On Wednesday 15 February 2006 12:49, William L. Maltby wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 04:36 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 08:02 -0300, Adriano Frare wrote:
> > > <snip bunch of diag log
> > >
> > > >>Error Downloading Packages:
> > > >> nmap - 2:4.01-1.2.el4.rf.i386: failure:
> > > >>RPMS/nmap-4.01-1.2.el4.rf.i386.rpm from rpmforge: [Errno 256] No more
> > > >>mirrors to try.
> > > >> nmap-frontend - 2:4.01-1.2.el4.rf.i386: failure: RPMS/nmap-
> > > >>frontend-4.01-1.2.el4.rf.i386.rpm from rpmforge: [Errno 256] No more
> > > >>mirrors to try.
> >
> > OK ... I think we may have 2 separate problems here.
> >
> > One problem is a mirror that shows zero length on a file in dag's repo
> > which is critical to be able to do updates at all. To fix this problem,
> > I don't use that mirror at all for dag repo files ... here is my dag
> > repo entry:
> >
> > [dag]
> > name=Dag-EL$releasever
> > baseurl=http://dag.linux.iastate.edu/dag/redhat/el$releasever/en/$basearc
> >h/dag
> > http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/apt.sw.be/redhat/el$releasever/en/$bas
> >earch/dag/
> > http://mirrors.ircam.fr/pub/dag/redhat/el$releasever/en/$basearch/dag/
> > gpgcheck=1
> > enabled=1
> >
> > This solves the error that the mirror http://apt.sw.be/ is routinely
> > broken ...
>
> A couple of weeks ago, I was advised to install (and presumably use)
> rpmforge. Recently I moved dag's repo def out of the way and let the
> rpmforge stuff take over. Can I safely update the rpmforge.repo to not
> reference the remote mirror list (removing this reference is fraught
> with risk if changes occur?) and use the local file version (mirrors-
> rpmforge) updated to look similar to yours and still use rpmforge?
>
> Anyway, I'll do that *unless* you say "STOP!".
>
> > BUT there is also a problem specifically with nmap ... it is a broken
> > package checksum in the yum metadata files. Last time Dag had this
> > problem it was a bug with the way the createrepo -c function worked.
>
> Do [I|we|you] need to do anything re notification to Dag? Do you feel
> the file is essentially OK and should I try to install by override the
> checking? Is that possible?
that perticular file is most probably not good. don't try to force it in.
/Peter
>
> Thanks for making time,
> Bill
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Kjellstr?m |
National Supercomputer Centre |
Sweden | http://www.nsc.liu.se
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060215/0c408aed/attachment.bin
