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