On 04/02/2015 12:14 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Thu, Apr 02, 2015 at 11:57:23AM -0500, Les Mikesell wrote: >>>> How, without a cross reference of some sort, do you know if a given >>>> CentOS iso will install on hardware where you know that the needed >>>> driver was added in an RH minor rev? >>> always use the latest one. >> Which, combined with the possibility of releasing multiples per minor >> rev and no determinate time frame for the actual initial Centos minor >> release, really means nothing. > > Well... > > "Always use latest one" *plus* "look for the latest release > announcement". > > Like > http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2015-March/021005.html > > A cross-reference doesn't really seem necessary because usually > hardware enablement is additive. Either CentOS is up to the version you > need, or it isn't yet. > > > If you really _need_ a specific minor release and want to _stay_ on it, > to my knowledge, that's not something CentOS has _ever_ done anyway. > You can pay for Red Hat's "EUS", or, I think Scientific Linux actually > does keep the ".y" releases separate (but I'm not sure of the details > as to how that's implemented). > That last paragraph is EXACTLY the message we are trying to put out here. CentOS releases are NOT the same as EUS and have never been .. yet that seems to be what people expect. We want there to be no doubt on this issue. -------------- 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/attachments/20150402/42f4f791/attachment-0004.sig>