14 Sep
2011
14 Sep
'11
6:09 p.m.
Is this intentional or something missed? Kind proves an earlier point I made that a single swap of symlink from
6 -> 6.0
to
6 -> 6.1
as more effective way of ensuring correctness than
6/centosplus -> 6.0/centosplus 6/contrib -> 6.0/contrib ...
if this is by mistake. ;)
--
James A. Peltier
IT Services - Research Computing Group
Simon Fraser University - Burnaby Campus
Phone : 778-782-6573
Fax : 778-782-3045
E-Mail : jpeltier@sfu.ca
Website : http://www.sfu.ca/itservices
http://blogs.sfu.ca/people/jpeltier
I will do the best I can with the talent I have
14 Sep
14 Sep
11:54 p.m.
On 09/14/2011 07:09 PM, James A. Peltier wrote:
Is this intentional or something missed? Kind proves an earlier point I made that a single swap of symlink from
intentional at this point. You will see the /6/cr/ as soon as there are rpms publicly visible and consumable in there.
I would love to hear your comments on my post w.r.t the symlink issue on the centos list.
- KB
4895
Age (days ago)
4895
Last active (days ago)
1 comments
2 participants
participants (2)
-
James A. Peltier -
Karanbir Singh