On Wed, 16 Nov 2011, Akemi Yagi wrote: > What you are seeing is indeed odd. I see 'version 3.1' but not '3.2' > anywhere on the Summary line of bash. What is your kernel by the way? > uname -mr ? > > Have you cleared yum cache? Not just running a 'yum clean all' but > emptying the /var/cache/yum directory ? Why would yum cache have any bearing on what rpm reported? jh _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: How can rpm "%{SUMMARY}" not be consistent?
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- To: CentOS mailing list <centos@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: How can rpm "%{SUMMARY}" not be consistent?
- From: John Hodrien <J.H.Hodrien@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2011 14:56:13 +0000 (GMT)
- Delivered-to: centos@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <CABA31DrN8W8pG6pv2_HhcQBjAP8Ven=YP_PJOMGxMcW5Di-TCw@mail.gmail.com>
- User-agent: Alpine 2.02 (LRH 1266 2009-07-14)
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: How can rpm "%{SUMMARY}" not be consistent?
- From: Akemi Yagi
- Re: How can rpm "%{SUMMARY}" not be consistent?
- References:
- How can rpm "%{SUMMARY}" not be consistent?
- From: Denniston, Todd A CIV NAVSURFWARCENDIV Crane
- Re: How can rpm "%{SUMMARY}" not be consistent?
- From: Akemi Yagi
- How can rpm "%{SUMMARY}" not be consistent?
- Prev by Date: Re: lm_sensors on Sun (x86) Hardware
- Next by Date: Re: lm_sensors on Sun (x86) Hardware
- Previous by thread: Re: How can rpm "%{SUMMARY}" not be consistent?
- Next by thread: Re: How can rpm "%{SUMMARY}" not be consistent?
- Index(es):
 |