Re: [CentOS] yum vs up2date

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

To: CentOS ML <centos@xxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [CentOS] yum vs up2date
From: Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2006 07:08:54 -0500
Delivered-to: centos@xxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <44FF8245.5040307@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <44FE17DE.9080707@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1157514530.19903.244.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44FE5DD9.5070701@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <1157584402.3804.87.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <44FF8245.5040307@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

---- Sorry for top posting ---- 

OK ... never mind

Please use SuSE or Debian ...

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes
CentOS-4 Lead Developer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [CentOS] yum vs up2date
  - From: John Summerfield

References:
- [CentOS] yum vs up2date
  - From: John Summerfied
- Re: [CentOS] yum vs up2date
  - From: Johnny Hughes
- Re: [CentOS] yum vs up2date
  - From: John Summerfied
- Re: [CentOS] yum vs up2date
  - From: Johnny Hughes
- Re: [CentOS] yum vs up2date
  - From: John Summerfied

Prev by Date: Re: [CentOS] kernel 2.6.9-42.0.2.plus.c4 not working properly(2.6.9-34.108.plus.c4
Next by Date: Re: [CentOS] Sudo(ers) distrobution system/script
Previous by thread: Re: [CentOS] yum vs up2date
Next by thread: Re: [CentOS] yum vs up2date
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

[Index of Archives] [CentOS] [CentOS Announce] [CentOS Development] [CentOS ARM Devel] [CentOS Docs] [CentOS Virtualization] [Carrier Grade Linux] [Linux Media] [Asterisk] [DCCP] [Netdev] [Xorg] [Linux USB]

Powered by Linux