[CentOS] release/update question

Wed Jun 3 13:10:53 UTC 2009
Ralph Angenendt <ra+centos at br-online.de>

Kai Schaetzl wrote:
> Ralph Angenendt wrote on Wed, 3 Jun 2009 13:14:55 +0200:
> 
> > Probably the latter. CentOS 5 SP 3 would maybe have been a better choice
> > than CentOS 5.3
> 
> Not if one wants to stay in sync with the RHEL naming scheme :-)

It clearly is the other way round, Red Hat has adopted ours.

Let's see if we can pull that one again! >:)

Ralph
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20090603/80309a64/attachment-0005.sig>