similar to: memcached - epel vs. rpmforge?

If you have the epel repo installed and enabled during a yum update, you get java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.0.b12.el5.2 instead of the stock .b09 version. Is this intentional and desirable? I thought epel generally did not replace stock components with newer versions. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com

Michael Hennebry wrote: > I've been informed that rpmforge and epel do > not play well together and that if I use both, > epel should have the higher (lower numbered) priority. > Alas I had it the other way around. > rpmforge messed up my effort to get audacity. > I no longer need audacity, > but would like to fix the situation before some other problem crops up. > >

On 06/09/2015 03:42 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > What do you > need in rpmforge that isn't available from base, rpmfusion, or epel? Do you happen to know of somewhere other than rpmforge where I can find hexedit and gqview for el6 ? Epel has them for el5, but not el6. Fortunately, installing them from rpmforge didn't drag along any dependencies. -- Bob Nichols

I've been informed that rpmforge and epel do not play well together and that if I use both, epel should have the higher (lower numbered) priority. Alas I had it the other way around. rpmforge messed up my effort to get audacity. I no longer need audacity, but would like to fix the situation before some other problem crops up. Would fixing the priorities and telling yum to reinstall all the

When updating a centos 5.x box with the horde package, should the extras or epel version win? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com

On 28 July 2007, Dag Wieers wrote: <snip> > Let me add that an effort to make sure EPEL is compatible with > RPMforge failed as EPEL wants to become the only repository for RHEL > and there is no interest to consider current RPMforge users. > > EPEL refused the repotag, so one cannot easily identify where a > package comes from and mixing repositories becomes harder. Since

Dear All, there's a security update for libmodplug: This update is needed to fix a security vulnerability with this package. This notification was issued on 2011-05-10 and last updated on 2011-05-09. Update to upstream version 0.8.8.3 (CVE-2011-1574, CVE-2011-1761). I've the following priorities configured: priority = 1 [base] priority = 1 [extras] priority = 1 [updates] priority = 2

Following Fabian's blog post re: RPMForge being rebuilt for EL5, I've a question: Are there any compatibility problems between RPMForge and EPEL? In other words, if I enabled EPEL previously, will I be able to enable RPMForge as well without running into trouble? -- Florin Andrei http://florin.myip.org/

I'm getting tired of converting spreadsheets that someone else updates to csv so my perl scripts can push the data into a mysql database. Is there a better way? I haven't had much luck with perl-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel (and find it odd that yum prefers the .32 version from epel over .57 from rpmforge anyway). Is the current CPAN version better? Or the equivalent java tools? Or

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Richard <lists-centos at listmail.innovate.net> wrote: > > > ------------ Original Message ------------ >> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 16:18:45 -0500 >> From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> >> To: CentOS mailing list <centos at centos.org> >> Cc: >> Subject: Re: [CentOS] MATE desktop dependency?

------------ Original Message ------------ > Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 16:32:12 -0500 > From: Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> > > On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:27 PM, Richard > <lists-centos at listmail.innovate.net> wrote: >> >> >> ------------ Original Message ------------ >>> Date: Thursday, March 26, 2015 16:18:45 -0500

> -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Les Mikesell > Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2015 6:02 PM > To: CentOS mailing list > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources? > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 5:47 PM, ANDY KENNEDY <ANDY.KENNEDY at adtran.com> wrote: > >> > > How do I tell rpmbuild to

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:09 PM, Richard <lists-centos at listmail.innovate.net> wrote: > >> >> Does anyone know what's up with: >> >> Error: Package: marco-1.8.3-1.el7.x86_64 (epel) >> Requires: libgtop-2.0.so.10()(64bit) >> >> Isn't the EPEL package built against stock Centos? > > > Check epel-testing, that's

Hello, I was following directions at: http://www.sogo.nu/english/support/faq/article/how-to-install-sogo-and-sope-through-yum-1.html to install SOGo on CentOS 5.9 and, noticing that among the dependencies is memcached and rpmforge includes a much more recent version than EPEL, I preferred rpmforge and therefore I set a higher priority for rpmforge repo (see below). [Note: I guess I could have

On 04/16/2014 05:33 PM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > And no, do *NOT* use epel and repoforge - they very frequently have > conflicts, due to prerequisites of packaging. Does the use of yum priorities take care of this concern? Thanks, Ken

Does anyone know what's up with: Error: Package: marco-1.8.3-1.el7.x86_64 (epel) Requires: libgtop-2.0.so.10()(64bit) Isn't the EPEL package built against stock Centos? -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com

I wanted to install the rpmforge-release package on a new install and get the following. Do others have the same problem? b51:~ rpm -ivvvvvvvh http://packages.sw.be/rpmforge-release/rpmforge- release-0.3.6-1.el5.rf.i386.rpm Retrieving http://packages.sw.be/rpmforge-release/rpmforge-release-0.3.6- 1.el5.rf.i386.rpm D: ... as /var/tmp/rpm-xfer.qQEt9n D: failed to open

> -----Original Message----- > From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of ANDY KENNEDY > Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2015 1:32 PM > To: CentOS mailing list > Subject: Re: [CentOS] Glibc sources? > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: centos-bounces at centos.org [mailto:centos-bounces at centos.org] On Behalf Of Les

On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 4:41 PM, Richard <lists-centos at listmail.innovate.net> wrote: > >>>> Thanks, but it doesn't help to --enablerepo=epel-testing. The >>>> libgtop2 package should be from the base repo anyway. >>> >>> Sorry, just checked. It looks to be in "cr". >> >> So... the right thing to do for someone who

Is there a 3rd party repo with working eclipse-platform/subclipse versions? Preferably something compatible with an up to date subversion? I'm currently getting: Error: Missing Dependency: libneon.so.25 is needed by package subversion-1.6.5-0.1.el5.rf.i386 (rpmforge) when I try with rpmforge enabled. -- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com