hi, i try to collect the problems, bugs and 'strange' things in current centos-5.6 release:
os/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are from older release): kmod-gfs-0.1.34-12 kmod-gfs-PAE-0.1.34-12 kmod-gfs-xen-0.1.34-12 centos-release-notes-5.5-0
updates/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os): libtdb-1.2.1-5.el5.i386 libtdb-devel-1.2.1-5.el5.i386 m2crypto-0.16-6.el5.8.i386 tdb-tools-1.2.1-5.el5.i386 virt-manager-0.6.1-13.el5.i386
os/x86_64 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os): etherboot-pxes-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64 etherboot-roms-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64 etherboot-roms-kvm-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64 etherboot-zroms-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64 etherboot-zroms-kvm-5.4.4-13.el5.x86_64 libtdb-1.2.1-5.el5.x86_64 libtdb-devel-1.2.1-5.el5.x86_64 m2crypto-0.16-6.el5.8.x86_64 tdb-tools-1.2.1-5.el5.x86_64 virt-manager-0.6.1-13.el5.x86_64
anaconda different in i386 and x86_64 either both should have to be anaconda-11.1.2.224-1.el5.centos or both should have to be anaconda-11.1.2.224-1.el5.centos.1
in centos version of these packages the dist tag comes from earlier release. even if they are the same package they should have to rebuild with the same dist tag as in rhel (eg: .el5 <-> .el5_4): bogl-0.1.18-13.el5_4 bogl-bterm-0.1.18-13.el5_4 bogl-devel-0.1.18-13.el5_4 ctdb-1.0.112-1.el5_5 ctdb-devel-1.0.112-1.el5_5 gail-1.9.2-3.el5_4 gail-devel-1.9.2-3.el5_4 pax-3.4-2.el5_4 taskjuggler-2.2.0-5.el5_4 vino-2.13.5-9.el5_4
and a lots of updates still missing: cman-2.0.115-68.el5_6.1 conga-0.12.2-24.el5_6.1 dhcp-3.0.5-23.el5_6.4 giflib-4.1.3-7.3.3.el5 glibc-2.5-58.el5_6.2 java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.17.b17.el5 java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.18.b17.el5 java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0-1.20.b17.el5 jwhois-3.2.3-12.el5 kexec-tools-1.102pre-126.el5_6.4 libuser-0.54.7-2.1.el5_5.2 libvirt-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1 mod_nss-1.0.8-4.el5_6.1 opensm-3.3.3-1.el5_6.1 openssh-4.3p2-72.el5_6.3 openswan-2.6.21-5.el5_6.4 pango-1.14.9-8.el5_6.2 paps-0.6.6-20.el5 postfix-2.3.3-2.2.el5_6 quota-3.13-5.el5 screen-4.0.3-4.el5 sed-4.1.5-8.el5 spice-xpi-2.2-2.3.el5_6.1 subversion-1.6.11-7.el5_6.1 subversion-1.6.11-7.el5_6.3 tomcat5-5.5.23-0jpp.17.el5_6 tzdata-2011d-3.el5 w3m-0.5.1-18.el5 wireshark-1.0.15-1.el5_5.3 xorg-x11-font-utils-7.1-3 xulrunner-1.9.2.14-4.el5_6
Farkas Levente wrote on Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:36:15 +0200:
these shouldn't have to be there (they are from older release):
they are not there, check the official repo, rsyncing without delete flag?
these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os):
what do you mean by that? Of course, they are to be there. They are part of the OS, exactly. You have been using CentOS for a while and upgraded several times in the past, have you forgotten in the meantime how CentOS/RHEL upgrading works?
in centos version of these packages the dist tag comes from earlier release. even if they are the same package they should have to rebuild with the same dist tag as in rhel (eg: .el5 <-> .el5_4):
these have not been updated, there is no reason to retag them
and a lots of updates still missing:
you are looking for things that don't exist, e.g. libvirt-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1 is 0.8.2-15.el5.3 And Java isn't part of CentOS anymore, AFAIK.
If you do not like the tagging/naming scheme. I'm pretty confident this is taken from upstreamm, you have to complain there.
Kai
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:15, Kai Schaetzl maillists@conactive.com wrote:
Farkas Levente wrote on Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:36:15 +0200:
these shouldn't have to be there (they are from older release):
they are not there, check the official repo, rsyncing without delete flag?
they are there. may be you should have to check it again:-)
these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os):
what do you mean by that? Of course, they are to be there. They are part of the OS, exactly. You have been using CentOS for a while and upgraded several times in the past, have you forgotten in the meantime how CentOS/RHEL upgrading works?
it seems you don't read what i wrote. i exactly know how the upgrade works.
in centos version of these packages the dist tag comes from earlier release. even if they are the same package they should have to rebuild with the same dist tag as in rhel (eg: .el5 <-> .el5_4):
these have not been updated, there is no reason to retag them
there is no reason to use wrong dist tag even in older release since those dist tag exists in the upstream src.rpm. so i'm not sure it's a bug in 5.6, may be it was a bug in older version.
and a lots of updates still missing:
you are looking for things that don't exist, e.g. libvirt-0.8.2-15.el5_6.1 is 0.8.2-15.el5.3
there were 2 updates and one of the missing from the updates.
And Java isn't part of CentOS anymore, AFAIK.
it's simple not true.
If you do not like the tagging/naming scheme. I'm pretty confident this is taken from upstreamm, you have to complain there.
i taken everything from upstream. may be you'd have to check things before write anything.
On 04/13/2011 04:45 AM, Farkas Levente wrote:
On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:15, Kai Schaetzl maillists@conactive.com wrote:
Farkas Levente wrote on Wed, 13 Apr 2011 00:36:15 +0200:
these shouldn't have to be there (they are from older release):
they are not there, check the official repo, rsyncing without delete flag?
they are there. may be you should have to check it again:-)
these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os):
what do you mean by that? Of course, they are to be there. They are part of the OS, exactly. You have been using CentOS for a while and upgraded several times in the past, have you forgotten in the meantime how CentOS/RHEL upgrading works?
it seems you don't read what i wrote. i exactly know how the upgrade works.
in centos version of these packages the dist tag comes from earlier release. even if they are the same package they should have to rebuild with the same dist tag as in rhel (eg: .el5 <-> .el5_4):
these have not been updated, there is no reason to retag them
there is no reason to use wrong dist tag even in older release since those dist tag exists in the upstream src.rpm. so i'm not sure it's a bug in 5.6, may be it was a bug in older version.
The dist tag does NOT exist in the SRPM (that is, it is NOT hard coded in the the SRPM), it is the variable "dist" and it set by the build system. This is another example of upstream releasing several updates at the same time that were not really built at the same time and/or not built on the same system and/or the dist variable is somehow set dynamically an not normally by the build system. This requires the CentOS team to build these packages as "one off" builds with a special dist set in our build system. Sometimes we get it wrong as our updates are built and tested in an automated fashion then we check them by hand and deploy. If "dist" was hard coded, then we would have the correct one.
We are aware of the older released dist tag issues. However, there is NO WAY to fix it until an upstream update occurs. This is because .el5_4 is newer than .el5 ... we therefore can not replace .el5_4 with .el5 until there is a version bump upstream.
The dist tag being different is not something to be concerned about.
<snip>
-
Farkas Levente -
Johnny Hughes -
Kai Schaetzl