[Centos] .c0 RPM's

Sun Jan 23 22:09:07 UTC 2005
John Newbigin <jn at it.swin.edu.au>

Johnny Hughes wrote:

> On Sat, 2005-01-22 at 07:34 -0600, randy hoffman wrote:
>>Probably missing something obvious here, but what determines when an
>>RPM is built with a .c0 extension vs. not?  Seems to be mostly on
>>kernel RPM's.
> .c0 was the extension for the early kernels ... we don't use it anymore.
> Basically, if we need to modify the RH Source RPM, we want everyone to
> know it is modified by the CentOS team.
> Exactly how to handle that is being looked at right now ... currently,
> we use:
> xxxx.c2.0.src.rpm for CentOS-2
> xxxx.centos3.0.src.rpm for CentOS-3
> xxxx.centos4.0.src.rpm for CentOS-4
Actually, CentOS-2 starts at c2.1 indicating the first change and c2.2 
for the second etc.

CentOS-3 used to use centos3.0 to indicate that the change was only in 
the spec file.  I don't know if this is still being done.

I think the numbering systems need to get into the FAQ because even I am 
confused.  Also, we need to decide what 'standard' to follow to make 
sure that there is less confusion in the future.

I was also thinking about the support lifetime of CentOS-3.  5 years of 
quarterly updates will make it CentOS-3.20 with 20 copies of all the 
updates on the mirrors?.  Another issue that I think needs to get sorted 
out sooner rather than later.


> we might be moving to c3.0 and c4.0 for CentOS-3 and CentOS-4
> The xxxx is the original package name and versioning ... 
> The centos3.0 (or c3.0 if we shift) would be the first release of a
> modified package by centos-3.x (sometimes the .0 is left off for the
> first change, so it would be just .centos3.src.rpm) ... if we need to
> make centos specific changes again to the rpm ... it would
> be .centos3.1.src.rpm, the next one would be .centos3.2.src.rpm etc.
> Specifically for the kernel, we change the kernel SRPM, but we stopped
> adding the .c0 because it had an impact on compatibility for 3rd party
> modules and applications that required the kernel name to be exactly
> like the RHEL kernel (GFS is an example of an application that requires
> this).

John Newbigin
Computer Systems Officer
Faculty of Information and Communication Technologies
Swinburne University of Technology
Melbourne, Australia