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 > Redhat > EPEL Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-27-2011, 07:45 PM
Volker Fröhlich
 
Default xerces-c release version and RHEL

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

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 05-27-2011, 08:28 PM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default xerces-c release version and RHEL

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
>



--
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
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 05-27-2011, 08:50 PM
Orion Poplawski
 
Default xerces-c release version and RHEL

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.

--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion@cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 05-27-2011, 08:56 PM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default xerces-c release version and RHEL

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).





--
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
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 05-30-2011, 09:11 PM
Volker Fröhlich
 
Default xerces-c release version and RHEL

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
 
Old 06-23-2011, 01:22 PM
Volker Fröhlich
 
Default 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


_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 06-23-2011, 01:22 PM
Volker Fröhlich
 
Default 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


_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:10 PM.

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