 
| Subject: | |
| From: | |
| Reply To: | |
| Date: | Fri, 5 Jul 2013 08:51:34 -0500 |
| Content-Type: | text/plain |
| Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Should be fixed up now.
Pat
On 07/05/2013 07:58 AM, Pat Riehecky wrote:
> Hello,
>
> When the updateinfo build script doesn't find a valid date, it defaults to
> 1/1/70. I'll see about getting those fixed up.
>
> Pat
>
> On 07/04/2013 01:53 AM, Ree, Jan-Albert van wrote:
>> This morning our Spacewalk service sent out some emails , among them an
>> errata mail regarding SLSA-2013:0957-1
>> What I noticed in Spacewalk is that the Issued date is set at 1/1/70
>>
>> Same is true for several others,
>>
>> Bug Fix Advisory SLBA-2013:0835-1 selinux-policy bug fix
>> update 1 1/1/70
>> Security Advisory SLSA-2013:0911-1 Important: kernel security
>> update 4 1/1/70
>> Bug Fix Advisory SLBA-2013:0893-1 selinux-policy bug fix
>> update 1 1/1/70
>> Bug Fix Advisory SLBA-2013:0909-1 selinux-policy bug fix
>> update 4 1/1/70
>> Bug Fix Advisory SLBA-2013:1000-1 selinux-policy bug fix
>> update 4 1/1/70
>> Security Advisory SLSA-2013:0983-1 Moderate: curl security
>> update 4 1/1/70
>> Security Advisory SLSA-2013:0942-1 Moderate: krb5 security
>> update 4 1/1/70
>> Security Advisory SLSA-2013:0957-1 Critical:
>> java-1.7.0-openjdk security update 4 1/1/70
>> Security Advisory SLSA-2013:0981-1 Critical: firefox security
>> update 4 1/1/70
>>
>> Is there a reason these are set at 1/1/70 instead of it's normal issue date?
>> All these are coming from the sl6 security repository
>> ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6rolling/x86_64/updates/security/
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>>
>> Jan-Albert van Ree
>> Linux System Administrator
>> MARIN Support Group
>> E mailto:[log in to unmask]
>> T +31 317 49 35 48
>>
>>
>> MARIN
>> 2, Haagsteeg, P.O. Box 28, 6700 AA Wageningen, The Netherlands
>> T +31 317 49 39 11, F +31 317 49 32 45, I www.marin.nl
>
>
--
Pat Riehecky
Scientific Linux developer
http://www.scientificlinux.org/
|
|
|
