Hi Axel,
Yes, I believe you are right.
The one catch is the bugfix rpm's, and it's actually something that I 
wanted to bring up in a e-mail conversation, either here or ons 
scientific-linux-users.

What exactly should go into the bugfix area.

Now for SL 305, it was easy.  I just put in all the rpm's that are going 
to be in 307, that arn't included in the errata.

But for the older releases, the question is how much do we put in.
I'll use SL 303 for an example, but this applies to all the older releases.

For SL 303, do I just put in all the rpm's in SL 304, that aren't in the 
errata?  Or do I just put in all the rpm's from SL 307 that aren't in 
the errata?  Or do I do a cumulative work, meaning, I put in all the SL 
304 bugfix, then all the SL 305 bugfix, and then all the SL 307 bugfix?

Any ideas anyone?

Troy

Axel Thimm wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Michael pointed out that ATrpms' hierarchy had some desyncing with SL
> content (not the ATrpms' mirror of SL, that's a 1-1 mapping, of
> course).
> 
> I've read through the list's archive, and found that I missed the
> bugfixes repo. I'm fixing this at ATrpms, but just to make sure, can
> you verify these mappings? Thanks!
> 
> release rpms:  ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/$versionx/$arch/SL/RPMS
> release srpms: ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/$versionx/SRPMS/vendor/original
> 	       ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/$versionx/SRPMS
> update rpms:   ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/$versionx/$arch/errata/SL/RPMS
> 	       ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/$versionx/$arch/errata/bugfix/RPMS
> update srpms:  ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/$versionx/SRPMS/vendor/errata
>                ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/$versionx/SRPMS
> 


-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/CSS  CSI Group
__________________________________________________