Amos Shapira wrote:
> Hello,
>
> So I've watched a few threads about the new 5.0 vs. 5.1 upgrade and
> have a couple of (hopefully) practical questions about this:
>
> Context - I'd like to stick to 5.0 at least for a while until the dust
> around 5.1 settles down (and I'm back from holidays).
>
Amos Shapira wrote:
> On 13/12/2007, Ralph Angenendt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Amos Shapira wrote:
>>> I'll just try to avoid updates for now.
>> Why? It is *highly* unlikely that 5.1 will break *anything* for you. I
>> mean: Those are still the *SAME* software versions as in 5.0. And those
>>
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
I don't have a wiki account.
it takes a few seconds to get one.
Your posting is a perfect explanation.
Wouldn't it make sense to just add a link to it? I looked it up:
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2007-December/091189.html
Rather than having split bits of inf
Karanbir Singh wrote on Thu, 13 Dec 2007 16:03:56 +:
> Also, considering we have gone through all this to try get the situation
> clear for you, I hope you are going to now create a wiki page that
> details the situation and explains it in a way that someone who had no
> idea about it
I do
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
5.1 - 18 months
5.1.1 - 6 months
5.1.2 - another 6 months
5.1.3 - another 6 months
5.2 - next update release cycle
That is not correct
the FAQ seems to imply:
5.1 - 18 months
5.1.1 - 18 months
5.1.2 - 18 months
5.1.3 - 18 months
5.2 - next update release cycle
that is a
Ralph Angenendt wrote on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 17:27:44 +0100:
> That is a (common) misinterpretation coming from our native language.
> What you mean would be the "last version of the 5 series". The latest
> means current (as in "the latest and greatest version of them all").
Oh, well. I *do* know th
Karanbir Singh wrote on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:32:33 +:
> redhat will do 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 - we will do 5.1.z and just call it
> that.
Oh, that's not clear from the FAQ as well. I though "z" just stands as a
variable to be replaced by 1, 2 or 3. Using "z" implies that the lifetime of
each sin
On 13/12/2007, Ralph Angenendt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Amos Shapira wrote:
> > I'll just try to avoid updates for now.
>
> Why? It is *highly* unlikely that 5.1 will break *anything* for you. I
> mean: Those are still the *SAME* software versions as in 5.0. And those
> are the same software ve
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:41:49 +:
thats mostly correct, except for the fact that there will be only 3
releases in any branch, so while /5/ will continue to be supported for
the 7 years + that a EL version is, the 5.1 will only exist for 18
months,
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> I think I misunderstand this again (in my last reply). The "latest version
> of the 5 series" would be (for me) the latest version of the 5 series that
> ever comes out.
That is a (common) misinterpretation coming from our native language.
What you mean would be the "last
Karanbir Singh wrote on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 15:41:49 +:
> thats mostly correct, except for the fact that there will be only 3
> releases in any branch, so while /5/ will continue to be supported for
> the 7 years + that a EL version is, the 5.1 will only exist for 18
> months,
Yes, that is cl
All of this is good feedback, lets take this on board and see how we can
make that text clearer!
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:03:10 +:
As you see from quite a few inquiries over the last days that parapgraph is
*easily* misread. Don't take it personal ;-
Karanbir Singh wrote on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 14:03:10 +:
As you see from quite a few inquiries over the last days that parapgraph is
*easily* misread. Don't take it personal ;-)
Apart from those questions from people who didn't read it at all there a
several questions about the content that all
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Karanbir Singh wrote on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:19:17 +:
I read it again, and I still dont see how you might infer that changing
the string in redhat-release is going to change your repo interface.
Well, you changed it ;-) Before the change I read it the way that if the
r
Karanbir Singh wrote on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 13:19:17 +:
> I read it again, and I still dont see how you might infer that changing
> the string in redhat-release is going to change your repo interface.
Well, you changed it ;-) Before the change I read it the way that if the
release string would
Amos Shapira wrote:
On 12/12/2007, Karanbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Amos Shapira wrote:
Context - I'd like to stick to 5.0 at least for a while until the dust
around 5.1 settles down (and I'm back from holidays).
ok, so what do you mean by sticking to 5.0 ? you mean you dont want any
David Goldsmith wrote:
no, there is no such mention abut anything in the FAQ or anywhere else
that I can find. What made you believe that changing stuff in that text
file will change the repo's your machine is looking at ?
Possibly this: http://wiki.centos.org/FAQ/CentOS5#q8
I read it again
Amos Shapira wrote:
> I'll just try to avoid updates for now.
Why? It is *highly* unlikely that 5.1 will break *anything* for you. I
mean: Those are still the *SAME* software versions as in 5.0. And those
are the same software versions which will be in CentOS 5.5. Or 5.7.
You will *NOT* get any
Amos Shapira wrote:
> Is there such a thing or is 5.0 abandoned as soon as 5.1 is out and I
> practically MUST upgrade to 5.1 to stay secure?
Basically: Yes.
5.1 is the *first* iso respin of CentOS 5 (5.0 being the first iso
spin). This contains some feature updates. At the moment (and it has
bee
On 12/12/2007, Clint Dilks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Amos
>
> My understanding is that unless you choose not to update your system at
> all you can not freeze on a point release. So install from any 5.*
> media and when you update you will go to the latest point release.
>
> What I would sug
Amos Shapira wrote:
On 12/12/2007, Karanbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Amos Shapira wrote:
Context - I'd like to stick to 5.0 at least for a while until the dust
around 5.1 settles down (and I'm back from holidays).
ok, so what do you mean by sticking to 5.0 ? you mean you
On 12/12/2007, Karanbir Singh <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Amos Shapira wrote:
> > Context - I'd like to stick to 5.0 at least for a while until the dust
> > around 5.1 settles down (and I'm back from holidays).
>
> ok, so what do you mean by sticking to 5.0 ? you mean you dont want any
> updates a
On 12/12/2007, David Goldsmith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Karanbir Singh wrote:
> > Amos Shapira wrote:
> >> 1. If I read the FAQ correctly, in order to force yum to stay with 5.0
> >> should I just manually edit /etc/redhat-release from:
> >>
>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Karanbir Singh wrote:
> Amos Shapira wrote:
>> 1. If I read the FAQ correctly, in order to force yum to stay with 5.0
>> should I just manually edit /etc/redhat-release from:
>>
>> CentOS release 5 (Final)
>> to:
>> CentOS release 5.0 (Final)
>
> no,
Amos Shapira wrote:
> Context - I'd like to stick to 5.0 at least for a while until the dust
> around 5.1 settles down (and I'm back from holidays).
ok, so what do you mean by sticking to 5.0 ? you mean you dont want any
updates at all for those machines, even if they might be security issues ?
>
Hello,
So I've watched a few threads about the new 5.0 vs. 5.1 upgrade and
have a couple of (hopefully) practical questions about this:
Context - I'd like to stick to 5.0 at least for a while until the dust
around 5.1 settles down (and I'm back from holidays).
As an example - In Debian, as long a
26 matches
Mail list logo
