[CentOS] how will CentOS handle the perftools 1.7 vs. 1.6 issue?

Thu Feb 10 19:33:27 UTC 2011
Keith Keller <kkeller at wombat.san-francisco.ca.us>

On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 04:53:09AM -0600, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> This is correct, CentOS would add an updated package somewhere (our
> people.centos.org site or the centos-testing repository would be the
> likely places).
> We want our release to be the same source code where ever possible ...
> only changing things as required to meet trademark restrictions.

In general, is there a process for deciding whether a package is
qualified for inclusion in the centosplus repo?  I imagine it's
something along the lines of "this package had better be well-built and
important enough to break 100% binary compatibility", but I can't
find anything specific in the docs.  (I personally only use the
XFS-related packages out of centosplus, but I can imagine wanting
to watch it if other packages appear there that might be useful
or interesting.)


kkeller at wombat.san-francisco.ca.us

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110210/a06947e1/attachment-0005.sig>