On Tue, 2005-07-19 at 08:45 +0200, Tru Huynh wrote: > On Tue, Jul 19, 2005 at 11:10:16AM +1000, John Newbigin wrote: > > Johnny Hughes wrote: > > > > > > > > > >I was thinking a GFS directory (one under 3 and one under 4) and the > > >$arch, SRPMS, $arch/GFS, $arch/CS under that ... so we can run > > >createrepo and yum-arch in $arch directory and have one repo (GFS) to > > >add to users yum configs instead of two. How does that sound? (Since > > >for CentOS-4 they work together) > > I think they should be combined, but RedHat have decided that they are > > separate. It is worth adding extra confusion by not doing it 'The Red > > Hat Way'? > > > > If so, perhaps a "csgfs" directory, like the RH docs > > http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/csgfs/ > > > > I second this idea, the RHGFS need the RHCS ones. > > The main issue I see is the QA test: how do we compare > the CentOS binary rpms against the genuine ones? > > I can re-sign your rpms, no pb. > > cheers, > > Tru > Tru, We probably won't be able to compare these. I know I don't have a subscription available for the original RHGFS or RHCS RPMS for comparison. Thanks, Johnny Hughes -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20050719/3b44e1b7/attachment-0007.sig>