[CentOS-devel] Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

James Antill james at fedoraproject.org
Thu Mar 24 16:14:35 EDT 2011


On Thu, 2011-03-24 at 14:39 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Thursday, March 24, 2011 01:52:24 pm James Antill wrote:
> >  Yeh, this is the above "we change FOO.bin, but don't want to change
> > FOO.src" problem. I understand, but I'm still tempted to say "don't do
> > that then".
> 
> Distilling the whole mesage down to this, as this is the core issue.
> 
> I personally used the decimal release scheme when doing the PostgreSQL
> RPMs.  While it's been a long time ago, I think I used a 0.x release
> while developing and honing the packaging, and rebuilds of a release
> where nothing was actually changed in the spec (other than the
> release) got a decimal, but, like I say, it has been a long time.
> 
> But the more critical question is 'would upstream ever use a decimal
> release number that might conflict with mine?'

 I do not speak for upstream.
 I would guess that (if they care at all) upstream would be happy to
have you use different NEVRAs, and certainly wouldn't go out of their
way to choose NEVRAs that are the same.

 Certainly it seems like you should be pretty safe if you did something
like:

 Upstream: foo-1.2.4-8.el7
   CentOS: foo-1.2.4-8.el7_0.0c1
   CentOS: foo-1.2.4-8.el7_0.0c2

 Upstream: foo-1.2.4-8.el7_0.1
   CentOS: foo-1.2.4-8.el7_0.1_0.0c1
   CentOS: foo-1.2.4-8.el7_0.1_0.0c2

...and that should provide the same level of "upgrade compatibility" you
have now (every CentOS build would upgrade to the next upstream build).



More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list