On Thu, Jan 21, 2016 at 7:17 PM, Sarah Newman <srn at prgmr.com> wrote: > On 01/21/2016 04:32 AM, George Dunlap wrote: > >> I'm a developer, not a server admin, so I can't gauge how important >> this issue is. Before making such a change, I'd like to hear opinions >> from other people in the community about how important (or not) it is >> to avoid breaking xm, given the ample warning (>1 year) users have >> had. >> >> On the other hand, explicitly moving to a "xen${VER}" (both for C6 and >> C7) would make it simpler for people to step up and maintain older >> versions in parallel if anybody wanted to do so. > > My inclination is towards a naming scheme like xen46, xen48, etc + a meta package that always depends on the latest. It should be more obvious when > there's a major upgrade, and those who can't afford a major upgrade can uninstall the meta package. BTW, we had a discussion about this particular idea at the Virt SIG meeting, and KB said that different naming of packages like this can cause dependency problems. For example, a package depends on "xen-version >= $N" will fail because as far as rpm is concerned, you don't have package 'xen' installed at all. Another idea is to keep separate repos, and then have "centos-release-xen-$VERSION", which would always point to $VERSION, and "centos-release-xen", which would always be the newest version. That might satisfy both types of people. -George