[CentOS] Re: [CentOS-announce] CESA-2006:0493 Important CentOS 4 i386 kernel - security update

Fri May 26 17:56:29 UTC 2006
Johnny Hughes <mailing-lists at hughesjr.com>

On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 13:42 -0400, Phil Schaffner wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-05-24 at 17:13 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2006:0493
> > 
> > https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2006-0493.html
> > 
> > The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently
> > syncing to the mirrors:
> > 
> > i386:
> > kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i586.rpm
> > kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm
> > kernel-devel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i586.rpm
> > kernel-devel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm
> > kernel-doc-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.noarch.rpm
> > kernel-hugemem-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm
> > kernel-hugemem-devel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm
> > kernel-smp-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i586.rpm
> > kernel-smp-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm
> > kernel-smp-devel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i586.rpm
> > kernel-smp-devel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm
> > 
> > src:
> > kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.src.rpm
> 
> I wonder if a change in the naming convention for centosplus kernels
> might be in order?  Had to think a bit to understand why yum was not
> showing me the new errata kernel until I realized that
> 
>         2.6.9-34.106.unsupported > 2.6.9-34.0.1.EL
> 
> in the sorting order.  I downloaded from a mirror and forced the
> install:
> 
> [root at tabb1 RPMS]# rpm -ivh kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm
> Preparing...                ########################################### [100%]
>         package kernel-2.6.9-34.106.unsupported (which is newer than kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL) is already installed
> [root at tabb1 RPMS]# rpm -ivh --force kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm
> Preparing...                ########################################### [100%]
>    1:kernel                 ########################################### [100%]
> [root at tabb1 RPMS]# 
> 
> Similar problems for kernel-devel and kernel-doc RPMS.
> 
> If the name for the last centosplus/unsupported version had been
> kernel-2.6.9-34.unsupported.106 (or similar) the new version[s] would
> have been offered for installation, and since (I believe)
> 
> 	unsupported.106 > EL
> 
> for rpm/yum, the new centosplus kernels would still be installable if
> that repo is configured.
> 
> Phil
> 

I wonder if unsupported > EL ... if not, I guess we could use UN ... I
am pretty sure "UN > EL".

I will work this out and starting with the 4.4 kernels we will implement
it that way.

(unsupported or UN substituted for EL)

Thanks,
Johnny Hughes
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060526/3e0d63f0/attachment-0005.sig>