Stephan Wiesand wrote:
> Hi Troy,
> 
> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Troy Dawson wrote:
> 
>> Stephan Wiesand wrote:
>>> On Wed, 28 Jan 2009, Troy Dawson wrote:
>>>> I now have the newer ecryptfs-utils (and ecryptfs-utils-devel) in the 
>>>> testing area.
>>> There's a similar issue with cpuspeed. The new conflict doesn't work 
>>> because they missed that cpuspeed has epoch=1, but things may still break 
>>> if that isn't updated along with the kernel. It probably only affects AMD 
>>> CPUs only.
>> So, the question is.  Do we put cpuspeed into the security errata area, or 
>> just leave it at SL 5.3?
>>
>> From what I read, these AMD CPU's weren't really getting their cpu speed 
>> changed anyway because it was broken before and not really turned on.  When 
>> they turned it on, they then found bugs.
>> The problem is, which fixes the turning it on, and which fixes the new bugs.
>> Since cpuspeed isn't excluded, I'm a bit nervous to put it out into the 
>> security area.
> 
> Well, I think we're all a bit nervous about that whole new kernel. Are you 
> serious about pushing it out this week already? Any insights how serious 
> the security issue with the previous kernel actually is?
> 

No, I'm not too serious about pushing it out this week.  There always seems to 
be a problem and a new kernel usually comes out fairly quickly.
But I don't want to be scrambling to get that kernel out quick if there is a 
major security problem.

>>> Any ETA for 5.3? ;-)
>>>
>> Everything compiled very nicely.  My hat's off to RedHat for that.
> 
> Great news.
> 
>> I tried to get the Alpha out yesterday, but the installer isn't cooperating.
>> For the Alpha, we usually don't do anything with the installer and everything 
>> works.  but this time it's giving us some grief.  I think it's a combination 
>> of yum, python, and rpm all being changed.
>> Connie is still on vacation, and she's really the installer expert.  I'm 
>> going to poke and prod around and hopefully get something working, but if 
>> not, we won't be able to get the alpha out until next week.
> 
> Unless it's too much hassle, it would still be good to have the RPMs and 
> yum repodata in 5rolling. Even without the installer, we could still test 
> updates from 5.2, which are more critical than new installations anyway.
> 

If I haven't figured out the problem by tomorrow, that is probably what I'll do.

>> Oh, I also put the e4fsprogs in the testing area with the kernel.  I figured 
>> if we were going to have ext4 in the kernel, we might as well have the 
>> programs that go with it.
> 
> Thanks. I'm really curious how it compares to XFS.
> 
> - Stephan
> 

I'm currently setting up a machine right now to do a very informal test.
Troy
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI DSS Group
__________________________________________________