SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL Archives

March 2006

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL@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:
Connie Sieh <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Connie Sieh <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 27 Mar 2006 13:41:47 -0600
Content-Type:
TEXT/PLAIN
Parts/Attachments:
TEXT/PLAIN (60 lines)
On Mon, 27 Mar 2006, Troy Dawson wrote:

> 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?

I will use the example of 305 as it is a current example.  My expectation
was to only put in the bugfix errata that would make up 306 into the
bugfig area of 305.  This allows a user to either stay at 305 or go to an
almost equivalent 306.  If they want to go to 307 they just do the
standard 307 yum uprade as we have seen in the past with 304-->305.  If we
put all of the bugfix errata in 305 bugfix area then it will NOT be
possible to only go to the equivalent of 306.

This gives the most flexibility.

-Connie Sieh 
> 
> 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
> > 
> 
> 
> 

ATOM RSS1 RSS2