"yum downgrade openssl" depending on openssl versions? Peter
On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 10:57 PM, Kevin Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: > Peter: > > Unfortunately, no. That brings us back to the first point: a yum reinstall > on the XO1 gives a not available from koji blah blah .....error way down at > the end. > > > Sent from my BlackBerry device via Gmail > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Robinson <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2010 18:54:43 > To: Kevin Gordon<[email protected]> > Cc: Martin Langhoff<[email protected]>; <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: openssl > > On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Kevin Gordon <[email protected]> wrote: >> Folks: >> >> Wasn't really complaining. Just wanted upstream people to know in case they >> were interested. >> >> For clarity, The 686 8n-1 openssl gets installed on both the XO-1 and the >> XO-1.5. After a fresh install: >> >> Doing a one-step yum update on the XO-1 upgrades it to the 8n-2, but >> installs the 586 version >> Doing a one-step yum update on the XO-2 upgrades it to the 8n-2, but >> installs the 686 version >> >> In our deployments we always try to do it in two steps, a yum update >> download-only to an SD card, then yum localinstall from the card, to save >> internet usage. >> >> In this two-step localinstall scenario, the XO-1 updated chosen (586) >> actually refuses to update the installed older, but 686, version. >> >> On the XO 1.5, there is no issue - the 686 8n-2 updates the installed 686 >> 8n-1 >> >> Peter, absoulutely the right rpm switches can be used instead of yum to get >> the desired one there when not doing a direct update. The other yum methods >> are dangerous or ineffective since on the XO-1,a yum reinstall wont pick up >> the original package, and a vanilla yum remove would delete about 3.5 >> million dependencies. That said, if I copy the 686 8n-2 rpm over to the XO-1 >> downloaded updates on the SD, when doing the localinstall, it works fine. >> >> So, I am not complaining, I was more or less curious as to why a 686 was in >> there at all, since all the rest of the stuff int the package list seems to >> be 586, and there is a 586 openssl available. Perhaps, I too much love >> simplicity :-) >> >> But, in conclusion, I'm all good here. If there is a specific bias for one >> or the other (586 or 686) package, just let me know and I can make both the >> XO-1 and the XO 1.5 happy with that version. > > you should be able to do a "yum reinstall openssl" to install what yum > thinks is the correct package without having to remove all > dependencies. > > Peter > >> PS: Martin, we haven't deployed 852 in Kenya so I hadn't seen this before in >> 10.1.2. We'll be upgrading them all from a mixed XO-1 set of 711 and 802; >> and the 1.5's with 205/206 both of which never had the 686 installed. So, >> in preparation of when we go back in March, we're working with 10.1.3/3xx >> assuming that it will be the new signed build generation. >> >> Cheers, >> >> KG >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 12:22 PM, Peter Robinson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 28, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Martin Langhoff >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > On Mon, Dec 27, 2010 at 3:35 PM, Kevin Gordon <[email protected]> >>> > wrote: >>> >> Any reason that the openssl 0.9.8n-1.fc11 is of the 686 architecture as >>> >> bundled in the os360 packages? Causes a bit of grief on localinstalls >>> >> and >>> > >>> > This was also on 10.1.2 as can be seen in the link below . The >>> > compaints are bogus my understanding is that -- Fedora keeps its i686 >>> > builds compatible with Geode. Why is yum getting confused I dunno -- >>> > perhaps it's reading the kernel uname. On XO-1 builds, the kernel is >>> > i586. >>> > >>> > >>> > http://download.laptop.org/xo-1.5/os/official/os852/4GB/os852.packages.txt >>> > >>> > cheers, >>> >>> I don't think the change to the rpm arch file that made geode i686 >>> capable was made until post F-11 (F-12 from mem) so I think you need >>> to add a command to rpm to use the i686 version or install the >>> i586/i386 variant. >>> >>> Peter >> >> > _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
