On 11/16/11 2:35 PM, "Michael McNally" <mcna...@isc.org> wrote: > On 11/16/11 1:22 PM, michoski wrote: >> Short time ago I grabbed the latest tarball from your download site, and >> generated internal packages. I could have sworn that was 9.8.1-P4 (our >> internal packages still have the P4, and Google finds some hits): > Perhaps it was 9.8.0-P4? Many of our version names bear a very close > resemblance to one another.
Getting a clue... > No. You can see all versions of ISC BIND 9 that we have released, > going back to 9.0.0 in 2004, at ftp://ftp.isc.org/isc/bind9/ > There has never (yet) been a 9.8.1-P4 released by ISC. Thanks for the link. > However, the rpm names you are seeing are assigned by another > entity, probably the maintainer of whatever repository you are > using (e.g. RedHat.) Repository maintainers have been known > to use version numbers similar, but not identical, to those > assigned by ISC. Yeah, I'm familiar with the annoyance of tracking version numbers across vendor repos. :-( However, we don't actually use Red Hat's packages in this case, our RelEng team builds using whatever tarball link I send them...and I always download from isc.org to be safe. So... Since I've been playing with 9.8.x daily for the past few months, I must have typoed something when asking "9.8.0-P4" to be upgraded awhile back and ended up with this "9.8.1-P4" monstrosity. >> No worries, I will move to P1 given today's date on the tarball. :-) > That's our recommendation. Thanks for additional clarification, and sorry for the noise. Those Google results for 9.8.1-P4 really threw me -- more proof it can't be trusted. ;-) -- By nature, men are nearly alike; by practice, they get to be wide apart. -- Confucius _______________________________________________ Please visit https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users to unsubscribe from this list bind-users mailing list bind-users@lists.isc.org https://lists.isc.org/mailman/listinfo/bind-users
