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