Jos Vos wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2008 at 10:47:08AM +0100, Alan DeKok wrote: > >> It should be easier for *new* installs to use 2.x. Otherwise, they >> install the "latest" RHEL version, and then get told to upgrade. > > This is unrealistic. How should RH maintain a "sliding" base?
I didn't say "include new software with old RHEL versions". I said "easier to install new software". The RedHat FAQ page on the Wiki helps with that. > And what > does "RHEL5" mean if the version you have installed depends on the time > of installation? And what about large customers having many servers > installed and now install another one (with a different version)? If that's what they do... then that's what they get. It's *their* problem. It's not *our* problem, and it's not a *RedHat* problem. > Note that I have chosen myself to run a new(er) version of FreeRADIUS > on an installed base of RHEL4 servers, by "backporting" a recent Fedora > src.rpm to RHEL4. So I *do* see the need in some situations for having > a new version. But that's not the fault of Red Hat, it's just the way > it works. Yes... and the people who *can't* backport the spec files have been asking a lot of questions on this list. Hence the RedHat FAQ on the Wiki. Alan DeKok. - List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html