The situation was clarified by https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL:Packaging#Limited_Arch_Packages
I submitted the package for updates-testing. Thank you Kalev for telling me! Volker Am Montag, 30. Mai 2011, 23:11:22 schrieb Volker Fröhlich: > So what shall I do? > > Volker > > Am Freitag 27 Mai 2011, 22:56:44 schrieb Stephen John Smoogen: > > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 14:50, Orion Poplawski <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 05/27/2011 02:28 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > > >> 2011/5/27 Volker Fröhlich<[email protected]>: > > >>> Dear list reader! > > >>> > > >>> There is no xerces-c for PPC in RHEL 6. It builds fine, nevertheless, > > >>> so I > > >>> volunteered to maintain it for PPC in EPEL 6. I took exactly the same > > >>> spec file > > >>> as RHEL 6 uses, but bumped the release, as I changed the spec to > > >>> build for > > >>> this exclusive architecture. > > >> > > >> Hmmm I am wondering. For things that aren't in an OS but may show up > > >> there.. should we unbump the release number so that RHEL updates win > > >> any war? As in if it is xerces-c-3.1459-8.ppc the EPEL one should be > > >> xerces-c-3.1459-7.9.ppc ? > > > > > > I think the release numbers should be exactly the same. > > > > Originally I agreed to that.. but after complaints wondered if there > > was a better solution. > > > > The reason I asked was sometimes when RHEL adds something into a > > release, they may not bump the numbers so a person could have an EPEL > > version of xerces-c and not get upgraded at 6.(n+1) to RHEL's version. > > People have complained about that in the past (I think). > > _______________________________________________ > epel-devel-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list _______________________________________________ epel-devel-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
