On Wednesday 15 February 2006 12:49, William L. Maltby wrote: > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 04:36 -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 08:02 -0300, Adriano Frare wrote: > > > <snip bunch of diag log > > > > > > >>Error Downloading Packages: > > > >> nmap - 2:4.01-1.2.el4.rf.i386: failure: > > > >>RPMS/nmap-4.01-1.2.el4.rf.i386.rpm from rpmforge: [Errno 256] No more > > > >>mirrors to try. > > > >> nmap-frontend - 2:4.01-1.2.el4.rf.i386: failure: RPMS/nmap- > > > >>frontend-4.01-1.2.el4.rf.i386.rpm from rpmforge: [Errno 256] No more > > > >>mirrors to try. > > > > OK ... I think we may have 2 separate problems here. > > > > One problem is a mirror that shows zero length on a file in dag's repo > > which is critical to be able to do updates at all. To fix this problem, > > I don't use that mirror at all for dag repo files ... here is my dag > > repo entry: > > > > [dag] > > name=Dag-EL$releasever > > baseurl=http://dag.linux.iastate.edu/dag/redhat/el$releasever/en/$basearc > >h/dag > > http://www.mirrorservice.org/sites/apt.sw.be/redhat/el$releasever/en/$bas > >earch/dag/ > > http://mirrors.ircam.fr/pub/dag/redhat/el$releasever/en/$basearch/dag/ > > gpgcheck=1 > > enabled=1 > > > > This solves the error that the mirror http://apt.sw.be/ is routinely > > broken ... > > A couple of weeks ago, I was advised to install (and presumably use) > rpmforge. Recently I moved dag's repo def out of the way and let the > rpmforge stuff take over. Can I safely update the rpmforge.repo to not > reference the remote mirror list (removing this reference is fraught > with risk if changes occur?) and use the local file version (mirrors- > rpmforge) updated to look similar to yours and still use rpmforge? > > Anyway, I'll do that *unless* you say "STOP!". > > > BUT there is also a problem specifically with nmap ... it is a broken > > package checksum in the yum metadata files. Last time Dag had this > > problem it was a bug with the way the createrepo -c function worked. > > Do [I|we|you] need to do anything re notification to Dag? Do you feel > the file is essentially OK and should I try to install by override the > checking? Is that possible? that perticular file is most probably not good. don't try to force it in. /Peter > > Thanks for making time, > Bill -- ------------------------------------------------------------ Peter Kjellström | National Supercomputer Centre | Sweden | http://www.nsc.liu.se -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060215/0c408aed/attachment-0005.sig>