I have just successfuly converted three former wbel3 boxes to centos 3.3 - 3.3 because that is what the instructions in the wbel conversion FAQ specified. Now I see that the latest version of 3 is 3.4. Is there any point in upgrading from 3.3 to 3.4? My understanding was that 3.3 + all latest updates == 3.4 with all latest updates, just starting from an earlier base system. However there are a lot of questions in the forum about how to upgrade to 3.4 - Am I missing something? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Get the best from British Airways at ba.com http://www.ba.com
Yes.... you miss out on the fun .1 entails. On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:46:20 +0000, paul.g.barnett@britishairways.com <paul.g.barnett@britishairways.com> wrote:> I have just successfuly converted three former wbel3 boxes to centos 3.3 - > 3.3 because that is what the instructions > in the wbel conversion FAQ specified. Now I see that the latest version of > 3 > is 3.4. > > Is there any point in upgrading from 3.3 to 3.4? My understanding was that > 3.3 + all latest updates == 3.4 with all latest updates, just starting > from an earlier base system. However there are a lot of questions in the > forum about how to upgrade to 3.4 - Am I missing something? > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Get the best from British Airways at ba.com > http://www.ba.com > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@caosity.org > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >
My update from 3.3 to 3.4 was simple, smooth and painless following these instructions... http://www.centos.org/modules/news/article.php?storyid=34 read the whole page, but I used the manual instructions about half way down ''To manually upgrade to CentOS-3.4 (now)'' be sure to read the notes below, especially if you have a custom yum.conf On 7-Mar-05, at 6:59 AM, Matt Bottrell wrote:> Yes.... you miss out on the fun .1 entails. > > > > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:46:20 +0000, paul.g.barnett@britishairways.com > <paul.g.barnett@britishairways.com> wrote: >> I have just successfuly converted three former wbel3 boxes to centos >> 3.3 - >> 3.3 because that is what the instructions >> in the wbel conversion FAQ specified. Now I see that the latest >> version of >> 3 >> is 3.4. >> >> Is there any point in upgrading from 3.3 to 3.4? My understanding was >> that >> 3.3 + all latest updates == 3.4 with all latest updates, just starting >> from an earlier base system. However there are a lot of questions in >> the >> forum about how to upgrade to 3.4 - Am I missing something? >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> --------------------------- >> Get the best from British Airways at ba.com >> http://www.ba.com >> _______________________________________________ >> CentOS mailing list >> CentOS@caosity.org >> http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >> > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@caosity.org > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >
On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:46:20 +0000, paul.g.barnett@britishairways.com <paul.g.barnett@britishairways.com> wrote:> I have just successfuly converted three former wbel3 boxes to centos 3.3 - > 3.3 because that is what the instructions > in the wbel conversion FAQ specified. Now I see that the latest version of > 3 > is 3.4. > > Am I missing something?Yes, it''s called CentOS4.0-final. -- Collins
If you''re running cpanel/whm on your server, going to CentOS 4 on a production box would not be a good idea at this time, unless you REALLY know what you''re doing On 7-Mar-05, at 8:23 AM, Collins Richey wrote:> On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:46:20 +0000, paul.g.barnett@britishairways.com > <paul.g.barnett@britishairways.com> wrote: >> I have just successfuly converted three former wbel3 boxes to centos >> 3.3 - >> 3.3 because that is what the instructions >> in the wbel conversion FAQ specified. Now I see that the latest >> version of >> 3 >> is 3.4. >> >> Am I missing something? > > Yes, it''s called CentOS4.0-final. > > -- > Collins > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@caosity.org > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > >
paul.g.barnett@britishairways.com wrote:> Is there any point in upgrading from 3.3 to 3.4? My understanding was that > 3.3 + all latest updates == 3.4 with all latest updates, just starting > from an earlier base system. However there are a lot of questions in the > forum about how to upgrade to 3.4 - Am I missing something? >3.3 + all lastest updates "does not" = 3.4 Take a look here for changes..... http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-3-Manual/release-notes/as-x86/RELEASE-NOTES-U4-x86-en.html It''s easy to move to 3.4 and should be done, if you want to stay current with the "3.x" releases. To upgrade now -- from the release announcement: rpm -ivh http://mirror.centos.org/centos/3.4/os/i386/RedHat/RPMS/centos-yumcache-3.1-0.20050105.3.noarch.rpm rpm -Fvh http://mirror.centos.org/centos/3.4/os/i386/RedHat/RPMS/centos-release-3-4.2.i386.rpm yum update
Blah Cpanel. :-P Pretty lax of them not to have RHELv4 ready... the betas been around for a while. On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 08:28:56 -0500, Verdon Vaillancourt <vern@verdon.ca> wrote:> If you''re running cpanel/whm on your server, going to CentOS 4 on a > production box would not be a good idea at this time, unless you REALLY > know what you''re doing > > > On 7-Mar-05, at 8:23 AM, Collins Richey wrote: > > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:46:20 +0000, paul.g.barnett@britishairways.com > > <paul.g.barnett@britishairways.com> wrote: > >> I have just successfuly converted three former wbel3 boxes to centos > >> 3.3 - > >> 3.3 because that is what the instructions > >> in the wbel conversion FAQ specified. Now I see that the latest > >> version of > >> 3 > >> is 3.4. > >> > >> Am I missing something? > > > > Yes, it''s called CentOS4.0-final. > > > > -- > > Collins > > _______________________________________________ > > CentOS mailing list > > CentOS@caosity.org > > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@caosity.org > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >
cPanel are usually pretty good at spitting out releases shortly after an OS is debuted ( at least compared to other popular commercial control panel vendors ). CentOS4 isn''t as easy to port to as previous OS''s mostly due to SELinux being implemented ( notice no support for FC 3 ? ). Either way, CentOS4 has only just been released, sure the beta was out, but many chances happen between beta and final. Beta''s are not exactly what you want to use, to create a commercial product on. Hold tight, I have a feeling Nick ( head cpanel dev ) is working tirelessly to push it out. On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 22:41:05 +1100, Matt Bottrell <mbottrell@gmail.com> wrote:> Blah Cpanel. :-P > > Pretty lax of them not to have RHELv4 ready... the betas been around > for a while. > > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 08:28:56 -0500, Verdon Vaillancourt <vern@verdon.ca> wrote: > > If you''re running cpanel/whm on your server, going to CentOS 4 on a > > production box would not be a good idea at this time, unless you REALLY > > know what you''re doing > > > > > > On 7-Mar-05, at 8:23 AM, Collins Richey wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:46:20 +0000, paul.g.barnett@britishairways.com > > > <paul.g.barnett@britishairways.com> wrote: > > >> I have just successfuly converted three former wbel3 boxes to centos > > >> 3.3 - > > >> 3.3 because that is what the instructions > > >> in the wbel conversion FAQ specified. Now I see that the latest > > >> version of > > >> 3 > > >> is 3.4. > > >> > > >> Am I missing something? > > > > > > Yes, it''s called CentOS4.0-final. > > > > > > -- > > > Collins > > > _______________________________________________ > > > CentOS mailing list > > > CentOS@caosity.org > > > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CentOS mailing list > > CentOS@caosity.org > > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@caosity.org > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >-- Beau Henderson http://www.iminteractive.net
It is not their issue really. SELinux is a different security model that departs from the norm. It''s not as easy to port if you want to use it. That said, Cpanel works fine on CentOS 4/ RHE4/ Fedora Core 3 if you disable SELinux. I have it running fine (with a bit of incompatibilities on Exim install, but got that nailed). It would require almost a total rewrite of most portions of Cpanel to make it work (on top of defining the proper policies) if you look at how their security model has always been based around the permissions of the files and file ownership rather than a role-based concept. -----Original Message----- From: centos-bounces@caosity.org [mailto:centos-bounces@caosity.org] On Behalf Of Beau Henderson Sent: 09 March 2005 18:33 To: CentOS discussion and information list Subject: Re: [Centos] 3.3 or 3.4 cPanel are usually pretty good at spitting out releases shortly after an OS is debuted ( at least compared to other popular commercial control panel vendors ). CentOS4 isn''t as easy to port to as previous OS''s mostly due to SELinux being implemented ( notice no support for FC 3 ? ). Either way, CentOS4 has only just been released, sure the beta was out, but many chances happen between beta and final. Beta''s are not exactly what you want to use, to create a commercial product on. Hold tight, I have a feeling Nick ( head cpanel dev ) is working tirelessly to push it out. On Tue, 8 Mar 2005 22:41:05 +1100, Matt Bottrell <mbottrell@gmail.com> wrote:> Blah Cpanel. :-P > > Pretty lax of them not to have RHELv4 ready... the betas been around > for a while. > > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 08:28:56 -0500, Verdon Vaillancourt <vern@verdon.ca>wrote:> > If you''re running cpanel/whm on your server, going to CentOS 4 on a > > production box would not be a good idea at this time, unless you > > REALLY know what you''re doing > > > > > > On 7-Mar-05, at 8:23 AM, Collins Richey wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 7 Mar 2005 11:46:20 +0000, > > > paul.g.barnett@britishairways.com <paul.g.barnett@britishairways.com>wrote:> > >> I have just successfuly converted three former wbel3 boxes to > > >> centos > > >> 3.3 - > > >> 3.3 because that is what the instructions in the wbel conversion > > >> FAQ specified. Now I see that the latest version of > > >> 3 > > >> is 3.4. > > >> > > >> Am I missing something? > > > > > > Yes, it''s called CentOS4.0-final. > > > > > > -- > > > Collins > > > _______________________________________________ > > > CentOS mailing list > > > CentOS@caosity.org > > > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > CentOS mailing list > > CentOS@caosity.org > > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@caosity.org > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >-- Beau Henderson http://www.iminteractive.net _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@caosity.org http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
That release announcement says "Initially CentOS 3.3 systems will not be automatically upgraded to CentOS 3.4. However in 72-96 hours from this announcment the centos-release rpm for 3.4 will be added to the 3.3 tree and that will force automatic upgrades when using yum." I take it this is no longer the case and a manual update is required? Ken Godee wrote:> paul.g.barnett@britishairways.com wrote: > >> Is there any point in upgrading from 3.3 to 3.4? My understanding was >> that >> 3.3 + all latest updates == 3.4 with all latest updates, just starting >> from an earlier base system. However there are a lot of questions in the >> forum about how to upgrade to 3.4 - Am I missing something? >> > > 3.3 + all lastest updates "does not" = 3.4 > > Take a look here for changes..... > > http://www.redhat.com/docs/manuals/enterprise/RHEL-3-Manual/release-notes/as-x86/RELEASE-NOTES-U4-x86-en.html > > > It''s easy to move to 3.4 and should be done, if you want to stay current > with the "3.x" releases. > > To upgrade now -- from the release announcement: > > rpm -ivh > http://mirror.centos.org/centos/3.4/os/i386/RedHat/RPMS/centos-yumcache-3.1-0.20050105.3.noarch.rpm > > > rpm -Fvh > http://mirror.centos.org/centos/3.4/os/i386/RedHat/RPMS/centos-release-3-4.2.i386.rpm > > > yum update > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@caosity.org > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 20:59 -0500, John Quaglieri wrote:> That release announcement says "Initially CentOS 3.3 systems will not be > automatically upgraded to CentOS 3.4. However in 72-96 hours from this > announcment the centos-release rpm for 3.4 will be added to the 3.3 tree > and that will force automatic upgrades when using yum." > > I take it this is no longer the case and a manual update is required?The process of upgrading from 3.3 to 3.4 can leave DNS servers running bind broken ... so we are not going to automatically upgrade people. New installs of CentOS-3.4 are not affected, and if you are not running bind, a manual upgrade from 3.3 to 3.4 does not break anything. If you are manually upgrading a DNS server, make sure to remove caching- nameserver first and restore your /etc/named.conf and /var/named/named.ca have been restored. After the upgrade, do /etc/init.d/named restart and do "chkconfig --level 345 named on" Hopefully this situation will be addressed by the upstream provider soon. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.caosity.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050310/1224b15c/attachment.bin
I take it 3.3 will eventually be unsupported and the mirrors will symlink 3.3 -> 3.4 which will force the upgrade to happen? Is 3.3 still recieving security updates? Johnny Hughes wrote:> On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 20:59 -0500, John Quaglieri wrote: > > The process of upgrading from 3.3 to 3.4 can leave DNS servers running > bind broken ... so we are not going to automatically upgrade people. > > New installs of CentOS-3.4 are not affected, and if you are not running > bind, a manual upgrade from 3.3 to 3.4 does not break anything. > > If you are manually upgrading a DNS server, make sure to remove caching- > nameserver first and restore your /etc/named.conf > and /var/named/named.ca have been restored. After the upgrade, > do /etc/init.d/named restart and do "chkconfig --level 345 named on" > > Hopefully this situation will be addressed by the upstream provider > soon. > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS@caosity.org > http://lists.caosity.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 21:59 -0500, John Quaglieri wrote:> I take it 3.3 will eventually be unsupported and the mirrors will > symlink 3.3 -> 3.4 which will force the upgrade to happen? Is 3.3 still > recieving security updates?3.3 is receiving security updates, yes. At some point, 3.3 will point to 3.4 (or maybe 3.5 if there are no problems with that upgrade).> > Johnny Hughes wrote: > > On Thu, 2005-03-10 at 20:59 -0500, John Quaglieri wrote: > > > > The process of upgrading from 3.3 to 3.4 can leave DNS servers running > > bind broken ... so we are not going to automatically upgrade people. > > > > New installs of CentOS-3.4 are not affected, and if you are not running > > bind, a manual upgrade from 3.3 to 3.4 does not break anything. > > > > If you are manually upgrading a DNS server, make sure to remove caching- > > nameserver first and restore your /etc/named.conf > > and /var/named/named.ca have been restored. After the upgrade, > > do /etc/init.d/named restart and do "chkconfig --level 345 named on" > > > > Hopefully this situation will be addressed by the upstream provider > > soon.-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part Url : http://lists.caosity.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20050311/1f7ed6b0/attachment.bin