SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

December 2011

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

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

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Dr Andrew C Aitchison <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Dr Andrew C Aitchison <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 27 Dec 2011 12:36:03 +0000
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (27 lines)
On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Pat Riehecky wrote:

> This email announces a reissue of the nfs-utils package due to a bug in the 
> build environment.  Users experiencing issues with umount.nfs can correct the 
> error by downgrading nfs-utils to the previous version (yum downgrade 
> nfs-utils), cleaning their repodata (yum clean all), and updating nfs-utils 
> again (yum update nfs-utils).  All Scientific Linux mirrors will acquire this 
> update at their next sync.

If
rpmquery  -i nfs-utils  | grep "Build Date"
returns
Release     : 15.el6            Build Date: Wed 14 Dec 2011 15:17:13 GMT
do I have the new/good version or the old one ?

If that doesn't distinguish the bad package and you can't
push a rebuild with a different release number (I'd have thought
that in this case replacing el6 with sl6... would have been justified)
can you give us another way of distinguishing the two versions
rather than just telling us to downgrade and reupgrade.

Thanks,

-- 
Dr. Andrew C. Aitchison		Computer Officer, DPMMS, Cambridge
[log in to unmask]	http://www.dpmms.cam.ac.uk/~werdna

ATOM RSS1 RSS2