Akemi Yagi wrote:
> On 10/20/07, [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> Hi Connie, Troy,
>>
>> this is what rsync told me it fetched:
>>
>>    x86_64/updates/security/openssl-0.9.8b-8.3.2.x86_64.rpm
>>    x86_64/updates/security/openssl-0.9.8b-8.3.el5.2.i686.rpm
>>    x86_64/updates/security/openssl-devel-0.9.8b-8.3.2.x86_64.rpm
>>    x86_64/updates/security/openssl-devel-0.9.8b-8.3.el5.2.i386.rpm
>>    x86_64/updates/security/openssl-perl-0.9.8b-8.3.2.x86_64.rpm
>>
>> Seems like the x86_64 packages were built without %dist defined.
>>
>> I guess installing these would prevent future updates (with %dist=el5)
>> from working.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>         Stephan
> 
> I recently learned that redhat started using a different naming method
> for %dist and openssl is one of them.
> 
> openssl-0.9.8b-8.3.el5_0.2.src.rpm
> 
> Note the .el5_0.2 there.  I saw CentOS released this rpm:
> 
> openssl-0.9.8b-8.3.el5_0.2.x86_64
> 
> I'm wondering how SL would deal with this issue.
> 
> Akemi

Right now, we are biding our time, to better see RedHat's full plan.
We have always supported all of our releases (SL 4.0, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3...) while 
RedHat used to always make you update to the latest release.
Since they are new to supporting more than the latest release, we aren't quite 
sure what they will end up doing.  It appears they want to label everything 
with the minor release number, but I'm not so sure that is the best way to do 
things.  It seems like alot of extra effort, for not much gained.

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