On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 7:26 AM, George Dunlap <dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 12:23 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <nkadel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> I pesonally do this kind of backporting, a *lot* with Perl and Python >> modules. They're often sadly out of date on a RHEL production grade >> system, but switching to a Fedora base for your production >> environments can get really flakey, really fast due to the immense >> churn of that operating system. > > Right, so one of the basic nice things about the CentOS SIGs is that > all the stuff you don't need to be current can be RHEL-stable, and the > handful of things you do want to be current can be fresh. > > My main question is whether explicitly calling it "Fedora" is the > right thing to do (even if in practice it's just a re-build of the > Fedora package). I thinki it would get confusing fast. Let the '%changelog' in the .spec file show the Fedora history, RPM 'release' reflect that it's a more recent version and published by a CentOS SIG. _______________________________________________ CentOS-virt mailing list CentOS-virt@xxxxxxxxxx https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos-virt
