On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 14:50, Orion Poplawski <[email protected]> wrote: > On 05/27/2011 02:28 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: >> >> 2011/5/27 Volker Fröhlich<[email protected]>: >>> >>> 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). -- Stephen J Smoogen. "The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance." Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. "Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard battle." -- Ian MacLaren _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
