FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-05-2011, 12:49 PM
Jean-Marc Liger
 
Default Confusing package versioning

Le 05/05/11 14:27, Karanbir Singh a écrit :
> On 05/05/2011 01:02 PM, Jean-Marc Liger wrote:
>>> by assuming that the _x and _y imply that the code is built on, you
>>> already dont know what you are talking about
>> Ok, I assume that say that _x and _y having been built on different
>> instances would have been a more correct assertion, but after saying
>> that, doesn't the difference between these two instances still remains.
> that depends on how you define 'instances'

I define 'instance' like the build environment CentOS projet take care
to reconstruct from scratch for each new release or sub-release of RHEL.
And, after reading the several posts about it, I understood that, for
binary compatibility 'soname to soname', CentOS' packages couldn't
always be self-hosted, because Upstream doesn't.

JML
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 12:57 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Confusing package versioning

On 05/05/2011 01:49 PM, Jean-Marc Liger wrote:
>>>> by assuming that the _x and _y imply that the code is built on, you
>>>> already dont know what you are talking about
>>> Ok, I assume that say that _x and _y having been built on different
>>> instances would have been a more correct assertion, but after saying
> I define 'instance' like the build environment CentOS projet take care

in that case, no - the distag in this case will have no connection or
relevance to the build roots being used to build any given package. In
many cases it might 'ok' to assume this ( eg. package-.el5_1 will clear
have a different root to package-.el5_5 ) but beyond that.

Look at it from a different point of view: there are el5_6 packages that
were built on el5.5 buildroots, while there are el5_5 updates that were
built with packages that had el5_6 in their released names.

- KB
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 01:52 PM
Jean-Marc Liger
 
Default Confusing package versioning

Le 05/05/11 14:57, Karanbir Singh a écrit :
> On 05/05/2011 01:49 PM, Jean-Marc Liger wrote:
>>>>> by assuming that the _x and _y imply that the code is built on, you
>>>>> already dont know what you are talking about
>>>> Ok, I assume that say that _x and _y having been built on different
>>>> instances would have been a more correct assertion, but after saying
>> I define 'instance' like the build environment CentOS projet take care
> in that case, no - the distag in this case will have no connection or
> relevance to the build roots being used to build any given package. In
> many cases it might 'ok' to assume this ( eg. package-.el5_1 will clear
> have a different root to package-.el5_5 ) but beyond that.
>
> Look at it from a different point of view: there are el5_6 packages that
> were built on el5.5 buildroots,
Ok, the first packages of a new sub-release are built on the previous
buildroot.
> while there are el5_5 updates that were
> built with packages that had el5_6 in their released names.
Looks like Upstream still have 'rawhide' habits.

For a new sub-release, do you have some new or updated srpms (unmodified
by CentOS) coming with several dist tags ?

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 01:52 PM
Jean-Marc Liger
 
Default Confusing package versioning

Le 05/05/11 14:57, Karanbir Singh a écrit :
> On 05/05/2011 01:49 PM, Jean-Marc Liger wrote:
>>>>> by assuming that the _x and _y imply that the code is built on, you
>>>>> already dont know what you are talking about
>>>> Ok, I assume that say that _x and _y having been built on different
>>>> instances would have been a more correct assertion, but after saying
>> I define 'instance' like the build environment CentOS projet take care
> in that case, no - the distag in this case will have no connection or
> relevance to the build roots being used to build any given package. In
> many cases it might 'ok' to assume this ( eg. package-.el5_1 will clear
> have a different root to package-.el5_5 ) but beyond that.
>
> Look at it from a different point of view: there are el5_6 packages that
> were built on el5.5 buildroots,
Ok, the first packages of a new sub-release are built on the previous
buildroot.
> while there are el5_5 updates that were
> built with packages that had el5_6 in their released names.
Looks like Upstream still have 'rawhide' habits.

For a new sub-release, do you have some new or updated srpms (unmodified
by CentOS) coming with several dist tags ?

_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 02:02 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Confusing package versioning

On 05/05/2011 02:52 PM, Jean-Marc Liger wrote:
>> Look at it from a different point of view: there are el5_6 packages that
>> were built on el5.5 buildroots,
> Ok, the first packages of a new sub-release are built on the previous
> buildroot.

there is no connection to 'new' or 'old' packages, the release order has
no mapping back to build order.

> For a new sub-release, do you have some new or updated srpms (unmodified
> by CentOS) coming with several dist tags ?

all centos mod packages have dist set to .el5.centos or .el4.centos or
.el3.centos etc
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 02:02 PM
Karanbir Singh
 
Default Confusing package versioning

On 05/05/2011 02:52 PM, Jean-Marc Liger wrote:
>> Look at it from a different point of view: there are el5_6 packages that
>> were built on el5.5 buildroots,
> Ok, the first packages of a new sub-release are built on the previous
> buildroot.

there is no connection to 'new' or 'old' packages, the release order has
no mapping back to build order.

> For a new sub-release, do you have some new or updated srpms (unmodified
> by CentOS) coming with several dist tags ?

all centos mod packages have dist set to .el5.centos or .el4.centos or
.el3.centos etc
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 02:18 PM
Jean-Marc Liger
 
Default Confusing package versioning

Le 05/05/11 16:02, Karanbir Singh a écrit :
> On 05/05/2011 02:52 PM, Jean-Marc Liger wrote:
>>> Look at it from a different point of view: there are el5_6 packages that
>>> were built on el5.5 buildroots,
>> Ok, the first packages of a new sub-release are built on the previous
>> buildroot.
> there is no connection to 'new' or 'old' packages, the release order has
> no mapping back to build order.

Is your previous statement was about CentOS or Upstream ? I understood
Upstream.

>> For a new sub-release, do you have some new or updated srpms (unmodified
>> by CentOS) coming with several dist tags ?
> all centos mod packages have dist set to .el5.centos or .el4.centos or
> .el3.centos etc

My question was about unmodified packages.
JML
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 02:18 PM
Jean-Marc Liger
 
Default Confusing package versioning

Le 05/05/11 16:02, Karanbir Singh a écrit :
> On 05/05/2011 02:52 PM, Jean-Marc Liger wrote:
>>> Look at it from a different point of view: there are el5_6 packages that
>>> were built on el5.5 buildroots,
>> Ok, the first packages of a new sub-release are built on the previous
>> buildroot.
> there is no connection to 'new' or 'old' packages, the release order has
> no mapping back to build order.

Is your previous statement was about CentOS or Upstream ? I understood
Upstream.

>> For a new sub-release, do you have some new or updated srpms (unmodified
>> by CentOS) coming with several dist tags ?
> all centos mod packages have dist set to .el5.centos or .el4.centos or
> .el3.centos etc

My question was about unmodified packages.
JML
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 02:19 PM
Lamar Owen
 
Default Confusing package versioning

On Thursday, May 05, 2011 07:19:40 AM Dag Wieers wrote:
> I am sorry for this. Because this mail arrived in my inbox, I was
> confident Jean-Marc was mailing me privately. So my response is how I
> reply privately. I did not intend to send this to the list.

As much as I respect your hard work on RPMforge over the years, I must comment on this.

If one replies differently in public than in private, it will leak publicly at some point, and the duplicity will be found out. E-mails, once sent, are written records, and can be copied and sent around all over. It is best to have the same face publicly as privately; that can either mean restraint in private or totally 'letting it all hang out' in public, as the sender of the message sees fit.

Having and raising five children has taught me extraordinarily valuable lessons on this, especially on how 'talking behind another's back' always comes back around, and always creates ill will.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 
Old 05-05-2011, 02:19 PM
Lamar Owen
 
Default Confusing package versioning

On Thursday, May 05, 2011 07:19:40 AM Dag Wieers wrote:
> I am sorry for this. Because this mail arrived in my inbox, I was
> confident Jean-Marc was mailing me privately. So my response is how I
> reply privately. I did not intend to send this to the list.

As much as I respect your hard work on RPMforge over the years, I must comment on this.

If one replies differently in public than in private, it will leak publicly at some point, and the duplicity will be found out. E-mails, once sent, are written records, and can be copied and sent around all over. It is best to have the same face publicly as privately; that can either mean restraint in private or totally 'letting it all hang out' in public, as the sender of the message sees fit.

Having and raising five children has taught me extraordinarily valuable lessons on this, especially on how 'talking behind another's back' always comes back around, and always creates ill will.
_______________________________________________
CentOS-devel mailing list
CentOS-devel@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org