SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL Archives

January 2012

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:
Pat Riehecky <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Pat Riehecky <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 6 Jan 2012 11:46:18 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (40 lines)
A new version of nfs-utils (nfs-utils-1.2.3-15.el6.0.sl6) has been 
posted in the Scientific Linux testing repository.  The only difference 
between it and the existing one is an incremented version number.  If 
testing verifies it works as expected it may be placed in the security tree.

This changed version reflects a fork in the naming from upstream which 
we attempt to avoid as much as possible.

Pat

On 12/27/2011 06:36 AM, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
> On Thu, 22 Dec 2011, Pat Riehecky wrote:
>
>> This email announces a reissue of the nfs-utils package due to a bug 
>> in the build environment.  Users experiencing issues with umount.nfs 
>> can correct the error by downgrading nfs-utils to the previous 
>> version (yum downgrade nfs-utils), cleaning their repodata (yum clean 
>> all), and updating nfs-utils again (yum update nfs-utils).  All 
>> Scientific Linux mirrors will acquire this update at their next sync.
>
> If
> rpmquery  -i nfs-utils  | grep "Build Date"
> returns
> Release     : 15.el6            Build Date: Wed 14 Dec 2011 15:17:13 GMT
> do I have the new/good version or the old one ?
>
> If that doesn't distinguish the bad package and you can't
> push a rebuild with a different release number (I'd have thought
> that in this case replacing el6 with sl6... would have been justified)
> can you give us another way of distinguishing the two versions
> rather than just telling us to downgrade and reupgrade.
>
> Thanks,
>


-- 
Pat Riehecky
Scientific Linux Developer

ATOM RSS1 RSS2