Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS-5.7 i386 and x86_64

2011-09-15 Thread WBEL-User03
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 14 Sep 2011 00:41:22 +0100, Always Learning wrote: === > Thank you for all the hard dedicated work. === I am echoing Always Learning's appreciation. Thank you, Karanbir, and all the other developers, QA personnel & repository/infrastructu

Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS-5.7 i386 and x86_64

2011-09-14 Thread Karanbir Singh
On 09/14/2011 06:59 AM, James A. Peltier wrote: > Yes, I did notice that, just wondered why. It seems more prone to breakage > (creating multiple symlinks vs one) There are a couple of reasons. I wont go into all, but the 2 that stick out the most for me are: 1) symlinking a step deeper means w

Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS-5.7 i386 and x86_64

2011-09-14 Thread Keith Roberts
On Wed, 14 Sep 2011, Always Learning wrote: > To: centos@centos.org > From: Always Learning > Subject: Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS-5.7 i386 and x86_64 > > On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 00:33 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote: > >> We are pleased to announce the i

Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS-5.7 i386 and x86_64

2011-09-13 Thread James A. Peltier
- Original Message - | On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 09:24:48PM -0700, James A. Peltier wrote: | > Any reason why 5 is not a symlink to 5.7 whereas 4 is a symlink to | > 4.8? Looks like the same applies to 6!?! | | Because the contents of 5/ are symlinks to the 5.7/ directories!?! Yes, I did no

Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS-5.7 i386 and x86_64

2011-09-13 Thread John R Pierce
On 09/13/11 9:40 PM, John R. Dennison wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 09:24:48PM -0700, James A. Peltier wrote: >> > Any reason why 5 is not a symlink to 5.7 whereas 4 is a symlink to >> > 4.8? Looks like the same applies to 6!?! > Because the contents of 5/ are symlinks to the 5.7/ directories

Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS-5.7 i386 and x86_64

2011-09-13 Thread John R. Dennison
On Tue, Sep 13, 2011 at 09:24:48PM -0700, James A. Peltier wrote: > Any reason why 5 is not a symlink to 5.7 whereas 4 is a symlink to > 4.8? Looks like the same applies to 6!?! Because the contents of 5/ are symlinks to the 5.7/ directories!?!

Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS-5.7 i386 and x86_64

2011-09-13 Thread James A. Peltier
Any reason why 5 is not a symlink to 5.7 whereas 4 is a symlink to 4.8? Looks like the same applies to 6!?! - Original Message - | -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- | Hash: SHA1 | | We are pleased to announce the immediate availability of CentOS-5.7 | for | i386 and x86_64 Architecture

Re: [CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS-5.7 i386 and x86_64

2011-09-13 Thread Always Learning
On Wed, 2011-09-14 at 00:33 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote: > We are pleased to announce the immediate availability of CentOS-5.7 for > i386 and x86_64 Architectures. Thank you for all the hard dedicated work. -- With best regards, Paul. England, EU.