Jan Iven wrote:
> On 19/09/07 10:02, Jan Iven wrote:
>> On 18/09/07 20:54, Troy Dawson wrote:
>>> Hi Jan,
>>> Just because we didn't reply to this, didn't mean we didn't read it 
>>> and are looking at it.
>>> We've also found that the pam packages are this way too.  We're in 
>>> the process of rebuilding them.
>>> The two questions are,
>>> Where do we put them when we've recompiled them?  In the errata?  
>>> They will definatly make it into SL 5.1.
>>
>> (or SL4.6, I guess/hope :-)
>>
>> I don't think they will get applied if they are in the errata (unless 
>> you change the release number, of course), since the "base" repository 
>> will usually come first. Which means we have the optiosn to
>> - replace in base (nasty, CD/DVD is different, but helps people who'd 
>> like to newly install these RPMS, and nobody else would notice
>> - bump release and put into errata
>> - defer to next release, keep in errata until then and tell people to 
>> manually overwrite in their repo if they see trouble.
> 
> by the way, did you decide on anything regarding the "conflicting" 
> i386/x86_64 packages? (I may have missed some mails recently, apologies 
> for nagging).
> TIA
> Jan
> 
Hi Jan,
Connie was the one that did the work, but she's busy right at the moment.  She 
went through and found several packages with the problem occured.  She said she 
got them all except for gcc.  I know she has put them in our rolling area so 
the next release they will go out with it.  I *think* we have also put them in 
the errata area's, replacing those that were already out.  But I'll have to let 
her comment on that.

Troy


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