On Wed, 2010-08-25 at 08:20 -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On 08/25/2010 07:38 AM, Hiisi wrote: > > 2010/8/25 Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh@xxxxxxxxxx>: > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> On 08/25/2010 06:16 AM, Frank Elsner wrote: > >>> > >>> Hello, > >>> > >>> I've 2 machines running Fedora 13, both with kernel 2.6.33.6-147.2.4.fc13.i686. > >>> > >>> When I did a "yum check-update" yesterday evening only one machine offered an > >>> update to the new new kernel 2.6.33.8-149.fc13.i686. > >>> > >>> > >>> What's behind? Different repos used by yum? > >>> > >>> > >>> --Frank Elsner > >> > >> Most likely one has a yum cache that isn't yet expired (i.e. you last > >> checked the repos more recently on one than the other). > >> > >> I'd recommend doing 'yum clean all' and then try again. > >> > >> - -- > >> Stephen Gallagher > >> RHCE 804006346421761 > >> > > > > I wouldn't dare to suggest using 'yum clean all' on this list. It's > > nearly the same big mistake as posting in html. > > Seriously, do one need to clean all in this situation or clean > > metadata should be enough? > > > Sorry, my yum-fu isn't that strong. I just recommended the quickest > option to guarantee that it would be cleaned :) If it comes to that, "yum clean metadata" is quicker since it doesn't touch the packages. AFAIK the only reason to use "clean all" is to recover disk space. poc -- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
