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:
Pat Riehecky <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Pat Riehecky <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 27 Dec 2011 08:55:13 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (33 lines)
On 12/27/2011 06:36 AM, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> 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,
>

The fixed version was built and signed on Dec 14 2011.

Pat

-- 
Pat Riehecky
Scientific Linux Developer

ATOM RSS1 RSS2