Re: another rpm ooops

2001-12-21 Thread Peter Ruskin
On Friday 21 Dec 2001 21:02, Keith Antoine wrote: > On Thursday 20 December 2001 15:43, Tony Alfrey enunciated: > > I got this the other day and didn't know exactly what you meant. Add > > the path to the library that rpm doesn't know about?? > > yes, exactly. > > > The library is in /lib

Re: another rpm ooops

2001-12-20 Thread kwall
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 08:21:09AM -0800 Tony Alfrey wrote: % On Thursday 20 December 2001 07:54 am,[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: % > Tony Alfrey wro

Re: another RPM ooops

2001-12-20 Thread kwall
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; from [EMAIL PROTECTED] on Thu, Dec 20, 2001 at 08:21:09AM -0800 Tony Alfrey wrote: % On Thursday 20 December 2001 07:54 am,[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: % > Tony Alfrey wrote: % % > % (how do you know so much about this stuff??) % > % > I make my living knowing this

Re: another rpm ooops

2001-12-20 Thread Tony Alfrey
On Thursday 20 December 2001 07:54 am,[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Tony Alfrey wrote: > % (how do you know so much about this stuff??) > > I make my living knowing this stuff. But I suppose this is inherently UNIX knowledge, not Linux specific? > % 2. I did rebuilddb. > > This does not do what

Re: another rpm ooops

2001-12-20 Thread kwall
Tony Alfrey wrote: % On Thursday 20 December 2001 01:32 am,[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: % % > % > Refresh my memory, what was the problem you were trying to solve? If % > memory serves, you were trying to install an RPM that uses a newer % > version of RPM than that supported by the version of RPM yo

Re: another rpm ooops

2001-12-20 Thread Tony Alfrey
On Thursday 20 December 2001 01:32 am,[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Refresh my memory, what was the problem you were trying to solve? If > memory serves, you were trying to install an RPM that uses a newer > version of RPM than that supported by the version of RPM you have > installed. > > Kurt T

Re: another rpm ooops

2001-12-20 Thread kwall
Tony Alfrey wrote: % On Wednesday 19 December 2001 06:21 pm,Keith Antoine wrote: [...] % > As I said the other day add the paths to /etc/ld.so.conf and then % > call ldconfig -v. % % I got this the other day and didn't know exactly what you meant. Add % the path to the library that rpm doesn

Re: another rpm ooops

2001-12-19 Thread Tony Alfrey
On Wednesday 19 December 2001 06:21 pm,Keith Antoine wrote: > > On Monday 17 December 2001 09:24 pm,Keith Antoine wrote: > > > > > > > Many newer rpms will not work with that version 3.6 is the least > > > theey work with. > > > > As I said the other day add the paths to /etc/ld.so.conf and th

Re: another rpm ooops

2001-12-19 Thread Keith Antoine
On Wednesday 19 December 2001 00:10, Tony Alfrey enunciated: > On Monday 17 December 2001 09:24 pm,Keith Antoine wrote: > > > > Many newer rpms will not work with that version 3.6 is the least > > theey work with. > > Thanks. The LlamaDude sent me out to get a 3.0.6 from the SxS. I > looked at

Re: another rpm ooops

2001-12-18 Thread Keith Antoine
On Wednesday 19 December 2001 01:07, Tony Alfrey enunciated: > > I thought Skippy went through this not long ago, can you not d/l a > > pre compiled binary version to run? Or am I inventing memories? > > I think you are absolutely correct; I remember the long thread and I'm > loathe to go dig it

Re: another rpm ooops

2001-12-18 Thread Tony Alfrey
On Tuesday 18 December 2001 06:33 am,Ian wrote: > Tony Alfrey wrote: > > On Monday 17 December 2001 09:24 pm,Keith Antoine wrote: > > > > > > > Many newer rpms will not work with that version 3.6 is the least > > > theey work with. > > > > Thanks. The LlamaDude sent me out to get a 3.0.6 from th

Re: another rpm ooops

2001-12-18 Thread Ian
Tony Alfrey wrote: > > On Monday 17 December 2001 09:24 pm,Keith Antoine wrote: > > > > > Many newer rpms will not work with that version 3.6 is the least > > theey work with. > > Thanks. The LlamaDude sent me out to get a 3.0.6 from the SxS. I > looked at rpm.org and it looks the numbering i

Re: another rpm ooops

2001-12-18 Thread Tony Alfrey
On Monday 17 December 2001 09:24 pm,Keith Antoine wrote: > > Many newer rpms will not work with that version 3.6 is the least > theey work with. Thanks. The LlamaDude sent me out to get a 3.0.6 from the SxS. I looked at rpm.org and it looks the numbering is 3.0.blahblah until it kicks in to

Re: another rpm ooops

2001-12-17 Thread Tony Alfrey
On Monday 17 December 2001 09:10 pm,Net Llama wrote: > --- Tony Alfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi gang! > > An rpm newbie question: can somebody tell me what this message > > means when I try to use rpm (version 3.0.3.0) on a package: > > > > [root@noname /root]# rpm -i --test quasar-1.0-1

Re: another rpm ooops

2001-12-17 Thread Keith Antoine
On Tuesday 18 December 2001 14:00, Tony Alfrey enunciated: > Hi gang! > An rpm newbie question: can somebody tell me what this message means > when I try to use rpm (version 3.0.3.0) on a package: > > [root@noname /root]# rpm -i --test quasar-1.0-18.i386.rpm > only packages with major numbers <=

Re: another rpm ooops

2001-12-17 Thread Net Llama
--- Tony Alfrey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi gang! > An rpm newbie question: can somebody tell me what this message means > when I try to use rpm (version 3.0.3.0) on a package: > > [root@noname /root]# rpm -i --test quasar-1.0-18.i386.rpm > only packages with major numbers <= 3 are support