On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 13:12 +0100, Thijs Cadier wrote: > zlib-1.2.1.2-1.2 is the newest one... > > > On 19-jan-2006, at 13:04, Ole Johansen wrote: > > > yum upgrade zlib
As stated before on this list ... CentOS did backport fixes to zlib ... as does SuSE, Red Hat, and Mandrake in their Enterprise OSes. I personally think that a require for Zlib > 1.2.x should not be put in a product that is multi distro and requires a major package to be upgraded instead of allowing for backports ... (that is just my personal opinion). Here is what RH says about backports: http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_backport.html Even Linus Torvalds thinks backporting is OK: http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3342671 (He is mostly talking about kernel backports, but the concept is the same for packages as well) That said, there does not seem to be any issue with the new qmail- toaster zlib package in CentOS ... at least not any issues I have noticed (I could be wrong though, and zlib effects everything on the distro, including sshd and httpd). I usually never recommend a --nodeps install ... what I did on all but a test server was change the SRPM spec file and recompile it without that require. A long term permanent solution might be a %if statement in the clamav- toaster SPEC that only requires the new version of zlib on distros that don't backport packages. Thanks, Johnny Hughes CentOS-4 Lead Developer
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
