On 09/11/2012 08:28 AM, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
>
> On the errata list Tue, 4 Sep 2012, Pat Riehecky wrote:
>
>> Synopsis:          Critical: java-1.6.0-openjdk security update
>> Issue Date:        2012-09-03
>> CVE Numbers:       CVE-2012-1682
>>                   CVE-2012-0547
>
>> SL6
>>  x86_64
>>    java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.49.1.11.4.el6_3.x86_64.rpm
>>    java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo-1.6.0.0-1.49.1.11.4.el6_3.x86_64.rpm
>>    java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel-1.6.0.0-1.49.1.11.4.el6_3.x86_64.rpm
>>    java-1.6.0-openjdk-javadoc-1.6.0.0-1.49.1.11.4.el6_3.x86_64.rpm
>>    java-1.6.0-openjdk-src-1.6.0.0-1.49.1.11.4.el6_3.x86_64.rpm
>>  i386
>>    java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.49.1.11.4.el6_3.i686.rpm
>>    java-1.6.0-openjdk-demo-1.6.0.0-1.49.1.11.4.el6_3.i686.rpm
>>    java-1.6.0-openjdk-devel-1.6.0.0-1.49.1.11.4.el6_3.i686.rpm
>>    java-1.6.0-openjdk-javadoc-1.6.0.0-1.49.1.11.4.el6_3.i686.rpm
>>    java-1.6.0-openjdk-src-1.6.0.0-1.49.1.11.4.el6_3.i686.rpm
>
> I've come across some 64bit SL6 machines with 32 bit firefox and 
> java-1.6.0-openjdk installed.
> On these machines yum wont update the x86_64 since that
> would create a multilib conflict:
> Error: Protected multilib versions: 
> 1:java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.49.1.11.4.el6_3.x86_64 != 
> 1:java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.48.1.11.3.el6_2.i686
>
> Should the SL6 x86_64 repo not also include the i686 java
> (probably both java-1.6.0-openjdk* *and* java-1.7.0-openjdk*)?
>

Upstream doesn't provide the i686 java-1.6.0-openjdk* or 
java-1.7.0-openjdk* packages on x86_64 for EL6.  The two most recent 
updates of those packages continue that pattern (IDs 2012:1221-1 and 
2012:1223-1).  From our side we try not to deviate very much from what 
our upstream provider is doing.  Our hope is that by following them 
closely we reduce the possible problems our users encounter.  Since 
you've run into a problem with which packages are available on each 
arch, I would encourage you to provide feedback into the upstream 
bugzilla.[1]  That way groups other than this one can benefit from your 
work on this issue.  They also might be able to explain why they are not 
currently putting the i686 packages into x86_64.  If you open a bugzilla 
please let me know the bug number so that I can join the watch list.

I'm not too sure how you got the i686 package onto your box, as it isn't 
in any of the x86_64 repos.  Can I get a 'yum list java-1.6.0-openjdk*'?

Pat

[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/

-- 
Pat Riehecky
Scientific Linux Developer