[CentOS] Is lsb 3.2+ detrimental to CentOS 5.4?

On Wed, 9 Dec 2009, MHR wrote: > $ yum list | grep -i lsb > redhat-lsb.i3863.1-12.3.EL.el5.centos > installed > redhat-lsb.x86_64 3.1-12.3.EL.el5.centos > installed when a non-CentOS packaging calls for a CentOS provided package by

Re: [CentOS] Is lsb 3.2+ detrimental to CentOS 5.4?

2009/12/10 MHR > I found out today that Google Chrome is now available for Linux. > However, and this is a big but: > > $ sudo rpm -ivh google-chrome-beta_current_x86_64.rpm > Password: > warning: google-chrome-beta_current_x86_64.rpm: Header V3 DSA > signature: NOKEY, key ID 7fac5991 > error: Fa

[CentOS] Is lsb 3.2+ detrimental to CentOS 5.4?

I found out today that Google Chrome is now available for Linux. However, and this is a big but: $ sudo rpm -ivh google-chrome-beta_current_x86_64.rpm Password: warning: google-chrome-beta_current_x86_64.rpm: Header V3 DSA signature: NOKEY, key ID 7fac5991 error: Failed dependencies: lsb >