On Wed, 2006-08-23 at 09:59 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Aug 23, 2006 at 08:48:01AM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: > > Also, notice now that the beta channel is gone after the 4u4 release. > > All those files do not exist at RH anymore. The gcc they released > > happened to be 3.4.6-3 ... but it could have been 3.4.6-4 or something > > else in 4u4 (there was a different glibc, for example, than in the > > beta). So, you would have us produce a kernel with an RPM that was never > > officially released upstream ... one that might disappear when they > > release the update set, that doesn't appear on any RH ftp server? > > What about > > <ftp.redhat.com:/pub/redhat/linux/updates/enterprise/4AS/en/os/SRPMS/gcc-3.4.6-3.src.rpm> > > Dated June 12th? > > > > But on the other hand, the name calling has got to stop. Milan, Johnny is > nothing but responsible and professional. Matt ... we are using gcc-3.4.6-3 now ... as it is being released in CentOS-4.4 ... however at the time of the kernel release in question (more than a month BEFORE the RHEL 4u4 release), there was no idea what what binutils, glibc or gcc was going to be released. The new kernels are being built with the 4.4 toolchain, as is our standard practice. But as an example, the stable glibc was glibc-2.3.4-2.19 in 4.3, glibc-2.3.4-2.22 was in the beta and they released glibc-2.3.4-2.25 with 4.4. If i built real items against glibc-2.3.4-2.22, who knows what issues it will introduce. Obviously glibc-2.3.4-2.22 is not stable, as they rolled in changes from the Beta test period to finally release glibc-2.3.4-2.25. glibc-2.3.4-2.22 is not anywhere to be found now on the RH site since the beta channel is erased ... and only glibc-2.3.4-2.19 and glibc-2.3.4-2.25 are available from RHN. Having a glibc-2.3.4-2.22 or items built against it would not be at all like upstream. We will only build with released tool chains .. and whenever possible, we will build against the same tool chain as upstream. Some times that is not possible. In the cases where it is not possible, we will build against the stable CentOS tree. We won't build against items in a beta status. 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/20060823/bd3d448b/attachment-0005.sig>