Le 06/05/11 14:26, Jean-Marc Liger a écrit : > 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. Please read : Yes, as there is NO 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 > _______________________________________________ > CentOS-devel mailing list > CentOS-devel at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel