On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Steven Haigh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 8/01/2012 1:44 AM, Ilya A. Otyutskiy wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 7, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Steven Haigh<[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Woah! That is certainly not what I want. I must have screwed up and
>>> downloaded the wrong ISO. I've just made sure only the 6x repos are
>>> enabled
>>> and I'm in the middle of a dist-sync now.
>>>
>>> Also now I've got to start hunting around and see how many other systems
>>> I
>>> installed with that ISO! :|
>>
>>
>> But the ISO file name SL-61-x86_64-2011-11-09-Install-DVD.iso looks
>> good. It shouldn't point you to the rolling release. And installing
>> yum-conf-sl6x shouldn't too. So I'm kinda lost on how you've ended on
>> rolling.
>>
>> Just check your repos on other boxes. It should point to 6.1 or 6x and
>> not on rolling.
>>
>
> Sorry, I messed up here... I just checked the fileserver and I have this:
>        SL-62-x86_64-2011-12-22-Install-DVD.iso
>
> Whoops. Move along, nothing to see here ;)
>
> I've just changed everything to point back to 6x and the dist-sync has
> completed and the machine is rebooting. I have these IBM servers that take
> upwards of 2 minutes to get through the BIOS screens!

Heh. Yeah, the 6rolling is very, very usuful for leading edge
component tests, and I use it in testing enviornments, but it
represents the phase lag between updates by our favorite upstream
vendor, and getting it integrated in Scientific Linux.  It's a tricky
place to be playing with add-on bits like firmware updaters.

Note that problems in 6rolling and the other "rolling" updates are
usually resolved pretty fast and integrated into the more stable "6x".