hi, since i don't use centos very heavily i'm not too familiar with the centos/rhel release/update process (and i didn't do much research on this): is it normal behavior that through the use of "yum update" systems are forced to follow the point releases of a major release (5.0 -> 5.1 -> 5.2, etc)? is there a way and would it make sense to stay within one particular release and receive only security updates? or is this question pointless because point releases _are_ only security updates? thx for teaching a debian user matthias
Hi The major release of CentOS/RHEL is from 5.x -> 6.x. The 5.0 -> 5.1 -> 5.2 ... is a update security, and all shared the same repository, and the line of version the packages is to update. In some package case is major update because of security update, eg. firefox 1.5 to 3.0. Mozilla a long time that not mantaing 1.5... []s ________________________________________________ Renato de Oliveira Diogo Bacharel em Ci?ncia da Computa??o UNESP - Bauru LPIC1 - Linux Professional Institute Certification - N?vel 1 renato.diogo at gmail.com renato.diogo at yahoo.com.br On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 08:56, Matthias Leopold <matthias at aic.at> wrote:> hi, > > since i don't use centos very heavily i'm not too familiar with the > centos/rhel release/update process (and i didn't do much research on this): > > is it normal behavior that through the use of "yum update" systems are > forced to follow the point releases of a major release (5.0 -> 5.1 -> > 5.2, etc)? is there a way and would it make sense to stay within one > particular release and receive only security updates? or is this > question pointless because point releases _are_ only security updates? > > thx for teaching a debian user > > matthias > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >
Matthias Leopold wrote on Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:56:47 +0200:> is it normal behavior that through the use of "yum update" systems are > forced to follow the point releases of a major release (5.0 -> 5.1 -> > 5.2, etc)? is there a way and would it make sense to stay within one > particular release and receive only security updates?The whole thing is an evergoing update process from 5.0 release to EOL. Point releases are just freezes in time. There are no "special" updates for point releases, only for the "current" release. Kai -- Kai Sch?tzl, Berlin, Germany Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com
--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Kai Schaetzl <maillists at conactive.com> wrote:> Point releases are just freezes in time. There are no > "special" updates for point releases, only for the > "current" release.This is what we all *believe* we know (e.g. "5"-current is now "5.3"+updates). However, TUV seems to have had a different opinion st some point in the past, or at least this is what Johnny understood. Read carefully this: http://bugs.centos.org/view.php?id=2481 Excerpts: =============================we are trying something new to correspond to an upcoming 5.y.z release scheme from upstream. in the scheme, there will be a 5.1.z and 5.2.z tree ... those trees will be available for an extended period of time (5.1 and 5.2 ... each with different updates). =============================we are not exactly sure how or even when upstream will do this z tree thing =============================we do not have any intention of doing 5.1.1 or 5.1.2, just 5.1 ... and maintaining it while it is maintained upstream. =============================Also, we do not plan to - as Johnny has already pointed out - do any 5.1.1 or 5.1.2 or 5.1.3 releases, since again that would be counter productive and leave users with a false sense of security thinking they have the latest patch levels for each machine - when they might not. ============================= So there *should* have existed: * 5.1-only updates issued post-5.2; * 5.1-only and 5.2-only updates issued post-5.3; etc. AFAIK, this never happened. Is the 5.x.z tree concept dead-before-birth?! Thanks, R-C __________________________________________________________________ Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr! http://www.flickr.com/gift/
--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote:> > > > So there *should* have existed: > > * 5.1-only updates issued post-5.2; > > * 5.1-only and 5.2-only updates issued post-5.3; > > etc. > > go back and reread the entire list of comments. > You seem quite confused > about what should and should not exist.And you seem (as usual) only too kind to enlighten the ignorant. Thank you, R-C __________________________________________________________________ Make your browsing faster, safer, and easier with the new Internet Explorer? 8. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Ralph Angenendt <ra+centos at br-online.de> wrote:> > For CentOS: Yes.But Karanbir says I seem "quite confused about what should and should not exist." How can you answer correctly to an incorrect question raised by an confused ignorant?> For Upstream: Ask Red Hat.I was hoping *you* (some of you are sysadmins at companies that also use RHEL, not just CentOS) are better suited to already know whether TUV has or has not implemented that schema. Sigh. Mailing lists. Back in 1996, Marc Ewing answered me personally to a hardware issue I had with RH 3.0.3, but in 2009 people prefer to twaddle and give non-answers. Sigh. Thank you, R-C __________________________________________________________________ The new Internet Explorer? 8 - Faster, safer, easier. Optimized for Yahoo! Get it Now for Free! at http://downloads.yahoo.com/ca/internetexplorer/
--- On Tue, 6/2/09, Dag Wieers <dag at centos.org> wrote:> Communication problems are usually caused by both sides.Agreed.> Besides the EUS source RPM packages are not released > to the public, so you need those expensive entitlements > to be able to rebuild them.Eek. Never knew that. This looks more like SLES/SLED than like RHEL :-/> So it seems a fair decision.I wasn't questioning CentOS's decision!> So nothing is contradicting, you just have old > information and new information.Thank you very much! Now that things are clarified... why is audacious broken in RPMforge? "Missing Dependency: audacious-plugins >= 1.3.0 is needed by package audacious-1.3.2-5.el5.rf.i386 (rpmforge)" Regards, R-C __________________________________________________________________ Ask a question on any topic and get answers from real people. Go to Yahoo! Answers and share what you know at http://ca.answers.yahoo.com