On 01/16/2014 04:24 PM, Pat Riehecky wrote: > On 01/16/2014 04:16 PM, Gilbert E. Detillieux wrote: >> I hope this is the right forum for this... >> >> I came across a weird problem on an SL6.5 system I maintain, where a >> package that was on my exclude list got updated anyway. (The exclude >> list was defined for both the [sl] and the [sl-security] repos.) I >> discovered that the update got in through a back door when some >> debuginfo packages for glibc were updated by yum. >> >> Lo and behold, looking at the >> http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6x/archive/debuginfo/ >> directory, I find 234 x86_64.rpm packages that aren't debuginfo, but >> actual binary packages (stale ones, in at least some cases). See, for >> example, these cups-related packages: >> >> -rw-r--r-- 2398984 2013/11/22 13:58:17 >> cups-1.4.2-50.el6_4.4.x86_64.rpm >> -rw-r--r-- 109936 2013/11/22 13:58:17 >> cups-devel-1.4.2-50.el6_4.4.x86_64.rpm >> -rw-r--r-- 323152 2013/11/22 13:58:17 >> cups-libs-1.4.2-50.el6_4.4.x86_64.rpm >> -rw-r--r-- 82428 2013/11/22 13:58:17 >> cups-lpd-1.4.2-50.el6_4.4.x86_64.rpm >> -rw-r--r-- 77440 2013/11/22 13:58:17 >> cups-php-1.4.2-50.el6_4.4.x86_64.rpm >> >> I've now added the same exclude list to my [sl-debuginfo] repo (found >> in sl-other.repo), just to be safe. But this doesn't seem right to me. >> >> Can someone in charge clean up this repo? >> >> Thanks, >> Gilbert >> > > Yeah, that is a bit weird....... > > I'll get it cleaned up. I wonder what happened on Nov 22 at > 13:57-13:58 (time stamp on all those files). > The repo should be clean now and feature corrected metadata. Pat -- Pat Riehecky Scientific Linux developer http://www.scientificlinux.org/