CentOS - Mar 2015 - [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS Linux 7 (1503 ) on x86_64

On 03/31/2015 12:31 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:
> On 03/31/2015 09:53 AM, Ryan Qian wrote:
>> As a CentOs newbie,  I'm not sure, will we still have CentOS 7.1
which
>> derive from RHEL 7.1?
>> or this is the new naming conversion for CentOS 7.
>>
>> Thanks!
>> -Ryan
> 
> 
> That was going to be my question as well.  According to
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2014-July/020393.html
> the convention (for the 7.0 release at least) says:
> 
> "Numbering
> 
> CentOS 7.0-1406 introduces a new numbering scheme that we want to
> further develop into the life of CentOS-7. The 0 component maps to the
> upstream realease, whose code this release is built from. The 1406
> component indicates the monthstamp of the code included in the release
> ( in this case, June 2014 ). By using a monthstamp we are able to
> respin and reissue updated media for things like container and cloud
> images, that are regularly refreshed, while still retaining a
> connection to the base distro version."
> 
> I would have assumed that this release would be "7.1.1503", and
the URL
> on at least one mirror has:
> 
> http://mirror.fdcservers.net/centos/7.1.1503/
> 
> Guess if that's the new convention, I'll need to keep my ISO files
> sorted out somehow, as this progression isn't intuitive:
> 
> 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.


-------------- 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/20150331/29399607/attachment-0001.sig>

On 03/31/2015 01:28 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> On 03/31/2015 12:31 PM, Greg Bailey wrote:
>> On 03/31/2015 09:53 AM, Ryan Qian wrote:
>>> As a CentOs newbie,  I'm not sure, will we still have CentOS
7.1 which
>>> derive from RHEL 7.1?
>>> or this is the new naming conversion for CentOS 7.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>> -Ryan
>>
>>
>> That was going to be my question as well.  According to
>> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2014-July/020393.html
>> the convention (for the 7.0 release at least) says:
>>
>> "Numbering
>>
>> CentOS 7.0-1406 introduces a new numbering scheme that we want to
>> further develop into the life of CentOS-7. The 0 component maps to the
>> upstream realease, whose code this release is built from. The 1406
>> component indicates the monthstamp of the code included in the release
>> ( in this case, June 2014 ). By using a monthstamp we are able to
>> respin and reissue updated media for things like container and cloud
>> images, that are regularly refreshed, while still retaining a
>> connection to the base distro version."
>>
>> I would have assumed that this release would be "7.1.1503",
and the URL
>> on at least one mirror has:
>>
>> http://mirror.fdcservers.net/centos/7.1.1503/
>>
>> Guess if that's the new convention, I'll need to keep my ISO
files
>> sorted out somehow, as this progression isn't intuitive:
>>
>> 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.
OOPS:  Archived Versions, on this Page:

http://wiki.centos.org/Download




-------------- 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/20150331/a47c1150/attachment-0001.sig>

Le 31/03/2015 20:30, Johnny Hughes a ?crit :
>> I would have assumed that this release would be "7.1.1503",
and the URL
>> >>on at least one mirror has:
>> >>
>> >>http://mirror.fdcservers.net/centos/7.1.1503/
>> >>
>> >>Guess if that's the new convention, I'll need to keep
my ISO files
>> >>sorted out somehow, as this progression isn't intuitive:
>> >>
>> >>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.
It seems that also the redhat-release file has changed.Previously, it was :
[root at centos7 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release
CentOS Linux release 7.0.1406 (Core)

Now it is :
[root at centos-test ~]# cat /etc/redhat-release
Derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1 (Source)

It is also my opinion that the name CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso is 
rather confusing, it is not immediately evident that it is release 7.1.
I would have prefered the name CentOS-7.1-1503-x86_64-DVD.iso, following 
the previous name convention.

Alain

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.

On 03/31/2015 05:56 PM, Always Learning wrote:
> 
> 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.
> 
This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the
CentOS Board. It is what we are using in the future.  I suggest you
become familiar with it.


-------------- 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/20150331/ed432bb1/attachment-0001.sig>