SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL Archives

November 2013

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV
Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Condense Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Sender:
Mailing list for Scientific Linux developers worldwide <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 4 Nov 2013 08:10:31 -0600
Reply-To:
Pat Riehecky <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Transfer-Encoding:
7bit
Subject:
Re: net-tools-1.60-83.el5_9 v el5_10 ?
From:
Pat Riehecky <[log in to unmask]>
Content-Type:
text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"; format=flowed
In-Reply-To:
<[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version:
1.0
Comments:
To: Dr Andrew C Aitchison <[log in to unmask]>
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines) 
On 11/04/2013 07:38 AM, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> Is there a significant difference between the packages
> ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/x86_64/updates/fastbugs/net-tools-1.60-83.el5_9.x86_64.rpm 
>
> and
> ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5rolling/x86_64/updates/fastbugs/net-tools-1.60-83.el5_10.x86_64.rpm 
>
> ?
>
> (For anyone not using upstream's code to compare package
> version-release this adds an unwelcome wrinkle :-( )
>

net-tools-1.60-83.el5_9.src.rpm

Was built upstream at Fri 04 Oct 2013 09:22:48 AM CDT and signed at Mon 
14 Oct 2013 08:15:51 AM CDT

net-tools-1.60-83.el5_10.src.rpm

Was built upstream at Fri 04 Oct 2013 09:18:53 AM CDT and signed at Mon 
14 Oct 2013 08:15:50 AM CDT

beyond that there seems to be no meaningful difference.

Pat

-- 
Pat Riehecky

Scientific Linux developer
http://www.scientificlinux.org/

ATOM RSS1 RSS2