Re: [Xen-users] [ANNOUNCE] Xen 3.2.0 released!

[Ian Jackson <Ian.Jackson@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

 Keir Fraser writes ("Re: [Xen-users] [ANNOUNCE] Xen 3.2.0 released!"):
> On 17/1/08 01:15, "Nico Kadel-Garcia" <nkadel@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > What are the odds of getting the next published SRPM's to include the
> > same naming scheme and .spec file structure as RedHat uses, so that the
> > RHEL 4 and RHEL 5 packages have different names? And so that the %post
> > steps set up grub.conf the way it should be by default for Dom0 and DomU
> > automagically with the new changes in grubby by RedHat to support this?
> 
> Fairly good, since Ian Jackson is reworking our packaging process to more
> closely match the packages produced by the vendors themselves. OTOH I'm not
> sure what set of distros he is doing this work for -- you may not get RHEL4
> packages.

There will be a set of packages for RHEL5.  I've been basing it on the
Centos 5.1 SRPM and building on Centos 5.1 so it should be good for
RHEL5 and laid out pretty much the way RHEL and Centos do things.
I've also had some feedback via the distribution packaging mailing
lists (including centos-devel).

I don't propose to make packages for RHEL4.  In general, our binary
packages will come with a health warning: we won't be doing the kind
of security response (ie, patching) that would be needed to consider
them fully supported for end users.  These packages are really
intended as a base for distros to work with and more as a preview or
interim version for users.

Binary packages with security support, suitable for longer term
production use, are most sensibly provided under the umbrella of the
relevant distro.

I don't know how hard it would be to backport our Centos 5.1 srpm to
RHEL4, or even whether that would be the best approach.  You are of
course free to investigate that yourself :-).

Regards,
Ian.

_______________________________________________
Xen-users mailing list
Xen-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xensource.com/xen-users