Le 05/05/11 19:37, Karanbir Singh a écrit : > Hi, > > On 05/05/2011 06:20 PM, Ned Slider wrote: >> If you were to use a dist tag of el5_6.centos, for example, rather than >> el5.centos (where upstream uses el5_6) then: >> >> 1. CentOS package naming will be closer to that of upstream than it is >> now, and ... >> all of which IMHO would be a good thing given CentOS aims to track >> upstream as closely as possible. > yes, and we also aim to make it very clear when we change things - and > changing the way we do that almost 50% of the way through the lifecycle > of the release, with no-clear-problem to solve, still sounds like > something that isnt worth doing. Yes, as there is issue to solve, it may bring some confusion. > Perhaps something to consider for C6, but not for C5. Lots of people > already have established expectations on what is coming through the funnel. But, considering the fact that modifiied el4_X and el5_Y dist naming tags had been used by Upstream after the beginning of the CentOS project, it should be interesting to fully integrate these changes in CentOS 6. JML