On 05/05/2011 04:58 PM, Ned Slider wrote: >>> 3. ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_3.2.src.rpm ==> ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.2.src.rpm >>> 4. ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_4.1.src.rpm ==> ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.1.src.rpm > Yes, and as a result CentOS released ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5_4.1.src.rpm as > ntp-4.2.2p1-9.el5.centos.2.1.src.rpm because you couldn't release it > according to your versioning scheme because in this case it's broken. There was also a patch issue iirc, dont have the details right now. > But I wrote all this perfectly clearly in my previous mail, and you know > exactly what happened so I don't really see the point of your question > other than to avoid addressing the issue? Not sure how you worked that out - where does it say that we cant and wont bump local release to make sure that packages are not of a higher EVR than whats already been released ? Based on your assumption - we would never be able to do local fix's for anything. Sit back and think it through. There is a clear reason to create that .centos. differentiation. And if we need to to rebuilds and re-releases for a package, it will almost certainly have either an added element or a local bump in the element. - KB