On 05/10/2011 08:19 PM, Craig White wrote: > On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 03:12 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote: >> On Tue, 10 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote: >> >>> Alain Péan wrote: >>> > The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL >>>> 6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for >>>> C6.0, and it will be better to stay under SL6, until the release of >>>> C6.1. I already installed three machines under SL6, and it works fine. >>> >>> Once 6.0 packages are figured out (how to compile them), newer versions >>> of those packages in 6.1 will be much easier to compile, so I expect no >>> more then one month to pass from C6.0 to C6.1 >> >> Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less >> complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ? >> >> And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would >> take no more than 1 month ? > ---- > exactly, and there are additional packages in 6.1 that weren't ready > when 6.0 was released. > > Craig > > A couple of packages added to the list is not the same as a ZERO point release with no build system. Upstream is now building on a released 6.0 tree ... before they were building on a hodge podge mix that was only in their proprietary build system and nowhere else. On top of that upstream as packages in a optional channel that is not on any ISO set and not easy to obtain for checking purposes. Most of these problems will not be encountered on the NEXT build. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 253 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20110512/76d39fcd/attachment-0005.sig>