it should always be updateable in my eyes.
regards,
Rudolf Kastl
2005/10/26, Robert P. J. Day <rpjday@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, akonstam@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 26, 2005 at 09:55:18AM -0400, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> > >
> > > i just installed a new FC4 system -- an "everything" install -- and
> > > it can't be just plain "yum update"d because of some dependency
> > > issues.
> > >
> > > the errors are that the four kernel packages
> > > {gnbd,GFS,cman,dlm}-kernel claim to need
> > > /lib/modules/2.6.13-1.1526_FC4.
>
> > I am not sure I know what went wrong but
> > /lib/modules/2.6.13-1.1526_FC4
> > id part of the kernel-2.6.13-1.1526_FC4 rpm
> > and it is true that {gnbd,GFS,cman,dlm}-kernel
> > depends on the kernel being installed. Are you saying that this
> > happened when you tried to run just a: yum install
>
> the sequence of events was:
>
> 1) new "everything" install of FC4
> 2) activate *only* FC4's "updates-released" repo
> 3) "yum update"
>
> i tried to make the update as simple as possible by pulling only
> from the regular updates repo. this sort of thing is, in fact,
> something i started to think about recently -- should a new install of
> FC *always* be updateable, regardless of how many updates have piled
> up in the queue?
>
> or might there be problems given how much newer some of those
> updates might be? just curious.
>
> rday
>
> --
> fedora-list mailing list
> fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
>
