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/