[CentOS] Re: CentOS 5.2 is here!
Jun Salen wrote: I like to keep reasonably up-to-date with distributions I am running, so would like to update to Centos-5.2 as and when it is released. >>> >>> you will be up to date simply by running 'yum update' >>> >>> When 5.2 is released, those updates will be installed For the record, I upgraded my server to Centos-5.2 without any problems. It was in fact the easiest system upgrade (if you can call it that) that I recall, in many years of system upgrading. ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Re: CentOS 5.2 is here!
On Tue, 2008-06-24 at 18:09 -0500, Lanny Marcus wrote: > On 6/23/08, Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Orlando, FL. The move from Firefox 1.5 to 3.0 should be a big > improvement for those of us who are Desktop users. Be aware that the FF beta version RH released will not successfully run certain java apps successfully. The later release candidates do run them OK. This is with the java-1.4.2-gcj-compat-1.4.2.0-40jpp.112 and jre-1.6.0_05-fcs installed. The compat package upgrade failed, but that is a topic for after I've investigated the cause. > -- Bill ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Re: CentOS 5.2 is here!
Message: 76 Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2008 13:37:17 +0100 From: Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [CentOS] Re: Re: Re: CentOS 5.2 is here! To: centos@centos.org Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Timothy Murphy wrote: >>> I like to keep reasonably up-to-date with distributions I am running, >>> so would like to update to Centos-5.2 as and when it is released. >> >> you will be up to date simply by running 'yum update' >> >> When 5.2 is released, those updates will be installed > >Are you saying that simply running "yum update" on a Centos-5.1 system >will convert it to Centos-5.2, as and when that is released? 1. CentOS 5.2 is now officially released as announced in centos.org site. 2. As per suggestion from the release note, it is advisable to use yum upgrade than yum update. Someone already show the difference between update and upgrade. 3. Thank you very much from the bottom of our hearts to the whole CentOS team who are maintaining the distribution and this includes all mailing list member who have not get tired of answering questions from users, newbie and expert alike. Regards, junji aisalen.wordpress.com Linux Registered User #253162 CentOS User Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Re: CentOS 5.2 is here!
On 6/23/08, Timothy Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > William L. Maltby wrote: >> And I add my thanks too, to the whole CentOS crew. > > I'm running Centos-5.1 but am a complete Centos newbie. > What is the best way of installing Centos-5.2 ? > Is a fresh installation recommended, > or can one do a yum upgrade? > Or is there any other way of proceeding? Not having read the Release Notes or Announcement, I did "yum update", instead of "yum upgrade", which I should have done, on my CentOS 5.1 Desktop box, which was up to date, this afternoon. 284 Packages were excluded for Priorities. It installed 10 new Packages and Updated 233 Packages. DL size was 489 MB and took 61 minutes for the DL, on our 550 kbps connection (after I finished, I did a test on speedtest.net to a server in Fort Lauderdale, FL and the DL speed at that time was 1780 kbps from that Server in FLL). I noticed when it was Updating pam there was a warning. Also, I have SELinux running in Permissive mode and there were several warnings, which I'm sure is normal, when doing an Upgrade like this. I noticed that it installed yum-fastestmirror which is much better for me, than using the nearest mirror! I believe our route to the USA is via satellite, from Medellin, Colombia into Orlando, FL. The move from Firefox 1.5 to 3.0 should be a big improvement for those of us who are Desktop users. The entire process took approximately 2 hours 15 minutes and it was FLAWLESS. A HUGE THANK YOU, TO EVERYONE WHO HAS PUT SO MUCH OF THEIR TIME INTO THIS, FOR THOSE OF US IN THE CentOS COMMUNITY! Lanny ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Re: CentOS 5.2 is here!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:41:37 -0500 Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: CentOS-5.0, CentOS-5.1 and CentOS-5.2 are update sets of CentOS-5 ... and are still CentOS-5. The .0, .1, and .2 are update sets and are really just a "frozen point in time" of CentOS-5. I think that the problem is the naming/numbering convention. If CentOS would follow the same naming convention as RH, some people would be less confused. For the rest of us: Thanks for the great job Actually ... Red Hat changed their numbering system to be like ours ... and if you look at their lastest release announcements you will see 5.1 and 5.2 :D signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Re: CentOS 5.2 is here!
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:41:37 -0500 > Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > CentOS-5.0, CentOS-5.1 and CentOS-5.2 are update sets of CentOS-5 ... > > and are still CentOS-5. The .0, .1, and .2 are update sets and are > > really just a "frozen point in time" of CentOS-5. > > I think that the problem is the naming/numbering convention. If CentOS > would follow the same naming convention as RH, some people would be > less confused. You mean like 5.1, 5.2 and so on? Yeah, that really would be better. Ralph pgpq9mZZ5FcZo.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Re: CentOS 5.2 is here!
On Tue, 24 Jun 2008 10:41:37 -0500 Johnny Hughes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > CentOS-5.0, CentOS-5.1 and CentOS-5.2 are update sets of CentOS-5 ... > and are still CentOS-5. The .0, .1, and .2 are update sets and are > really just a "frozen point in time" of CentOS-5. I think that the problem is the naming/numbering convention. If CentOS would follow the same naming convention as RH, some people would be less confused. For the rest of us: Thanks for the great job -- Thanks http://www.911networks.com When the network has to work ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: [CentOS] Re: CentOS 5.2 is here!
Timothy Murphy wrote: William L. Maltby wrote: And I add my thanks too, to the whole CentOS crew. I'm running Centos-5.1 but am a complete Centos newbie. What is the best way of installing Centos-5.2 ? Is a fresh installation recommended, or can one do a yum upgrade? Or is there any other way of proceeding? ___ As a complete newbie, get used to CentOS 5.1 first, there's absolutely nothing wrong with it. Then, wait until CentOS OFFICIALLY announce the release of CentOS 5.2. Wait for it to be available on their website, and on the mirror servers, then do a yum upgrade :) -- Kind Regards Rudi Ahlers CEO, SoftDux Web: http://www.SoftDux.com Check out my technical blog, http://blog.softdux.com for Linux or other technical stuff, or visit http://www.WebHostingTalk.co.za for Web Hosting stuff ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
[CentOS] Re: CentOS 5.2 is here!
William L. Maltby wrote: > And I add my thanks too, to the whole CentOS crew. I'm running Centos-5.1 but am a complete Centos newbie. What is the best way of installing Centos-5.2 ? Is a fresh installation recommended, or can one do a yum upgrade? Or is there any other way of proceeding? ___ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
