We are evaluating building packages from Fedora Extras for RHEL

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 13:03 -0600, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 9/10/06, Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> 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
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20060911/858cf8f9/attachment.sig>