CentOS has the complete RHEL binary compatibility, which SL doesn't always have. Can be a decisive thing, sometimes. 2011/7/12 夜神 岩男 <supergiantpotato at yahoo.co.jp> > On Mon, 2011-07-11 at 14:17 +0100, James Hogarth wrote: > > > > > > Downloaded centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64.rpm and > > > redhat-logos-60.0.14-10.el6.noarch.rpm from CentOS repo > > > > > > rpm -e --nodeps sl-release redhat-logos > > > rpm -hiv redhat-logos-60.0.14-10.el6.noarch.rpm > > > centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64.rpm > > > > > > yum update > > > > > > reboot, and voilà > > > > > > > The above would only update a package if the centos repos had a higher > > version number than the installed SL one.... I would strongly suggest > > something akin to yum reinstall \* and leave it to chug away (backups > > first naturally) for a while to refresh all the packages and teh rpm > > database to be in sync with the centos build..... requires matching, > > same build options for sure etc etc.... > > > > In the event something crops up it at least eliminates an odd untested > > mix for certain fundamental packages like glibc etc.... > > An idle question: > > What is the advantage of switching to CentOS 6 if you already are > running SL6? Or at least... what is the purpose? I'm not really clear on > the difference (other than CentOS is the noisier bit of the party). > > -Iwao > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110712/ebcc4a6b/attachment-0005.html>