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-0004.sig>