Hi,
I tried: mirrorlist=http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=5.4&arch=x86_64&repo=os but it gives me
...snippel 5.4 is not a valid release or hasnt been released yet/ snappel...
Why is that ?
Am Sonntag, den 08.11.2009, 15:06 +0000 schrieb Markus Falb:
mirrorlist=http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=5.4&arch=x86_64&repo=os
mirrorlist=http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=5&arch=x86_64&repo=os
Simon Wesp wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 08.11.2009, 15:06 +0000 schrieb Markus Falb:
mirrorlist=http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?
release=5.4&arch=x86_64&repo=os
mirrorlist=http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=5&arch=x86_64&repo=os
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen aus dem schönen Hainzell Simon Wesp
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/SimonWesp Am Sonntag, den 08.11.2009, 15:06 +0000 schrieb Markus Falb:
mirrorlist=http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?
release=5.4&arch=x86_64&repo=os
mirrorlist=http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=5&arch=x86_64&repo=os
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen aus dem schönen Hainzell Simon Wesp
http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/SimonWesp Am Sonntag, den 08.11.2009, 15:06 +0000 schrieb Markus Falb:
mirrorlist=http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?
release=5.4&arch=x86_64&repo=os
mirrorlist=http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=5&arch=x86_64&repo=os
I know that release=5 is working, but this is not what i want.
In my Experience it is not always possible to upgrade all machines to the newest and shiniest OS out there. Not within the first week at least. So I have to maintain machines with 5.3 and machines with 5.4 and ... My argument is that i do not want have Updates offered that are not appropriate.
("release=5.3" _is_ working)
-- Mit freundlichen Grüßen aus dem schönen Hainzell Simon Wesp
Liebe Grüße aus dem verregnetem Wien ;-)
Am Sonntag, den 08.11.2009, 18:20 +0000 schrieb Markus Falb:
I know that release=5 is working, but this is not what i want.
really? think about again, please!
In my Experience it is not always possible to upgrade all machines to the newest and shiniest OS out there.
This is not a distro like Whatever-Badbuntu. There *can* be problems, but I never had a problem with updating x.n to x.n+1 or x.n+2..
I have to maintain machines with 5.3 and machines with 5.4 and ...
shouldn't be a problem.
My argument is that i do not want have Updates offered that are not appropriate.
This isn't an argument, this is ignorance. 90% of all updates are fixes of bugs and security-issues.
Liebe Grüße aus dem verregnetem Wien ;-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Simon Wesp wrote:
Am Sonntag, den 08.11.2009, 18:20 +0000 schrieb Markus Falb:
I know that release=5 is working, but this is not what i want.
really? think about again, please!
Aha...
In my Experience it is not always possible to upgrade all machines to the newest and shiniest OS out there.
This is not a distro like Whatever-Badbuntu. There *can* be problems, but I never had a problem with updating x.n to x.n+1 or x.n+2..
But if there *can* be problems, whats your point then ? I read the Release Notes and there are some known listed problems and if a listed problem is applicable to one or more of my machines i can not upgrade without further thougths. Anyway, why do you suppose i am a Ubuntu User ?
I have to maintain machines with 5.3 and machines with 5.4 and ...
shouldn't be a problem.
My argument is that i do not want have Updates offered that are not appropriate.
This isn't an argument, this is ignorance. 90% of all updates are fixes of bugs and security-issues.
I do not want to ignore Updates, I do want to decide if a update is safe or possible or (sometimes) even necessary for a given machine. Possibly doing blindly Updates is ignorant. I agree that 90% of the updates are kind of No Brainers. Whats with the rest ?
Have a look into the Release Notes, there are known issues. I know there often are Solutions, Workarounds, but thats not the point. What I want to say, there *can* and there *are* issues at times.
I dont want a Monitoring System going crazy about pending Updates.
If I have an old release running (whatever the reason may be) i need to be able to install an old release of CentOS, Packages from the old release and so on, so I need an old version lying around. All that requires the possibility to mirror by exact release (or am i blind ?). ? I was not saying: I dont want that Update stuff.
All that said, i think there are situations where exact release versioning is necessary.
- -- bests regards, markus Die Lage: Um die 8 Grad in Wien und mittlerweile trocken.
Markus Falb wrote on Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:20:14 +0000 (UTC):
In my Experience it is not always possible to upgrade all machines to the newest and shiniest OS out there. Not within the first week at least. So I have to maintain machines with 5.3 and machines with 5.4 and ... My argument is that i do not want have Updates offered that are not appropriate.
So, what? There are no updates for 5.3 anymore. And 5.4=5 at the moment. Read the FAQs, basic CentOS stuff: http://www.centos.org/modules/smartfaq/faq.php?faqid=34
It would readability if you could stop quoting all the URL garbage again and again. Thanks.
Kai
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Markus Falb wrote on Sun, 8 Nov 2009 18:20:14 +0000 (UTC):
In my Experience it is not always possible to upgrade all machines to the newest and shiniest OS out there. Not within the first week at least. So I have to maintain machines with 5.3 and machines with 5.4 and ... My argument is that i do not want have Updates offered that are not appropriate.
So, what? There are no updates for 5.3 anymore. And 5.4=5 at the moment. Read the FAQs, basic CentOS stuff: http://www.centos.org/modules/smartfaq/faq.php?faqid=34
Yes, but 5!=5.4
I have machines with 5.3 and machines with 5.4 and therefore I need a local mirror for 5.3 If i mirror release=5 i destroy the 5.3 mirror. Anyway, I was not asking "Am I wrong"
It would readability if you could stop quoting all the URL garbage again and again. Thanks.
I know that and i am very sorry. Sometimes I act to quick and forget to snippel away unwanted stuff. From time to time this happened and it will happen again I fear, i am not programmed and no machine. Sorry again.
- -- bests regards, markus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Markus Falb wrote:
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
I have machines with 5.3 and machines with 5.4 and therefore I need a local mirror for 5.3 If i mirror release=5 i destroy the 5.3 mirror. Anyway, I was not asking "Am I wrong"
What i was trying to ask is: is it per purpose that there is a "release=5" and "release=5.3" is working but not "release=5.4" or in other words
is the url http://mirrorlist.centos.org/?release=5.4&arch=x86_64&repo=os not supposed to work ? Then I can work around it. I dont have to use mirrorlist. I could use http://mirror.centos.org/centos-5/5.4/ or some other mirror, but why hardcode when theres a mirrorlist system ?
- -- bests regards, markus
On 08/11/09 22:46, Markus Falb wrote:
What i was trying to ask is: is it per purpose that there is a "release=5" and "release=5.3" is working but not "release=5.4" or in other words
'5.3' is only working since it hasent been moved away to vault.c.o as yet, which will happen during this week. at which point only releasever=5 will work.
Also, we hope to change the whole stack of code that runs behind this mirrorlist and mirror management stuff during the next couple of months. in my opinion, having a subrelease like 5.2 or 5.3 work is only going to lead to people with orphaned setups - unless we support a longterm 5.2 or 5.3 release - which we dont.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 08/11/09 22:46, Markus Falb wrote:
What i was trying to ask is: is it per purpose that there is a "release=5" and "release=5.3" is working but not "release=5.4" or in other words
'5.3' is only working since it hasent been moved away to vault.c.o as yet, which will happen during this week. at which point only releasever=5 will work.
Also, we hope to change the whole stack of code that runs behind this mirrorlist and mirror management stuff during the next couple of months. in my opinion, having a subrelease like 5.2 or 5.3 work is only going to lead to people with orphaned setups - unless we support a longterm 5.2 or 5.3 release - which we dont.
Dont misunderstand me, please. I was about to take care of your (CentOS) bandwidth. And, my feeling is that my setups are my cup of tea.
- -- bests regards, markus
On 11/09/2009 12:58 AM, Markus Falb wrote:
Dont misunderstand me, please. I was about to take care of your (CentOS) bandwidth. And, my feeling is that my setups are my cup of tea.
I dont think you understand what 5.3 means in respect to CentOS-5. Or what and how 5.4 superseeds it. I suggest, and strongly, that you consider the advice and urls you have been pointed at and look into this a bit.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Karanbir Singh wrote:
On 11/09/2009 12:58 AM, Markus Falb wrote:
Dont misunderstand me, please. I was about to take care of your (CentOS) bandwidth. And, my feeling is that my setups are my cup of tea.
I dont think you understand what 5.3 means in respect to CentOS-5. Or what and how 5.4 superseeds it. I suggest, and strongly, that you consider the advice and urls you have been pointed at and look into this a bit.
You are correct, possibly. I read the advice. I looked at the URLs pointed to. Maybe i am too dumb, but i still consider 5 ! 5.4
My feeling is that your point is: 5.X is bad. 5 is stable, therefore use 5.
My experience with 5.4 was two bugs, #3884 and #3923, and both of them triggered disfunctionality at update time, so i can not use 5 for stabilities sake.
Thanks anyways,
- -- best regards, markus
Markus Falb wrote on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:37:44 +0100:
Yes, but 5!=5.4
wrong.
I have machines with 5.3 and machines with 5.4 and therefore I need a local mirror for 5.3
Why do you think did I post it? Read it! http://www.centos.org/modules/smartfaq/faq.php?faqid=34
Kai
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kai Schaetzl wrote:
Markus Falb wrote on Sun, 08 Nov 2009 23:37:44 +0100:
Yes, but 5!=5.4
wrong.
Nice concept certainly, but it was not working, at least not for me:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3884 (mentioned in the Release Notes for 5.4). Whats the consequence ? Update to 5.4 and some things are not working any more -> 5.4 != 5.3
Maybe my fault is that i associate this bugs with the release update and not with a single package like glibc. On the other side, I read about this bug at the Release Notes for CentOS 5.4 not at an announcement for a new glibc (maybe i have overseen it ?)
In principle, every single update could break things, I know that.
Another example:
http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=3923 This one broke kickstart installs for me. again: 5.4 != 5.3
I have machines with 5.3 and machines with 5.4 and therefore I need a local mirror for 5.3
Why do you think did I post it? Read it! http://www.centos.org/modules/smartfaq/faq.php?faqid=34
I did. I swear it. Thank you. My original question is answered, of course.
Anyway, despite of any disagreements, thank you for taking the time and for your patience.
- -- best regards, markus
Nice concept certainly
You have definitely *not* understood the concept *at all*. Trying reading that FAQ again!
again: 5.4 != 5.3
*Can* you read? Nobody wrote that "5.4 == 5.3".
If you want to stay on 5.3, then simply don't do updates anymore.
5=current 5.0=5.0 5.3=5.3 5.4=5.4 current=5.4+updates
Kai
-
Kai Schaetzl -
Karanbir Singh -
Markus Falb -
Simon Wesp