search for: drpm

Has anybody successfully implemented DRPMs on centos 5.x? I searched the net and I found a few indications that it is possible, but there is very little info how to do it. Just to be clear. With DRPMs i mean deltaRPMs. And with implementation i mean What yum plugins are necessary and what has to be done on the yum repository to make it wo...

I wanted to point out this functionality in case others want to test it: http://centosnow.blogspot.com/2014/03/createrepo-and-parallel-delta-rpms-on.html For the record, this cuts down the metadata generation to 1/4 of the original time on my test platform. Other relevant links: http://lists.baseurl.org/pipermail/yum-devel/2014-February/010580.html

...ole rpm, avoiding the issue. > > setting > deltarpm=0 > in /etc/yum.conf is an equivalent workaround, and fixed the issue for me. > > I?d appreciate someone who knows more about how delta rpms work weighing in on what the actual issue is. > Not sure what happened with the drpms, but I will regenerate all the polkit drpms with the upcoming ghostscript release later this morning. I added drpm tests to our pre-release CI tests as well. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 1...

...ice new 6.4 tree (thanks!!!) I see there are already a few updates. eg Packages/firefox-17.0.3-1.el6.centos.i686.rpm Packages/firefox-17.0.3-1.el6.centos.x86_64.rpm So far, so normal. These occur because of timing. That's not a problem; it's expected. What confuses me, though, is the drpms directory where there are 33 firefox drpm files compared to the 2 Packages, including firefox-3 versions! The drpms directory is around 3.3G whereas the Packages directory is only 680M. Is the drpms directory carrying legacy files? Or is this to be expected? -- rgds Stephen

...t; >> setting >> deltarpm=0 >> in /etc/yum.conf is an equivalent workaround, and fixed the issue for me. >> >> I?d appreciate someone who knows more about how delta rpms work weighing in on what the actual issue is. >> > > Not sure what happened with the drpms, but I will regenerate all the > polkit drpms with the upcoming ghostscript release later this morning. > > I added drpm tests to our pre-release CI tests as well. > This is not the first time we have had issues with drpms in the update tree. Would anyone be opposed to taking away...

CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2019:0230 Important Upstream details at : https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2019:0230 The following updated files have been uploaded and are currently syncing to the mirrors: ( sha256sum Filename ) x86_64: 491b63a51365bb112538c3cc527cc9a0f9cbb8599989268b2367a88b6923e39d polkit-0.112-18.el7_6.1.i686.rpm

...CentOS-announce] CESA-2019:0230 Important CentOS 7 polkit Security Update Message-ID: <85d69cc8-8870-601f-ce10-7b0caf50d20b at hughesjr.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Please Note: This is a reissue of this notice with updated sha256sums as the original release had drpm and metadata issues and we had to re-sign and re-release the original RPMs to get the drpms to work correctly. Thanks, Johnny Hughes On 4/17/19 11:57 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > > CentOS Errata and Security Advisory 2019:0230 Important > > Upstream details at : https://access.redhat....

Was just doing a (very) belated update on a 7.5 system and ran into this set of errors: ================================================================================ Package Arch Version Repository Size ================================================================================ Updating: polkit x86_64 0.112-18.el7_6.1