From rpm-list-admin@freshrpms.net Wed Oct 9 22:42:20 2002 Return-Path: Delivered-To: yyyy@localhost.example.com Received: from localhost (jalapeno [127.0.0.1]) by jmason.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E77A916F16 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 22:41:02 +0100 (IST) Received: from jalapeno [127.0.0.1] by localhost with IMAP (fetchmail-5.9.0) for jm@localhost (single-drop); Wed, 09 Oct 2002 22:41:02 +0100 (IST) Received: from egwn.net (ns2.egwn.net [193.172.5.4]) by dogma.slashnull.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g99KJVK19998 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 21:19:32 +0100 Received: from auth02.nl.egwn.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by egwn.net (8.11.6/8.11.6/EGWN) with ESMTP id g99KA3f07032; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 22:10:03 +0200 Received: from wintermute.sr.unh.edu (wintermute.sr.unh.edu [132.177.241.100]) by egwn.net (8.11.6/8.11.6/EGWN) with ESMTP id g99K8sf06876 for ; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 22:08:54 +0200 Received: (from tjb@localhost) by wintermute.sr.unh.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) id g99K8mg26434; Wed, 9 Oct 2002 16:08:48 -0400 X-Authentication-Warning: wintermute.sr.unh.edu: tjb set sender to tjb@unh.edu using -f Subject: Apt 0.3 and 0.5 From: "Thomas J. Baker" To: rpm-zzzlist@freshrpms.net Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 Message-Id: <1034194128.19400.49.camel@wintermute.sr.unh.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Mailscanner: Found to be clean, Found to be clean Sender: rpm-zzzlist-admin@freshrpms.net Errors-To: rpm-zzzlist-admin@freshrpms.net X-Beenthere: rpm-zzzlist@freshrpms.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: rpm-zzzlist@freshrpms.net List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Freshrpms RPM discussion list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: X-Original-Date: 09 Oct 2002 16:08:48 -0400 Date: 09 Oct 2002 16:08:48 -0400 X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=KNOWN_MAILING_LIST,SIGNATURE_LONG_SPARSE, T_NONSENSE_FROM_00_10,T_NONSENSE_FROM_10_20, T_NONSENSE_FROM_20_30,T_NONSENSE_FROM_30_40, T_NONSENSE_FROM_40_50,T_NONSENSE_FROM_50_60, T_NONSENSE_FROM_60_70,T_NONSENSE_FROM_70_80, T_NONSENSE_FROM_80_90,T_NONSENSE_FROM_90_91, T_NONSENSE_FROM_91_92,T_NONSENSE_FROM_92_93, T_NONSENSE_FROM_93_94,T_NONSENSE_FROM_94_95, T_NONSENSE_FROM_95_96,T_NONSENSE_FROM_96_97, T_NONSENSE_FROM_97_98,T_NONSENSE_FROM_98_99, T_NONSENSE_FROM_99_100,X_AUTH_WARNING version=2.50-cvs X-Spam-Level: Should I expect problems if my apt server is running RH 7.3/Apt 0.3 and some clients are coming on line and will be running RH 8.0/Apt 0.5? Do the two different version interoperate? Thanks, tjb -- ======================================================================= | Thomas Baker email: tjb@unh.edu | | Systems Programmer | | Research Computing Center voice: (603) 862-4490 | | University of New Hampshire fax: (603) 862-1761 | | 332 Morse Hall | | Durham, NH 03824 USA http://wintermute.sr.unh.edu/~tjb | ======================================================================= _______________________________________________ RPM-List mailing list http://lists.freshrpms.net/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list