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
hi,
since i don't use centos very heavily i'm not too familiar with the
centos/rhel release/update process (and i didn't do much research on this):
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
