Johnny Hughes wrote:

On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 07:34 -0600, randy hoffman wrote:

...

Probably missing something obvious here, but what determines when an RPM is built with a .c0 extension vs. not? Seems to be mostly on kernel RPM's.

.c0 was the extension for the early kernels ... we don't use it anymore.

Basically, if we need to modify the RH Source RPM, we want everyone to know it is modified by the CentOS team.

Exactly how to handle that is being looked at right now ... currently, we use:

xxxx.c2.0.src.rpm for CentOS-2 xxxx.centos3.0.src.rpm for CentOS-3 xxxx.centos4.0.src.rpm for CentOS-4

Actually, CentOS-2 starts at c2.1 indicating the first change and c2.2 for the second etc.

CentOS-3 used to use centos3.0 to indicate that the change was only in the spec file. I don't know if this is still being done.

I think the numbering systems need to get into the FAQ because even I am confused. Also, we need to decide what 'standard' to follow to make sure that there is less confusion in the future.

I was also thinking about the support lifetime of CentOS-3. 5 years of quarterly updates will make it CentOS-3.20 with 20 copies of all the updates on the mirrors?. Another issue that I think needs to get sorted out sooner rather than later.

John.

we might be moving to c3.0 and c4.0 for CentOS-3 and CentOS-4

The xxxx is the original package name and versioning ...

The centos3.0 (or c3.0 if we shift) would be the first release of a modified package by centos-3.x (sometimes the .0 is left off for the first change, so it would be just .centos3.src.rpm) ... if we need to make centos specific changes again to the rpm ... it would be .centos3.1.src.rpm, the next one would be .centos3.2.src.rpm etc.

Specifically for the kernel, we change the kernel SRPM, but we stopped adding the .c0 because it had an impact on compatibility for 3rd party modules and applications that required the kernel name to be exactly like the RHEL kernel (GFS is an example of an application that requires this).