On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 14:50, Orion Poplawski <orion(a)cora.nwra.com> wrote:
On 05/27/2011 02:28 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> 2011/5/27 Volker Fröhlich<volker27(a)gmx.at>:
>> Dear list reader!
>> There is no xerces-c for PPC in RHEL 6. It builds fine, nevertheless, so
>> volunteered to maintain it for PPC in EPEL 6. I took exactly the same
>> spec file
>> as RHEL 6 uses, but bumped the release, as I changed the spec to build
>> this exclusive architecture.
> Hmmm I am wondering. For things that aren't in an OS but may show up
> there.. should we unbump the release number so that RHEL updates win
> any war? As in if it is xerces-c-3.1459-8.ppc the EPEL one should be
> xerces-c-3.1459-7.9.ppc ?
I think the release numbers should be exactly the same.
Originally I agreed to that.. but after complaints wondered if there
was a better solution.
The reason I asked was sometimes when RHEL adds something into a
release, they may not bump the numbers so a person could have an EPEL
version of xerces-c and not get upgraded at 6.(n+1) to RHEL's version.
People have complained about that in the past (I think).
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren