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@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@tabb1 RPMS]# rpm -ivh --force kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] 1:kernel ########################################### [100%] [root@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
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.ELin the sorting order. I downloaded from a mirror and forced the install:
[root@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@tabb1 RPMS]# rpm -ivh --force kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] 1:kernel ########################################### [100%] [root@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
On 5/26/06, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
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
Hi Johnny,
Since it may not go into effect until 4.4, how about US rather than UN :)
rgds/ldv
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 15:07 -0700, Larry Vaden wrote:
On 5/26/06, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
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
Hi Johnny,
Since it may not go into effect until 4.4, how about US rather than UN :)
rgds/ldv _______________________________________________
After much discussion ... it will be:
.plus.c4
(for .EL)
and not unsupported or UN or US
On Fri, 2006-05-26 at 13:42 -0400, Phil Schaffner wrote:
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.ELin the sorting order. I downloaded from a mirror and forced the install:
[root@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@tabb1 RPMS]# rpm -ivh --force kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm Preparing... ########################################### [100%] 1:kernel ########################################### [100%] [root@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.
OK ... looking at the naming convention, we have decided on a new name for centosplus kernels. This one is along the lines of what Phil suggested, and in keeping with how we do other repos.
The new centos plus kernel based on the 2.6.9-34.0.1.EL kernel is going to be 2.6.9-34.107.plus.c4. This is because .106 needs to be upgraded. There will be no extra numbers in future versions.
For all future kernels in the CentOS-4 CentOSPlus repos ... they will exactly follow the normal upstream versions ... except that the '.EL' will be replaced with '.plus.c4'. So, here is an example of the kernel RPM names will be:
kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.src.rpm
kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.plus.c4.src.rpm
(remember that due to the 106 before, this version will be 2.6.9-34.107.plus.c4, but future versions will be as marked)
This will make the CentOSPlus version an upgrade to main CentOS kernel if the repo is selected ... and it will allow easy tracking, and it will designate it as a CentOSPlus kernel.
We discussed the issue, and .plus.c4 I think is better than unsupported, as several people have major issues with the unsupported word :)
On 5/28/06, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
For all future kernels in the CentOS-4 CentOSPlus repos ... they will exactly follow the normal upstream versions ... except that the '.EL' will be replaced with '.plus.c4'.
So what effect is this intended to have on "yum update" in the event that the CentOS rebuild of a new upstream kernel is released before the corresponding Plus kernel is released?
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 5/28/06, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
For all future kernels in the CentOS-4 CentOSPlus repos ... they will exactly follow the normal upstream versions ... except that the '.EL' will be replaced with '.plus.c4'.
So what effect is this intended to have on "yum update" in the event that the CentOS rebuild of a new upstream kernel is released before the corresponding Plus kernel is released?
If you are using a centosplus kernel, you should have an exclude= line setup for the [base] repo to ensure that kernel is not picked up.
If a higher/ newer Version-Release is made available in [base] that is always going to override a lower version, even with a -.plus.c4 in there.
- KB
On Sun, 2006-05-28 at 17:58 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
Bart Schaefer wrote:
On 5/28/06, Johnny Hughes mailing-lists@hughesjr.com wrote:
For all future kernels in the CentOS-4 CentOSPlus repos ... they will exactly follow the normal upstream versions ... except that the '.EL' will be replaced with '.plus.c4'.
So what effect is this intended to have on "yum update" in the event that the CentOS rebuild of a new upstream kernel is released before the corresponding Plus kernel is released?
If you are using a centosplus kernel, you should have an exclude= line setup for the [base] repo to ensure that kernel is not picked up.
The exclude= line:
exclude=kernel-2* kernel-smp* kernel-devel kernel-hugemem* kernel- largesmp*
needs to be in both the [base] and the [updates] section of the CentOS- Base.repo file. The reason for the long line and not just exclude=kernel* is the package named kernel-utils ... which is not in centosplus but needs to be updated from the [base] and/or [updates] repo.
You also need to exclude other packages from centosplus {that you are using} from [base] and [updates].
also ... if you are only interested in only the kernel packages in centosplus ... and you do not want php-5 (as and example) then you would add this line to the centosplus repo:
includeonlypkgs=kernel*
If a higher/ newer Version-Release is made available in [base] that is always going to override a lower version, even with a -.plus.c4 in there.
- KB
-
Bart Schaefer -
Johnny Hughes -
Karanbir Singh -
Larry Vaden -
Phil Schaffner