FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-10-2011, 12:13 PM
Bernd Bartmann
 
Default C5.6 missing package updates / package naming issues

Hi,

first I'd like to thank you for finally provinding C5.6!

After updating several servers to C5.6 I checked the installed RPMS
against the list of update announcements from upstream. Some updates
seem to be missing and some seem to have package naming issues:


Missing updates:

- libuser
C5.6 as of today has libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_4.1
Upstream announced libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2
(https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0170.html)

- java-1.6.0-openjdk
C5.6 as of today has java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.16.b17.el5
Upstream announced java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.17.b17.el5
(https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0176.html)
Upstream announced java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.18.b17.el5
(https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0214.html)
Upstream announced java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.20.b17.el5
(https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0281.html)

- tomcat5
C5.6 as of today has tomcat5-5.5.23-0jpp.16.el5
Upstream announced tomcat5-5.5.23-0jpp.17.el5_6
(https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0336.html)

- postfix
C5.6 as of today has postfix-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2
Upstream announced postfix-2.3.3-2.2.el5_6
(https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0422.html)

- dhcp
C5.6 as of today has dhcp-3.0.5-23.el5_5.2
Upstream announced dhcp-3.0.5-23.el5_6.4
(https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0428.html)


For the following I'm not sure if these are really missing updates or
just different namings in the upstream and Centos RPMS:

- openoffice.org
C5.6 as of today has openoffice.org-*-3.1.1-19.5.el5_5.1
Upstream announced openoffice.org-base-3.1.1-19.5.el5_5.6
(https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0182.html)

- subversion
C5.6 as of today has subversion-1.6.11-7.el5
Upstream announced subversion-1.6.11-7.el5_6.3
(https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0327.html)

- libvirt
C5.6 as of today has libvirt-0.8.2-15.el5.3
Upstream announced libvirt-0.8.2-15.el5_6.3
(https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0391.html)

- glibc
C5.6 as of today has glibc-2.5-58
Upstream announced glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2
(https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0412.html)


Can someone please clarify this?

Thanks,
Bernd.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel

Sun Apr 10 14:30:01 2011
Return-path: <bounce-debian-kernel=tom=linux-archive.org@lists.debian.org>
Envelope-to: tom@linux-archive.org
Delivery-date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 14:00:04 +0300
Received: from liszt.debian.org ([82.195.75.100]:41078)
by s2.java-tips.org with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256)
(Exim 4.69)
(envelope-from <bounce-debian-kernel=tom=linux-archive.org@lists.debian.org>)
id 1Q8sN9-0007m1-Qi
for tom@linux-archive.org; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 14:00:04 +0300
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with QMQP
id 0F0B113A56DC; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:16:09 +0000 (UTC)
Old-Return-Path: <phcoder@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.5 (2008-06-10) on liszt.debian.org
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=PGPSIGNATURE,
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW autolearn=failed version=3.2.5
X-Original-To: lists-debian-kernel@liszt.debian.org
Delivered-To: lists-debian-kernel@liszt.debian.org
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 776DE13A4F91
for <lists-debian-kernel@liszt.debian.org>; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:16:02 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.debian.org with policy bank en-ht
X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-8 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3
tests=[BAYES_00=-2, PGPSIGNATURE=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
autolearn=ham
Received: from liszt.debian.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (lists.debian.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 2525)
with ESMTP id 2RXSTFn8H6jB for <lists-debian-kernel@liszt.debian.org>;
Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:15:55 +0000 (UTC)
X-policyd-weight: using cached result; rate:hard: -6.9
Received: from mail-wy0-f175.google.com (mail-wy0-f175.google.com [74.125.82.175])
(using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority" (not verified))
by liszt.debian.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49D0913A4FFC
for <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:15:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by wye20 with SMTP id 20so4451890wye.6
for <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>; Sun, 10 Apr 2011 05:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type;
bh=q0mTfJM63yic0uv2ALQY1btQ9sv/p/N4a/zuRQRYjO0=;
b=AGmHf9bQ8klPwIkQt1AuctyqO+bRI0tN8t79W46C4u41/Du15m+Dg7T7gW67SzIxDM
2vCu2CpQZbkWqC/hzrozr7S/Ekvn85OGJjt9PeTKkt6wpfJz6MtQybjIZsQCiju9+5xO
oEWiN+0NEDjfLn5z6mAgI5MbswDevJkRcZ1D8=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
:references:in-reply-to:x-enigmail-version:content-type;
b=wlSZEn9xpXbgOOV4Y75sYY+98ouxp2q/iIKJXrLOE4BDJzRLxFpaZRhupoWrG3xyso
cQFgi1F8D3cvhIXvsY1uttfSduTKXbFR7jPHVbXNfKljsa2Dcc AFW8843oQ8vM7KCAej
pvkCPx6CFu/oQpu0e5UX6goJ3sdG+MB2c46Xw=
Received: by 10.216.179.196 with SMTP id h46mr3673560wem.78.1302437752812;
Sun, 10 Apr 2011 05:15:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from debian.x201.phnet (138-42.62-81.cust.bluewin.ch [81.62.42.138])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id a50sm2161384wer.18.2011.04.10.05.15.50
(version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER);
Sun, 10 Apr 2011 05:15:51 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DA19F64.5010903@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 14:15:32 +0200
From: =?UTF-8?B?VmxhZGltaXIgJ8+GLWNvZGVyL3BoY29kZXInIFNlcmJpbm Vua28=?=
<phcoder@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110402 Iceowl/1.0b2 Icedove/3.1.9
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk>
CC: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org, grub2@packages.debian.org
Subject: Re: Dropping unversioned kernel links/copies; adding linux-version
command
References: <1301628792.10056.166.camel@localhost> <4D95BBD2.3020005@gmail.com> <1301659477.10056.172.camel@localhost>
In-Reply-To: <1301659477.10056.172.camel@localhost>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.2
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
protocol="application/pgp-signature";
boundary="------------enig9AC56DF5173BAA625764CDF6"
X-Rc-Virus: 2007-09-13_01
X-Rc-Spam: 2008-11-04_01
Resent-Message-ID: <pw3mJRjkX4G.A.myE.J-ZoNB@liszt>
Resent-From: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org
X-Mailing-List: <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org> archive/latest/69750
X-Loop: debian-kernel@lists.debian.org
List-Id: <debian-kernel.lists.debian.org>
List-URL: <http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/>
List-Post: <mailto:debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>
List-Help: <mailto:debian-kernel-request@lists.debian.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:debian-kernel-request@lists.debian.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:debian-kernel-request@lists.debian.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Precedence: list
Resent-Sender: debian-kernel-request@lists.debian.org
Resent-Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2011 12:16:09 +0000 (UTC)

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156)
--------------enig9AC56DF5173BAA625764CDF6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 01.04.2011 14:04, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> There isn't an official spec. However the source and unit tests for th=
e
> DebianLinux Perl module (added to linux-base to support this command)
> explain the rules I came up with.
I don't feel that this is enough. I wanted something that we could agree
on, so this could be pulled upstream and eventually also become
guideline for other distros. Also having a spec has a benefic effect of
clearness and it would also serve as guideline for choosing the version
names for uploads.

--=20
Regards
Vladimir '=CF=86-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko



--------------enig9AC56DF5173BAA625764CDF6
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iF4EAREKAAYFAk2hn2QACgkQNak7dOguQgkJWQD/WDZgMvZG/OzzIbgZnP6iROl6
smZ76RK9FRCpyGNiozkA/A08QwT6IPT4BHR8ajMUeyHLwhXuS0HIivHQr6sSPpP4
=rh5r
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--------------enig9AC56DF5173BAA625764CDF6--


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4DA19F64.5010903@gmail.com
 
Old 04-10-2011, 02:43 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default C5.6 missing package updates / package naming issues

On 04/10/2011 01:13 PM, Bernd Bartmann wrote:
> Hi,
>
> first I'd like to thank you for finally provinding C5.6!
>
> After updating several servers to C5.6 I checked the installed RPMS
> against the list of update announcements from upstream. Some updates
> seem to be missing and some seem to have package naming issues:
>
>
> Missing updates:
>
> - libuser
> C5.6 as of today has libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_4.1
> Upstream announced libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2
> (https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0170.html)
>
> - java-1.6.0-openjdk
> C5.6 as of today has java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.16.b17.el5
> Upstream announced java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.17.b17.el5
> (https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0176.html)
> Upstream announced java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.18.b17.el5
> (https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0214.html)
> Upstream announced java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.20.b17.el5
> (https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0281.html)
>
> - tomcat5
> C5.6 as of today has tomcat5-5.5.23-0jpp.16.el5
> Upstream announced tomcat5-5.5.23-0jpp.17.el5_6
> (https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0336.html)
>
> - postfix
> C5.6 as of today has postfix-2.3.3-2.1.el5_2
> Upstream announced postfix-2.3.3-2.2.el5_6
> (https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0422.html)
>
> - dhcp
> C5.6 as of today has dhcp-3.0.5-23.el5_5.2
> Upstream announced dhcp-3.0.5-23.el5_6.4
> (https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0428.html)
>
>
> For the following I'm not sure if these are really missing updates or
> just different namings in the upstream and Centos RPMS:
>
> - openoffice.org
> C5.6 as of today has openoffice.org-*-3.1.1-19.5.el5_5.1
> Upstream announced openoffice.org-base-3.1.1-19.5.el5_5.6
> (https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0182.html)
>
> - subversion
> C5.6 as of today has subversion-1.6.11-7.el5
> Upstream announced subversion-1.6.11-7.el5_6.3
> (https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0327.html)
>
> - libvirt
> C5.6 as of today has libvirt-0.8.2-15.el5.3
> Upstream announced libvirt-0.8.2-15.el5_6.3
> (https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0391.html)
>
> - glibc
> C5.6 as of today has glibc-2.5-58
> Upstream announced glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2
> (https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2011-0412.html)
>
>
> Can someone please clarify this?

These will get cleared through the next few days. Apart from glibc, the
rest are all built and in the release queue ( the src.rpms for the main
distro are present seeding through - at a forced slow rate, so as to not
overload the already loaded mirror network, these updates will come
through right after ).

Also, announcements for the updates will come through soon ( for all
pkgs in the updates/ repo under /5/ )


- KB

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 03:26 AM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org