[CentOS-devel] Zero day updates upstream

Fabian Arrotin fabian.arrotin at arrfab.net
Thu Mar 15 22:15:40 UTC 2007

Karanbir Singh wrote:
> hi guys,
> Something to talk about while we prep C-5 for release...
> There were some packages that were updated along with release, I can 
> imagine this was since the tree must have been frozen a while before 
> actual release upstream. However, we dont have that problem - the tree 
> hasent been released.
> So, what does everyone thing ? Should we release the tree with the 
> updates rolled in ? or should we release the tree exactly as upstream 
> did, and also provide the updates to go alongside - but in the updates 
> repo ?
> One thing that I would be very hesitant to update would be the kernel, 
> since updating that would imply updating the installer kernel as well. 
> Which is going to cause lots of issues since its known that vendors 
> and support people will ask for specific kernels at specific times ( 
> eg. installed with x.y.z and 5.0.0 ) 
I agree for the last point : a lot of HW manufacturers release driver 
disks for a specific kernel (the one that will be used will always be 
the rhel one ..) so if you don't want to break driver disk compatibility 
(even if you can just edit the vermagic string in the module sitting on 
the driver disk ..) i'd prefer you stick with the upstream kernel 
version for the final release and put the newer one in the updates repo ...
Imagine the numbers of question on #centos, on the forum and on the list 
if a driver disk doesn't work as expected ... and try to explain these 
guys that the main goal is to be 100% binary compatible ... :o)
Just my opinion ...

Fabian Arrotin.

More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list