-20110528-5 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* opencv-2.3.1_a-3 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* oxine-0.7.1-5 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* php-5.3.8-7 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* postfix-2.8.7-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* redland-1:1.0.15-3 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* ruby-1.9.3_p0-3 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* subversion-1.7.2-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* totem-plparser-2.32.6-2 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* xine-lib-1.2.0-1 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs
* xine-ui-0.99.6-4 (x86_64)
0/2 signoffs


== Completed signoffs (14 total) ==

* mkinitcpio-0.8.1-1 (any)
* coreutils-8.15-1 (i686)
* ed-1.6-1 (i686)
* libarchive-3.0.2-1 (i686)
* coreutils-8.15-1 (x86_64)
* ed-1.6-1 (x86_64)
* libarchive-3.0.2-1 (x86_64)
* linux-3.2-2 (x86_64)
* pacman-4.0.1-3 (x86_64)
* util-linux-2.20.1-2 (x86_64)
* namcap-3.2.1-1 (any)
* pyalpm-0.5.3-1 (i686)
* nvidia-290.10-2 (x86_64)
* pyalpm-0.5.3-1 (x86_64)


== All packages in [testing] for more than 14 days (3 total) ==

* pyalpm-0.5.3-1 (i686), since 2011-10-15
* pyalpm-0.5.3-1 (x86_64), since 2011-10-15
* namcap-3.2.1-1 (any), since 2011-10-20


== Top five in signoffs in last 24 hours ==

1. stephane - 8 signoffs
2. ttopper - 4 signoffs
3. dreisner - 4 signoffs
 
Old 01-10-2012, 08:31 PM
 
Default

Yet another denial - it's as though it's also blocking me based on the
relationship of included text vs. new text.

blah, blah, blah. Let's see if this is enough new text to get through.

Denniston, Todd A CIV NAVSURFWARCENDIV Crane wrote:
>> Behalf Of m.roth@5-cent.us
<snip>
>> >> I've retried again, and it still fails. I see that it's mounted
/dev/sda2, which is where I've got the contents of a DVD, as
>> /mnt/isolinux.
>> >
>> > Unless you specifically need the DVD contents, maybe try with the
ISOs instead...
<snip>
> And when you get towards package selection, anaconda fails indicating
> ' that it can't find "image# 1".'
>
> The "image# 1" it is looking for is the .iso which could have been burnt
to a DVD for doing the install, i.e., not something from the images
directory from THAT iso.
<snip>
Thank you, Todd, that was the answer. So, in RHEL 6, they're protecting us
against ourselves (we might not have copied everything). So with the FAT32
partition as it was, I then deleted everything on the second partition,
and copied both DVDs onto it... and it's installing even as we speak.

I suppose I need to submit a revised "how to build a USB key" for CentOS 6.

mark



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 01-10-2012, 09:46 PM
Marcus Osdoba
 
Default

Am 10.01.2012 02:42, schrieb Ben Hutchings:

We need to make a decision soon on whether we will use Linux 3.2 for
wheezy or wait for a later release. Whichever one we choose, we need to
make sure someone (possibly one of us) maintains a longterm branch for
it. I am strongly disinclined to choose a version that puts us on our
own, and therefore I would prefer to use Linux 3.2 along with Ubuntu.

Hi, I'm just a user, but using 3.2 along with Ubuntu LTS looks more than
reasonable to me.
Unfortunatly, upstream maintains only 3.0. Is there any longterm version
beyond 3.0 in sight, which might be an adequate alternative for Wheezy?
If not, the sum of Debian/UbuntuLTS installations should have a critical
mass to justify the maintenance of a 3.2-DEBline on their own without
offcial "support" from upstream.


Regards,
Marcus



-------- Forwarded Message --------
From: Greg KH<greg@kroah.com>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: stable@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Latest kernel stable/longterm status
Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2012 16:37:05 -0800

As 3.2 is now out, here's a note as to the current status of the
different stable/longterm kernel trees.

First off, please everyone remember to mark any patch that you want to
have applied to the stable kernel trees with a simple:
Cc: stable<stable@vger.kernel.org>
marking in the Signed-off-by: area. Once the patch hits Linus's tree, I
will automatically be notified of it and it will be applied if possible.
If it does not applied, you will be notified of that.

Note that the address is stable@vger.kernel.org, not the older address
that used to be used before October of 2011.

At this time, all stable and longterm kernel trees are being maintained
in one big git tree, located at:
git.kernel.org:/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/stable/linux-stable.git
There are different branches for every different major kernel version.

Here's the different active kernel versions that I am maintaining at the moment:

3.2.y - this will be maintained until 3.3 comes out
3.1.y - there will be only one, maybe two, more releases of this tree
3.0.y - this is the new "longterm" kernel release, it will be
maintained for 2 years at the minimum by me.
2.6.32.y - this is the previous "longterm" kernel release. It is
approaching it's end-of-life, and I think I only have
another month or so doing releases of this. After I am
finished with it, it might be picked up by someone else, but
I'm not going to promise anything.

All other longterm kernels are being maintained in various forms
(usually quite sporadically, if at all), by other people, and I can not
speak for their lifetime at all, that is up to those individuals.

If anyone has any questions about any of this, please let me know.

thanks,

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe stable" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html





--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4F0CBFB2.20206@googlemail.com">http://lists.debian.org/4F0CBFB2.20206@googlemail.com
 
Old 01-10-2012, 10:13 PM
Rob Kampen
 
Default

On 01/11/2012 10:31 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
> Yet another denial - it's as though it's also blocking me based on the
> relationship of included text vs. new text.
>
> blah, blah, blah. Let's see if this is enough new text to get through.
>
> Denniston, Todd A CIV NAVSURFWARCENDIV Crane wrote:
>>> Behalf Of m.roth@5-cent.us
> <snip>
>>>>> I've retried again, and it still fails. I see that it's mounted
> /dev/sda2, which is where I've got the contents of a DVD, as
>>> /mnt/isolinux.
>>>> Unless you specifically need the DVD contents, maybe try with the
> ISOs instead...
> <snip>
>> And when you get towards package selection, anaconda fails indicating
>> ' that it can't find "image# 1".'
>>
>> The "image# 1" it is looking for is the .iso which could have been burnt
> to a DVD for doing the install, i.e., not something from the images
> directory from THAT iso.
> <snip>
> Thank you, Todd, that was the answer. So, in RHEL 6, they're protecting us
> against ourselves (we might not have copied everything). So with the FAT32
> partition as it was, I then deleted everything on the second partition,
> and copied both DVDs onto it... and it's installing even as we speak.
>
> I suppose I need to submit a revised "how to build a USB key" for CentOS 6.
Yes please
> mark
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:04 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org