On 04/05/11 16:52, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 05/04/2011 03:51 PM, David Hollis wrote:
Would httpd-2.2.3-45.el5_6.centos.1 possibly be more appropriate (albeit
not really. Look at it from the point of view of what that el5_6 represents upstream.
The issue here is a) it's different from upstream, and b) you're not being consistent as you rebuild some packages with the el5_6 style dist tag but not for others.
also, Ned if you look back at the history of the RHEL platform you will see that the actual tag isnt used in update comparisons.
Maybe, but I'm not sure if that is not more through luck than judgement?
For example, look back at:
httpd-2.2.3-11.el5_1.3.src.rpm
and
httpd-2.2.3-11.el5_2.4.src.rpm
here el5_2.4 > el5_1.3
The current CentOS scheme survives by the fact that .4 > .3 rather than by virtue of the el5_2 > el5_1 portion of the release that takes precedence in the upstream release. Admittedly that is the only such example I can find for the httpd package, and it does date back to 2008.
Is that intentional on the part of upstream? I doubt we'll ever know the answer to that.