-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 03:23:36PM +1000, Les Bell wrote: > Rodrigo Barbosa <rodrigob at darkover.org> wrote: > >> > > Oh, I couldn't do that - modesty forbids, etc. Anyone who needs to know > who > > to blame will know to use "rpm -qi" to track the packager down. In any > > case, that leaves an ambiguity; is the package for the OUP's el5, or > CentOS > > el5? > > Since it is not an official package of either of them, it really makes > no difference, does it ? > << > > Ah - I guess that answers my question: I thought that the .centos part just > indicated that the RPM was built on/for Centos. But if it really means it's > an official package, that's an entirely different proposition. Yes. As I came to understand it, those are the official packages that differ from the one from OUP's. > >> > That is the cannonically correct way to do official packages. But if you > are submiting something that will end up in EXTRAS, you don't need to > worry about that, since it will most likely require other modifications. > << > > Yes - that was the idea of submitting it via this list. In that case, I can > just sit back and relax, since it's somebody else's problem. Good luck. - -- Rodrigo Barbosa "Quid quid Latine dictum sit, altum viditur" "Be excellent to each other ..." - Bill & Ted (Wyld Stallyns) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFGJa5PpdyWzQ5b5ckRAuDxAJ0VMH/bpiy7DHGThxnAuT4k2EWRogCfejKO wBBboAmRZepImN410SkY6IQ= =OyJa -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----