On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> > wrote: > > > > os-release has been at /7/ since the first CentOS 7 release - what extra > > value does having 7.1 in there bring ? At best it just says that your > > centos-release rpm has not been updated and/or there is no system level > > state change that required metadata in that file. > > If you know that some feature was added or bug fixed in RH 7.1, or > more relevant, your boss or security officer or application developer > knows that, there is very much value in being able to say that CentOS > 7.1-whatever includes the same features/fixes, and that your automated > inventory database will show which machines have been updated to that > version. Otherwise you'll spend the rest of the day discussing how > fix x is done in package-revs-n1 fix y is in package-rev-n2 and how to > check for it. Sometimes you need the latter detail, but mostly not, > especially for the application guys. > > This is the crux of the issue in my mind. The complete departure from the upstream naming conventions, weather they are "correct" or "relevant" or not, is a major change and is becoming a major hassle, maybe not from an engineering point of view, but from a practical, day-to-day one. Change is fine, but it requires work to deal with. And most of us don't have time to deal with major changes. This is a major change from past practice for CentOS, and there are many operational implications of it that apparently haven't been considered. -- Matt Phelps System Administrator, Computation Facility Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu, http://www.cfa.harvard.edu