--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Kai Schaetzl maillists@conactive.com wrote:
Point releases are just freezes in time. There are no "special" updates for point releases, only for the "current" release.
This is what we all *believe* we know (e.g. "5"-current is now "5.3"+updates). However, TUV seems to have had a different opinion st some point in the past, or at least this is what Johnny understood. Read carefully this: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=2481
Excerpts: ============================== we are trying something new to correspond to an upcoming 5.y.z release scheme from upstream.
in the scheme, there will be a 5.1.z and 5.2.z tree ... those trees will be available for an extended period of time (5.1 and 5.2 ... each with different updates). ============================== we are not exactly sure how or even when upstream will do this z tree thing ============================== we do not have any intention of doing 5.1.1 or 5.1.2, just 5.1 ... and maintaining it while it is maintained upstream. ============================== Also, we do not plan to - as Johnny has already pointed out - do any 5.1.1 or 5.1.2 or 5.1.3 releases, since again that would be counter productive and leave users with a false sense of security thinking they have the latest patch levels for each machine - when they might not. ==============================
So there *should* have existed: * 5.1-only updates issued post-5.2; * 5.1-only and 5.2-only updates issued post-5.3; etc.
AFAIK, this never happened. Is the 5.x.z tree concept dead-before-birth?!
Thanks, R-C
__________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
AFAIK, this never happened. Is the 5.x.z tree concept dead-before-birth?!
For CentOS: Yes.
For Upstream: Ask Red Hat.
Ralph
I have asked RHT repeatedly to walk me through the life of a package version. Nothing.
Jim Wildman
jim@rossberry.com wrote:
On Tue, 2 Jun 2009, Ralph Angenendt wrote:
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
AFAIK, this never happened. Is the 5.x.z tree concept dead-before-birth?!
For CentOS: Yes.
For Upstream: Ask Red Hat.
I have asked RHT repeatedly to walk me through the life of a package version. Nothing.
AFAIK the "z stream" does not come with your normal RHN subscription. But I don't use RHEL, so I have no idea what it takes to get the .z stuff.
One of the reasons CentOS chose not to do it (other reasons are: No SRPMS on public mirrors, too much mirror space would be neede).
On the other hand I am not really sure I understand your sentence.
Ralph
Ralph Angenendt wrote on Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:17:35 +0200:
One of the reasons CentOS chose not to do it
It appears that only a very very small number of people need it or *think* they need it. It would have surely been a great waste of time and ressources if CentOS had adopted it and no real benefit for the larger community. Good choice.
Kai
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Ralph Angenendt wrote on Wed, 3 Jun 2009 11:17:35 +0200:
One of the reasons CentOS chose not to do it
It appears that only a very very small number of people need it or *think* they need it.
Probably the latter. CentOS 5 SP 3 would maybe have been a better choice than CentOS 5.3, as it seems to be not really clear to people that this is not a "new version", but an update to the 5 series.
Cheers,
Ralph
Ralph Angenendt wrote on Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:14:55 +0200:
Probably the latter. CentOS 5 SP 3 would maybe have been a better choice than CentOS 5.3
Not if one wants to stay in sync with the RHEL naming scheme :-)
Kai
On 06/03/2009 01:31 PM, Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Probably the latter. CentOS 5 SP 3 would maybe have been a better choice than CentOS 5.3
Not if one wants to stay in sync with the RHEL naming scheme :-)
I dont think that will be a problem, since we have never been in sync with Red Hat's naming scheme.
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Ralph Angenendt wrote on Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:14:55 +0200:
Probably the latter. CentOS 5 SP 3 would maybe have been a better choice than CentOS 5.3
Not if one wants to stay in sync with the RHEL naming scheme :-)
It clearly is the other way round, Red Hat has adopted ours.
Let's see if we can pull that one again! >:)
Ralph
on 6-3-2009 6:10 AM Ralph Angenendt spake the following:
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Ralph Angenendt wrote on Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:14:55 +0200:
Probably the latter. CentOS 5 SP 3 would maybe have been a better choice than CentOS 5.3
Not if one wants to stay in sync with the RHEL naming scheme :-)
It clearly is the other way round, Red Hat has adopted ours.
Let's see if we can pull that one again! >:)
Ralph
I think the RedHat CentOS relationship is mutually beneficial. We get a kick ass distro for only the cost of the work involved, and they get lots of bug fixes, and bug reports with very detailed reproduction steps. They also get a very large base of potential users when businesses move up to wanting/needing support. Replace a few rpm's and you have a RedHat system ready for a paid support contract.
And where would Oracle's unbreakable linux be if CentOS hadn't done most of the heavy lifting first?
On 06/02/2009 02:27 PM, Radu-Cristian FOTESCU wrote:
So there *should* have existed:
- 5.1-only updates issued post-5.2;
- 5.1-only and 5.2-only updates issued post-5.3;
etc.
go back and reread the entire list of comments. You seem quite confused about what should and should not exist.
- KB
-
jim＠rossberry.com -
Kai Schaetzl -
Karanbir Singh -
Radu-Cristian FOTESCU -
Ralph Angenendt -
Scott Silva