On Thursday 16 November 2006 08:48, Mike McCarty wrote:
>Gene Heskett wrote:
>> I can't help but agree that its too short. 3 or 6 would be much more
>> realistic from the users viewpoint, who has his setup all fine tuned
>> and doesn't want to go thru that on an annual basis. There are other
>> th
On Thu, Nov 16, 2006 at 10:39:12AM -0500, Nils Breunese (Lemonbit) wrote:
> That's why every system needs an admin (and not a nightly yum cron
> job). A real admin will know or notice there are no updates available
> and take appropriate action.
Preaching to the choir. However, there's reality
Matthew Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:40:57PM -0500, Nils Breunese wrote:
Every system needs an admin. I don't think it's realistic to not run
'yum update' for a year and expect everything to be fine. If you'd
If there's no updates available, it doesn't matter how often they
run
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:40:57PM -0500, Nils Breunese wrote:
> Every system needs an admin. I don't think it's realistic to not run
> 'yum update' for a year and expect everything to be fine. If you'd
If there's no updates available, it doesn't matter how often they run yum
update.
--
Matt
Gene Heskett wrote:
I can't help but agree that its too short. 3 or 6 would be much more
realistic from the users viewpoint, who has his setup all fine tuned and
doesn't want to go thru that on an annual basis. There are other things
to life you know.
Yeah, like repairing vintage tube radi
Matthew Miller wrote:
I'm not able to force anyone here to do anything. Therefore, I have to
encourage good practice entirely via "carrots". This works best
when we
align with the academic year -- a release in the spring, current
through the
following summer to allow time for upgrades. Ideal
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 16:36, Jesse Keating wrote:
>On Wednesday 15 November 2006 16:33, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> I've no idea when, or if firewire is back among the living. It took
>> till the last new kernel for FC5 before it worked well enough to be
>> usable. Where does that place centos5
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 16:33, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I've no idea when, or if firewire is back among the living. It took till
> the last new kernel for FC5 before it worked well enough to be usable.
> Where does that place centos5 then?
RHEL5 kernel is largely based on the FC6 kernel.
--
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 11:03, Jesse Keating wrote:
>On Wednesday 15 November 2006 10:32, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> Theres several reasons, the old kernel version being one of them.
>> Firewire doesn't work that I know of, and I have a firewire movie
>> camera.
>
>And when CentOS5 comes out?
I'
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 03:43:43PM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> But is there enough "you" to go around to do the updates? That's the real
Speaking for me personally, no. :)
> question here. We can't stop people from being dumb and not upgrading their
> release when it goes dead. If we gave
Quoting Matthew Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
* In fact, I'm pretty certain I'm not, and that there are thousands of users
running FC1, FC2, and FC3 and just waiting to become botnet members if
they're not already. The difference is that my users have me to care about
them.
Well, I agree there a
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 15:34, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Clearly I'm in no position to impose anything. However, it'd certainly be
> helpful to us if Legacy could contine to extend the lifespan beyond the new
> proposed 13 months. And I mention it in case I'm not alone. [*]
>
>
>
>
> * In fact,
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 02:00:47PM -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> >I'm not able to force anyone here to do anything. Therefore, I have to
> That's the first problem... You either need to be able to force them
> to do the right thing, or punish them for failure. If you can't do one
> or the other
Quoting Matthew Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
I'm not able to force anyone here to do anything. Therefore, I have to
That's the first problem... You either need to be able to force them
to do the right thing, or punish them for failure. If you can't do one
or the other of those then you're scr
Quoting Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 10:32, Gene Heskett wrote:
Theres several reasons, the old kernel version being one of them. Firewire
doesn't work that I know of, and I have a firewire movie camera.
I missed what this is about, but if it is about the C
Quoting Matthew Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:15:51AM -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote:
My problem has always been I work in University settings where updates only
happen during breaks (Spring break, Summer break, or Winter break). On the
Same here -- except I'm not sure
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:15:51AM -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> My problem has always been I work in University settings where updates only
> happen during breaks (Spring break, Summer break, or Winter break). On the
Same here -- except I'm not sure I can rely on people to update during the
spr
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:58:02AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Is RHEL5 going to go wholesale to new kernel versions with the quarterly
> > updates, or is it actually going to backport all updated drivers to the
> > older release?
> From what I gather out in the community (not looking at any in
Quoting Matthew Miller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:06:57PM -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote:
First I would like to say to those who say Fedora Legacy has failed, that
it _did_ work (i.e. didn't fail) for the most critical time period and the
most critical OS version (RHL 7-9, FC1
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 11:48, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Is RHEL5 going to go wholesale to new kernel versions with the quarterly
> updates, or is it actually going to backport all updated drivers to the
> older release?
From what I gather out in the community (not looking at any internal
doc
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:49:13AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> about to. I think there really needs to be significant interest in it, more
> than just Matt Miller, although he is a very interesting case. The majority
Yeah, because frankly, I have a _lot_ more interest than time. It's, like,
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 12:45:16PM -0400, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
> If Fedora decides to officially support releases for ~13 months,
> perhaps there is enough interest in extending them another 5-6 months
> to keep Legacy going? If my thinking is correct, that would leave
Perhaps, yeah.
> leg
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 11:45, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
> If Fedora decides to officially support releases for ~13 months,
> perhaps there is enough interest in extending them another 5-6 months
> to keep Legacy going? If my thinking is correct, that would leave
> legacy with 2 releases at
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:43:10AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Well, based on history, it'll be slightly behind-the-newest at release
> > date (RHEL stabilization + a month or so for CentOS) but generally
> > current enough, but then by this spring we'll see a batch of computers
> > with hardwa
On Nov 15, 2006, at 12:22 PM, Matthew Miller wrote:
Extending the lifespan from ~9 to ~13 months is a huge help, but to
cover
the gaps, we really need more like 18-19.
If Fedora decides to officially support releases for ~13 months,
perhaps there is enough interest in extending them anothe
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 11:30, Matthew Miller wrote:
> Well, based on history, it'll be slightly behind-the-newest at release date
> (RHEL stabilization + a month or so for CentOS) but generally current
> enough, but then by this spring we'll see a batch of computers with
> hardware that does
On Nov 15, 2006, at 12:17 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 10:41, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
I like this idea, and I'd be happy to see official support for an FC
release last ~13 months.
Of course, this would end all interest I have in Fedora Legacy, which
at this point is most
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:03:02AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Theres several reasons, the old kernel version being one of them.
> And when CentOS5 comes out?
Well, based on history, it'll be slightly behind-the-newest at release date
(RHEL stabilization + a month or so for CentOS) but general
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 11:17:19AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > How much of this is just speculation at this point, and how close is
> > this to being actual policy?
> Depends on your feedback (:
Don't get me wrong -- this is definitely a positive development.
--
Matthew Miller [EM
On Wed, Nov 15, 2006 at 10:10:13AM -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
> So why don't you use CentOS which as a annual or every other year release?
We use CentOS too. However, people a) want more cutting-edge and b) want
Fedora. And if my group doesn't provide something that covers that demand,
people wil
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 10:41, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
> I like this idea, and I'd be happy to see official support for an FC
> release last ~13 months.
>
> Of course, this would end all interest I have in Fedora Legacy, which
> at this point is mostly to allow upgrading (well, re-installing in
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 10:42, Bill Perrotta wrote:
> That is fine where can i download an iso of centos? If it is similar enough
> to do all labs for rhel3 rhce that is my only concern.
Centos.org
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
pgpoZHXm93h7l.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 10:32, Gene Heskett wrote:
> Theres several reasons, the old kernel version being one of them. Firewire
> doesn't work that I know of, and I have a firewire movie camera.
And when CentOS5 comes out?
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
pgp6g8pqR8vTD.pgp
Descr
On Nov 15, 2006, at 11:42 AM, Bill Perrotta wrote:
That is fine where can i download an iso of centos? If it is
similar enough to do all labs for rhel3 rhce that is my only concern.
www.centos.org
CentOS is a rebuild of RHEL, so it is pretty similar :)
-Jeff
--
fedora-legacy-list mailing
Bill Perrotta wrote:
That is fine where can i download an iso of centos? If it is
similar enough to do all labs for rhel3 rhce that is my only concern.
Come on, Google is your friend. Go to http://www.centos.org/ and take
it from there. CentOS 3 is exactly the same as RHEL 3, except for the
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 10:42, Bill Perrotta wrote:
> That is fine where can i download an iso of centos? If it is similar enough
> to do all labs for rhel3 rhce that is my only concern.
CentOS-3 is a rebuild of the freely available of source code of RHEL-3
CentOS-4 is a rebuild of the freel
That is fine where can i download an iso of centos? If it is similar enough to do all labs for rhel3 rhce that is my only concern.Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Wednesday 15 November 2006 09:54, Gene Heskett wrote:> I can't help but agree that its too short. 3 or 6 would be much more>
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 15, 2006, at 10:15 AM, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 08:49, James Kosin wrote:
I may have some critical things to say about participation; but, I
still believe the community of participators can support a 6-12 month
wind
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 10:10, Jesse Keating wrote:
>On Wednesday 15 November 2006 09:54, Gene Heskett wrote:
>> I can't help but agree that its too short. 3 or 6 would be much more
>> realistic from the users viewpoint, who has his setup all fine tuned
>> and doesn't want to go thru that on
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 09:54, Gene Heskett wrote:
> I can't help but agree that its too short. 3 or 6 would be much more
> realistic from the users viewpoint, who has his setup all fine tuned and
> doesn't want to go thru that on an annual basis. There are other things
> to life you know.
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 09:23, Matthew Miller wrote:
>On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:06:57PM -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote:
>> First I would like to say to those who say Fedora Legacy has failed,
>> that it _did_ work (i.e. didn't fail) for the most critical time
>> period and the most critical OS
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 09:45, James Kosin wrote:
> Hmmm. maybe a better upgrade path would be in order. Allowing
> users to keep their configuration; with minor changes and upgrade the
> units to FC6->FC7->FC8 etc. without any troubles.
>
> I'll have to give that a try someday.
We'r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
>
> The Fedora project would be offering 13~ months of updates
> (security only for the last part), which gives you the opportunity
> to go from say Fedora 7 to Fedora 9 + 1 month.
>
I though Fedora project would be keeping only
On Tue, Nov 14, 2006 at 10:06:57PM -0600, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> First I would like to say to those who say Fedora Legacy has failed, that
> it _did_ work (i.e. didn't fail) for the most critical time period and the
> most critical OS version (RHL 7-9, FC1). If it has failed, or is failing,
> it
On Wednesday 15 November 2006 08:49, James Kosin wrote:
> I may have some critical things to say about participation; but, I
> still believe the community of participators can support a 6-12 month
> window with the FC releases fall aside. This will give those who
> choose to wait for a few months
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Jesse Keating wrote:
> See my blog regarding the future of Legacy as a project. Please remember
> these are just proposals and not final solutions. A wiki page will follow
> soon.
>
> http://jkeating.livejournal.com/#entry_34659
>
I hope this doesn'
On Tuesday 14 November 2006 23:06, Eric Rostetter wrote:
> First I would like to say to those who say Fedora Legacy has failed, that
> it _did_ work (i.e. didn't fail) for the most critical time period and the
> most critical OS version (RHL 7-9, FC1). If it has failed, or is failing,
> it must no
Quoting Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
See my blog regarding the future of Legacy as a project. Please remember
these are just proposals and not final solutions. A wiki page will follow
soon.
First I would like to say to those who say Fedora Legacy has failed, that
it _did_ work (i.e. di
See my blog regarding the future of Legacy as a project. Please remember
these are just proposals and not final solutions. A wiki page will follow
soon.
http://jkeating.livejournal.com/#entry_34659
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
pgprADgmsPrxN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--
fe
49 matches
Mail list logo
