Date: Fri, 20 Jul 2012 18:37:52 -0400 From: Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu On Friday, July 20, 2012 05:30:14 PM m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Stephen Harris wrote:
On Fri, Jul 20, 2012 at 04:44:07PM -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Available Packages kmod-nvidia.x86_64 295.59-1.el6.elrepo
Yes, and it showed up in your list...
Or am I missing something?
Think so. That was from my machine, where it's installed months ago. On the user's machine, all that shows, regardless of whether I disable all other repos and enable only elrepo, or if I use all and enable elrepo, all I see under available packages is nvidia-x11-drv. Sorry if I pasted in stuff to confuse.
Whoa, Mark. Man, you must be tired. The fact that your machine with the 290 driver only sees the kmod-nvidia for 295 and does not see nvidia-x11-drv is a big clue.
You might want to double check the includepkgs= line on the machine you originally posted about (not this latest machine), and make sure that it isn't: includepkgs=nvidia-x11-drv
I can duplicate this behavior very easily, and can duplicate the reverse behavior as well, by manipulating the includepkgs= line. Here's an example run, from a RHEL 6.3 machine (same would apply to CentOS, just with a few differences in the yum output dealing with the RHN repos....): <MVNCH> Works fine.
The includpkgs= line has to include all dependencies, as it really does do what the man page says it does. Try it without the includepkgs= line, or with it commented out, and see if you get different results.
Thank you *so* much - this works. One oddity: originally, I'd had only includepkgs=kmod-nvidia, *not* the nvidia-x11-drv. My last try, last week, I'd added extra lines with that on two separate lines: includepkgs=kmod-nvidia includepkgs=nvidia-x11-drv
Just now, following your example, I put them on one line includepkgs=nvidia-x11-drv kmod-nvidia
and it worked with no problem at all.
Odd.
And for the guy from the elrepo team, you'll note it was *not* an elrepo problem, which is what I'd suspected, unless the repodata file's changed since Friday.
mark
On 23/07/12 15:48, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
And for the guy from the elrepo team, you'll note it was *not* an elrepo problem, which is what I'd suspected, unless the repodata file's changed since Friday.
It was a problem caused by *you* editing the default elrepo config file and not understanding the implications and subsequent problems caused by *your* changes. So you are correct that it was not an elrepo problem, it was a "user" issue.
No one ever said it was an elrepo problem, it was noted that the elrepo mailing list was a more appropriate place to deal with issues relating to the elrepo.repo config file as this has absolutely nothing to do with CentOS.
The point is that you would have been given the solution a lot quicker if you had just posted the whole config file when you were asked rather than waste everyone's time with your attitude.
Honestly, most people on this list are here to try to help you. It makes it a *lot* easier to help people if they follow the instructions they are given rather than try to second guess which information they should provide.
Ned Slider wrote:
On 23/07/12 15:48, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
And for the guy from the elrepo team, you'll note it was *not* an elrepo problem, which is what I'd suspected, unless the repodata file's changed since Friday.
It was a problem caused by *you* editing the default elrepo config file and not understanding the implications and subsequent problems caused by *your* changes. So you are correct that it was not an elrepo problem, it was a "user" issue.
And you clearly don't like the idea that I might edit the elrepo.repo because I might only want to allow *one* package, even though everyone knows that some other elrepo packages result in conflicts with the base CentOS repositories.
No one ever said it was an elrepo problem, it was noted that the elrepo mailing list was a more appropriate place to deal with issues relating to the elrepo.repo config file as this has absolutely nothing to do with CentOS.
The point is that you would have been given the solution a lot quicker if you had just posted the whole config file when you were asked rather than waste everyone's time with your attitude.
You didn't care to pay attention to what I *DID* post. The rest of it was identical to, in fact, what I posted twice. I did not feel I needed to clutter up the mailing list the way some folks do, with many dozens or hundreds of lines of error messages or config files, when I certainly know enough to pull out the relevant information. <snip> And the guy who *did* read what I posted did help me.
mark "this thread declared dead"
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:15 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
everyone knows that some other elrepo packages result in conflicts with the base CentOS repositories.
Just to clarify -- From the ELRepo web site ( http://elrepo.org ):
elrepo This is the main channel and is enabled by default. As this channel should not contain packages also present in the distribution, it should be safe to run a 'yum update' with this repository channel enabled.
elrepo-extras The elrepo-extras channel provides packages and their dependencies that replace/update RHEL distribution packages. It may be enabled in the /etc/yum.repos.d/elrepo.repo file or used with 'yum --enablerepo=elrepo-extras'.
In other words, the packages in the elrepo-extras repo may conflict with the distro packages but this repo is shipped disabled by default. Using elrepo is therefore safe unless you make modifications of course ...
Akemi
Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:15 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
everyone knows that some other elrepo packages result in conflicts with the base CentOS repositories.
Just to clarify -- From the ELRepo web site ( http://elrepo.org ):
elrepo This is the main channel and is enabled by default. As this channel should not contain packages also present in the distribution, it should be safe to run a 'yum update' with this repository channel enabled.
elrepo-extras The elrepo-extras channel provides packages and their dependencies that replace/update RHEL distribution packages. It may be enabled in the /etc/yum.repos.d/elrepo.repo file or used with 'yum --enablerepo=elrepo-extras'.
In other words, the packages in the elrepo-extras repo may conflict with the distro packages but this repo is shipped disabled by default. Using elrepo is therefore safe unless you make modifications of course ...
Except that we don't want to replace or update the main repository packages, except in very, very special cases. That was why I allowed only kmod-nvidia in the repo. We do worry, since we've got 150 or so servers and workstations that I mostly do the updates on, and they shouldn't be some have, and some don't, except for an arguably special reason to be different than others. kmod-nvidia is the only one we have that meets that criteria.
mark
On 23/07/12 17:48, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 9:15 AM,m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
everyone knows that some other elrepo packages result in conflicts with the base CentOS repositories.
Just to clarify -- From the ELRepo web site ( http://elrepo.org ):
elrepo This is the main channel and is enabled by default. As this channel should not contain packages also present in the distribution, it should be safe to run a 'yum update' with this repository channel enabled.
Except that we don't want to replace or update the main repository packages, except in very, very special cases. That was why I allowed only kmod-nvidia in the repo. We do worry, since we've got 150 or so servers and workstations that I mostly do the updates on, and they shouldn't be some have, and some don't, except for an arguably special reason to be different than others. kmod-nvidia is the only one we have that meets that criteria.
Please stop spreading nonsense and read Akemi's reply above.
There is NOTHING in elrepo that conflicts with or replaces anything in the base distro. That is a matter of POLICY as quoted by Akemi above.
If you believe there is a conflict between ANY package in the main elrepo repository and the base distro, tell us and we will fix it immediately.
We can't be any more clear than that.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Using elrepo is therefore safe unless you make modifications of course
...
Except that we don't want to replace or update the main repository packages, except in very, very special cases. That was why I allowed only kmod-nvidia in the repo. We do worry, since we've got 150 or so servers and workstations that I mostly do the updates on, and they shouldn't be some have, and some don't, except for an arguably special reason to be different than others. kmod-nvidia is the only one we have that meets that criteria.
Why would yum ever pull anything from a repostory that doesn't replace base packages unless it is something that you explicitly installed?
Les Mikesell wrote:
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 11:48 AM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Using elrepo is therefore safe unless you make modifications of course
...
Except that we don't want to replace or update the main repository packages, except in very, very special cases. That was why I allowed only kmod-nvidia in the repo. We do worry, since we've got 150 or so
servers
and workstations that I mostly do the updates on, and they shouldn't be some have, and some don't, except for an arguably special reason to be different than others. kmod-nvidia is the only one we have that meets that criteria.
Why would yum ever pull anything from a repostory that doesn't replace base packages unless it is something that you explicitly installed?
I wouldn't. But I did want to explicitly say what I was allowing it to get, so that it wouldn't accidentally get something I didn't want.
mark
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:57 PM, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
Why would yum ever pull anything from a repostory that doesn't replace base packages unless it is something that you explicitly installed?
I wouldn't. But I did want to explicitly say what I was allowing it to get, so that it wouldn't accidentally get something I didn't want.
I guess things _could_ go wrong either way. You just played the odds the wrong way this time - dependencies are pretty common.
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 12:15:49PM -0400, m.roth@5-cent.us wrote:
You didn't care to pay attention to what I *DID* post. The rest of it was
I think you need to calm down. You came here for help; the onus is _not_ on the readers to delve into dozens of messages to see what you may or may not have written to someone else.
You may even have to post the same content a dozen times.
That's life on a mailing list.
Getting pissed off about it is a great way to get people to stop wanting to help you.
-
Akemi Yagi -
Les Mikesell -
m.roth＠5-cent.us -
Ned Slider -
Stephen Harris