[CentOS-devel] CentOS CS & GFS packages
mailing-lists at hughesjr.com
Tue Jul 19 09:59:33 UTC 2005
On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 08:45 +0200, Tru Huynh wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:10:16AM +1000, John Newbigin wrote:
> > Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > >
> > >I was thinking a GFS directory (one under 3 and one under 4) and the
> > >$arch, SRPMS, $arch/GFS, $arch/CS under that ... so we can run
> > >createrepo and yum-arch in $arch directory and have one repo (GFS) to
> > >add to users yum configs instead of two. How does that sound? (Since
> > >for CentOS-4 they work together)
> > I think they should be combined, but RedHat have decided that they are
> > separate. It is worth adding extra confusion by not doing it 'The Red
> > Hat Way'?
> > If so, perhaps a "csgfs" directory, like the RH docs
> > http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/csgfs/
> I second this idea, the RHGFS need the RHCS ones.
> The main issue I see is the QA test: how do we compare
> the CentOS binary rpms against the genuine ones?
> I can re-sign your rpms, no pb.
OK, Combined makes since to me too .. looks like agreement on "csgfs" as
semi RedHat like.
I can go ahead and do a csgfs directory and put all the docs in there
(for 3 and 4) if everyone agrees
Lance ... what do you think?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20050719/738bf681/attachment.bin
More information about the CentOS-devel