CentOS - Dec 2007 - packages downgraded when going from 5.0 to 5.1

Hello,

I have a few packages where the latest updated version in 5.0 is greater 
than the current 5.1 version.

Here is the list: package, installed version (from 5.0 updates), 
available (in 5.1)

flac
1.1.2-28.el5_0.1
1.1.2-27

flac-devel
1.1.2-28.el5_0.1
1.1.2-27

hpijs
1.6.7-4.1.el5.3
1.6.7-4.1

libsane-hpaio
1.6.7-4.1.el5.3
1.6.7-4.1

thunderbird
1.5.0.12-5.el5.centos
1.5.0.12-3.el5.centos


I use mirrors.ircam.fr, and apt+synaptic but I don't think that's the 
reason (except perhaps for the hp stuff?)

Is something wrong on my side? If not, should I downgrade those packages 
to the 5.1 versions?

Thanks in advance


cheers,
Nicolas

Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I have a few packages where the latest updated version in 5.0 is greater 
> than the current 5.1 version.
Fixed (meaning "greater") versions of all those should be in the
updates
repository by now.

Cheers,

Ralph
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20071206/567ad8a3/attachment-0003.sig>

Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> I have a few packages where the latest updated version in 5.0 is greater
> than the current 5.1 version.
> 
> Here is the list: package, installed version (from 5.0 updates),
> available (in 5.1)
> 
> flac
> 1.1.2-28.el5_0.1
> 1.1.2-27
> 
> flac-devel
> 1.1.2-28.el5_0.1
> 1.1.2-27
> 
> hpijs
> 1.6.7-4.1.el5.3
> 1.6.7-4.1
> 
> libsane-hpaio
> 1.6.7-4.1.el5.3
> 1.6.7-4.1
> 
> thunderbird
> 1.5.0.12-5.el5.centos
> 1.5.0.12-3.el5.centos
> 
> 
> I use mirrors.ircam.fr, and apt+synaptic but I don't think that's
the
> reason (except perhaps for the hp stuff?)
> 
> Is something wrong on my side? If not, should I downgrade those packages
> to the 5.1 versions?
> 
> Thanks in advance
> 
BTW ... it is quite normal for a release to have some packages on the
ISO that are older than those that are released in updates.

They finalize the ISO based on the beta and if pressing security updates
happen close to release time, they do not roll those in and respin the ISOs.

We are now trying to mimic as closely as possible the ISO package set,
so that our 5.0 or 5.1 or 4.6 is the same as upstream for user
convenience ... but there will be released packages that are newer than
those on the ISO because of this.

However, the updates directory for 5.1 should also have all the same
files. so you should not need to downgrade anything.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 252 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL:
<http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20071208/c87d1d0c/attachment-0003.sig>

Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I have a few packages where the latest updated version in 5.0 is
greater
>> than the current 5.1 version.
>>
>> Here is the list: package, installed version (from 5.0 updates),
>> available (in 5.1)
>>
>> flac
>> 1.1.2-28.el5_0.1
>> 1.1.2-27
>>
>> flac-devel
>> 1.1.2-28.el5_0.1
>> 1.1.2-27
>>
>> hpijs
>> 1.6.7-4.1.el5.3
>> 1.6.7-4.1
>>
>> libsane-hpaio
>> 1.6.7-4.1.el5.3
>> 1.6.7-4.1
>>
>> thunderbird
>> 1.5.0.12-5.el5.centos
>> 1.5.0.12-3.el5.centos
>>
>>
>> I use mirrors.ircam.fr, and apt+synaptic but I don't think
that's the
>> reason (except perhaps for the hp stuff?)
>>
>> Is something wrong on my side? If not, should I downgrade those
packages
>> to the 5.1 versions?
>>
>> Thanks in advance
>>
> 
> BTW ... it is quite normal for a release to have some packages on the
> ISO that are older than those that are released in updates.
> 
> They finalize the ISO based on the beta and if pressing security updates
> happen close to release time, they do not roll those in and respin the
ISOs.
> 
> We are now trying to mimic as closely as possible the ISO package set,
> so that our 5.0 or 5.1 or 4.6 is the same as upstream for user
> convenience ... but there will be released packages that are newer than
> those on the ISO because of this.
> 
> However, the updates directory for 5.1 should also have all the same
> files. so you should not need to downgrade anything.
fine, that all makes sense
I just thought something might be wrong because 5.1 had been out 4 or 5 
days, so I didn't expect that there would still be transitory 
post-release problems like this

I guess I wasn't patient enough, I'll try again in a few days (BTW these
packages are not yet on any of the mirrors I've tried tonight)