On 12/09/2015 07:51 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On 12/09/2015 07:38 AM, Jamie Nguyen wrote: >> On 09/12/15 12:41, Manuel Wolfshant wrote: >>> 1. the issue only affects CentOS users and it will only happen until >>> CentOS 7.2 is released >> >> Strangely, you're trying to reassure me that it only affects CentOS >> users, even though the very reason I'm posting here is *because* it >> affects CentOS users. >> >> Again, strangely, you're trying to reassure me about the 7.2 release >> date, even though it's evident I'm trying to solve this problem without >> having to wait (otherwise I wouldn't have bothered posting here). Please >> note that I didn't come here for a release date and I don't expect to be >> given one and that's *totally* fine and expected! But "soon" and "around >> the corner" are vague time-frames that I don't consider helpful in this >> discussion. >> >> >>> Right. So those with fear in mind should either purchase a RH >>> subscription or wait until CentOS QA is done. Or ask for advice in one >>> of the proper CentOS support channels. >>> >>> It is not obvious at all. But newcomers should read the docs rather that >>> trying copy/pasting random pieces of advice from google >>> >>> None of your arguments changes the fact that the base repository for >>> CentOS 7.1 ships exactly what RHEL shipped in its 7.1 release (modulo >>> the packages which were modified/added/removed by CentOS at the time of >>> release) and by definition this cannot change. The only thing that >>> CentOS could potentially do NOW is to ship the newer libunwind in the >>> 7.1/updates repository but given the potential breakage it might cause >>> and that the release of 7.2 (which includes the new libunwind in the >>> base repo) is "around the corner" I highly doubt that this is a good idea. >> >> If CentOS considers it unwise or undesirable to push libunwind to >> 7.1/updates then I will wait for 7.2. Users can of course "read the >> docs" and reach out in the appropriate support channels, but I'm just >> trying to do my duty as a packager and reduce any avoidable headaches >> that users might face. Perhaps I'm being overenthusiastic in that goal, >> but I'd rather be overenthusiastic than negligent (which probably all >> packagers are guilty of at one time or another) and at least I can say I >> tried my best. > > CentOS doesn't consider it anything. EPEL is written for RHEL and they > have published the stuff for 7.2 already. > > CentOS Linux is run by 5 guys and a volunteer QA team. We have not > finished the 7.2.1511 upgrade cycle yet. > > CentOS does not have any control over what EPEL does. > > When we get the release done, it will work. Until then you can use CR > if you want. > And in case this has not been said before, libunwind was added to RHEL in 7,2, so will be part of the new release of CentOS Linux when we are done .. it was therefore removed from EPEL. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20151209/95fcb586/attachment-0008.sig>