On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:26 AM, George Dunlap dunlapg@umich.edu wrote:
On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia nkadel@gmail.com wrote:
I pesonally do this kind of backporting, a *lot* with Perl and Python modules. They're often sadly out of date on a RHEL production grade system, but switching to a Fedora base for your production environments can get really flakey, really fast due to the immense churn of that operating system.
Right, so one of the basic nice things about the CentOS SIGs is that all the stuff you don't need to be current can be RHEL-stable, and the handful of things you do want to be current can be fresh.
My main question is whether explicitly calling it "Fedora" is the right thing to do (even if in practice it's just a re-build of the Fedora package).
I thinki it would get confusing fast. Let the '%changelog' in the .spec file show the Fedora history, RPM 'release' reflect that it's a more recent version and published by a CentOS SIG.