[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: xerces-c release version and RHEL



The situation was clarified by 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Limited_Arch_Packages

I submitted the package for updates-testing.

Thank you Kalev for telling me!

Volker

Am Montag, 30. Mai 2011, 23:11:22 schrieb Volker Fröhlich:
> So what shall I do?
> 
> Volker
> 
> Am Freitag 27 Mai 2011, 22:56:44 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen:
> > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 14:50, Orion Poplawski <orion cora nwra com> 
wrote:
> > > On 05/27/2011 02:28 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > >> 2011/5/27 Volker Fröhlich<volker27 gmx at>:
> > >>> Dear list reader!
> > >>> 
> > >>> There is no xerces-c for PPC in RHEL 6. It builds fine, nevertheless,
> > >>> so I
> > >>> volunteered to maintain it for PPC in EPEL 6. I took exactly the same
> > >>> spec file
> > >>> as RHEL 6 uses, but bumped the release, as I changed the spec to
> > >>> build for
> > >>> this exclusive architecture.
> > >> 
> > >> Hmmm I am wondering. For things that aren't in an OS but may show up
> > >> there.. should we unbump the release number so that RHEL updates win
> > >> any war? As in if it is xerces-c-3.1459-8.ppc the EPEL one should be
> > >> xerces-c-3.1459-7.9.ppc ?
> > > 
> > > I think the release numbers should be exactly the same.
> > 
> > Originally I agreed to that.. but after complaints wondered if there
> > was a better solution.
> > 
> > The reason I asked was sometimes when RHEL adds something into a
> > release, they may not bump the numbers so a person could have an EPEL
> > version of xerces-c and not get upgraded at 6.(n+1) to RHEL's version.
> > People have complained about that in the past (I think).
> 
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]