Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@darkover.org wrote:
Oh, I couldn't do that - modesty forbids, etc. Anyone who needs to know
who
to blame will know to use "rpm -qi" to track the packager down. In any case, that leaves an ambiguity; is the package for the OUP's el5, or
CentOS
el5?
Since it is not an official package of either of them, it really makes no difference, does it ? <<
Ah - I guess that answers my question: I thought that the .centos part just indicated that the RPM was built on/for Centos. But if it really means it's an official package, that's an entirely different proposition.
That is the cannonically correct way to do official packages. But if you are submiting something that will end up in EXTRAS, you don't need to worry about that, since it will most likely require other modifications. <<
Yes - that was the idea of submitting it via this list. In that case, I can just sit back and relax, since it's somebody else's problem.
Thanks!
Best,
--- Les Bell, RHCE, CISSP [http://www.lesbell.com.au] Tel: +61 2 9451 1144 FreeWorldDialup: 800909
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 03:23:36PM +1000, Les Bell wrote:
Rodrigo Barbosa rodrigob@darkover.org wrote:
Oh, I couldn't do that - modesty forbids, etc. Anyone who needs to know
who
to blame will know to use "rpm -qi" to track the packager down. In any case, that leaves an ambiguity; is the package for the OUP's el5, or
CentOS
el5?
Since it is not an official package of either of them, it really makes no difference, does it ? <<
Ah - I guess that answers my question: I thought that the .centos part just indicated that the RPM was built on/for Centos. But if it really means it's an official package, that's an entirely different proposition.
Yes. As I came to understand it, those are the official packages that differ from the one from OUP's.
That is the cannonically correct way to do official packages. But if you are submiting something that will end up in EXTRAS, you don't need to worry about that, since it will most likely require other modifications. <<
Yes - that was the idea of submitting it via this list. In that case, I can just sit back and relax, since it's somebody else's problem.
Good luck.
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 02:36:15AM -0300, Rodrigo Barbosa wrote:
to blame will know to use "rpm -qi" to track the packager down. In any case, that leaves an ambiguity; is the package for the OUP's el5, or
CentOS
el5?
Since it is not an official package of either of them, it really makes no difference, does it ? <<
Ah - I guess that answers my question: I thought that the .centos part just indicated that the RPM was built on/for Centos. But if it really means it's an official package, that's an entirely different proposition.
Yes. As I came to understand it, those are the official packages that differ from the one from OUP's.
Just to make sure no confusion arrises here: I'm not a member of the CentOS team, so even tho I'm fairly certain my position regaring the .centos part is correct, don't take it as canon.
Best Regards,
- -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns)
-
Les Bell -
Rodrigo Barbosa