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? 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