| |||||||||||||
On properly packaging perlOn properly packaging perlPosted Aug 21, 2009 22:21 UTC (Fri) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331)In reply to: On properly packaging perl by dowdle Parent article: On properly packaging perl
I don't often run Fedora on servers (or server virtual machines / containers) unless I have a need for something newer than RHEL5/CentOS5 and that isn't very often.I regularly backport Fedora packages to RHEL when I need a newer version of a particular program or library. It works wonderfully (though of course, I have to manually monitor security lists for that package from that point onward.)
(Log in to post comments)
On properly packaging perl Posted Aug 23, 2009 19:41 UTC (Sun) by mmahut (guest, #45550) [Link]
What about EPEL?
On properly packaging perl Posted Aug 23, 2009 19:44 UTC (Sun) by quotemstr (subscriber, #45331) [Link]
EPEL is great, but doesn't have everything. For example, the RHEL5 version of sudo spits out an infuriating error message if auditing is not available; the bug is fixed in the Fedora 11 version, which builds and runs fine on a RHEL5 machine.
On properly packaging perl Posted Aug 24, 2009 14:18 UTC (Mon) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
Just to clarify, EPEL is a add-on repository and by policy, wouldn't have updated versions of sudo since that would conflict or override packages in the base OS. What it would have instead, is packages not available in RHEL.
|
|||||||||||||