On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 11:15, Kai Schaetzl <maillists at 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. -- Levente "Si vis pacem para bellum!"