On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 8:36 PM, Johnny Hughes <joh...@centos.org> wrote: > > On the initial pass through builder for C4, maybe 30 packages needed to > be fixed because the links were bad. > > On the initial pass through builder for c5, maybe 20 packages needed to > be fixed. > > On the initial pass through builder for c6, there are hundreds of > packages that need to be analyzed. > > Try this Dag. Take the SL rolling distro RPMS and the RHEL6 RPMS and > run tmverifyrpms against it.
Johnny and Karanbir, Had tmverifyrpms been run when the statement below was issued? If so, what was the significant change (source tree, object tree, ...) that occurred after that statement? Are you hinting that SL-base is not 100% binary compatible save branding et al similar issues? On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 6:14 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-li...@karan.org> wrote: > On 11/12/2010 10:42 AM, Sergio Rubio wrote: >> Good morning everyone, >> >> I'm having some problems rebuilding some RHEL6 packages from: >> >> http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/linux/enterprise/6/en/source/SRPMS/ >> > > First round of builds completed here with no issues. > > - KB _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
