Vreme: 11/16/2011 12:21 AM, Nataraj piše:
> The current build problems are hopefully a temporary situation and if
> they are resolved CentOS users will have the option of the rolling
> updates or waiting for the update release. For "most" users, installing
> updates from the CR repo is the best ch
On 11/15/2011 02:47 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> Am 15.11.2011 23:43, schrieb John R. Dennison:
>>> I was wondering if it would be safe to just stay with the 'standard'
>>> repo for centos and wait for 6.1 that way or do you suggest adding the
>>> CR repo as a necessary event?
>> Depends on if you
On 11/15/2011 04:47 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
>
> Am 15.11.2011 23:43, schrieb John R. Dennison:
>>>
>>> I was wondering if it would be safe to just stay with the 'standard'
>>> repo for centos and wait for 6.1 that way or do you suggest adding the
>>> CR repo as a necessary event?
>>
>> Depends
On Tue, Nov 15, 2011 at 11:47:24PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote:
>
> but why in the world is an extra repo needed for security-updates?
> it is like a bad joke installing a os and have to search how
> to install a repo for ESSENTIAL updates while most people
> think "i have a package manager and get
Am 15.11.2011 23:43, schrieb John R. Dennison:
>>
>> I was wondering if it would be safe to just stay with the 'standard'
>> repo for centos and wait for 6.1 that way or do you suggest adding the
>> CR repo as a necessary event?
>
> Depends on if you feel that security updates are important to y
On Wed, 2 Nov 2011, Les Mikesell wrote:
> I don't care in general, but dislike hypocrisy. If you are going to
> claim to be open source, it should work to rebuild.
les ... go rent a forum of your own -- this has no centos
aspect any more
-- Russ herrold
___
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 12:02 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:53:29 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Try the other way around: build RHEL from their src rpms, try to run
>> the 3rd party binary... I thought you said that didn't work. If you
>> can't rebuild that source so it w
On Wednesday, November 02, 2011 12:53:29 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
> Try the other way around: build RHEL from their src rpms, try to run
> the 3rd party binary... I thought you said that didn't work. If you
> can't rebuild that source so it works, you might as well not use open
> source.
Ok, let m
On Wed, Nov 2, 2011 at 10:35 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 11:24:24 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
>> If, in fact, you cannot rebuild a src rpm and get a working
>> copy then in that respect you might as well be using closed,
>> proprietary software.
>
> "Working" and "binary compa
On Tuesday, November 01, 2011 11:24:24 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
> If, in fact, you cannot rebuild a src rpm and get a working
> copy then in that respect you might as well be using closed,
> proprietary software.
"Working" and "binary compatible" are two different things, and typically the
100% bin
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:12 AM, Akemi Yagi wrote:
>
> No clone distros, including CentOS and Scientific Linux, are perfect.
> If someone asks which of the two has a better binary compatibility, I
> would answer, "they are equally good".
One of the 'selling points' as a big reason to use open sou
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 3:02 AM, Peter Peltonen wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
>>> If absolute 100% binary compatibility is not required, but admin-level
>>> compatibility and source-level compatibility with upstream EL is,
>>> Scientific Linux is coveri
Vreme: 11/01/2011 11:02 AM, Peter Peltonen piše:
> Hi,
>
> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
>>> If absolute 100% binary compatibility is not required, but admin-level
>>> compatibility and source-level compatibility with upstream EL is,
>>> Scientific Linux is covering tha
Hi,
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:13 AM, Mathieu Baudier wrote:
>> If absolute 100% binary compatibility is not required, but admin-level
>> compatibility and source-level compatibility with upstream EL is, Scientific
>> Linux is covering that niche, and has their 6.1 out.
>
> In which concrete use
> If absolute 100% binary compatibility is not required, but admin-level
> compatibility and source-level compatibility with upstream EL is, Scientific
> Linux is covering that niche, and has their 6.1 out.
In which concrete use cases is 100% binary compatibility important?
_
On Oct 31, 2011, at 1:50 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:36 AM, William Warren
>> I think many of us would like to see releases in a timely manner.
>> Centos is now months behind in nearly every version with the onset of
>> cent6. I've started moving boxes to ubuntu due to th
On Sun, Oct 30, 2011 at 7:36 AM, William Warren
> I think many of us would like to see releases in a timely manner.
> Centos is now months behind in nearly every version with the onset of
> cent6. I've started moving boxes to ubuntu due to this increasing
> delay. The security of many machines is
On Monday, October 31, 2011 07:46:59 AM William Warren wrote:
> Like I said before It it too
> bad RH is doing what they are doing. It is going to mean the death of
> RHEL rebuilds...look at what is happening to Centos. Per Johnny's
> statement they can't truly maintain 100% binary compatibili
On 10/30/2011 8:33 PM, Christopher Chan wrote:
> On Sunday, October 30, 2011 08:38 PM, William Warren wrote:
>
>> Or move to another distro that has timely security updates and long term
>> support like Centos.
> What...Ubuntu "LTS"?
> ___
> CentOS mailin
On Sunday, October 30, 2011 08:38 PM, William Warren wrote:
> Or move to another distro that has timely security updates and long term
> support like Centos.
What...Ubuntu "LTS"?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/
On Sunday, October 30, 2011 04:31 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Craig White wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> /me is puzzled. You spelt it correctly. Maybe not so keen on learning
>>> the intricacies of Debian and the 'Debian way'.
>>
>> Linux is still Linux and while there is s
On Monday, October 31, 2011 12:11 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Vreme: 10/30/2011 03:46 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn piše:
>> On 10/30/2011 02:14 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>>> I do not think there is much to be worried for now. Most/all security
>>> patches will come out fairly fast now that C
Vreme: 10/30/2011 03:46 PM, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn piše:
> On 10/30/2011 02:14 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>> I do not think there is much to be worried for now. Most/all security
>> patches will come out fairly fast now that CR repo is in place.
>>
>> If need be, there can always be another repo
On 10/30/2011 02:14 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Vreme: 10/30/2011 01:44 PM, William Warren piše:
>> And that Johnny has been the answer we have been requesting for a
>> long time now. I figured the upstream packaging changes broke your
>> systems even when lance said that wasn't the case.
Vreme: 10/30/2011 01:36 PM, William Warren piše:
> I think many of us would like to see releases in a timely manner.
> Centos is now months behind in nearly every version with the onset of
> cent6. I've started moving boxes to ubuntu due to this increasing
> delay. The security of many machines i
Vreme: 10/30/2011 01:44 PM, William Warren piše:
> And that Johnny has been the answer we have been requesting for a
> long time now. I figured the upstream packaging changes broke your
> systems even when lance said that wasn't the case. The results speak
> for themselves. Nothing against t
On 10/21/2011 12:54 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 10:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
>> wrote:
>>
Johnny, chill. I don't blame him for being confused. Up until right now,
you updated to a point release, then, over the weeks
On 10/21/2011 10:17 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
> On Fri, October 21, 2011 16:02, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
>>
>> Giles Coochey wrote:
>>> So Centos 6.0 is EOL?
>> not familiar with the rhel life cycle are you?
>> Read this:
>> https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/
>>
On 10/21/2011 9:23 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 06:25 AM, Steve Walsh wrote:
>> On 10/21/2011 10:16 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>>> Vreme: 10/21/2011 12:25 PM, Fajar Priyanto pis(e:
>>> As far as I am aware, how I understood official explanation, packages
>>> that are introduced in C
On Saturday, October 29, 2011 06:31:46 PM Jerry Geis wrote:
> I cannot find anything out there as far as an update.
This has been a useful discourse since the new difficulties that the team is
facing are now more widely known. Sometimes the pot needs a good stirring, and
this time we got what i
Vreme: 10/30/2011 12:31 AM, Jerry Geis piše:
>I did not mean to "stir" up anything.
>
> I was simply asking if I was looking in the wrong place for an update to 6.1
> or where are the ISO's?
>
> I cannot find anything out there as far as an update.
>
> Thanks
>
>
> Jerry
Sorry to be blunt, but
I did not mean to "stir" up anything.
I was simply asking if I was looking in the wrong place for an update to 6.1
or where are the ISO's?
I cannot find anything out there as far as an update.
Thanks
Jerry
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:03 PM, Craig White wrote:
>>
>>
>> /me is puzzled. You spelt it correctly. Maybe not so keen on learning
>> the intricacies of Debian and the 'Debian way'.
>
> Linux is still Linux and while there is some learning curve, it does
> tend to broaden one's knowledge base
On Sat, 2011-10-29 at 20:56 +0800, Christopher Chan wrote:
> On Saturday, October 29, 2011 04:36 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
> > It's a bad thing if you think clones should exist at all.
> > Realistically, we would all probably be better off jumping ship the
> > day of the fedora/EL split, but I've
Vreme: 10/29/2011 05:36 PM, Les Mikesell piše:
> Also, there is probably room for a public, if not legal, complaint
> about gpl compliance if the source and binary components they
> distribute don't match in a way that you can rebuild a binary that
> works the same. Of course there is a lot of no
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
> I can tell you that we have been contacted by upstream to make sure we
> **UNDERSTAND** the new AUP restrictions on distribution. I can also
> tell you that we (CentOS) are doing everything in our power to meet the
> restrictions as they
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 7:56 AM, Christopher Chan
wrote:
> On Saturday, October 29, 2011 04:36 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> It's a bad thing if you think clones should exist at all.
>> Realistically, we would all probably be better off jumping ship the
>> day of the fedora/EL split, but I've just
On 10/28/2011 12:47 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> On 28/10/11 18:31, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Patrick Lists
>> wrote:
>>>
How is, say, being
required to pay a license fee as a consequence different from losing
something you have already contracted and paid
On Saturday, October 29, 2011 04:36 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> It's a bad thing if you think clones should exist at all.
> Realistically, we would all probably be better off jumping ship the
> day of the fedora/EL split, but I've just been too lazy to learn to
> spell "apt-get".
>
/me is puzzled.
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:22 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
>
>> That logic depends on a very strange interpretation of the term
>> "restriction". The GPL doesn't narrowly define it narrowly as legal
>> actions, it says you may not impost any further restrictions.
>
> True, and that is why it is a lo
On Friday 28 October 2011 20:45:16 Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
> > But RH did not add restrictions. Whatever you get from them, you are free
> > to redistribute, in accord with GPL. There can be *no* *legal* *action*
> > against you if you do so. O
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 2:37 PM, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
>
> But RH did not add restrictions. Whatever you get from them, you are free to
> redistribute, in accord with GPL. There can be *no* *legal* *action* against
> you if you do so. OTOH, it is their choice whether or not to give you anything
>
On Friday 28 October 2011 18:54:25 Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
> >> The question is, how can a contract containing restrictions on what
> >> you can do with GPL covered content not invalidate your own right to
> >> redistribute, given that the GPL proh
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:47 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>
>> The question is, how can a contract containing restrictions on what
>> you can do with GPL covered content not invalidate your own right to
>> redistribute, given that the GPL prohibits additional restrictions?
>>
>
> As I understand, Red Ha
On 28/10/11 18:31, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Patrick Lists
> wrote:
>>
>>> How is, say, being
>>> required to pay a license fee as a consequence different from losing
>>> something you have already contracted and paid for?
>>
>> It would surprise me if Red Hat would
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Patrick Lists
wrote:
>
>> How is, say, being
>> required to pay a license fee as a consequence different from losing
>> something you have already contracted and paid for?
>
> It would surprise me if Red Hat would not refund the customer or let
> them ride out the
On 10/28/2011 06:53 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>
Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers.
>>>
>>> With _no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution.
>>
>> Losing access to RHN does not in any wa
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 11:13 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>> >
>> > Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers.
>>
>> With _no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution.
>
> Losing access to RHN does not in any way restrict my redistribution of source
> I already
On Friday, October 28, 2011 11:29:52 AM Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> >
> > Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers.
>
> With _no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution.
Losing access to RHN does not in any
On Friday, October 21, 2011 02:22:26 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
> Which is explicitly imposing additional restrictions. Which is
> explicitly prohibited in section 6. I don't see any exceptions
> relating to what the consequences of those restrictions might be.
The RHN AUP simply says that if you re
On 10/28/11 8:29 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> >
>> >Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers.
> With_no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution.
redhat's threat of disabling RHN access for redistribut
On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 10:20 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
> Even GPL only requires redistribution by upstream to its customers.
With _no additional restrictions_ on subsequent redistribution.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
___
CentOS mailing
On Friday, October 21, 2011 10:17:18 AM Giles Coochey wrote:
> It appears that this is not the case, and my only option is to take my
> servers down the beta route to Centos 6.1 Release Candidates.
This is one area in which CentOS and Scientific Linux are different (and it's
interesting, readin
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 12:39 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2011 10:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
wrote:
>>> Now, for version 6, they have:
>>>
>>> Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server (v. 6)
>
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 12:39 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>> On 10/21/2011 10:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
wrote:
>>> Now, for version 6, they have:
>>>
>>> Red Hat Enterprise Linux Server (v. 6)
>
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>>
>> You'd need a copyright owner to initiate legal action. And the FSF
>> generally is more concerned about source availability although
>> binaries are clearly derived from source and covered by the same
>> copyright, and I can't see any
On 10/21/2011 12:39 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> On 10/21/2011 10:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
>>> wrote:
>>>
> Johnny, chill. I don't blame him for being confused. Up until right
> now, you updated to a point
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 1:04 PM, R P Herrold wrote:
>
>>> I've never quite understood how anything containing any
>>> GPL-covered code could have any redistribution/use
>>> restrictions added.
>
> The GPL, v2, only requires access to sources where one is
> providing binaries
Where do you see an e
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Gary Greene wrote:
>> Trust me ... the Linux Foundation thinks it is OK, so we are SOL.
> I'd rather get the opinion of the FSF (those whom wrote the
> license) instead of LF, as they don't matter as much,
> really.
Feel free to approach whoever you wish on your own accoun
On 10/21/2011 12:37 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Gary Greene
> wrote:
>>
I've never quite understood how anything containing any GPL-covered
code could have any redistribution/use restrictions added.
>>> Trust me ... the Linux Foundation thinks it is O
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 12:20 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>> They have created an optional channel in several of those
>>> groupings that is only accessible via RHN and they do not
>>> put those RPMS on an
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 10:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
>> wrote:
>>
Johnny, chill. I don't blame him for being confused. Up until right
now, you updated to a point release, then, over the weeks and months,
there we
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:28 PM, Gary Greene
wrote:
>
>>> I've never quite understood how anything containing any GPL-covered
>>> code could have any redistribution/use restrictions added.
>>>
>> Trust me ... the Linux Foundation thinks it is OK, so we are SOL.
>
> I'd rather get the opinion of t
On 10/21/11 10:25 AM, "Johnny Hughes" wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 12:20 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>> They have created an optional channel in several of those groupings that
>>> is only accessible via RHN and they do not put those RPMS on
Thanks, that is the part I was looking for also...I wish thee was someway
that Redhat would work with folks to not make it so difficult, I realize
that the original intent was to make it harder for Oracle and the likes but
the end up hurting the community more than they hurt the big guys...bummer
:
On 10/21/11 10:20 AM, "Les Mikesell" wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>>
>> They have created an optional channel in several of those groupings that
>> is only accessible via RHN and they do not put those RPMS on any ISOs
>> ... and they have completely changed th
On 10/21/2011 12:20 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>>
>> They have created an optional channel in several of those groupings that
>> is only accessible via RHN and they do not put those RPMS on any ISOs
>> ... and they have completely changed thei
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 11:54 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
> They have created an optional channel in several of those groupings that
> is only accessible via RHN and they do not put those RPMS on any ISOs
> ... and they have completely changed their "Authorized Use Policy" so
> that we can NOT log
On Fri, 21 Oct 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> Yes, and NOW the release process is MUCH harder. []
Thanks for that explanation. I knew that Red Hat's internal
development process was throwing wrenches in the CentOS build system,
but I hadn't realized how systemic and legally complicated the
d
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 10:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
>> wrote:
>>
Johnny, chill. I don't blame him for being confused. Up until right now,
you updated to a point release, then, over
On 10/21/2011 10:01 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
> wrote:
>
>>> Johnny, chill. I don't blame him for being confused. Up until right now,
>>> you updated to a point release, then, over the weeks and months, there
>>> were updates. All of a sudden,
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:51 AM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg
wrote:
>> Johnny, chill. I don't blame him for being confused. Up until right now,
>> you updated to a point release, then, over the weeks and months, there
>> were updates. All of a sudden, there are *no* updates for the 6.0 point
>> release,
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 9:33 AM, wrote:
>
>> There is nothing BETA about the CR repo ... it is the CR repo.
>
> Johnny, chill. I don't blame him for being confused. Up until right now,
> you updated to a point release, then, over the weeks and months, there
> were updates. All of a sudden, there
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>
> Johnny, chill. I don't blame him for being confused. Up until right now,
> you updated to a point release, then, over the weeks and months, there
> were updates. All of a sudden, there are *no* updates for the 6.0 point
> release, which is a major change in what everyone
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
>
> If not, what do I need to do to get security updates?
>
> These are not production systems, but I don't want to break anything
> unless it's broken already (i.e. security vulnerabilities and bug fixes).
I think it is best to assume that al
Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 09:17 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
>> On Fri, October 21, 2011 16:02, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
>>> Giles Coochey wrote:
So Centos 6.0 is EOL?
>> However, if I install whatever latest version of an operating system
>> distribution. I expect to be able to run
On Fri, October 21, 2011 16:24, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 09:17 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
>>
>> However, if I install whatever latest version of an operating system
>> distribution. I expect to be able to run something that will give me
>> stable security-updates for that distribution.
>>
On 10/21/2011 09:17 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
> On Fri, October 21, 2011 16:02, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
>>
>>
>> Giles Coochey wrote:
>>> So Centos 6.0 is EOL?
>>
>> not familiar with the rhel life cycle are you?
>> Read this:
>> https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/
>> __
On Fri, October 21, 2011 16:02, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
>
>
> Giles Coochey wrote:
>> So Centos 6.0 is EOL?
>
> not familiar with the rhel life cycle are you?
> Read this:
> https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/
> ___
Thanks. I see
Giles Coochey wrote:
> So Centos 6.0 is EOL?
not familiar with the rhel life cycle are you?
Read this:
https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata/
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 10/21/2011 08:43 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
> On Fri, October 21, 2011 15:39, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> On 10/21/2011 9:33 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
>>>
>>> OK. So my question is. I have Centos 6.0 installed on a couple of
>>> systems.
>>>
>>> I have not modified any repos or installed any repos etc..
On 10/21/2011 9:43 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
> On Fri, October 21, 2011 15:39, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> On 10/21/2011 9:33 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
>>> OK. So my question is. I have Centos 6.0 installed on a couple of
>>> systems.
>>>
>>> I have not modified any repos or installed any repos etc...
>>>
On 10/21/2011 08:43 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
> On Fri, October 21, 2011 15:39, Bowie Bailey wrote:
>> On 10/21/2011 9:33 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
>>>
>>> OK. So my question is. I have Centos 6.0 installed on a couple of
>>> systems.
>>>
>>> I have not modified any repos or installed any repos etc..
On Fri, October 21, 2011 15:39, Bowie Bailey wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 9:33 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
>>
>> OK. So my question is. I have Centos 6.0 installed on a couple of
>> systems.
>>
>> I have not modified any repos or installed any repos etc...
>>
>> Am I receiving security updates via 'yum upda
On 10/21/2011 9:33 AM, Giles Coochey wrote:
>
> OK. So my question is. I have Centos 6.0 installed on a couple of systems.
>
> I have not modified any repos or installed any repos etc...
>
> Am I receiving security updates via 'yum update', which as far as I can
> tell hasn't installed any updates
On 10/21/2011 6:22 AM, Steve Walsh wrote:
>
> Except.
>
> If you have a 6.0 machine, and enable the cr/ repo, then you don't just
> get the 6.0 updates. You get most of the post-6.0 updates, plus what's
> been built for 6.1 (effectively still in QA), plus some post 6.1 updates
> (Again, still in
On Fri, October 21, 2011 15:23, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
> There is SOME QA ... just not all the QA that they get as part of the
> main release.
>
> They are not right off the build and into the server ... we do our
> functionality test suite prior to pushing CR (and other tests, and look
> for repo
Vreme: 10/21/2011 03:09 PM, Johnny Hughes piše:
>> we don't have a CR repo for centosplus ... and I do not see us creating
>> one. We are building and testing the plus kernels too and they will be
>> there on release of 6.1 ... or you can use the ones from toracat's repo.
>>
OK, thanks. I already
On 10/21/2011 06:25 AM, Steve Walsh wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 10:16 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>> Vreme: 10/21/2011 12:25 PM, Fajar Priyanto pis(e:
>> As far as I am aware, how I understood official explanation, packages
>> that are introduced in CR repo already PASSED QA testing, but are in
>> li
On 10/21/2011 06:36 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 10/21/2011 06:16 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>> Vreme: 10/21/2011 12:25 PM, Fajar Priyanto piše:
>>> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Steve Walsh wrote:
Except.
If you have a 6.0 machine, and enable the cr/ repo, then you don't ju
Vreme: 10/21/2011 01:07 PM, Antonio da Silva Martins Junior piše:
>
> - "Steve Clark" escreveu:
>
>> De: "Steve Clark"
>> Para: "CentOS mailing list"
>> Enviadas: Sexta-feira, 21 de Outubro de 2011 9:00:00 (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
>&
On 10/21/2011 10:16 PM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Vreme: 10/21/2011 12:25 PM, Fajar Priyanto pis(e:
> As far as I am aware, how I understood official explanation, packages
> that are introduced in CR repo already PASSED QA testing, but are in
> limbo because there are issues with building ISO
N
Vreme: 10/21/2011 12:25 PM, Fajar Priyanto piše:
> On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Steve Walsh wrote:
>> Except.
>>
>> If you have a 6.0 machine, and enable the cr/ repo, then you don't just
>> get the 6.0 updates. You get most of the post-6.0 updates, plus what's
>> been built for 6.1 (effective
- "Steve Clark" escreveu:
> De: "Steve Clark"
> Para: "CentOS mailing list"
> Enviadas: Sexta-feira, 21 de Outubro de 2011 9:00:00 (GMT-0300) Auto-Detected
> Assunto: Re: [CentOS] What happened to 6.1
>
> Is there a package for the cr repo?
On 21.10.2011 13:00, Steve Clark wrote:
> On 10/20/2011 01:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
>> Jerry Geis wrote:
>>>Hi gang - Love CentOS - you guys to a fabulous job.
>>>
>>> It has been a while since I saw any update...
>>> I went to twitter.com/centos nothing there,
>>> twitter.com/centos6 not
On 10/20/2011 01:47 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Jerry Geis wrote:
>>Hi gang - Love CentOS - you guys to a fabulous job.
>>
>> It has been a while since I saw any update...
>> I went to twitter.com/centos nothing there,
>> twitter.com/centos6 nothing there,
>> went to the qa calendar stuff not
On Fri, Oct 21, 2011 at 6:22 PM, Steve Walsh wrote:
> Except.
>
> If you have a 6.0 machine, and enable the cr/ repo, then you don't just
> get the 6.0 updates. You get most of the post-6.0 updates, plus what's
> been built for 6.1 (effectively still in QA), plus some post 6.1 updates
> (Again, st
On 10/21/2011 06:09 PM, Nicolas Thierry-Mieg wrote:
> well yes: upstream is at 6.1, so updates are happening for 6.1 and 6.0
> won't receive any more "ordinary upates". The update path for 6.0 is
> through 6.1 .
> centos is offering CR which allows you to stay up-to-date even though
> C6.1 is not r
m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
> Everything's being rolled into the CR repo, so there do not appear to be
> any "ordinary" 6.0 updates.
well yes: upstream is at 6.1, so updates are happening for 6.1 and 6.0
won't receive any more "ordinary upates". The update path for 6.0 is
through 6.1 .
centos is off
Jerry Geis wrote:
> Hi gang - Love CentOS - you guys to a fabulous job.
>
> It has been a while since I saw any update...
> I went to twitter.com/centos nothing there,
> twitter.com/centos6 nothing there,
> went to the qa calendar stuff nothing there.
>
> Last I saw was something in September say
1 - 100 of 101 matches
Mail list logo
