On Tue, 2015-03-31 at 13:28 -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 03/31/2015 12:31 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:
> > CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-DVD.iso
> > CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso
> Please take a look at the "Archived Versions", and the Release Announcement:
>
> They both tell you that 7 (1503) is derived from Red Hat Enterprise
> Linux 7.1 Sources. So, yes, this release, that you quoted in the
> Subject, is indeed exactly what you said.
>
> And yes, this is how we are now numbering CentOS releases for 7 and
> greater.
Isn't that illogical ?
If there is:-
CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-DVD.iso
then the next one should logically be named:-
CentOS-7-1503-x86_64-DVD.iso
assuming sub-version numbers have been abolished by Centos.
Jumbled confusion, like CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso, is messy and
illogical.
What is preventing Centos adopting a simple, neat, tidy, sensible and
logical approach ? For example:
{major version}-{build number}-{architecture}-{media}.iso ?
That is method I would use.
Thank you.
--
Regards,
Paul.
England, EU. Je suis Charlie.