On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>
> Will Centos versions eventually become incompatible, partially or
> wholly, with its parent's RHEL versions ? I can understand why that
> would be commercially advantageous to RH.
>
I think it would be commercially advantageous if they
On Sat, April 4, 2015 4:47 am, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 04/04/15 00:13, Always Learning wrote:
>> Posted on behalf of Mark (m.r...@5-cent.us) who is currently
>> experiencing technical difficulties with his Internet connection
>> -
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Fri, 2015-04-03
On 04/04/15 00:13, Always Learning wrote:
> Posted on behalf of Mark (m.r...@5-cent.us) who is currently
> experiencing technical difficulties with his Internet connection
> -
>
>
>
>> On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 11:23 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>
>>> I really think that
Posted on behalf of Mark (m.r...@5-cent.us) who is currently
experiencing technical difficulties with his Internet connection
-
> On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 11:23 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>> I really think that if someone is actually interested in helping the
project
On Fri, 2015-04-03 at 11:23 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> I really think that if someone is actually interested in helping the
> project, rather than being a backseat driver and griping at every change
>
But first one ought to know exactly where the "project" is going. In
which direction
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>
>> BTW. What happens if a bad ISO gets spun, released and then is
>> replaced in the same month? Does it become: 7.1504_a?; 7.1504b?;
>> 7.1504_1?; 7.150403?
>>
> Already happened; it had a -01 added.
>
Wiill the directories here:
http://vault.
On 04/02/2015 07:00 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
stretching this a bit futher : lets see if we can find 10 people who
might be considered 'community beacons', who could / would act as
commnuity comms and liason to make sure we are driving in the right
directions and communicating things in the mos
On 04/03/2015 09:16 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
Hm. I wonder how the proposed 7.1.1503 became 7.1503 in practice.
Bait and switch?
The versioning of the ISO's is 7.1503 (in one way of reading the actual
name; you could read it as 7 spin 1503 or whatnot), but my
/etc/centos-release says:
On Thu, April 2, 2015 15:25, Jim Perrin wrote:
>
>
> On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
>
>>
>> Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding
>> release names would have been nice.
>
> We did.
>
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2015-February/012873.html
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 18:40 -0400, Steve Thompson wrote:
> Yes, you are right. I was relying on my obviously faulty and aged memory,
> so I checked on my two remaining CentOS 5 boxes. There is no
> /etc/centos-release file there at all, only an /etc/redhat-release, so
> obviously not a symlink
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 17:37 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/02/2015 04:16 PM, Always Learning wrote:
> > Although most people in the world will privately complain the vast
> > majority do not complain in public. Where is your contrary evidence
> > that this non-beneficial and illogical change i
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 22:22 +0100, Ned Slider wrote:
> Would it have made a difference? Yes, you asked on that list. And yes,
> nearly everyone who responded said no to the change, yet you did it anyway.
..
> The damage is done now, you can't take it back.
But they
On 02/04/15 21:35, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
> See my reply earlier. The description of the centos-devel list says "this
> is strictly about development."
Matt, come join the contributor base - be a commnuity communication
liason ( or, I am sure we can find a title to quantify this ).
stretching t
> On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 13:08 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> >>
> >> CentOS releases are NOT the same as EUS and have never been .. yet that
> >> seems to be what people expect. We want there to be no doubt on this
> >> issue.
> On Thu, April 2, 2015 2:55 pm, Always Learning wrote:
> >
> > Is
On Thu, 2 Apr 2015, Les Mikesell wrote:
Well if you define 'always' as 'for CentOS6 and later...
Yes, you are right. I was relying on my obviously faulty and aged memory,
so I checked on my two remaining CentOS 5 boxes. There is no
/etc/centos-release file there at all, only an /etc/redhat-r
On 04/02/2015 04:16 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Although most people in the world will privately complain the vast
majority do not complain in public. Where is your contrary evidence
that this non-beneficial and illogical change is welcome by the majority
of Centos users ?
The burden of proof f
On 02/04/15 20:47, Jim Perrin wrote:
>
>
> On 04/02/2015 02:29 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
>>>
>>>
Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release
On Thu, 02 Apr 2015 20:55:46 +0100
Always Learning wrote:
> Is there a commercial motive for this 'unwelcome by most' change ?
I must be part of one the "by most". Since I'm one of the mostly
silent majority.
I want to express my thanks to the team that does all of the work.
Thank you guys!
A
On Thu, April 2, 2015 2:55 pm, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 13:08 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>> CentOS releases are NOT the same as EUS and have never been .. yet that
>> seems to be what people expect. We want there to be no doubt on this
>> issue.
>
> Is there a commerc
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:23 PM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Thu, 2 Apr 2015, Les Mikesell wrote:
>
>> I didn't see any indication there that you were planning to turn the
>> /etc/redhat-release file into a symlink.
>
>
> In CentOS, /etc/redhat-release has always been a symlink to
> /etc/centos-rele
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/02/2015 03:55 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>
>> Is there a commercial motive for this 'unwelcome by most' change ?
>>
>
> Do you have data to prove that it is unwelcome by most? It is unwelcome
> by you and a few others I've seen comment; w
On 4/2/2015 1:16 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Although most people in the world will privately complain the vast
majority do not complain in public. Where is your contrary evidence
that this non-beneficial and illogical change is welcome by the majority
of Centos users ?
you're the one claiming
On Thu, 2 Apr 2015, Les Mikesell wrote:
I didn't see any indication there that you were planning to turn the
/etc/redhat-release file into a symlink.
In CentOS, /etc/redhat-release has always been a symlink to
/etc/centos-release.
Steve
___
CentOS
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 16:12 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/02/2015 03:55 PM, Always Learning wrote:
> > Is there a commercial motive for this 'unwelcome by most' change ?
>
> Do you have data to prove that it is unwelcome by most?
Although most people in the world will privately complain the
On 04/02/2015 03:12 PM, m.r...@5-cent.us wrote:
And when you have to talk to Windowsiacs, who know nothing other than
version and point, it works best to tell them we're on that point, so
go away, and don't bother us.
They know Service Packs and Build numbers. Call it CentOS 7 Build 1503
if
On 04/02/2015 03:55 PM, Always Learning wrote:
Is there a commercial motive for this 'unwelcome by most' change ?
Do you have data to prove that it is unwelcome by most? It is unwelcome
by you and a few others I've seen comment; what percentage of the list's
subscribers do you suppose that m
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 14:25 -0500, Jim Perrin wrote:
>
> On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
>
> >
> > Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release
> > names would
> > have been nice.
>
> We did.
>
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2015-Febru
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 13:08 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> CentOS releases are NOT the same as EUS and have never been .. yet that
> seems to be what people expect. We want there to be no doubt on this
> issue.
Is there a commercial motive for this 'unwelcome by most' change ?
If Centos is th
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:47 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
>
>
> On 04/02/2015 02:29 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding r
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
>
>
> On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
>
>>
>> Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release
>> names would
>> have been nice.
>
>
> We did.
>
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2015-February/012
On 04/02/2015 02:29 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release
names would
have been nice.
We did.
http://lists.centos.org/pipermai
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 17:14 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> I believe your argument works fine since:
> CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso
> CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1507.iso
> CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1512.iso
> CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1606.iso
>
> note, this is YYmm to indicate age, and not serial numbers.
Being
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 11:08 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> A:
>
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
That is called an arithmetic progression (from my school days)
> B:
>
> 231 2735 2746 3458 5216 ...
does not resemble a geometric progression.
Lets have a LOGICAL numbering system. How about
Cento
Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>>
>>> If you really _need_ a specific minor release and want to _stay_ on it,
>>> to my knowledge, that's not something CentOS has _ever_ done anyway.
>>> You can pay for Red Hat's "EUS", or, I think Scientific Linux actu
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jim Perrin wrote:
>
>
> On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
>
>
>> Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release
>> names would
>> have been nice.
>>
>
> We did.
>
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2015-February/01
On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release
names would
have been nice.
We did.
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2015-February/012873.html
--
Jim Perrin
The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org
twi
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 16:54 +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
...
Why not:
Centos 7.1.1502
instead of
Centos 7.1502 ?
on the basis revision 1502 has been applied to Centos 7.1 ?
--
Regards,
Paul.
England, EU. Je suis Charlie.
__
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>
>> If you really _need_ a specific minor release and want to _stay_ on it,
>> to my knowledge, that's not something CentOS has _ever_ done anyway.
>> You can pay for Red Hat's "EUS", or, I think Scientific Linux actually
>> does keep the ".y"
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 04/02/2015 12:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:57:23AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> How, without a cross reference of some sort, do you know if a given
> CentOS iso will install on hardware where you kn
On 04/02/2015 12:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:57:23AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
How, without a cross reference of some sort, do you know if a given
CentOS iso will install on hardware where you know that the needed
driver was added in an RH minor rev?
>>
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Karanbir Singh
> wrote:
> >
> > os-release has been at /7/ since the first CentOS 7 release - what extra
> > value does having 7.1 in there bring ? At best it just says that your
> > centos-release rpm has no
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 04:56:45PM +0100, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> os-release has been at /7/ since the first CentOS 7 release - what extra
> value does having 7.1 in there bring ? At best it just says that your
Compatibility with RedHat, that says 7.1 ?
--
rgds
Stephen
_
On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:57:23AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> >> How, without a cross reference of some sort, do you know if a given
> >> CentOS iso will install on hardware where you know that the needed
> >> driver was added in an RH minor rev?
> > always use the latest one.
> Which, combined w
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:51 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
> On 4/2/2015 9:49 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>> How, without a cross reference of some sort, do you know if a given
>> CentOS iso will install on hardware where you know that the needed
>> driver was added in an RH minor rev?
>
>
> always use
On 4/2/2015 9:49 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
How, without a cross reference of some sort, do you know if a given
CentOS iso will install on hardware where you know that the needed
driver was added in an RH minor rev?
always use the latest one.
--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 04/02/2015 11:30 AM, Alain Péan wrote:
>>
>> Notice that a new minor release includes new drivers for new servers, so
>> it is important to know if you can install at all the system on your
>> server, before any updates !
>
> what does tha
Le 02/04/2015 18:41, Johnny Hughes a écrit :
Notice that a new minor release includes new drivers for new servers, so
>it is important to know if you can install at all the system on your
>server, before any updates !
what does that have to do with an ISO name?
If you use the iso that does not
On 04/02/2015 11:30 AM, Alain Péan wrote:
> Le 02/04/2015 18:22, Les Mikesell a écrit :
>>> Note that any CentOS machine, updated to the same point in time,
>>> >regardless of where and how it was privisioned should give you the same
>>> >functional package set. This is an important thing.
>> Yes,
Le 02/04/2015 18:22, Les Mikesell a écrit :
Note that any CentOS machine, updated to the same point in time,
>regardless of where and how it was privisioned should give you the same
>functional package set. This is an important thing.
Yes, but how do you explain that relationship to someone who
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:14 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> >> 231 2735 2746 3458 5216 ...
>
> I believe your argument works fine since:
> CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso
> CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1507.iso
> CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1512.iso
> CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1606.iso
>
> note, this is YYmm to indicate age,
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>
> os-release has been at /7/ since the first CentOS 7 release - what extra
> value does having 7.1 in there bring ? At best it just says that your
> centos-release rpm has not been updated and/or there is no system level
> state change that
On 04/02/2015 05:08 PM, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> Us, human, usually do consecutive counting as follows:
>
> A:
>
> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 ...
>
> Now, as portion of version identifier doesn't follow this way of counting
> anymore, it is akin counting like:
>
> B:
>
> 231 2735 2746 3458 5216 ...
I belie
On Thu, April 2, 2015 9:52 am, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 22:54 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
>
>> you guys sure get your panties in a bunch over something as silly as
the
>> iso file name.
>
> You may wear them, many of us don't :-)
>
>> if you don't like the name, rename it...
On 04/02/2015 04:43 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>> On 04/02/2015 10:59 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
>>
>>> It's not just the name of the ISO file. c.f. the VERSION_ID variable in
>>> /etc/os-release
>>>
>> In that particular place it is actually
On 04/01/2015 10:10 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>> Yes, not very wise... Karanbir corrected very quickly the content of
>> the redhat-release file, because it was totally different from 7.0,
>> and broke a lot of scripts and applications.
> The issue of the content of redhat-release was a serious and val
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 11:19 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/02/2015 10:59 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
>
>> It's not just the name of the ISO file. c.f. the VERSION_ID variable in
>> /etc/os-release
>>
> In that particular place it is actually rather important, but that is
> orthogonal to the ISO na
On 04/02/2015 10:59 AM, Phelps, Matthew wrote:
It's not just the name of the ISO file. c.f. the VERSION_ID variable in
/etc/os-release
In that particular place it is actually rather important, but that is
orthogonal to the ISO name.
___
CentOS mailing
It's not just the name of the ISO file. c.f. the VERSION_ID variable in
/etc/os-release
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:52 AM, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 22:54 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
>
> > you guys sure get your panties in a bunch over something as silly as the
> > iso file
On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 22:54 -0700, John R Pierce wrote:
> you guys sure get your panties in a bunch over something as silly as the
> iso file name.
You may wear them, many of us don't :-)
> if you don't like the name, rename it... sheesh.
Its about a consistent and logical approach to identif
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 07:09 -0400, mark wrote:
> Had you, for example, made it release.subrelease.date (7.1.1503), it would
> have been less disruptive and annoying.
An excellent suggestion that everyone can live-with. Bravo.
--
Regards,
Paul.
England, EU. Je suis Charlie.
_
On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:54 AM, John R Pierce wrote:
> you guys sure get your panties in a bunch over something as silly as the iso
> file name.
>
> if you don't like the name, rename it... sheesh.
>
I'm not bothered so much by the actual name as by the justification of
it having been discussed
On 04/02/15 00:51, Lamar Owen wrote:
On 04/01/2015 08:12 PM, Always Learning wrote:
1. What is the logically reason for this alleged "improvement" ?
I never said it was an improvement. I just said that I didn't think it was
that big of a deal, and it boggles my mind that people are calling a
minor version vs rolling Everything - this implies that the origin
base has one root - but thats not the case (pragmatically speaking). There is
still a "rebase" or at least a incompatibility between the minor versions
(as shown recently 7.0->7.1 for kernel modules) and stated in the list by
> On 2 Apr 2015, at 06:41, Always Learning wrote:
>
>
>> On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 00:51 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>
>> In my opinion, assigning sub-version numbers to what was originally
>> intended to be, by Red Hat, quarterly updates (almost Service Packs,
>> if you will, much like SGI's number
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 10:12 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Adding the date component means CentOS may release more than one iso
> per RH's minor versions. There isn't much of a consistent
> relationship between the RH release and the subsequent Centos release
> other than 'sometime later when it is
you guys sure get your panties in a bunch over something as silly as the
iso file name.
if you don't like the name, rename it... sheesh.
--
john r pierce, recycling bits in santa cruz
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.or
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 00:51 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> Nor do I see it as an improvement.
Thank you for your considered response. If it is not an improvement,
then there is no reason for the change, is there ?
> In my opinion, assigning sub-version numbers to what was originally
> intended to
On 04/02/2015 01:12 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
So, given a set of
Centos isos or even just the most recent, how would you know which RH
release it is based on?
Oh, one more minor point, and I know I'm probably in the minority here:
for most of the cases where I use CentOS, I don't actually care whi
On 04/02/2015 01:12 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
Adding the date component means CentOS may release more than one iso
per RH's minor versions.
Newsflash: they already are, just not in the main releases trees. Look
in http://buildlogs.centos.org/rolling/7/isos/x86_64/
I previously used the 201502
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 11:51 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>
> I am not so easily confused by the new numbering; what the ISO is named is
> orthogonal to what it contains, at least in my mind.
Adding the date component means CentOS may release more than one iso
per RH's minor versions. There isn't much
On 04/01/2015 08:12 PM, Always Learning wrote:
1. What is the logically reason for this alleged "improvement" ?
I never said it was an improvement. I just said that I didn't think it
was that big of a deal, and it boggles my mind that people are calling a
change of an ISO's file name 'unwise
On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 21:51 -0500, Valeri Galtsev wrote:
> Changing of naming structure from self explanatory to obscure is not clever
> either.
That single sentence is the essence of the concern I share with others.
> 2. Processor chip manufacturers with their chip notations (AMD was the
> fi
On Wed, April 1, 2015 6:58 pm, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 16:15 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
>
>> On 04/01/2015 03:33 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>> > If someone (currently anonymous) at Centos says abandon sub-version
>> > numbers and introduce an illogical ISOs naming structure,
On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 17:10 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> I'm just experiencing a bit of disbelief that people are
> getting hung up over the file's name being the slightest bit
> unexpectedly different, that's all.
1. What is the logically reason for this alleged "improvement" ?
2. How are user
On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 16:15 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 04/01/2015 03:33 PM, Always Learning wrote:
> > If someone (currently anonymous) at Centos says abandon sub-version
> > numbers and introduce an illogical ISOs naming structure, a wise person
> > will ignore that command.
>
> So, in essen
On 04/01/2015 04:43 PM, Alain Péan wrote:
Le 01/04/2015 22:15, Lamar Owen a écrit :
It is impossible to satisfy everyone.
So, you refuse to hear your users, who have stated good arguments, for
something that is not very difficult to change, the name of the iso,
which is not coherent with the
Le 01/04/2015 22:15, Lamar Owen a écrit :
So, in essence you're saying that the builders of the OS that you use
and trust for daily tasks are unwise, right? Sounds to me like you
might want to use something different.
just the change will satisfy everyone.
It is impossible to satisfy ever
On 04/01/2015 03:33 PM, Always Learning wrote:
If someone (currently anonymous) at Centos says abandon sub-version
numbers and introduce an illogical ISOs naming structure, a wise person
will ignore that command.
So, in essence you're saying that the builders of the OS that you use
and trust f
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 2:23 PM, Peter wrote:
>>
> My point is that there was a claim by the board that this particular
> change was discussed extensively on the -devel list. If it was then it
> should be quite easy to point out the post(s) in the archives where this
> particular discussion tool p
On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 08:23 +1300, Peter wrote:
> My point is that there was a claim by the board that this particular
> change was discussed extensively on the -devel list. If it was then it
> should be quite easy to point out the post(s) in the archives where this
> particular discussion tool
On 04/02/2015 03:29 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
> On 03/31/2015 11:11 PM, Peter wrote:
>> Can you please point me to the centos-devel thread that discussed
>> changing the iso naming convention from CentOS-7.1-1503-x86_64-DVD.iso
>> to CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso? I must have missed it because I saw
>>
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 04/01/2015 11:45 AM, Александр Кириллов wrote:
>>> This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the
>>> CentOS Board. It is what we are using in the future. I suggest you
>>> become familiar with it.
>>
>> Obviously
On 03/31/2015 11:11 PM, Peter wrote:
Can you please point me to the centos-devel thread that discussed
changing the iso naming convention from CentOS-7.1-1503-x86_64-DVD.iso
to CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso? I must have missed it because I saw
no mention of this change until today.
The first thr
On Wed, 1 Apr 2015, Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 04/01/2015 11:45 AM, Александр Кириллов wrote:
This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the
CentOS Board. It is what we are using in the future. I suggest you
become familiar with it.
Obviously naming conventions should
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Александр Кириллов
wrote:
> Karanbir Singh писал 2015-04-01 14:25:
>
>> On 04/01/2015 11:45 AM, Александр Кириллов wrote:
>>
>>> This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the
CentOS Board. It is what we are using in the future. I sug
Karanbir Singh писал 2015-04-01 14:25:
On 04/01/2015 11:45 AM, Александр Кириллов wrote:
This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by
the
CentOS Board. It is what we are using in the future. I suggest you
become familiar with it.
Obviously naming conventions should pro
On 04/01/2015 11:45 AM, Александр Кириллов wrote:
>> This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the
>> CentOS Board. It is what we are using in the future. I suggest you
>> become familiar with it.
>
> Obviously naming conventions should provide for an easy upstream vendo
On 04/01/2015 10:07 AM, Ron Yorston wrote:
> Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the
>> CentOS Board.
>
> Yes, it was discussed at great length on centos-devel. The core
> developers proposed a date-based versioning system which met with
> m
This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the
CentOS Board. It is what we are using in the future. I suggest you
become familiar with it.
Obviously naming conventions should provide for an easy upstream vendor
version reference?
_
Johnny Hughes wrote:
>This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the
>CentOS Board.
Yes, it was discussed at great length on centos-devel. The core
developers proposed a date-based versioning system which met with
much opposition. I certainly wasn't convinced by their ar
Le 31/03/2015 23:24, Alain Péan a écrit :
It seems that also the redhat-release file has changed.Previously, it
was :
[root@centos7 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release
CentOS Linux release 7.0.1406 (Core)
Now it is :
[root@centos-test ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release
Derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 04/01/2015 03:49 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> It is also my opinion that the name CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso
>> is rather confusing, it is not immediately evident that it is
>> release 7.1. I would have prefered the name
>> CentOS-7.1-1503-x86_64-D
On 03/31/2015 05:56 PM, Always Learning wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 13:28 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>
>> On 03/31/2015 12:31 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:
>>> CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-DVD.iso
>>> CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso
>
>> Please take a look at the "Archived Versions", and the Release Annou
On 03/31/2015 04:24 PM, Alain Péan wrote:
> Le 31/03/2015 20:30, Johnny Hughes a écrit :
>>> I would have assumed that this release would be "7.1.1503", and the URL
>>> >>on at least one mirror has:
>>> >>
>>> >>http://mirror.fdcservers.net/centos/7.1.1503/
>>> >>
>>> >>Guess if that's the new conv
On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 13:28 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 03/31/2015 12:31 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:
> > CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-DVD.iso
> > CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso
> Please take a look at the "Archived Versions", and the Release Announcement:
>
> They both tell you that 7 (1503) is derived
Le 31/03/2015 20:30, Johnny Hughes a écrit :
I would have assumed that this release would be "7.1.1503", and the URL
>>on at least one mirror has:
>>
>>http://mirror.fdcservers.net/centos/7.1.1503/
>>
>>Guess if that's the new convention, I'll need to keep my ISO files
>>sorted out somehow, as th
On 03/31/2015 01:28 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 03/31/2015 12:31 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:
>> On 03/31/2015 09:53 AM, Ryan Qian wrote:
>>> As a CentOs newbie, I'm not sure, will we still have CentOS 7.1 which
>>> derive from RHEL 7.1?
>>> or this is the new naming conversion for CentOS 7.
>>>
>>> T
On 03/31/2015 12:31 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:
> On 03/31/2015 09:53 AM, Ryan Qian wrote:
>> As a CentOs newbie, I'm not sure, will we still have CentOS 7.1 which
>> derive from RHEL 7.1?
>> or this is the new naming conversion for CentOS 7.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Ryan
>
>
> That was going to be my quest
On 03/31/2015 09:53 AM, Ryan Qian wrote:
As a CentOs newbie, I'm not sure, will we still have CentOS 7.1 which derive
from RHEL 7.1?
or this is the new naming conversion for CentOS 7.
Thanks!
-Ryan
That was going to be my question as well. According to
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/ce
As a CentOs newbie, I'm not sure, will we still have CentOS 7.1 which derive
from RHEL 7.1?
or this is the new naming conversion for CentOS 7.
Thanks!
-Ryan
> On Apr 1, 2015, at 12:30 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> We would like to announ
100 matches
Mail list logo
