Hi Farkas, Thanks for the report. But I'd like to request you to not CC both the lists, its a waste of time. And this sort of stuff is much better off in the bugs.c.o instance. On 04/12/2011 11:36 PM, Farkas Levente wrote: > os/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are from older release): Easy to handle, I'll get that sorted. Ofcourse this wont change on the install media, just the mirrors. > updates/i386 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os): I know how this got missed :/ Will write a test to make sure that no package is released if its already in the tree. Should be fairly trivial. > os/x86_64 these shouldn't have to be there (they are already in os): same as above. > 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 This is a good point. We had quite a lot of issues getting anaconda to build and the final builds were actually done by hand. Both the src.rpm's are in the srpms repo. I do try and keep the two in sync most times. > 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): Ned highlighted these issues at the QA stages, but we all felt that since the packages were already released into an older public repo, we would leave them as is and the next update for these packages should move the tag to the right place. or wherever it needs to be. > and a lots of updates still missing: I havent dont any matches against your list here, but do know that there are a lot of updates in the queue behind the src.rpms. There are 5 updates not pushed through as yet: dhcp kernel openoffice.org glibc spice_xpi Depending on how far we get with the srpms today, we can push these out as well. They are all built ( including the plus kernel, which still needs to be tested ), just awaiting b/w for release. Thanks - KB