similar to: CentOS-Base.repo baseurl commented out

Displaying 19 results from an estimated 19 matches similar to: "CentOS-Base.repo baseurl commented out"

2015 May 24
2
CentOS-Base.repo baseurl commented out
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Weird, as all CentOS machines under my control are suddenly giving the baseurl of Base repo not found error since this morning. Could be that mirrorlist is leading but all other options I found online to debug the error message seem to indicate that (un)commenting should fix it. On 24-5-2015 14:10, Alexander Dalloz wrote: > Am 24.05.2015 um 13:45
2015 May 24
2
CentOS-Base.repo baseurl commented out
Am 24.05.2015 um 16:11 schrieb Johnny Hughes: > On 05/24/2015 07:48 AM, Tim Semeijn wrote: >> Weird, as all CentOS machines under my control are suddenly giving the >> baseurl of Base repo not found error since this morning. Could be that >> mirrorlist is leading but all other options I found online to debug >> the error message seem to indicate that (un)commenting
2015 May 24
2
CentOS-Base.repo baseurl commented out
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 It looks like the culprit is IPv6 according to a post on the CentOS Mirrors mailing list (http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-mirror/2015-May/008847.html): > Hello, > > mirrorlist.centos.org currently doesn't correctly answer on IPv6 - > The request succeeds superficially (200 OK), but the answer is > empty: > > ~ $
2015 May 24
0
CentOS-Base.repo baseurl commented out
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Thanks for your replies. > curl "http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=6&arch=x86_64&repo=os" Same empty result here. Opening the link on my computer shows 10 mirrors as expected, but server side nothing. - -- Tim Semeijn Babylon Network pgp 0x5B8A4DDF -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2
2015 May 24
0
CentOS-Base.repo baseurl commented out
On 05/24/2015 07:48 AM, Tim Semeijn wrote: > Weird, as all CentOS machines under my control are suddenly giving the > baseurl of Base repo not found error since this morning. Could be that > mirrorlist is leading but all other options I found online to debug > the error message seem to indicate that (un)commenting should fix it. For the Base (or os) section of the CentOS-Base.repo
2015 May 24
0
CentOS-Base.repo baseurl commented out
Am 24.05.2015 um 13:45 schrieb Tim Semeijn: > > Dear, > > Recently I have noticed that on all my CentOS machines the > CentOS-Base.repo file seems to have been modified resulting in all > baseurl= lines being commented out. That is the case for a very long time, even if it hasn't be the case all the time. Instead of baseurl the default is mirrorlist. > Did I miss
2015 May 24
0
CentOS-Base.repo baseurl commented out
Am 24.05.2015 um 16:54 schrieb Tim Semeijn: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > It looks like the culprit is IPv6 according to a post on the CentOS > Mirrors mailing list > (http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-mirror/2015-May/008847.html): Bingo. [root at msg ~]# curl -6 "http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=6&arch=x86_64&repo=os";
2005 Oct 13
1
Why not use yum mirrorlist= instead of baseurl= in CentOS-Base.repo
Currently the default yum configuration references mirror.centos.org. When yum looks up the IP address it finds several but it will only try one and fail if that server is down or does not have the headers for whatever reason. If yum were to reference a mirrorlist it would skip servers that fail and keep trying them all until it finds one that works or exhausts all the mirrors. Centos would
2014 Nov 27
0
[PATCH] remove commented-out debug code
This makes code cleaner. Signed-off-by: Hu Tao <hutao@cn.fujitsu.com> --- daemon/journal.c | 1 - 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/daemon/journal.c b/daemon/journal.c index a2a1c73..f666026 100644 --- a/daemon/journal.c +++ b/daemon/journal.c @@ -164,7 +164,6 @@ do_internal_journal_get (void) sd_journal_restart_data (j); while ((r = sd_journal_enumerate_data (j,
2003 Sep 13
1
make install fails with current CVS due to commented out target
Solaris x86 8 autoconf 2.57 autoconf; autoheader; ./configure ....; make all goes fine make install fails on Ssh.bin. scard/Makefile has a commented out target for it - is there some reason for the target being commented out? -- Carson
2013 Aug 25
2
commented lines still active
despite the manage sieve lines on dovecot.conf being currently commented out show as active in doveconf -n # cd /usr/local/etc/dovecot/ # grep -ir sieve . ./dovecot.conf:#managesieve_notify_capability = mailto ./dovecot.conf:#managesieve_sieve_capability = fileinto reject envelope encoded-character vacation subaddress comparator-i;ascii-numeric relational regex imap4flags copy include variables
2006 Sep 21
2
Sweave processes \Sexpr in commented LaTeX source
Marc, >I have a large .Rnw file and was in the process of doing some debugging. >I had set some R chunks to 'eval=false' in the process. This resulted in >some R objects not being created that were in turn used in the >subsequent \Sexpr's. I have often the same problem, I'm using a construct like : <<eval=F>>= x <- rnorm(100) @ I have
2005 Dec 08
2
Commented version of the home page graphics code
Folks, I was drawn to R, like many others, partly for the opportunity to draw nice, colorful graphs (occasionally ones with meaning, too :-) ). I am still quite a newbie to R. As such, I have been trying to understand the code for the graphics on the home page (the ones from the 2004 contest -- the dendrogram, the cluster plot with different coloured circles, etc.) I was wondering whether anyone
2006 Sep 20
2
Sweave processes \Sexpr in commented LaTeX source (2.3.1patched and 2.4.0)
Hi all, On FC5, using: Version 2.3.1 Patched (2006-08-06 r38829) and today's R version 2.4.0 alpha (2006-09-19 r39397) with the following .Rnw file: \documentclass[10pt]{article} \begin{document} This line should print '2': \Sexpr{1 + 1} %% This line should NOT print '2': \Sexpr{1 + 1} \end{document} The \Sexpr in the second line is processed even though the
2006 Sep 20
2
Sweave processes \Sexpr in commented LaTeX source (2.3.1patched and 2.4.0)
Hi all, On FC5, using: Version 2.3.1 Patched (2006-08-06 r38829) and today's R version 2.4.0 alpha (2006-09-19 r39397) with the following .Rnw file: \documentclass[10pt]{article} \begin{document} This line should print '2': \Sexpr{1 + 1} %% This line should NOT print '2': \Sexpr{1 + 1} \end{document} The \Sexpr in the second line is processed even though the
2006 Dec 03
0
[777] trunk/wxruby2/samples/bigdemo/bigdemo.rb: Fix demo truncation; remove some python-specific commented-out classes
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" /><style type="text/css"><!-- #msg dl { border: 1px #006 solid; background: #369; padding:
2013 Nov 01
2
[LLVMdev] labels commented out
I happened to try building LLVM without assertions today, and it changed the form of the LLVM IR that gets generated. Typically, I do something like clang -O -emit-llvm -S Test.c For source like typedef struct node { struct node *left; struct node *right; int key; } Tree; int sum(Tree *p) { int s = 0; if (p) { s += sum(p->left); s += sum(p->right); s +=
2007 Jun 22
0
[PATCH] Commented out all macros that are not used - it still compiles.
But does it work? --- shared-core/nouveau_reg.h | 248 ++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- 1 files changed, 124 insertions(+), 124 deletions(-) diff --git a/shared-core/nouveau_reg.h b/shared-core/nouveau_reg.h index ea4a2f6..e2b3012 100644 --- a/shared-core/nouveau_reg.h +++ b/shared-core/nouveau_reg.h @@ -25,14 +25,14 @@ # define NV_RAMHT_CONTEXT_VALID
2009 Feb 18
1
Training nnet in two ways, trying to understand the performance difference - with (i hope!) commented, minimal, self-contained, reproducible code
Dear all, Objective: I am trying to learn about neural networks. I want to see if i can train an artificial neural network model to discriminate between spam and nonspam emails. Problem: I created my own model (example 1 below) and got an error of about 7.7%. I created the same model using the Rattle package (example 2 below, based on rattles log script) and got a much better error of about