xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: ANNOUNCE XFS 1.3.0pre4

To: "Axel Thimm" <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: ANNOUNCE XFS 1.3.0pre4
From: "Simon Matter" <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, 26 Jul 2003 02:23:15 +0200 (CEST)
Cc: "Simon Matter" <simon.matter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Russell Cattelan" <cattelan@xxxxxxx>, linux-xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to: <20030726001008.GC14428@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <1059169471.34654.113.camel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <54612.213.173.165.140.1059176176.squirrel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20030726001008.GC14428@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: linux-xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
User-agent: SquirrelMail/1.4.1
> On Sat, Jul 26, 2003 at 01:36:16AM +0200, Simon Matter wrote:
>> Russel,
>>
>> May I propose a little change in the package name for future releases.
>> IIRC rpm considers kernel-2.4.20-18.9XFS1.3.0pre4 older than
>> kernel-2.4.20-18.9.
>
> Appending to the rpm's release makes the release always newer, so the
> scenario you describe shouldn't happen.

You're right, shame on me. I had the old naming in mind which was once
used with an XFS installer where names would be in the form
kernel-2.4.20-18XFS1.3.0pre4 which was considerd older than
kernel-2.4.20-18.9.

Sorry for the noise
Simon

>
>> Now if you 'rpm -Fvh *' in a directory which includes
>> errata rpms, the original RedHat kernel is installed even if you already
>> upgraded to the new XFS release, which is not what you want.
>> If you change the release to kernel-2.4.20-18.9.XFS1.3.0pre4, it doesn't
>> happen again.
>
> Maybe you upgraded an XFS 18 to a non-XFS 19 release? That could
> happen. If you want to avoid that you need to change the naming
> convention rather radically, e.g. kernel-sgixfs-2.4.20-18.9 to stay
> with the above example.
>
>> Regards,
>> Simon
>>
>> > The 1.3.0 pre4 patches and latest RH9 errata kernel rpms are
>> > available at:
>> > ftp://oss.sgi.com/projects/xfs/Release-1.3/pre4/
>> >
>> > The 1.3 xfs-cmds have also been updated to TOT xfs-cmds, since
>> > there is no real reason not to bring them in sync. In other works
>> > no major code changes, just a lot of cleanups and minor bug fixes.
>> >
>> > One significant update: xfs_copy is now installed by default.
>> >
>> > The kernel rpm's themselves have not had much testing so use
>> > at your own risk.
>> >
>> > As far as the xfs codes goes, it goes through nightly regression
>> > testing.
>> >
>> > As always please let us know of any issues.
>> > If things go well pre4 should probably turn into actual XFS 1.3.0
>> >
>> > -Russell Cattelan
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
> --
> Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>