Thanks - I filed http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=8370
-ben
On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Can you file this as a bugreport on bugs.centos.org and we will work it
> asap.
>
> - KB
>
> On 04/01/2015 05:51 PM, Benjamin Ash wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Unfortunately we are
Hi,
Can you file this as a bugreport on bugs.centos.org and we will work it
asap.
- KB
On 04/01/2015 05:51 PM, Benjamin Ash wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Unfortunately we are getting multilib issues with the latest release
> of CentOS 7. It seems that samba-common.i686 conflicts with
> samba-common.x86_64,
>From what I've read there will be a newer Gnome in 7.2.
HTH
--
Sent from the Delta quadrant using Borg technology!
Nux!
www.nux.ro
- Original Message -
> From: "Jerry Geis"
> To: "CentOS mailing list"
> Sent: Wednesday, 1 April, 2015 00:04:11
> Subject: [CentOS] Release 7 1503
> Jus
On 03/03/11 10:18 AM, Kaplan, Andrew H. wrote:
>
> Hi there --
>
> I just completed installing the 64-bit version of Release 5.5, and
> while the installation and initial configuration
> completed successfully, a full boot-up is never completed
> successfully. During the system boot-up sequence
>
on 5-14-2010 2:22 AM Tom Brown spake the following:
>>> is there an estimate when centos 5.5 will be released?
>
> as far as i knew it was out - at least it seemed to drop on me on the 10th
>
> eg centos-release-5-5.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm
Remember... releases start to mirror before the official an
yep, the release was pretty close ;-)
thanks guys!
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>> On 05/14/2010 11:40 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
>>> 403's yet on repodata and some other important bits... not all the
>>> mirrors updated yet either (eg http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/)
>>
>> 5.5 isnt 'out' yet, were working on getting it to a release stage by
>> close of play today.
>
> err: l
-Original Message-
From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of
Karanbir Singh
Sent: Friday, May 14, 2010 6:17 AM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: Re: [CentOS] release of 5.5? (filesystem troubles)
On 05/14/2010 12:02 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
>&g
On 05/14/2010 12:02 PM, Eero Volotinen wrote:
>> 5.5 isnt 'out' yet, were working on getting it to a release stage by
>> close of play today.
>
> err: looks like 5.5 image is downloadable from:
>
Till such time as centos/5/ points to 5.5/ we strongly discourage people
from installing those isos.A
On 14 May 2010 12:02, Eero Volotinen wrote:
> 2010/5/14 Karanbir Singh :
>> On 05/14/2010 11:40 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
>>> 403's yet on repodata and some other important bits... not all the
>>> mirrors updated yet either (eg http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/)
>>
>> 5.5 isnt 'out' yet, were work
2010/5/14 Karanbir Singh :
> On 05/14/2010 11:40 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
>> 403's yet on repodata and some other important bits... not all the
>> mirrors updated yet either (eg http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/)
>
> 5.5 isnt 'out' yet, were working on getting it to a release stage by
> close of p
On 05/14/2010 11:40 AM, James Hogarth wrote:
> 403's yet on repodata and some other important bits... not all the
> mirrors updated yet either (eg http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/)
5.5 isnt 'out' yet, were working on getting it to a release stage by
close of play today.
- KB
__
On 14 May 2010 10:27, Tom Brown wrote:
> On 14 May 2010 10:22, Tom Brown wrote:
is there an estimate when centos 5.5 will be released?
>>
>> as far as i knew it was out - at least it seemed to drop on me on the 10th
>>
>> eg centos-release-5-5.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm
>
> or more public
>
> htt
On 14 May 2010 10:22, Tom Brown wrote:
>>> is there an estimate when centos 5.5 will be released?
>
> as far as i knew it was out - at least it seemed to drop on me on the 10th
>
> eg centos-release-5-5.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm
or more public
http://mirrors.dedipower.com/centos/5.5/os/x86_64/
_
>> is there an estimate when centos 5.5 will be released?
as far as i knew it was out - at least it seemed to drop on me on the 10th
eg centos-release-5-5.el5.centos.x86_64.rpm
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/li
On Friday, May 14, 2010 08:50 AM, Rainer Fuegenstein wrote:
> hi guys,
>
> is there an estimate when centos 5.5 will be released?
>
> I'm sitting on needles here, because since I moved my 4*1.5TB raid5
> from an asus to an intel D510 mainboard I encounter bug the described
> here:
>
> https://bugzi
MHR wrote:
> but I just don't like to do it. 30 systems? Yoik!
Out of ~300 ..
> As for moving from 4 to 5, that's not a trivial thing at all - and
> it's not an "upgrade" per se unless you have LOTS of faith in the
> process. I always reinstall across releases, and that's a royal pain
> (thoug
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 11:35 AM, Robert Heller wrote:
>
> CentOSPlus has the firewire drivers...
>
I asked about this a little while back, and I'm pretty sure the
firewire drivers are ok in the non-plus CentOS.
Or did I get that one wrong?
mhr
___
Cen
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 10:44 AM, nate wrote:
>
> You might be surprised how many outages it takes to co-ordinate
> such an upgrade in a medium-large environment(and nobody including
> me likes to take *everything* down at once though we did have
> such an outage a few weeks ago to move a storage a
On 4/1/2010 1:35 PM, Robert Heller wrote:
>
I thought 4 was too buggy compared to 3 and held off
upgrading most machines until 5 was out. In retrospect that
still seems like it was a good move even if most of the
problems in 4 were eventually fixed in updates. But with
>>
At Thu, 01 Apr 2010 12:29:26 -0500 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> On 4/1/2010 12:08 PM, R-Elists wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I thought 4 was too buggy compared to 3 and held off
> >> upgrading most machines until 5 was out. In retrospect that
> >> still seems like it was a good move even if most of t
MHR wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:25 AM, nate wrote:
>>
>> I *just* finished upgrading to CentOS 5.4 6 days ago.
>>
>
> How many people got trampled in the rush?
You might be surprised how many outages it takes to co-ordinate
such an upgrade in a medium-large environment(and nobody including
On 4/1/2010 12:08 PM, R-Elists wrote:
>
>>
>> I thought 4 was too buggy compared to 3 and held off
>> upgrading most machines until 5 was out. In retrospect that
>> still seems like it was a good move even if most of the
>> problems in 4 were eventually fixed in updates. But with
>> many years el
>
> I thought 4 was too buggy compared to 3 and held off
> upgrading most machines until 5 was out. In retrospect that
> still seems like it was a good move even if most of the
> problems in 4 were eventually fixed in updates. But with
> many years elapsing between releases, skipping a vers
> >
> > RHEL2 is already out of support (it was end-of-lifed on May
> 31, 2009).
> >
> > RHEL3 will go out of support Oct 31, 2010.
> >
> > RHEL4 will go out of support Feb 29, 2012
>
> Since the world will end in 2012, your version 5 installs
> will be just fine!!!
>LOL
>
Scott,
hehe
on 4-1-2010 6:42 AM Benjamin Franz spake the following:
> Mogens Kjaer wrote:
>> On 03/31/2010 11:43 PM, Milos Blazevic wrote:
>> ...
>>
>>> Current RHEL life cycle is in fact 7 years.
>>> Interesting, I remember hearing just the opposite - that they're about
>>> to reduce the life cycle from 7
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 9:25 AM, nate wrote:
>
> I *just* finished upgrading to CentOS 5.4 6 days ago.
>
How many people got trampled in the rush?
;^)
mhr
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Niki Kovacs wrote:
> Recently a friend of mine complained his Debian stable system was "too
> conservative", given the somewhat outdated software. I told him not to
> mind, since Debian is bleeding edge compared to my OS of choice.
Maybe your friend needs another distro, of course everyone knows
On 4/1/2010 9:11 AM, Niki Kovacs wrote:
> Mathieu Baudier a écrit :
>>> Afaik it's based on Fedora 12.
>>
>> Recent activity on the EPEL repo mailing list [1] seems to indicate
>> that they plan to branch EPEL-6 packages from Fedora 12.
>>
>
> Recently a friend of mine complained his Debian stable
On 4/1/2010 10:14 AM, R-Elists wrote:
>
>
>> They won't change the cycle for existing releases (they would
>> get into contract liability if they did).
>>
>> RHEL2 is already out of support (it was end-of-lifed on May 31, 2009).
>>
>> RHEL3 will go out of support Oct 31, 2010.
>>
>> RHEL4 will go o
> They won't change the cycle for existing releases (they would
> get into contract liability if they did).
>
> RHEL2 is already out of support (it was end-of-lifed on May 31, 2009).
>
> RHEL3 will go out of support Oct 31, 2010.
>
> RHEL4 will go out of support Feb 29, 2012
>
> RHEL5 will
Mathieu Baudier a écrit :
>> Afaik it's based on Fedora 12.
>
> Recent activity on the EPEL repo mailing list [1] seems to indicate
> that they plan to branch EPEL-6 packages from Fedora 12.
>
Recently a friend of mine complained his Debian stable system was "too
conservative", given the somewh
Mogens Kjaer wrote:
> On 03/31/2010 11:43 PM, Milos Blazevic wrote:
> ...
>
>> Current RHEL life cycle is in fact 7 years.
>> Interesting, I remember hearing just the opposite - that they're about
>> to reduce the life cycle from 7 to 5 years, since allegedly no one uses
>> the same EL major r
> Afaik it's based on Fedora 12.
Recent activity on the EPEL repo mailing list [1] seems to indicate
that they plan to branch EPEL-6 packages from Fedora 12.
I guess that they are well informed, so this supports the idea that
Fedora 12 will be the basis for RHEL 6.
[1] https://www.redhat.com/arc
Am 31.03.2010 18:47, schrieb MHR:
> Since 5.5 is now out from Red Hat and most likely our amazing CentOS
> team has already jumped on that, is there any word on Release 6? IIRC
> it's already a year out of date (base was supposed to be Fedora 10),
> so I have to wonder.
>
> I didn't see anything j
I'm not surprised at the "delay" for RHEL 6. Consider 2.x is still
supported this means they are supporting 4 different RHEL versions right
now. I would actually wait until at least 2.x dies..if not maybe 3.x
before spitting out another version.
On 4/1/2010 7:16 AM, Mogens Kjaer wrote:
> On 0
On 03/31/2010 11:43 PM, Milos Blazevic wrote:
...
> Current RHEL life cycle is in fact 7 years.
> Interesting, I remember hearing just the opposite - that they're about
> to reduce the life cycle from 7 to 5 years, since allegedly no one uses
> the same EL major release for more than 5 years. I m
On 03/31/2010 09:19 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
...
> Yeah.. and with a fast internet connection it takes LONGER to build up
> the new rpms from the deltarpms compared to just downloading the new rpms
> as full packages :)
I've noticed that too on my eee 901 with a slow flash disk.
yum remove yum
Greetings,
On Thu, Apr 1, 2010 at 4:07 AM, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Milos Blazevic wrote:
>
> It's going to have an accident, pretty soon, pretty
> soon.
>
> Steve
aah!... does anybody smell a BOFH here ;)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/odds/bofh/
Regards,
Rajagopal
___
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010 15:47:56 -0700 (PDT)
Paul Heinlein wrote:
> If the accident accidentally involves a circular saw, a YouTube link
> would be really cool! :-)
You know you use Reddit too much when you look for an upvote button.
;)
--
Spiro Harvey Knossos Networks Ltd
021-2
>I run Fedora on servers at home without any issues.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 1:39 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
> Well all valid, I always laugh when I see posts in Fedora list about people
> setting up Fedora as servers at work.
>
> I can't imagine such a practice. I use at home only on my desktop for the
> bleeding
> edge support, but given the pub
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 3:39 PM, Joseph L. Casale
wrote:
> Well all valid, I always laugh when I see posts in Fedora list about people
> setting up Fedora as servers at work.
Well, I love to make people laugh so I'll chime in here.
I do use Fedora for some hosting, and I'm very happy with it for
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 06:18:17PM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> When something works right there's not much need to change it. I still
> have an RH 7.3 box running that's had a couple of 4-year uptime spans
I hope there's very little internet exposure on that box; even ssh has had
remote exploi
On 3/31/2010 4:43 PM, Milos Blazevic wrote:
>
> Current RHEL life cycle is in fact 7 years.
> Interesting, I remember hearing just the opposite - that they're about
> to reduce the life cycle from 7 to 5 years, since allegedly no one uses
> the same EL major release for more than 5 years. I mean, c
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 5:43 PM, Milos Blazevic wrote:
> Current RHEL life cycle is in fact 7 years.
> Interesting, I remember hearing just the opposite - that they're about
> to reduce the life cycle from 7 to 5 years, since allegedly no one uses
> the same EL major release for more than 5 years
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Milos Blazevic wrote:
>
>> I mean, can you imagine anyone who used RHEL 2.1 up until less than
>> a year ago?
>
> Actually, I still have an RHEL 2.1 system in production. My excuse
> is that it is an Itanium I box (an HP I2000), a
Steve Thompson wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Milos Blazevic wrote:
>
>
>> I mean, can you imagine anyone who used RHEL 2.1 up until less than a
>> year ago?
>>
>
> Actually, I still have an RHEL 2.1 system in production. My excuse is that
> it is an Itanium I box (an HP I2000), and this i
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Milos Blazevic wrote:
> I mean, can you imagine anyone who used RHEL 2.1 up until less than a
> year ago?
Actually, I still have an RHEL 2.1 system in production. My excuse is that
it is an Itanium I box (an HP I2000), and this is the latest version that
will run on it. An
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 13:14 -0500, Les Mikesell wrote:
> It's about time someone did that. I completely gave up on Fedora
> after version 6 and unsubscribed from the mail list because they were
> only interested in changing things and adding features, not making
> anything work. Has it become us
Spiro Harvey wrote:
>> Since 5.5 is now out from Red Hat and most likely our amazing CentOS
>> team has already jumped on that, is there any word on Release 6? IIRC
>> it's already a year out of date (base was supposed to be Fedora 10),
>> so I have to wonder.
>>
>
>
> I vaguely recollect tha
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
We use F12 headless, so I can't comment on desktop issues, but I
really like the deltarpm stuff. It really cuts down on bandwidth
requirements on a frequently updated distro like Fedora.
Yeah.. and with a fast internet connection it takes LONGER to b
> Since 5.5 is now out from Red Hat and most likely our amazing CentOS
> team has already jumped on that, is there any word on Release 6? IIRC
> it's already a year out of date (base was supposed to be Fedora 10),
> so I have to wonder.
I vaguely recollect that RH mentioned pushing out the (tota
On 3/31/2010 2:39 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote:
>> A lot of the work after Fedora 6 seemed to revolve around making
>> single-user desktop type access more convenient at the expense of more
>> general purpose server concepts - and making it boot quickly which isn't
>> a big priority on boxes that run
>A lot of the work after Fedora 6 seemed to revolve around making
>single-user desktop type access more convenient at the expense of more
>general purpose server concepts - and making it boot quickly which isn't
>a big priority on boxes that run all the time. And some things even
>when not tec
On 3/31/2010 2:19 PM, Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:58:25AM -0700, Paul Heinlein wrote:
>> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Tait Clarridge wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:22 +0100, Paul Stuffins wrote:
> Has it become usable again?
Not sure, I don't use Fedora, I use
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 11:58:25AM -0700, Paul Heinlein wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Tait Clarridge wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:22 +0100, Paul Stuffins wrote:
> >>> Has it become usable again?
> >>
> >> Not sure, I don't use Fedora, I use CentOS on my servers and Linux
> >> Mint on my
On 3/31/2010 1:58 PM, Paul Heinlein wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Tait Clarridge wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:22 +0100, Paul Stuffins wrote:
Has it become usable again?
>>>
>>> Not sure, I don't use Fedora, I use CentOS on my servers and Linux
>>> Mint on my desk and laptop's.
>>
>> I
On Wed, 31 Mar 2010, Tait Clarridge wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:22 +0100, Paul Stuffins wrote:
>>> Has it become usable again?
>>
>> Not sure, I don't use Fedora, I use CentOS on my servers and Linux
>> Mint on my desk and laptop's.
>
> I use F12 on my laptop. I have to say it runs very wel
On Wed, Mar 31, 2010 at 02:43:38PM -0400, Tait Clarridge wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:22 +0100, Paul Stuffins wrote:
> > > Has it become usable again?
> >
> > Not sure, I don't use Fedora, I use CentOS on my servers and Linux
> > Mint on my desk and laptop's.
> > _
Paul Stuffins a écrit :
> Has RedHat even released RHEL6?
Here's some fresh info:
http://www.serverwatch.com/news/article.php/3873916/Red-Hat-Enterprise-Linux-55-Released-RHEL-6-Coming-Soon.htm
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.cen
On Wed, 2010-03-31 at 19:22 +0100, Paul Stuffins wrote:
> > Has it become usable again?
>
> Not sure, I don't use Fedora, I use CentOS on my servers and Linux
> Mint on my desk and laptop's.
> _
I use F12 on my laptop. I have to say it runs very well (definite
At Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:22:05 +0100 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> > Has it become usable again?
>
> Not sure, I don't use Fedora, I use CentOS on my servers and Linux
> Mint on my desk and laptop's.
*I* gave up on Fedora Core after FC2: I installed it on a dual Pentium
Pro 200 box with a pair
> Has it become usable again?
Not sure, I don't use Fedora, I use CentOS on my servers and Linux
Mint on my desk and laptop's.
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 3/31/2010 12:48 PM, Paul Stuffins wrote:
>> thus Paul Stuffins spake:
>>> Has RedHat even released RHEL6?
>>
>> Nope. But it's all over town that Red Hat might conduct one or more
>> public (!) beta tests of RHEL within the next several weeks (mind Red
>> Hat Summit in June).
>
> I didn't think
> -Original Message-
> From: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On
> Behalf Of Paul Stuffins
> Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2010 12:49 PM
> To: CentOS mailing list
> Subject: Re: [CentOS] Release 6?
>
> > thus Paul Stuffins spake:
&g
> thus Paul Stuffins spake:
>> Has RedHat even released RHEL6?
>
> Nope. But it's all over town that Red Hat might conduct one or more
> public (!) beta tests of RHEL within the next several weeks (mind Red
> Hat Summit in June).
I didn't think they had, hence no CentOS6.
I have actually just bee
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
thus Paul Stuffins spake:
> Has RedHat even released RHEL6?
Nope. But it's all over town that Red Hat might conduct one or more
public (!) beta tests of RHEL within the next several weeks (mind Red
Hat Summit in June).
Timo
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE--
Has RedHat even released RHEL6?
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Hi,
On Sun, 2010-03-21 at 19:30 +0100, mattias wrote:
> [r...@vps ~]# rpm -qi centos-release
>
> Name: centos-release Relocations: (not relocatable)
>
> Version : 5 Vendor: CentOS
>
> Release : 4.el5.centos.1Build Dat
release file
Description :
CentOS release files
[r...@vps ~]#
-Ursprungligt meddelande-
Från: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] För
Robert Heller
Skickat: den 21 mars 2010 15:41
Till: CentOS mailing list
Kopia: cen...@lists.centos.org
Ämne: Re: [CentOS
mars 2010 15:41
Till: CentOS mailing list
Kopia: cen...@lists.centos.org
Ämne: Re: [CentOS] release
At Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:31:29 +0100 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> I upgraded my centos from 5.0 to 5.4
> But i still see 5.0 n the version number
Did you hand modify /etc/issue an
On 3/21/2010 9:31 AM, mattias wrote:
> I upgraded my centos from 5.0 to 5.4
> But i still see 5.0 n the version number
>
> ___
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
did you reboot?
__
You may want to consider adding some details if you want an answer.
Kai
--
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
At Sun, 21 Mar 2010 14:31:29 +0100 CentOS mailing list
wrote:
>
> I upgraded my centos from 5.0 to 5.4
> But i still see 5.0 n the version number
Did you hand modify /etc/issue and/or /etc/issue.net? Are there files
named /etc/issue.rpmnew and/or /etc/issue.net.rpmnew? If so, then you
need t
2010/2/27 Vadkan Jozsef :
> Does anybody has a list of multiple distros/operating systems comparing
> e.g.: security support time for a version, or what are the release
> cycles, etc.?
well, no?
Mainly commercial distros follow that policy:
rhel/centos: http://www.redhat.com/security/updates/err
on 6-3-2009 6:10 AM Ralph Angenendt spake the following:
> Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>> Ralph Angenendt wrote on Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:14:55 +0200:
>>
>>> Probably the latter. CentOS 5 SP 3 would maybe have been a better choice
>>> than CentOS 5.3
>> Not if one wants to stay in sync with the RHEL naming sch
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Ralph Angenendt wrote on Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:14:55 +0200:
>
> > Probably the latter. CentOS 5 SP 3 would maybe have been a better choice
> > than CentOS 5.3
>
> Not if one wants to stay in sync with the RHEL naming scheme :-)
It clearly is the other way round, Red Hat has ad
On 06/03/2009 01:31 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
>> Probably the latter. CentOS 5 SP 3 would maybe have been a better choice
>> than CentOS 5.3
>
> Not if one wants to stay in sync with the RHEL naming scheme :-)
I dont think that will be a problem, since we have never been in sync
with Red Hat's nami
Ralph Angenendt wrote on Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:14:55 +0200:
> Probably the latter. CentOS 5 SP 3 would maybe have been a better choice
> than CentOS 5.3
Not if one wants to stay in sync with the RHEL naming scheme :-)
Kai
--
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Ralph Angenendt wrote on Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:17:35 +0200:
>
> > One of the reasons CentOS chose not to do it
>
> It appears that only a very very small number of people need it or *think*
> they need it.
Probably the latter. CentOS 5 SP 3 would maybe have been a better cho
Ralph Angenendt wrote on Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:17:35 +0200:
> One of the reasons CentOS chose not to do it
It appears that only a very very small number of people need it or *think*
they need it. It would have surely been a great waste of time and
ressources if CentOS had adopted it and no real be
j...@rossberry.com wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>
> > Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
> >> AFAIK, this never happened. Is the 5.x.z tree concept dead-before-birth?!
> >
> > For CentOS: Yes.
> >
> > For Upstream: Ask Red Hat.
>
> I have asked RHT repeatedly to walk me through t
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
> Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
>> AFAIK, this never happened. Is the 5.x.z tree concept dead-before-birth?!
>
> For CentOS: Yes.
>
> For Upstream: Ask Red Hat.
>
> Ralph
>
I have asked RHT repeatedly to walk me through the life of a package
version. Not
on 6-2-2009 1:53 PM Radu-Cristian FOTESCU spake the following:
> --- On Tue, 6/2/09, Dag Wieers
> wrote:
>
>> Communication problems are usually caused by both sides.
>
> Agreed.
>
>> Besides the EUS source RPM packages are not released
>> to the public, so you need those expensive entitleme
--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Dag Wieers wrote:
> Communication problems are usually caused by both sides.
Agreed.
> Besides the EUS source RPM packages are not released
> to the public, so you need those expensive entitlements
> to be able to rebuild them.
Eek. Never knew that. This looks more like
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
>> For CentOS: Yes.
>
> But Karanbir says I seem "quite confused about what should and should not
> exist." How can you answer correctly to an incorrect question raised by an
> confused ignorant?
>
>> For Upstream: Ask Red Hat.
>
> I was hoping *y
--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>
> For CentOS: Yes.
But Karanbir says I seem "quite confused about what should and should not
exist." How can you answer correctly to an incorrect question raised by an
confused ignorant?
> For Upstream: Ask Red Hat.
I was hoping *you* (some of y
--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> >
> > So there *should* have existed:
> > * 5.1-only updates issued post-5.2;
> > * 5.1-only and 5.2-only updates issued post-5.3;
> > etc.
>
> go back and reread the entire list of comments.
> You seem quite confused
> about what should and should
On 06/02/2009 02:27 PM, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
> So there *should* have existed:
> * 5.1-only updates issued post-5.2;
> * 5.1-only and 5.2-only updates issued post-5.3;
> etc.
go back and reread the entire list of comments. You seem quite confused
about what should and should not exist.
-
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
> AFAIK, this never happened. Is the 5.x.z tree concept dead-before-birth?!
For CentOS: Yes.
For Upstream: Ask Red Hat.
Ralph
pgpvVtxZUcKsC.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://l
--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Point releases are just freezes in time. There are no
> "special" updates for point releases, only for the
> "current" release.
This is what we all *believe* we know (e.g. "5"-current is now "5.3"+updates).
However, TUV seems to have had a different o
Matthias Leopold wrote on Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:56:47 +0200:
> is it normal behavior that through the use of "yum update" systems are
> forced to follow the point releases of a major release (5.0 -> 5.1 ->
> 5.2, etc)? is there a way and would it make sense to stay within one
> particular release an
Hi
The major release of CentOS/RHEL is from 5.x -> 6.x.
The 5.0 -> 5.1 -> 5.2 ... is a update security, and all shared the
same repository, and the line of version the packages is to update.
In some package case is major update because of security update, eg.
firefox 1.5 to 3.0. Mozilla a long tim
94 matches
Mail list logo
