RPM SPEC file for el6

Fajar A. Nugraha fajar at fajar.net
Mon Aug 19 22:30:57 UTC 2013


On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 9:22 PM, Samuel Lentz <compctech at gmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks. It looks to be good. I did find this once and thought is was to
> good to be true. But after verifying the code is the same, I will be using
> this for further updates.
>
> I understand that CentOS if suppose to be a complete copy of Red Hat down
> to the software versions, but don't understand why they can't also have a
> 'Cutting Edge' Repo that would contain update to date software that is just
> not patched up.
>

Redhat aims for stability, not for features or new versions. Verifying that
sommething is "stable" enough takes time.

AFAIK there are no linux distro that provides official, always-up-to-date,
supported version of popular software. It would be support nightmare.
They're usually community-supported. I particularly like ubuntu for this
point: they have ppas, which makes it easier for contributors to create
their own repository.


> The bad part is that they (both Red Hat and CentOS) is using a release
> candidate for the final release of there distros
> (bind-9.8.2-0.17.rc1.el6_4.5).
>
>
Once they pick a version for release, they stick with it (at least until
the next point release), and add patches on top of it for security/bug fix.
The patches can either be backports of official ones, or RH-specific. See
changelog (e.g. "rpm -q --changelog bind") for details. Security-wise,
vendors usually have updated packages ready by the time a vulnerability is
announced (e.g. in CVE form). So in terms of security (and sometimes, bug
fixes), the package is as secure (or sometimes even more, due to
RH-specific patches) compared to official upstream version.

-- 
Fajar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20130820/61b73520/attachment.html>


More information about the bind-users mailing list