On Fri, 16 Dec 2011, Jonathan G. Underwood wrote:

> On 15/12/11 00:01, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 14, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Farkas Levente<[log in to unmask]> 
>> wrote:
>>> On 12/14/2011 08:51 PM, Pat Riehecky wrote:
>>>> Updated packages for nfs-utils posted for testing at
>>>> 
>>>> ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6rolling/testing/i386/
>>>> ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6rolling/testing/x86_64/
>>>> 
>>>> These packages should not segfault in the manner that the current
>>>> packages do.  If it does continue to segfault, or operate in an
>>>> unexpected manner, please let me know.
>>>> 
>>>> To test these you will need to downgrade to a version earlier than
>>>> nfs-utils-1.2.3-15.el6 (yum downgrade nfs-utils), enable the testing
>>>> repository, and install nfs-utils from there.  Once installed you can
>>>> disable the testing repo.
>>>> 
>>>> Or you can just run the following commands
>>>> 
>>>> yum -y downgrade nfs-utils
>>>> yum -y --enablerepo=sl-testing update nfs-utils
>>> 
>>> is it an upstream fix or sl modified one?
>> 
>> This SL post/thread has more details:
>> 
>> http://listserv.fnal.gov/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind1112&L=scientific-linux-users&T=0&P=16967
>
> Two questions:
>
> 1) What actually caused the corrupted package build, and how sure are we no 
> other packages have suffered similar problems?

The package was not corrupted,  it seems to have been built against a 
"different" set of rpms than what TUV used.  We have no way of knowing 
what they used.

  >
> 2) Although I realize SL keeps the evr of TUV's rpm the same, in this case 
> (post-SL release) I think it might be a good idea to bump the release (adding 
> a .1 to the very end) to enable easy fixing of machines with the broken 
> packages installed by a simple yum update. Thoughts?
>
> Cheers,
> Jonathan
>

-Connie Sieh