SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL Archives

January 2008

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:
Glenn Morris <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Glenn Morris <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Mon, 28 Jan 2008 19:10:07 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (41 lines)
Hi,


I updated a few systems from SL5.0 to SL5.1 via yum update. I also
installed a few from scratch using the 5.1 isos. I noticed that the
two methods lead to slightly different package versions in some cases.

Eg for i386, install gives flac-1.1.2-28.el5_0.1.i386, whereas update
gives flac-1.1.2-28.el5.1.i386.


I guess this is just more of this:

http://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0711&L=scientific-linux-devel&T=0&P=2946

Ie, the version numbers are such that the SL5.0 packages appear to be
newer than the SL5.1 ones (I'm assuming they are all actually the
same), so they don't get updated.


On a cosmetic level, I'd like all my systems to have the same package
versions.

One can also get into some (artificial) problems, eg on x86_64 SL5.1
obtained by updating from 5.0, I had installed

flac-1.1.2-28.el5.1.x86_64
flac-1.1.2-28.el5.1.i386

Then I yum remove'd the i386 version. When I tried to re-install it,
yum wanted to install the SL5.1 flac-1.1.2-28.el5_0.1.i386 version,
but refused to do so, complaining that `package flac-1.1.2-28.el5.1
(which is newer than flac-1.1.2-28.el5_0.1) is already installed'.


I can send the full list of packages I've noticed to end up with
different versions if that's of interest (there are about 20).


Thanks.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2