On 07/09/17 22:03, Eyal Lebedinsky wrote:
[resend, never saw the first one]
I have a server running f19 (don't ask). It is heavily customised so I prefer
to not do a fresh install of f26 and reconfigure everything.
I am reading the upgrade guide at
On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 14:07 -0700, Samuel Sieb wrote:
> On 09/10/2017 07:07 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > as I update it every morning using dnf. That's my choice. The reboot
> > generally takes about 30 seconds, unless I'm running a Windows VM in
> > which case I usually try to shut it down
On 09/10/2017 07:07 AM, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
as I update it every morning using dnf. That's my choice. The reboot
generally takes about 30 seconds, unless I'm running a Windows VM in
which case I usually try to shut it down properly, which can take a
long time. If I were administering a
On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 12:22 -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
> Don't take it that I'm recommending not to update. (Kids, don't try this at
> home).
> You just have to be cautious what you do to a server that has to be up
> 25 hours a day, 8 1/2 days a week, and 365 days a year which is hundreds
> of
are not getting ANY updates. They are not getting a new kernel. They are not getting security updates. They are not getting
"maintained".
They ARE being maintained. It's possible to update some rpms without updating
the release:
On 09/10/17 21:55, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 21:26 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
>> On 09/10/17 21:03, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote:
>>> On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 11:37 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 03:21 -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
> Just a couple of my
On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 15:03 +0200, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote:
> > All that means is that you're running out-of-date systems on your
> > servers.
>
> It's also a strong hint that it's possible to have machines up and
> running for such a long time.
That isn't news. Anyone who has used or
On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 21:26 +0800, Ed Greshko wrote:
> On 09/10/17 21:03, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote:
> > On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 11:37 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> > > On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 03:21 -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
> > > > Just a couple of my servers:
> > > > [0:root@apinetstore2 ~]$
On 09/10/17 21:03, Wolfgang Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 11:37 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
>> On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 03:21 -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
>>> Just a couple of my servers:
>>> [0:root@apinetstore2 ~]$ cat /etc/redhat-release
>>> Fedora release 21 (Twenty One)
>>>
On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 11:37 +0100, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
> On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 03:21 -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
> > Just a couple of my servers:
> > [0:root@apinetstore2 ~]$ cat /etc/redhat-release
> > Fedora release 21 (Twenty One)
> > [0:root@apinetstore2 ~]$ uptime
> > 02:18:00 up 949
Allegedly, on or about 7 September 2017, Eyal Lebedinsky sent:
> I have a server running f19 (don't ask). It is heavily customised so
> I prefer to not do a fresh install of f26 and reconfigure everything.
In my experience, you'll spend far more time trying to do what you want
(install several
On Sun, 2017-09-10 at 03:21 -0400, Bill Shirley wrote:
> Just a couple of my servers:
> [0:root@apinetstore2 ~]$ cat /etc/redhat-release
> Fedora release 21 (Twenty One)
> [0:root@apinetstore2 ~]$ uptime
> 02:18:00 up 949 days, 17:08, 1 user, load average: 0.21, 0.41, 0.44
>
> [0:root@elvis
On 09/10/17 16:31, Sudhir Khanger wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I regularly get the message below when I update my system.
>
> BDB1539 Build signature doesn't match environment
> failed loading RPMDB
> The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful
> transaction.
> You can remove
Hello,
I regularly get the message below when I update my system.
BDB1539 Build signature doesn't match environment
failed loading RPMDB
The downloaded packages were saved in cache until the next successful
transaction.
You can remove cached packages by executing 'dnf clean packages'.
The full
On 09/10/17 15:21, Bill Shirley wrote:
> Just a couple of my servers:
> [0:root@apinetstore2 ~]$ cat /etc/redhat-release
> Fedora release 21 (Twenty One)
> [0:root@apinetstore2 ~]$ uptime
> 02:18:00 up 949 days, 17:08, 1 user, load average: 0.21, 0.41, 0.44
>
> [0:root@elvis ~]$ cat
Just a couple of my servers:
[0:root@apinetstore2 ~]$ cat /etc/redhat-release
Fedora release 21 (Twenty One)
[0:root@apinetstore2 ~]$ uptime
02:18:00 up 949 days, 17:08, 1 user, load average: 0.21, 0.41, 0.44
[0:root@elvis ~]$ cat /etc/redhat-release
Fedora release 16 (Verne)
[0:root@elvis
On 09/09/2017 05:24 PM, Peter Teuben wrote:
Installed Fedora-26, which was fast and a snap... now doing the first reboot,
since it wanted to install updates. I've been sitting here for literally 15
minutes watching a useless black screen... much like how windows does this..
Is that just an
17 matches
Mail list logo
