On Fri, 2005-07-01 at 00:49 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: > On Thu, 2005-06-30 at 22:17 -0700, Chris (CentOS list) wrote: > > Pardon the newbie question, but I thought I'd check with you guys here since > > I couldn't find the answer to this one on CentOS web site. > > > > I installed CentOS 3.4 (needed an equivalent of RHEL 3.4 for a very specific > > purpose - not interested in newer releases at this point) and downloaded all > > available up2date stuff. However, Apache is at v2.0.46, php is at 4.3.4, > > and so on - which are all quite old versions. I was under the impression > > that Red Hat rolls updates into existing versions and what may show as > > Apache 2.0.46, may indeed include updates and patches that are available in > > the most current release, 2.0.54..... Is this the case here, with CentOS, > > or should I be looking somewhere for actual rpms for Apache, php, and so on, > > to bring them up to 'latest' standards? If so - where?? up2date doesn't > > seem to be loading anything more current than what I mentioned above. > > > > If current patches are rolled into old versions, how does one distinguish > > between the "old" Apache 2.0.46 and "new/patched" 2.0.46?? > > > > Chris, > > RHEL is about stability and not the latest version. They don't roll in > all aspects of the new versions ... just the new security updates. > > Once a major item is in RHEL, they won't roll in changes that cause > things not to work. > > So, some things (for example firefox, mozilla) will get upgraded totally > as time goes on. Other things like KDE, OpenOffice.org, Gnome, Apache, > PHP, MySQL, etc. are probably not going to move to newer major version. > These will just get any security issues and bugs fixed. > > See the RH backporting policy: > http://www.redhat.com/advice/speaks_backport.html > > All the security issues will be fixed ... other things, maybe not. > ------------------------- > So, you basically need to decide between the two concepts. Do you want > the latest and greatest versions or do you want stability with > backporting? > > If you want latest and greatest (and not just security updates with > backporting), then RHEL (and therefore CentOS, since we use the same > sources to build our updates) is probably not going to meet your needs. > cAos or Fedora (if you like RH like OSes); Debian testing or Ubuntu (if > you like .deb); or Gentoo are likely better choices if you want to > continually get newer technology fast. > > CentOS will be OK if you want to make those changes on an 18 month cycle > and not a 6 month cycle though. As new RHEL versions come out (and they > will have newer products in RHEL 5 and RHEL 6, etc.) ... the versions of > everything will go up then. > > CentOS can be slightly newer than RHEL in the centosplus repository: > > http://mirror.centos.org/centos/4/centosplus/ > > So, there will be some things there (like PHP5, a kernel with more > features turned on, some extra filesystems, and probably OpenOffice.org > 2.0 when it is released). But, CentOS Plus will not make CentOS be > Fedora, nor will it be like Debian testing. Everything added will be > able to be used with other existing CentOS-4 programs ... and not > everything will be changed. > > Hopefully, the answer to your question is in there somewhere :) oh ... and my specific version numbers given for centosplus and talk of firefox was related to CentOS-4 and not CentOS-3 or CentOS-2 :) (though, if you remove the specific version numbers, then conceptually the rest applies to any version of CentOS) -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050701/814c9073/attachment-0004.sig>