Le 05/05/11 19:37, Karanbir Singh a écrit :
Hi,
On 05/05/2011 06:20 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
If you were to use a dist tag of el5_6.centos, for example, rather than el5.centos (where upstream uses el5_6) then:
- CentOS package naming will be closer to that of upstream than it is
now, and
...
all of which IMHO would be a good thing given CentOS aims to track upstream as closely as possible.
yes, and we also aim to make it very clear when we change things - and changing the way we do that almost 50% of the way through the lifecycle of the release, with no-clear-problem to solve, still sounds like something that isnt worth doing.
Yes, as there is issue to solve, it may bring some confusion.
Perhaps something to consider for C6, but not for C5. Lots of people already have established expectations on what is coming through the funnel.
But, considering the fact that modifiied el4_X and el5_Y dist naming tags had been used by Upstream after the beginning of the CentOS project, it should be interesting to fully integrate these changes in CentOS 6.
JML