On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 13:03 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 9/10/06, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > I'd think we'd branch from the FC branch that the relevant RHEL was > > based on. We'd branch FC3 for RHEL4, for instance. (This hasn't been > > discussed either.) > > Actually.. I would use Centos versus FC3. THere was some compiler > changes that occurred inside of RH build tools that broke things for a > while within Centos and FC3 builds. The fixes were never made to FC3 > (it was dead) but Centos got them later (due to active developer > community). I might have used naming in this statement that confused the issue but I don't think there's a conflict. Build using Centos, not FC3. But use the FE3 packages as the base for the EE4 packages. (I used FC3 as the name of the FE branch because Extras cvs names things with the FC version (FC-3 for Extras packages built against FC-3), not an FE version.) -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
