On Mon, Aug 5, 2013 at 1:25 PM, alexus wrote:
> I can't update these packages... either I'm doing something wrong or perhaps
> package is broken?
Definitely the latter. :-)
> ---> Package libmodplug.x86_64 0:0.8.7-1.el6.rf will be updated
This package is from RPMforge not EPEL, so you'll have
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 5:09 AM, Stephen Gallagher wrote:
> On 08/05/2013 04:25 PM, alexus wrote:
>> I can't update these packages... either I'm doing something wrong
>> or perhaps package is broken?
>>
> ..
>> Error unpacking rpm package npm-1.3.3-1.el6.noarch error: unpacking
>> of archive failed
On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 9:43 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> So, could you remind us again of the various interactions of the
> versions? (or is there a doc on it?)
>
> Ie, of 2.6, 2.7, 3.0, which versions clients can talk to which versions
> servers?
>
I'm not sure about 2.7 -> 3.0, but for the sake of
The following Fedora EPEL 6 Security updates need testing:
Age URL
472
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2012-5620/bugzilla-3.4.14-2.el6
62
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2013-6090/ssmtp-2.61-20.el6
15
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDOR
On Tue, 6 Aug 2013 12:30:32 -0400 (EDT)
Sam Kottler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We've had this conversation at least once before, but I figured I
> would bring it up again [1].
>
> You can see in Mike's original post that there a number of reasons we
> should bump to the 2.7 series in EPEL, but primarily
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 08/05/2013 04:25 PM, alexus wrote:
> I can't update these packages... either I'm doing something wrong
> or perhaps package is broken?
>
..
> Error unpacking rpm package npm-1.3.3-1.el6.noarch error: unpacking
> of archive failed on file /usr/lib/n
