[CentOS-devel] Importing of of CentOS-6 SRPMS for git.centos.org
johnny at centos.org
Wed Oct 8 10:29:53 UTC 2014
On 10/07/2014 06:56 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org> wrote:
>> As was discussed before, CentOS-6 SRPMS are going to be imported into
>> git.centos.org as well and will be processed like CentOS-7 ones are now.
> May I assume that you actually mean the source code for the SRPMs, and
> not the binary SRPMs themselves?
As KB said, when this happens, it (c6) will look the same way that c7
does now. Which for the historical existing sources will be an exploded
SRPM in our current git.centos.org format, imported in the correct
order. The older branches already exist in git.centos.org, they are
just empty for c6 (or older) for most things (except currently the
Upgrade Tool sources, I believe, which exist for c6 and c7).
> I so, cool. May I also assume that you don't mean to include CentOS 5
> in this? Or is that also in the longer term plans?
Maybe ... we are taking this one step at a time and we want to fix a
couple underlying issues with git.centos.org (the cache thing that shows
multiple projects for the same repo, etc). But the overall goal is at
some point to do all the sources exactly the same for all projects, be
it base OS versions or SIG versions, etc ... and all of them on
But the next step in the process is to do CentOS-6 .. once that is fully
functional and operating then it may also happen on CentOS-5 (whose list
is twice as long to get the original imports done, etc). A pain vs.
gain decision will likely be made for CentOS-5 (the volume of updates
for 5 is much smaller than 6 and 7, as it is in maintenance mode
upstream now, etc.).
We (the CentOS team) do not actually control when the move to this
mechanism for the upstream sources happens (or does not happen) as the
initial import comes from outside our system (by Red Hat for RHEL sources).
We are just trying to make sure we develop lists at this point to get
the 'history' correct so that all the Sources live there for a given
major CentOS version (ie 6.0 from release to current imports for 6.x
coming in) and do not just show up in the middle at some cut-over date
with part SRPMs living external and part in git.centos.org. This way,
we have one system to use as authoritative and do not need to go back
and forth to look for older items, etc. That is to say, all CentOS-6
from 6.0 initial release to current 6.
> And, hmm. How *should* we best write the plural of SRPM?
I usually do SRPMs ... or SRPMS :)
Kind of like how do we say CentOS ... is it centos like mentos (the
candy), is it like cintas or is it like Cent (ie a penny) and the
letters O S. We don't really care as long as you use it :D
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the CentOS-devel