Re: Re: BETA 2

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]



On 2/22/07, Matthew Miller <mattdm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 10:15:09AM -0800, Florin Andrei wrote:
> >Well ... the majority of our problems are coming from the fact that
> >upstream did not build everything on the same builder.  They
> >grabbed .fc6 stuff as is and used it (not necessarily compiled on their
> >el5 builder).
> >Many items are compiled against different kernel-headers, etc.
> Wow! Why did they do that? Anybody knows?

Red Hat seems to have, for a long time, followed a policy of not rebuilding
packages which have been through QA unless there is a reason to rebuild
them. So, packages which were built against older headers stay that way
until there's either a new package release or a problem.


A rebuild is supposed to trigger a complete restart of the QA process
so  it was easier to do so.. especially after all the logging required
for SOX and god-help-them-if-they-ISO-themselves.


--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos

[Index of Archives]     [CentOS]     [CentOS Announce]     [CentOS Development]     [CentOS ARM Devel]     [CentOS Docs]     [CentOS Virtualization]     [Carrier Grade Linux]     [Linux Media]     [Asterisk]     [DCCP]     [Netdev]     [Xorg]     [Linux USB]
  Powered by Linux