SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL Archives

March 2007

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-DEVEL@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Karanbir Singh <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Karanbir Singh <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 13 Mar 2007 20:05:38 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (44 lines)
Troy Dawson wrote:
> First: I figured I'd get a jump on RedHat.  Version 3.0.3 has several 
> bugfix's over 3.0.0.  I don't *know* that they are going to go this 
> version, but I would hope that they try to keep up to the latest stable 
> version.  I don't think they will jump versions (like go from 3.0 to 
> 4.0) but I would hope they keep up with the latest track.  (go from 
> 3.0.3 to 3.0.4)

Fair enough, we are going to watch what upstream release with. I've got 
a few patches backported from 3.1 and 3.0.x - so depending on what they 
ship with, we might roll a few changes in from our own side - but we are 
unlikely to bump version right now and watch how their yum tracking 
goes. All the rhn code is separated into other pkgs, so the yum is 
mostly clean.

> That depends on what the upstream vendor does.  If they move along the 
> same track, keeping up with the latest bug fixes, then I will use theirs.
> If they stick with yum 3.0.0, then no, I will just follow the yum's 
> stable track, as long as it doesn't break other items in the release.

Do you intend to leave the rhn specific code in the distro ? apart from 
that, I dont think there should be a major issue. But we need to watch 
for that.

> Two things to note.
> We have been putting yum into Scientific Linux (and Fermi Linux before 
> that) for a long time.  It is something I and Connie regularly track and 
> feel confident we will be able to continue to do so.

Interesting, are you looking to bring in yum-3.x to SL-4 as well ? Its 
something we are interested in doing, if not - I am  going to start 
seeing what parts of the functionality we might be able to backport to 
the yum-2.4.x tree that is right now in CentOS-4.

> And, we have to change the upstream vendors yum anyway.  I do not want 
> their RHN plugin in our yum.  So yum will never come straight from them 
> unaltered.

what did you need to change in the yum package ? it looks mostly clean 
to me as it is. We are still thinking about including fastestmirror and 
protectbase + priorities into the default install, but not decided as yet.

- KB

ATOM RSS1 RSS2