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

Thu Feb 10 20:06:24 UTC 2011
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

On 02/10/2011 01:33 PM, Keith Keller wrote:
> 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.)

Basically, we would not likely fix issues in centosplus, but in a
different place (like a bug entry and a link to a totally separate RPM
for this issue).

CentosPlus would be for things like a newer version of PHP or Mysql, etc.

The one exception to that is the kernel ... we do roll in fixes as well
as added features in the centosplus kernels.

As far as what gets added to plus, basically it is items that one of the
developers will maintain ... usually because the developer needs it as well.

There are any number of 3rd party repos that maintain many newer
packages, so getting things into CentOSPlus is not the only option.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110210/9121e706/attachment-0005.sig>