I would also prefer to standardize everything, unless necessary. But for now Glezos requests that publictest4 be upgraded to F7, since he needs some packages that exist in F7 and not in FC6. Thanks, Paulo <div>On 6/7/07, Toshio Kuratomi <<a href="mailto:a.badger@gmail.com">a.badger@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 11:53 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 07 June 2007 11:49:57 Mike McGrath wrote: > > I agree, I had no plans on upgrading any of our RHEL boxes (except for > > cvs and db1 but will stay in the RHEL upgrade path). For those of you > > that are new on the list we've had a lot of discussions about this in > > the past. Our team, for the most part, agrees that its about picking > > the right tool for the job. For boxes that don't need brand new > > technologies (like cvs) its nice to be able to set them up and forget > > about them. But for some boxes that do need the latest and greatest > > (like our builders) we've always had and kept them on Fedora. > > With RHEL5 out, I question the need for Fedora on the builders. In fact, > before the merge, all the internal Core builders were running RHEL4. Can we > not use RHEL5 on the builders now? > Will we want to pull in new features for the builders? Something like a change in rpm is needed for a new version of mock. We want that change and so we need to upgrade? I just want to avoid flip-flopping between RHEL and Fedora. -Toshio _______________________________________________ Fedora-infrastructure-list mailing list <a href="mailto:Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com">Fedora-infrastructure-list@redhat.com</a> <a href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list"> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-infrastructure-list</a> </blockquote></div>