Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Fri, 11 Jan 2008 02:39:11 +0000 |
Content-Type: | TEXT/PLAIN |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
On Fri, 4 Jan 2008, Troy Dawson wrote:
<snip>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> CHANGES since 5.1 RC 1
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> **alpine
> ** Updated to version 1.00
> **
> ** alpine-1.00-1.i386.rpm
> ** alpine-1.00-1.x86_64.rpm
<snip>
I just managed to (finally) try the new RC, with (essentially) the
kickstart setup that we use for 5.0.
However anaconda failed with a transaction error (the unhelpful null
message kind).
Looking through the differences and the anaconda.log showed that it was
picking up alpine as well as pine (though we didn't ask for alpine
anywhere in the kickstart config). Anyway it seems that 'cos alpine and
pine provide binaries of the same name (e.g. pico) so we get a clash and
hence a failure.
Previously the last version I'd tested was "SL 5.1" ALPHA so the alpine
0.999... from the "SL 5.1" BETA setup may cause a similar problem. Forry
for not spotting this before.
I can fix it (for now at least) by just excluding alpine with:
-alpine
in the %packages section but I thought you may want to know. Maybe pine
and alpine should use the alternatives stuff, though that means changing
both packages.
Looking through 5rolling/i386/SL/repodata/comps-sl.xml alpine is now
listed as 'optional' in the misc-sl and 'default' in the text-internet
groupings. Was that intentional?
> **yum-utils
> ** We have added installonlyn
> **
> ** yum-installonlyn-1.0.4-2.sl5.noarch.rpm
Hooray, and it is newer than the 0.92 version I was previously using so it
got picked by the installer...
--
Jon Peatfield, Computer Officer, DAMTP, University of Cambridge
Mail: [log in to unmask] Web: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/
|
|
|