On Wed, 14 Nov 2007, Troy Dawson wrote:

<snip>
> *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.

They seem to have changed their minds between pcre-6.6-2.el5_0.1 and 
pcre-6.6-2.el5_1.1 'cos the specfile changelog diff contains:

  %changelog
+* Fri Nov 09 2007 Josh Bressers <[log in to unmask]> - 6.6-2.el5_1.1
+- Resolves: #373441, CVE-2006-7224
+
  * Thu Oct 11 2007 Than Ngo <[log in to unmask]> - 6.6-2.1
  - Resolves: #315951, CVE-2007-1659, CVE-2007-1660

so pcre-6.6-2.el5_0.1 got tagged in the changelog as 6.6-2.1 and 
pcre-6.6-2.el5_1.1 as 6.6-2.el5_1.1

It is a pity that values of rpm macros like %{dist} arn't included in the 
set of RPMTAG_ values.

  -- Jon