Troy Dawson wrote:
> Glenn Morris wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> RHEL5 recently released two updates for pcre in quick succession:
>>
>> https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2007-1052.html   # nov 9
>> https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2007-0967pcre-devel-6.6-2.el.html   
>> # nov 5
>>
>> These were released as SL5 updates:
>>
>> http://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0711&L=scientific-linux-errata&T=0&P=313 
>> # nov 6
>> http://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0711&L=scientific-linux-errata&T=0&P=2375 
>> # nov 13
>>
>>
>> It looks as if the same version numbers were used for the SL rpms in
>> both cases (pcre-6.6-2.el5.1.i386.rpm etc), meaning that someone who
>> has applied the first update won't get the second installed by an
>> update.
>>
>> Compared to the RHEL5 versions:
>>
>> pcre-6.6-2.el5_1.1.i386.rpm pcre-devel-6.6-2.el5_0.1.i386.rpm
>>
>> the "_0", "_1" part of the name has been lost.
>>
>> Thanks.
> 
> Thanks for pointing this out.  I'll look into this.
> 
> Troy
> 

*Troy sighs tiredly*
Every once in a while I just want to *talk* to some of the RedHat fellows and 
say "What are you thinking?"
RedHat is currently trying to figure out how to give users the ability to sit 
on a release.  They seem to be trying to do it by putting a 'minor' number in 
their distrubution tag.  But it's a new concept, and they don't seem to be 
getting it.
We're leaving our dist tag as 'el5' like they used to have, until they figure 
out what they are really going to do.  As a result, some of our rebuilt rpm's 
are going to say el5 while TUV will say el5_0 or el5_1.
As you can see from this example, el5_1 doesn't really mean it's only for RHEL 
5 Update 1 only.  Because if I were wanting to stick with RHEL 5 Update 0, I 
would still want this critical update.
We'll get our rpm fixed, and hopefully TUV will also.
Troy
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/LCSI/CSI DSS Group
__________________________________________________