On 04/05/11 16:52, Karanbir Singh wrote: > On 05/04/2011 03:51 PM, David Hollis wrote: >> Would httpd-2.2.3-45.el5_6.centos.1 possibly be more appropriate (albeit > > not really. Look at it from the point of view of what that el5_6 > represents upstream. > The issue here is a) it's different from upstream, and b) you're not being consistent as you rebuild some packages with the el5_6 style dist tag but not for others. > also, Ned if you look back at the history of the RHEL platform you will > see that the actual tag isnt used in update comparisons. > Maybe, but I'm not sure if that is not more through luck than judgement? For example, look back at: httpd-2.2.3-11.el5_1.3.src.rpm and httpd-2.2.3-11.el5_2.4.src.rpm here el5_2.4 > el5_1.3 The current CentOS scheme survives by the fact that .4 > .3 rather than by virtue of the el5_2 > el5_1 portion of the release that takes precedence in the upstream release. Admittedly that is the only such example I can find for the httpd package, and it does date back to 2008. Is that intentional on the part of upstream? I doubt we'll ever know the answer to that.