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@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@tabb1 RPMS]# rpm -ivh --force kernel-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL.i686.rpm
Preparing... ########################################### [100%]
1:kernel ########################################### [100%]
[root@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
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
