On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 11:32 +0200, Ralph Angenendt wrote: > David Hrbáč wrote: > > Johnny Hughes napsal(a): > > > > > > Nope ... we build what they provide ... including bugs/ > > > > Hmm, I'm asking because I have developed yumfirst plugin for Karanbir > > and it depends on a function, which is not implemented in centos yum. > > Karanbir has been talking about backporting. So are we going to use > > backports or not? To backport or not to backport, that's the question. :o) > > But yum isn't taken from upstream, as they still use up2date, so making > changes to yum doesn't really contradict what Johnny said up there. > Exactly ... we added yum to CentOS, and it is really the lone "functional" difference between CentOS and upstream. Since we added yum, we can do things to it that we _WILL_NEVER_ do to packages that are included in the upstream product. (like backport functionality, etc.) > > I guess better way is to provide centosplus iptables-devel package. > > That probably would be the better way to do it, yes. > If we need iptables-devel, then centosplus is indeed the mechanism to make that happen. > Ralph 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/20060821/c587895d/attachment-0005.sig>