----- "Scott Silva" <ssilva@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> on 1-7-2009 10:00 AM Kai Schaetzl spake the following:
> > Vandaman wrote on Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:31:36 +0000 (GMT):
> >
> >> Why would the admin of the un-named repo include two versions
> >> unless one could be an update/bugfix?
> >
> > So, what? Isn't he entitled to say no to an update if he knows there
> is a
> > problem on his setup with it?
> >
> > Kai
> >
> Yes, but yum needs a little coercion to ignore that update.
> You would have to exclude that package after you got the older one
> installed
> so it didn't update.
>
The repo owner's latest packages technically 'work' but not to our standards hence the reason we're staying behind for now. We're not running any sort of automated 'yum -y update' or anything like that so I don't have to worry about updates causing issues. After all, I'm the only one who has access to the box. :-)
Tim Nelson
Systems/Network Support
Rockbochs Inc.
(218)727-4332 x105
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
