Which Fedora release is the CentOS 5.x kernel based on? I am wanting to know which Fedora rpm's I would have the best luck installing on CentOS 5.x 64 bit.
Matt
Quoting Matt lm7812@gmail.com:
Which Fedora release is the CentOS 5.x kernel based on? I am wanting to know which Fedora rpm's I would have the best luck installing on CentOS 5.x 64 bit.
Fedora Core 6. Please understand that FC6 is no longer supported by Fedora, and hasn't been for a couple of years.
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 2:56 PM, Barry Brimer lists@brimer.org wrote:
Quoting Matt lm7812@gmail.com:
Which Fedora release is the CentOS 5.x kernel based on? I am wanting to know which Fedora rpm's I would have the best luck installing on CentOS 5.x 64 bit.
Fedora Core 6. Please understand that FC6 is no longer supported by Fedora, and hasn't been for a couple of years.
This CentOS wiki article has useful information as to why you'd better rebuild from srpms and how:
http://wiki.centos.org/HowTos/RebuildSRPM
Akemi
At Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:56:18 -0500 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
Quoting Matt lm7812@gmail.com:
Which Fedora release is the CentOS 5.x kernel based on? I am wanting to know which Fedora rpm's I would have the best luck installing on CentOS 5.x 64 bit.
Fedora Core 6. Please understand that FC6 is no longer supported by Fedora, and hasn't been for a couple of years.
And RedHat backports security fixes and driver updates to the kernels released with RHEL (and thus CentOS. An actual CentOS kernel will actually be more up-to-date than any FC6 kernel you might find floating around the net.
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On 4/14/2010 5:16 PM, Matt wrote:
Which Fedora release is the CentOS 5.x kernel based on? I am wanting to know which Fedora rpm's I would have the best luck installing on CentOS 5.x 64 bit.
I am really looking for a Squid 3.1 rpm for CentOS 5.x.
At least some new stuff is backported into the version in the 5.4 update. It changed behavior regarding letting you override the cache settings in the content headers with a configured refresh pattern. And I didn't think that was done before the 3.x versions in the base source.
On 4/14/2010 6:27 PM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 4/14/2010 5:16 PM, Matt wrote:
Which Fedora release is the CentOS 5.x kernel based on? I am wanting to know which Fedora rpm's I would have the best luck installing on CentOS 5.x 64 bit.
I am really looking for a Squid 3.1 rpm for CentOS 5.x.
At least some new stuff is backported into the version in the 5.4 update. It changed behavior regarding letting you override the cache settings in the content headers with a configured refresh pattern. And I didn't think that was done before the 3.x versions in the base source.
See here for instructions on building an rpm of squid 3.1 for Centos 5.x:
http://www.x83.net/install-squid-3-1-on-centos-5-x/
why dont you download the source and compile it, its really easy.
Jobst
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 05:16:52PM -0500, Matt (lm7812@gmail.com) wrote:
Which Fedora release is the CentOS 5.x kernel based on? I am wanting to know which Fedora rpm's I would have the best luck installing on CentOS 5.x 64 bit.
I am really looking for a Squid 3.1 rpm for CentOS 5.x.
Matt _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Jobst Schmalenbach wrote:
why dont you download the source and compile it, its really easy.
Source installs are not encouraged:
That is NOT a CentOS thing, **ONLY**. It is valid for ANY distribution, indeed!
Most computers would be stable including windows machines if people would stop installing crap, e.g. why did Mircosoft "invent" the feature of restoring system32 (from dllcache) or any of their other "features" to make it more stable?
... and because some (rpm) package is provided in some repository packaged by "someone else" does not necessary mean that it is stable or stable for a certain setup (hw, combintation of packages etc) or doesn't overwrite "stuff".
... and because some package is provided in the MAIN repository does not mean its stable, either. I run amanda and have been doing since 1998, the version that is in the main repository (2.5.0p2) is 5 years old and crashed my 5.4 server (and another server I look after part time voluntarily). I currently run a self compiled 2.6.1 and never looked back (this includes all of amanda's clients).
I like CentOS, and it has a lot of advantages. I came from Fedora BUT the MAIN reason why I moved is not stability BUT security as I have had uptimes of 300+ days on lots of FC machines, including a FC6 box I just replaced. But getting a security update for CentOS (e.g. for bind) is easier than for a 2 year old FCX distro because its not supported anymore.
jobst
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 10:02:52AM +0100, Ned Slider (ned@unixmail.co.uk) wrote:
Jobst Schmalenbach wrote:
why dont you download the source and compile it, its really easy.
Source installs are not encouraged:
http://wiki.centos.org/PackageManagement/SourceInstalls
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
... and because some package is provided in the MAIN repository does not mean its stable, either. I run amanda and have been doing since 1998, the version that is in the main repository (2.5.0p2) is 5 years old and crashed my 5.4 server (and another server I look after part time voluntarily). I currently run a self compiled 2.6.1 and never looked back (this includes all of amanda's clients).
I don't think you understand how Red Hat (and thus CentOS) package things.
The version of Amanda in RHEL 5.4 and CentOS 5.4 is indeed 2.5.0p2-8 (the -8 is important) and is not yet 6 months old, much less 5 years old. When Red Hat packages RPMs, they often times back port security patches and bugfixes.
As to why it crashed you server, I can bet that there are other config and software changes you have added "by hand" that may have caused a problem. We have a few CentOS 5.4 systems running the standard amanda packages without any problems.
Ian
On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 09:28:36AM -0700, Ian Kaufman (iank@mac.com) wrote:
... and because some package is provided in the MAIN repository
I don't think you understand how Red Hat (and thus CentOS) package things.
I actually do and is one of the reasons why I use it (if you read my last email carefully, you would have noticed this fact).
The version of Amanda in RHEL 5.4 and CentOS 5.4 is indeed 2.5.0p2-8 (the -8 is important) and is not yet 6 months old, much less 5 years old. When Red Hat packages RPMs, they often times back port security patches and bugfixes. As to why it crashed you server, I can bet that there are other config and software changes you have added "by hand" that may have caused a problem. We have a few CentOS 5.4 systems running the standard amanda packages without any problems.
It is rather strange (and sad) what people assume and how you argue a case. You have no idea who I am, what my knowledge is, what I have learned, my degrees, my setup, my skill set ... nothing. You do not even know what I backup, what machines, how many and the variety.
You simply assume:
I can bet that there are other config and software changes you have added "by hand" that may have caused a problem.
After I upgraded amanda, it hasn't fallen over at all with the same software on machine. I actually know the reason why it fell over, which is why I have chosen amanda-2.6.0p2 and NOT the latest version. The changes made to (the core of) amanda made my life easier, my environment more stable and my users happy, which is what I am paid for.
BTW: I have been using Red Hat based software since Hurricane running with samba fully employed at the place where I work half a year later and amanda since late 1.9 and early 2.x versions.
Jobst
A few months ago I had two machines that I changed to CentOS, note I did not say upgrade ;-) one was a FC6 and the other one FC7.
I put the CentOS 5.4 DVD in, booted, selected install over other OS. It went OK after I solved a few issues with SOME packages (package-cleanup)
Both actually are a DOWNGRADE as on BOTH machines I have still some FC packages hanging around as rpm thinks they have a HIGHER number and hence keeps them.
I wouldn't do it, if I be in your shoes as you end up with all the other lib stuff on the system.
GO and see whether you can get the "real stuff".
jobst
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 04:21:19PM -0500, Matt (lm7812@gmail.com) wrote:
Which Fedora release is the CentOS 5.x kernel based on? I am wanting to know which Fedora rpm's I would have the best luck installing on CentOS 5.x 64 bit.
Matt _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
-
Akemi Yagi -
Barry Brimer -
Ian Kaufman -
Jobst Schmalenbach -
Les Mikesell -
Matt -
Ned Slider -
Robert Heller -
Ryan Manikowski