similar to: rpm spec:: Requires conditions format :: lower not working

Hi! I have a very puzzling problem : one rpm with version 1.2.5 and one with 1.3.1 (spec file does not have Epoch defined) trying to install i get this : [root at storage02 aliprod]# rpm -Uvh xrootd-alicetokenacc-1.3.1-1.el6.x86_64.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] package xrootd-alicetokenacc-1:1.2.5-1.el6.x86_64 (which is newer than

On Wed, May 23, 2018 at 08:07:52PM +0300, Adrian Sevcenco wrote: > Hi! I have a very puzzling problem : > one rpm with version 1.2.5 and one with 1.3.1 (spec file does not have > Epoch defined) > > trying to install i get this : > [root at storage02 aliprod]# rpm -Uvh > xrootd-alicetokenacc-1.3.1-1.el6.x86_64.rpm > Preparing...

CentOS-6.4_x86_64 I have a KVM virtual machine (several actually) which acts as a warm spare for another kvm instance running on a different physical host. Each hour it backs up the live system using rsync. This morning I discovered that the backup instance was running at 99% utilisation and that the process consuming the entire virtual cpu was this: sh -c rpm -q -a --queryformat

hi, there are meny centos rpm where the vendor field in not filled. it'd be nice to correct. rpm -qp --queryformat "%{VENDOR} %{NAME}-%{VERSION}\n" *.rpm|egrep -v "CentOS" -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"

On 6/24/20 12:27 PM, Lamar Owen wrote: > ... You can look in the %{BUILDTIME} query tag for build order; use > the following command to get the order: > rpm -qa --queryformat "%{BUILDTIME} %{NAME} %{EPOCH} %{VERSION} > %{RELEASE}\n" | sort So, replying to my own post here, as build order is only part of the story.? Determining the contents of what was in the actual

Hi All, It is unclear to me what group membership should \\server\users (or /srv/samba/users) get if it is planned to be ina standalone role... and using only POSIX ACLs. The relevant wiki instructions are stating: "Create the directory and set the correct permissions: # mkdir -p /srv/samba/users/ # chgrp -R "Domain Users" /srv/samba/users/ # chmod 2750 /srv/samba/users/"

Hi, I'm currently experimenting with Yum on a fresh CentOS 7 minimal install, and I'm getting some puzzling results. Here's what I did. 1. Install CentOS 7 from the Minimal CD. 2. Install 'deltarpm' and update all packages. 3. Install the "Core" package group: 'yum group install "Core"' 4. Install the "Base" package group: 'yum

Hi all When I try to compile 3.5.0rc1 on CentOS 5.4, I get the seemingly well know problem below Linking bin/smbclient /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.2/../../../../lib64/libreadline.so: undefined reference to `tgetnum' /usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-redhat-linux/4.1.2/../../../../lib64/libreadline.so: undefined reference to `tgetent'

On 6/20/20 6:50 AM, Peter wrote: > On 20/06/20 3:50 am, Johnny Hughes wrote: > >> And EL8 is exponentially harder with an entirely new build system and >> the requirement to build modules. > > But it seems like every major release has had reasons to be > exponentially harder than the last.? With 7 it was the shift to using > the git sources instead of the SRPMS that

Hi, Some time ago I wrote a little script elaguer.sh ("?laguer" means "to prune") which simply removes all packages that are *not* part of a minimal installation. First I created a list of packages that make up a minimal CentOS installation. On a fresh install, I would do something like this: # rpm -qa --queryformat '%{NAME}\n' | sort > minimal.txt Here's the

On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 22:32 +0200, pavlos wrote: > Hi Andrew et al, > > Now is the time to come back to my leisure... > > Preparing the environment to the 'git bisect' surgery: > Got a clone of the last VM with 4.12.2 installed from > https://download.samba.org/pub/samba/samba-latest.tar.gz > Stopped smb/nmb services and uninstalled 'sudo make uninstall'

Andrew, please forget about mu dumb question. Nice tutorial here: https://flaviocopes.com/git-bisect/ I know how to proceed and what is the 'git clean...' for. Will come back :) Pawel wt., 5 maj 2020 o 23:43 pavlos <pavlos.audiofreak at gmail.com> napisa?(a): > 'git checkout' in your first sentence- please be more detailed. > And please remember where I start - I am

Greetings - I have a Centos 6 box fully updated that intermittently sends me an "[abrt] full crash report" email. I am not familiar with these at all and in my limited google search have not found good information to interpret this information. The most recent (and the most frequent one) is listed below, also I have listed the lines from /var/log/messages that correspond to

G'Day Volker and Jermey, Can you take a look at Pavlos's analysis and see if you can work out why he has been having trouble with Samba since this commit? Pavlos, That is an incredible effort, and so very, very much appreciated! Thanks, Andrew Bartlett On Sat, 2020-05-09 at 06:08 +0200, pavlos wrote: > Hi All, > > It's already 6am at my side. After the whole night of

This is instead a very simple (handmade) test case that triggers the problem (attached) Also a more conforming patch has been attached 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > This is the .ll for that graph (attached). I think I understand what > you are saying. > This particular testcase returns CNC not because the exit block > doesn't have a unique predecessor,

FInally I had the time to complete everything up. Now I included the test case in the patch and the testcase runs with the LLVM tests system. 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms at gmail.com>: > This is instead a very simple (handmade) test case that triggers the > problem (attached) > Also a more conforming patch has been attached > > 2012/2/9 Marcello Maggioni <hayarms

Hi Andrew et al, Now is the time to come back to my leisure... Preparing the environment to the 'git bisect' surgery: - Got a clone of the last VM with 4.12.2 installed from https://download.samba.org/pub/samba/samba-latest.tar.gz - Stopped smb/nmb services and uninstalled 'sudo make uninstall' within the directory 4.12.2. - Got the current master with 'git

This is the .ll for that graph (attached). I think I understand what you are saying. This particular testcase returns CNC not because the exit block doesn't have a unique predecessor, but because the unique predecessor (the inner loop block) has a successor that is inside the loop (in this case itself, because it's the inner loop block). That doesn't change, anyway, the assuption that

'git checkout' in your first sentence- please be more detailed. And please remember where I start - I am just after 'git clone' and build of 4.13.x Pawel wt., 5 maj 2020 o 23:28 Andrew Bartlett <abartlet at samba.org> napisa?(a): > On Tue, 2020-05-05 at 22:32 +0200, pavlos wrote: > > Hi Andrew et al, > > > > Now is the time to come back to my

Hi Volker, Jermey, and the Community, To be clear: I didn't analyze your code, I don't know structures of Samba, definitely I am not a person to judge and blame anybody :) I am sure that there were reasons, you wanted to clarify some issues around controlling share mode flags. And it's rather everything OK with your code. Even more: most probably your change revealed a bug in Win7,