[CentOS-devel] package centos-release-10:5-6.el5.centos.1.x86_64 newer than centos-release-6-0.el6.centos.5.x86_64

Mon Jul 11 15:51:36 UTC 2011
Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org>

On 07/11/2011 09:26 AM, Farkas Levente wrote:
> unsupported method upstream, right.
> working in upstream, right.
> working in centos, not.

I disagree. Let me explain why that is : RHEL and CentOS address very 
different userbases. Looking through the sort of posts that make it to 
the different mailing lists would make this quite clear. RHEL will work 
through support stuff with people, its not that simple on CentOS.

When you say this 'it works upstream', you are changing the definition 
of what 'it' might be in comparision to what the definition of 'it' is 
in regards to CentOS. To me, 'it' amounts to being able to upgrade from 
C5 to C6 or EL5 to EL6, without a wipe+reinstall[1]. And 'it' works in 
just about exactly the same way on CentOS as on RHEL - you need to 
custom build rpm, its dep chain. then get py26 in place, with yum that 
uses that py26 ( on c5 ), then go through 2 reboot cycles in order to 
make the process work. At the second boot stage, you need the 
centos-release rpm to be replaced. Also important at this stage is that 
having a $releasever at '5' does not break your machine, so a manual 
choice being needed to come into effect for $releasecer to move to '6' 
isnt a bad thing, I'd even venture a bit closer to the edge and say its 
a 'feature'.

the fact that it breaks the upgradeany install isnt ideal. Its not a 
'supported' mechanism, but then not much is 'supported' within the 
centos ecosystem either; and having the flexibility to break your stuff 
in ways you find interesting is also a feature in CentOS :)

I agree with Russ on that lets document this for now, and try to see how 
we can resolve the case moving forward ( 6.1 isnt far! ); exactly what 
the fix might be is still open to debate a bit. Reintroducting an EPOC 
should, please please, be the last resort.

> the centos is compatible with upstream? no.
> is it a bug? yes.
> so it is a fud? no it was simple a bug report.

Did you then file it as a bug report ? And did you either add something 
to the RNotes in the wiki ( or propose text that should be added in ? )

- KB

[1]: please do correct me if that seems unreasonable.