On 04/13/2015 11:17 PM, Rob Kampen wrote:> On 04/14/2015 01:07 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> On 04/13/2015 06:49 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>>> On 04/12/2015 10:29 PM, Rob Kampen wrote:
>>>> On 04/13/2015 11:42 AM, Gregory P. Ennis wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 2015-04-10 at 18:25 -0700, Greg Lindahl wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 06:33:27AM -0500, Johnny Hughes
wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What may be happening is that you may need to be on
the console and
>>>>>>> accept the license on the first reboot after the
update.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> We tried to turn this off for CLI only installs,
but in some
>>>>>>> combinations of software, you may still get the
acceptance screen
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>> have to complete it.
>>>>>> So just to be clear, some of us who installed 7.0
servers in the GUI
>>>>>> and then carted them to a remotely colo might be
screwed if the
>>>>>> machine reboots after updating to 7.1? Are there some
files I can
>>>>>> touch (or whatever) to prevent this from happening? Or
is the best
>>>>>> solution to go to the colo and reboot?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have consoles for all of my professional servers, but
not my hobby
>>>>>> server! Fun fun! And I feel for you guys, given that
upstream was the
>>>>>> main cause.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- greg
>>>>>>
>>>>>
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg,
>>>>>
>>>>> After my 7.1 upgrade the login gui is no longer usable
because it will
>>>>> not scroll. However, if you are using a remote connection
all you
>>>>> need
>>>>> to do is to run 'initial-setup' and accept the
license agreement.
>>>>> However, be careful. The first time I activated
'inital-setup' I
>>>>> elected not to answer the question "yes" and the
machine went in to a
>>>>> shutdown and then reboot. At this point, I wish I had not
upgraded to
>>>>> 7.1
>>>>>
>>>>> Greg
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> CentOS mailing list
>>>>> CentOS at centos.org
>>>>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>>>> Having been a CentOS user since about 5.2 and a list follower
also,
>>>> please bear with me while I make a couple of observations.
>>>> 1. The 'nature' of CentOS appears to be changing.
>>> CentOS Linux is CentOS Linux .. it is a rebuild of the RHEL source
code.
>>> The source code for RHEL 7.1 was rebuilt and released just like
the
>>> source code for RHEL 6.6 or RHEL 5.11 was. There is no difference
in
>>> CentOS Linux between how RHEL 6.6 code was rebuilt and how RHEL 7.1
was
>>> rebuilt. CentOS Linux, the core distro, is NOT changing. It is
now and
>>> will always be a rebuild of RHEL source code.
>>>
>>>> I, and many others on this list, came to use and love CentOS
because it
>>>> was a server oriented distro and had the lineage of RedHat
running
>>>> through its veins - i.e. corporate type applications available
and
>>>> support of LONG TERM stability WITH back-porting of patch
updates to
>>>> fix
>>>> security issues.
>>>>
>>> This version is also a direct rebuild of the RHEL source code. Red
Hat
>>> seems to be moving more quickly and making more rapid changes.
CentOS,
>>> rebuilding RHEL sources, will obviously move at the same pace.
>>>
>>>> 2. Major version updates, make significant changes to how
things work,
>>>> minor version updates are simply 'point in time'
snapshots to make life
>>>> easier for new installations and gaining updates. This no
longer
>>>> appears
>>>> to be the case!
>>>>
>>>> Having worked with servers and desktop workstations with both
5.x and
>>>> 6.x there were very few issues caused by a yum update. Thus one
could
>>>> confidently do remote installations, yum updates etc. I know
this from
>>>> experience, operating servers in different continents with no
physical
>>>> access. The only problems ever encountered that needed physical
access
>>>> being when hardware problems arose.
>>> Red Hat changed the mechanism for how they do license acceptance ..
in
>>> previous CentOS versions this was done in first boot for GUI
installs
>>> only, NOW they have changed it to also happen on CLI installs. We
don't
>>> desire this behavior .. but the process is identical to the RHEL
>>> install. You must accept the license in CentOS-6 as well .. it is
just
>>> on the first reboot after install.
>>>
>>> We hope to be able to work around this in the future.
>>>
>>>> 3. CentOS install, like most linux variants uses the GPL for
most
>>>> packages, the acceptance of these licenses never required
specific
>>>> mouse
>>>> clicks or check boxes.
>>>>
>>>> Copies of license terms were included with packages but their
>>>> acceptance
>>>> implied by usage. It seems the apple, microsoft, oracle, and
google
>>>> android "in your face" must click acceptance to
install an app or
>>>> package have finally arrived to linux distros.
>>>>
>>>> Having only spun up CentOS 7.0 from a live DVD I can make no
comments
>>>> about it yet, other than it seems from the comments on the list
that
>>>> both items 1 & 2 above are no longer true.
>>>>
>>>> I understand the idea of CentOS being bug for bug compatible
with the
>>>> redhat lineage, however it appears that the CentOS single
version
>>>> release is in fact a derivative of the multiple variants
actually
>>>> produced and sold by redhat - thus some of the recent arguments
about
>>>> naming of versions and DVDs lack authenticity.
>>> This has always been the case .. in CentOS-5 Linux, the CentOS tree
and
>>> install DVDs are a combination of the RHEL Source Code for
Clustering,
>>> Cluster-Storage, Virtualization, Desktop, Workstation, and Server.
>>>
>>> CentOS-6 Linux is a combination of the RHEL-6 Source Code for High
>>> Availability, High Performance Network, HPC Node, Load Balancer,
>>> Resilient Storage, Scalable File System, Desktop, Workstation, and
>>> Server.
>>>
>>> CentOS-7 Linux is a combination of Desktop, HPC Node, Resilient
Storage,
>>> Workstation, and Server.
>>>
>>> This process has also not changed at all.
>>>
>>>> As is my usual practice, I never install and use a x.0 release
for
>>>> production - far too many things have changed, dependent
software has
>>>> not been sufficiently tested and many add-ons are not yet
available.
>>>> Thus I was awaiting the release of 7.1 to move forward with
some
>>>> projects, already realizing that the learning curve for this
major
>>>> release would be longer and harder than previous releases.
However,
>>>> I am
>>>> now wondering how to move forward at all as item 2 is a must
have for
>>>> me, and appears to no longer be the case.
>>>>
>>>> Thus I ask the list - have I missed an announcement about these
>>>> changes?
>>>> are these changes real or imagined?
>>>> thanks for your time and forbearance.
>>> There is no changes in how the CentOS Linux distribution is
produced or
>>> released. You can continue consuming like you always have. It is
being
>>> built like it always has.
>>>
>>> There are optional monthly ISO respins, that live in a different
place,
>>> which you can consume if you want. There are also docker images,
AWS
>>> images, generic cloud images, openstack images, etc. Which people
can
>>> choose to consume or not. None of this changes how the base CentOS
>>> Linux is built or released. Some of these images also exist for
>>> CentOS-6 and/or CentOS-5 as well. All of these are optional and
for the
>>> people who need them, they are there. If you don't need them
then you
>>> keep consuming the CentOS-7 tree just like you did the CentOS-6 or
>>> CentOS-5 or CentOS-4 trees.
>>>
>>> If Red Hat changes to Gnome 3.14 in RHEL 7.2 (from Gnome 3.8 in
RHEL
>>> 7.1), when they release the RHEL 7.2 source code, our rebuild will
have
>>> Gnome 3.14 in it. We may or may not agree with decision to move to
a
>>> new Gnome version in a 'point release' .. but we (the
CentOS Project)
>>> don't make those decisions, we just build the source code.
>> This is what leads me to believe there will be a Gnome rebase in RHEL
>> 7.2:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174597
>>
> thanks Johnny, you have explained exactly what my understanding was in
> terms much better expressed than I was able to do.
> I guess the telling comment for me is
>
> Red Hat seems to be moving more quickly and making more rapid changes.
> CentOS,
> rebuilding RHEL sources, will obviously move at the same pace.
>
> While I can understand this and even welcome this to some extent,
> particularly for my desktop machines, it is the "it just works"
that I
> have grown accustomed to, and this seems to be changing.
> It may be just my impression, but there seem to be more significant show
> stopping bugs with the 7.x series of releases, and I suppose the above
> comment exposes the reasons - more rapid releases mean less exhaustive
> testing, unless more resources are deployed and I guess that is unlikely
> to have occurred.\
>
> Thanks as always for what you and the rest of the CentOS team do, just
> appreciation and admiration for all you guys (and gals?) do for the
> community.
> Rob
To be perfectly honest, I am not thrilled with the movement either from
the enterprise stability point of view .. BUT .. with respect to desktop
and software development it is better. I personally though the other
way was better (no major version movement) .. but, that is above my
paygrade :)
-------------- 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/20150414/345dcab5/attachment-0001.sig>