SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

March 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:
Re: Differences between TUV and SL errata & fasTrack/fastbug repos
From:
Akemi Yagi <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Akemi Yagi <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 20 Mar 2011 06:25:59 -0700
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (16 lines) 
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Willsher <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've been looking through the fastbugs and errata repos and have notice some discrepancies with TUV. For example, RHBA-2010:0857. In TUV this is a bug in the main EL 6 channel. In SL it's in fastbugs.
> Also in fastbugs is RHBA-2011:0339. In TUV EL this is in FasTrack.
> Again, in fastbugs is RHEA-2010:0932. In TUV this is an enhancement in the main channel.
>
> This concerns me a little as this seems to mean that SL fastbugs contains legitimate, production ready bug fixes along with TUVs FasTrack bugs which are more fixes if you experience a problem type updates that normal wouldn't be wanted on production systems.  Am I understand this correctly?

A similar question was asked on this mailing list and Troy gave a
detailed answer :

http://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1103&L=scientific-linux-users&T=0&P=7222

Akemi

ATOM RSS1 RSS2