On Thu, April 2, 2015 15:25, Jim Perrin wrote:
You mean this?
On: Sun Feb 22 23:19:42 UTC 2015 Karanbir Singh mail-lists at karan.org wrote:
Hmmmmm. I wonder how the proposed 7.1.1503 became 7.1503 in practice. Bait and switch?
Personally I do not care one way or the other what RH tells Centos to call itself. The priests can decide and the faithful can either put up with it or change pews. But I find it somewhat distressing to view otherwise intelligent people for whom I have a great deal of personal regard debase themselves with patently inadequate, and frequently deliberately misleading, justifications for unpopular decisions.
BTW. What happens if a bad ISO gets spun, released and then is replaced in the same month? Does it become: 7.1504_a?; 7.1504b?; 7.1504_1?; 7.150403?
On 04/03/2015 09:16 AM, James B. Byrne wrote:
Hmmmmm. I wonder how the proposed 7.1.1503 became 7.1503 in practice. Bait and switch?
The versioning of the ISO's is 7.1503 (in one way of reading the actual name; you could read it as 7 spin 1503 or whatnot), but my /etc/centos-release says: [lowen@dhcp-pool114 ~]$ cat /etc/centos-release CentOS Linux release 7.1.1503 (Core) [lowen@dhcp-pool114 ~]$
Already happened; it had a -01 added.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Lamar Owen lowen@pari.edu wrote:
Wiill the directories here: http://vault.centos.org/ going to track that? That is, one per iso release, or one for each minor number with some extra junk tacked on now?
-
James B. Byrne -
Lamar Owen -
Les Mikesell