Hi Michael,
Those were the good old days (which still occasionally happen) of
"poorly named rpms". Those are rpm's that use the %dist variable, and
that we have to guess what it should be. Easy to do by hand, (of course
%dist is el5_1 and not el5) but harder to code into a script. That was
our early days of figuring out the scripts and fixing everything.
You really want pcre-6.6-2.el5_1.7.src.rpm and not
pcre-6.6-2.el5.7.src.rpm.
Just out of curiousity, if you want to build it for yourself, why are
you getting the src.rpm from us and not RedHat?
http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/5Server/en/os/SRPMS/
Troy
Michael Tiernan wrote:
I'm a smidge confused by something. I am looking at the timestamps on a
couple of the SRPMS and something seems to be amiss.
In ftp://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/5x/SRPMS/vendor are
these files:
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 568054 Nov 15 2007 pcre-6.6-2.el5.1.0.1.src.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 570887 Mar 27 2009 pcre-6.6-2.el5_1.7.src.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 567559 Nov 13 2007 pcre-6.6-2.el5.1.src.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 570836 Nov 29 2007 pcre-6.6-2.el5.7.src.rpm
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 568035 Nov 15 2007 pcre-6.6-2.sl5.1.src.rpm
it seems to be that the file el5_1 is newer than el5.7 but I wanted to
see if anyone had any opinions on it since the RPMS reflect a different
story.
Release : 2.el5.1.0.1 Build Date: Thu 15 Nov
2007 02:57:05 PM GMT
Release : 2.el5_1.7 Build Date: Mon 26 Nov
2007 11:49:29 AM GMT
Release : 2.el5.1 Build Date: Tue 13 Nov
2007 05:20:59 PM GMT
Release : 2.el5.7 Build Date: Thu 29 Nov
2007 07:13:57 PM GMT
Release : 2.sl5.1 Build Date: Thu 15 Nov
2007 02:45:30 PM GMT
Which seems to indicate that el5.7 is the newest package.
Does anyone have any opinions on this? I'm going to try to rebuild this
one package for myself but I'd like to do it with the right sources.
P.S. For those interested, here's what I'm trying to address:
/https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=457064
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3252
http://chrisjean.com/2009/01/31/unicode-support-on-centos-52-with-php-and-pcre/
Long story short, it's trivial to fix, but RedHat prefers to leave
it open in its RHEL product. CentOS folks get it copied from RHEL
(and also don't fix it), and RackTables is not the first application
to be impacted by this bug.
A way to work around that would be to revert a part of the recent
switch to uniform PCRE, namely, to employ mb_ereg() for character
class matching again. For me this looks to be only a temporary
measure (given, that ereg() is already deprecated) and adds
undesired maintenance overhead.
This is where you can help. I am looking for a RHEL user with a
support contract, which they could use to push RedHat's bug 457064
to be properly fixed (and working RPM put into updates). Technically
it is a very simple work, but if we could make it done, that would
help a lot./
--
<< MCT >> Michael C Tiernan. xmpp:[email protected]
MIT - Laboratory for Nuclear Science - http://www.lns.mit.edu
High Perf Research Computing Facility at The Bates Linear Accelerator
"Bit-smashing your bits better than anyone can!"
--
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson [email protected] (630)840-6468
Fermilab ComputingDivision/LSCS/CSI/USS Group
__________________________________________________
