On 03/31/2015 05:56 PM, Always Learning wrote:
On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 13:28 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 03/31/2015 12:31 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:
CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-DVD.iso CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso
Please take a look at the "Archived Versions", and the Release Announcement:
They both tell you that 7 (1503) is derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1 Sources. So, yes, this release, that you quoted in the Subject, is indeed exactly what you said.
And yes, this is how we are now numbering CentOS releases for 7 and greater.
Isn't that illogical ?
If there is:-
CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-DVD.iso
then the next one should logically be named:-
CentOS-7-1503-x86_64-DVD.iso
assuming sub-version numbers have been abolished by Centos.
Jumbled confusion, like CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso, is messy and illogical.
What is preventing Centos adopting a simple, neat, tidy, sensible and logical approach ? For example:
{major version}-{build number}-{architecture}-{media}.iso ?
That is method I would use.
Thank you.
This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the CentOS Board. It is what we are using in the future. I suggest you become familiar with it.