Am 30.07.2015 um 12:53 schrieb Johnny Hughes <johnny@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> On 07/30/2015 04:37 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
>> Because we do CR, CentOS users had access to the 6.7 updates a full 3
>> days before anyone else made them available and CR was released less
>> than 5 days after the release of RHEL 6.7.
>>
>
> For those interested, here is a bit longer explanation:
Thanks to take the time for this explicit explanation.
In particular because this "missing piece" resurfaces
the same discussions. A candidate for the wiki (if not
already there).
> ...
> That is why I can't just cherry pick a bind update or a libuser update
> built on the CentOS-6.7 package set and release it in 6.6 or 6.5 or 6.4
> .. it may or may not work and it may or may not be secure in that
> environment.
Is it a good idea to reflect this consequently via %{dist} (e.g el5_11 el6_7)??
This should not conflict with upstreams package versioning. Despite that some
packages stay on the same version while the distribution is moving forward.
But it shows the relation like acme.1.el6_4.3 is for 6.4 or higher. Not sure
if upstream is using it in that conceptual manner: Following upstream listing
shows some ambiguous %{dist} tags, thought.
httpd-2.2.15-5.el6.src.rpm
httpd-2.2.15-9.el6.src.rpm
httpd-2.2.15-9.el6_1.2.src.rpm
httpd-2.2.15-9.el6_1.3.src.rpm
httpd-2.2.15-15.el6.src.rpm
httpd-2.2.15-15.el6_2.1.src.rpm
httpd-2.2.15-26.el6.src.rpm
httpd-2.2.15-28.el6_4.src.rpm
httpd-2.2.15-29.el6_4.src.rpm
httpd-2.2.15-30.el6_5.src.rpm
httpd-2.2.15-31.el6_5.src.rpm
httpd-2.2.15-39.el6.src.rpm
httpd-2.2.15-45.el6.src.rpm
--
LF
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
