On Thu, 2006-05-04 at 19:28 +0200, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> yum check-update:
> clamav.i386 0.88.1-1.el4.kb kbs-CentOS-Extra
> clamav-data.i386 0.88.1-1.el4.kb kbs-CentOS-Extra
> clamav-lib.i386 0.88.1-1.el4.kb kbs-CentOS-Extra
> clamav-update.i386 0.88.1-1.el4.kb kbs-CentOS-Extra
>
> yum update:
>
> Installing:
> clamav-db i386 0.88.2-1.el4.rf rpmforge 4.0 M
> replacing clamav-update.i386 0.88-1.el4.kb
>
> Updating:
> clamav i386 0.88.1-1.el4.kb kbs-CentOS-Extras 545 k
> clamav-lib i386 0.88.1-1.el4.kb kbs-CentOS-Extras 143 k
>
> Updating for dependencies:
> clamav-data i386 0.88.1-1.el4.kb kbs-CentOS-Extras 3.4 M
>
> The installed clam rpms on this machine are from kbs-CentOS-Extras (which
> is protected=1 while rpmforge/dag is not!)
I think it should be:
(for kbs)
protect=1
and
(for dag)
protect=0
Also ... did you remember to add plugins=1 to your /etc/yum.conf file.
Details for protectbase here:
http://wiki.centos.org/centoswiki/PackageManagement/Yum/ProtectBase
>
> I think not only should the replacement not happen if the replaced
> rpm/repo is protected, there should also be no difference between update
> and check-update! A bug in yum?
>
> Kai
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20060504/14391483/attachment.bin
