[CentOS-devel] Importing of of CentOS-6 SRPMS for git.centos.org
Johnny Hughes
johnny at centos.org
Thu Oct 30 17:06:14 UTC 2014
On 10/30/2014 11:50 AM, Mike McLean wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 3:42 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org
> <mailto:johnny at centos.org>> wrote:
>
> As was discussed before, CentOS-6 SRPMS are going to be imported into
> git.centos.org <http://git.centos.org> as well and will be processed
> like CentOS-7 ones are now.
>
> We want to bring everything in from 6.0 initial and through 6.4+updates
> initially, then we will do 6.5+updates (as that is changing right now).
>
> So, I have created a 6.0 to 6.4 set of lists. These lists live at this
> location:
>
> http://people.centos.org/hughesjr/EL6-Import/
>
> The two lists so far are:
>
> EL6-non-mod-SRPMS-sorted.txt
> centos-6-srpms-modified.txt
>
> 1. The EL6-non-mod-SRPMS-sorted.txt is all SRPMS used in CentOS-6 in
> their unmodified form. The order they appear in the file is the order
> they will be imported into git. What is important for history is that
> (for each NAME) they are imported in the correct order, so from 6.0
> through 6.4+updates, the order of packages used in CentOS-6 for
> 389-ds-base would be:
>
> 389-ds-base-1.2.8.2-1.el6.src.rpm
> 389-ds-base-1.2.8.2-1.el6_1.3.src.rpm
> 389-ds-base-1.2.9.14-1.el6.src.rpm
> 389-ds-base-1.2.9.14-1.el6_2.2.src.rpm
> 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-15.el6.src.rpm
> 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-18.el6_3.src.rpm
> 389-ds-base-1.2.10.2-20.el6_3.src.rpm
> 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-11.el6.src.rpm
> 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-12.el6_4.src.rpm
> 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-14.el6_4.src.rpm
> 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-20.el6_4.src.rpm
> 389-ds-base-1.2.11.15-22.el6_4.src.rpm
>
> All of these packages will come from ftp.redhat.com
> <http://ftp.redhat.com> and be imported.
>
>
> I'm running a test import of the nonmod ones and it appears a number in
> the list have the wrong dist tag in the name.
> For example, bnx2-2.2.1.32.269-1.el6.src.rpm should be
> bnx2-2.2.1.32.269-1.el6_2.src.rpm (e.g. .el6_2 instead of .el6). Can you
> confirm?
Yes, those were wrong in centos .. for those, I think we have the centos
name.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20141030/1402cce8/attachment.sig>
More information about the CentOS-devel
mailing list