On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Tanmoy Chatterjee <bum....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Connie Sieh <cs...@fnal.gov> wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote: >> >>> Is there any difference between Sl6.1 and SL6x repositories? Do I need >>> to enable only of these two or both? >> >> sl6x is a symbolic link to the "current" release. So at the moment sl6x >> points to sl6.1 since sl6.1 is the current release. When we release sl6.2 >> then sl6x will point to sl6.2 . >> >> So you need to pick 1 . If you pick sl6x you will updated via the yum cron >> job to the "next" release when it is released. > Thanks for the elaboration - so it is a good idea to enable the SL6x > repositories instead of SL6.1.
It's a choice, and it's actually a reasonable one to select 6.1. If you follow the model of The Upstream Vendor, the "5.0", "5.1", "5.2" releases are all supposed to upgrade in place, automatically, to get all current packages. ""6.0" and "6.1" are timestamps for media releases, and do not represent a different software repository maintained by them. This avoids the amazing pain some of us had to deal with for years, back with the original "releases back when their old "7.0" and "7.2" releases were likely to be incompatible. This way works better, by not trying to split support among so many sub releases. Our friendly maintainers at Scientific Linux, understandably, don't quite follow that, but with their common "5x" repository, and "rolling" releases, it's pretty close. I really appreciate using that one or two repositories, instead of having to mix and match from point releases.
