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