Displaying 4 results from an estimated 4 matches for "af250af".
Did you mean:
af250afe
2020 Aug 05
3
CentOS Security Advisories OVAL feed??
...tem used to build modules) adds an
> index code (the 184) and a part of the git commit (e34fea82) .. so this
> will always be different between RHEL and CentOS .. because we use
> different builders and a different git repo. Red Hat's RHEL index code
> is 4108 and the git commit is af250afe
>
Thanks a lot for pointing that out! That explains part of the problem.
The corresponding source RPMs are indeed identical (I checked :-) ), so
the packages were (indeed) rebuilt. That was not at all obvious to me.
OTOH: I probably would have guessed if there had been a corresponding
e-mai...
2020 Aug 05
2
CentOS Security Advisories OVAL feed??
On 04/08/2020 23:50, Jon Pruente wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 4, 2020 at 11:34 AM <centos at niob.at> wrote:
>
>> Q5) If the answer to the last question is "no": shouldn't there be such
>> a resource?
>>
> CentOS doesn't publish security errata. If you need it then you should
> either buy RHEL, or deal with putting together your own set up with
>
2020 Aug 05
0
CentOS Security Advisories OVAL feed??
...fore .. mbbox (the item used to build modules) adds an
index code (the 184) and a part of the git commit (e34fea82) .. so this
will always be different between RHEL and CentOS .. because we use
different builders and a different git repo. Red Hat's RHEL index code
is 4108 and the git commit is af250afe
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20200805/b43a908f/attachment.sig>
2020 Aug 05
0
CentOS Security Advisories OVAL feed??
...d modules) adds an
>> index code (the 184) and a part of the git commit (e34fea82) .. so this
>> will always be different between RHEL and CentOS .. because we use
>> different builders and a different git repo.? Red Hat's RHEL index code
>> is 4108 and the git commit is af250afe
>>
> Thanks a lot for pointing that out! That explains part of the problem.
> The corresponding source RPMs are indeed identical (I checked :-) ), so
> the packages were (indeed) rebuilt. That was not at all obvious to me.
>
> OTOH: I probably would have guessed if there had...