[CentOS] [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS Linux 7 (1503 ) on x86_64

Thu Apr 2 05:41:05 UTC 2015
Always Learning <centos at u64.u22.net>

On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 00:51 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote:

> Nor do I see it as an improvement.

Thank you for your considered response. If it is not an improvement,
then there is no reason for the change, is there ?

> In my opinion, assigning sub-version numbers to what was originally
>  intended to be, by Red Hat, quarterly updates (almost Service Packs,
>  if you will, much like SGI's numbering of their Foundation and ProPack
>  products for the Altix server line) is what is illogical.  Of course,
>  the updates aren't quarterly any more, and other aspects of the
>  versioning have morphed and changed over the years since the RHAS days
>  (well, even back in certain branches of RHL 6.2, for that matter).

Whatever the original cause introducing sub-version numbering, that
usage has become a clear progressive indicator of collections of updates
within the major version.  

> in reality the update number is meaningless for compatibility checks,
>  as it is more than possible to have a fully updated CentOS x system
>  that claims to be x.0 but has all the packages, save centos-release,
>  of the latest x.y; further, it is easily possible to install the
>  CentOS x.6 centos-release package on a completely unpatched x.0
>  system, making the contents of andy of the /etc/*-release files not
>  terribly useful for strict versioning.

I image the vast majority of Centos users will not risk doing
non-standard updates on their production systems so your above concern
is unlikely to occur.

> > Creating confusion where there was originally none is essentially silly.
> 
> I am not so easily confused by the new numbering;

I can not look at something labelled Centos 7.2169 and instantly know if
it is Centos 7.1, 7.5 or even Centos 7.10.  What's the latest version of
Centos 6 ?  Is it 6.32167 or 6.32782 or 6.32783 or should I be typing
6.23783 instead ? Confusion is not clarity.


> > How many times has Johnny and others asserted that Centos is the same as
> > RHEL ?

> The assertion is that CentOS is functionally equivalent to the upstream 
> product.

If Centos is "functionally equivalent" to RHEL then common sense must
dictate that the sub-version numbers should be compatible too.


-- 
Regards,

Paul.
England, EU.      Je suis Charlie.