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.

-------------- 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