On 04/13/2011 04:45 AM, Farkas Levente wrote: > 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. The dist tag does NOT exist in the SRPM (that is, it is NOT hard coded in the the SRPM), it is the variable "dist" and it set by the build system. This is another example of upstream releasing several updates at the same time that were not really built at the same time and/or not built on the same system and/or the dist variable is somehow set dynamically an not normally by the build system. This requires the CentOS team to build these packages as "one off" builds with a special dist set in our build system. Sometimes we get it wrong as our updates are built and tested in an automated fashion then we check them by hand and deploy. If "dist" was hard coded, then we would have the correct one. We are aware of the older released dist tag issues. However, there is NO WAY to fix it until an upstream update occurs. This is because .el5_4 is newer than .el5 ... we therefore can not replace .el5_4 with .el5 until there is a version bump upstream. The dist tag being different is not something to be concerned about. <snip> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 253 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110413/a448d8cd/attachment-0005.sig>