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.
EPEL packages shall not cause any trouble in RHEL. Could the different release number cause any?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696367 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=243946
Kind regards,
Volker
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 ?
EPEL packages shall not cause any trouble in RHEL. Could the different release number cause any?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=696367 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=243946
Kind regards,
Volker
epel-devel-list mailing list epel-devel-list@redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
On 05/27/2011 02:28 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
2011/5/27 Volker Fröhlichvolker27@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.
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 Fröhlichvolker27@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).
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 Fröhlichvolker27@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).
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 Fröhlichvolker27@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
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Orion Poplawski -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Volker Fröhlich