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?

>> 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.

> 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

-- 
Stephan Wiesand
   DESY - DV -
   Platanenallee 6
   15738 Zeuthen, Germany