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

On 04/01/2015 11:45 AM, ????????? ???????? wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> Obviously naming conventions should provide for an easy upstream vendor
> version reference?
does /etc/centos-release-upstream provide you with that ?


-- 
Karanbir Singh
+44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh
GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

Karanbir Singh ????? 2015-04-01 14:25:
> On 04/01/2015 11:45 AM, ????????? ???????? wrote:
>>> 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.
>> 
>> Obviously naming conventions should provide for an easy upstream 
>> vendor
>> version reference?
> 
> does /etc/centos-release-upstream provide you with that ?
There's nothing of the sort in 7.0.1406.
Ideally I'd like to see 7.1 in each and every rpm or iso name related to 
the point release.
I'm not going to flame over something done and buried but sometimes the 
decisions made by rational people are just stunningly surprising.

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:23 AM, ????????? ???????? <nevis2us at
infoline.su>
wrote:
> Karanbir Singh ????? 2015-04-01 14:25:
>
>> On 04/01/2015 11:45 AM, ????????? ???????? wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously naming conventions should provide for an easy upstream
vendor
>>> version reference?
>>>
>>
>> does /etc/centos-release-upstream provide you with that ?
>>
>
> There's nothing of the sort in 7.0.1406.
> Ideally I'd like to see 7.1 in each and every rpm or iso name related
to
> the point release.
> I'm not going to flame over something done and buried but sometimes the
> decisions made by rational people are just stunningly surprising.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS at centos.org
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>

It's not surprising, it's stunningly annoying.

Those of us who manage large installations of CentOS aren't involved in the
development list or the board (we don't have time).

I urge the CentOS board to reconsider such a large departure from upstream.
And I urge them to reach out far beyond the devel-list for opinions as that
is a distinct, and quite separate, base of thought.

And, it's not just a matter of "calling it 7.1, or whatever you
like." We
have many scripts and operations based on determining the "version
number"
and if it is inconsistent with RHEL, and logic for that matter, it is more
work for those who don't need it.

Yes, I'm whining. I get that. But I think I'm not alone.



-- 
Matt Phelps
System Administrator, Computation Facility
Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu, http://www.cfa.harvard.edu

On Wed, 1 Apr 2015, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 04/01/2015 11:45 AM, ????????? ???????? wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Obviously naming conventions should provide for an easy upstream vendor
>> version reference?
>
> does /etc/centos-release-upstream provide you with that ?
/etc/centos-release-upstream is not useful when looking at an iso name.

With 7.0 the iso name was CentOS-7.0-1406-x86_64-DVD.iso. With 7.1 the
iso name is CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503-01.iso. Since you dropped the minor
version in the iso name and assuming that you are not going to put it
back in the future, going forward I will need a chart to figure out what
upstream version an iso corresponds to.

How is that better?

Regards,

-- 
Tom			me at tdiehl.org		Spamtrap address	 		me123 at tdiehl.org

On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 6:25 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org>
wrote:
> On 04/01/2015 11:45 AM, ????????? ???????? wrote:
>>> 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.
>>
>> Obviously naming conventions should provide for an easy upstream vendor
>> version reference?
>
> does /etc/centos-release-upstream provide you with that ?
Are you supposed to download an iso image, install it, then read that
file before you know which  upstream base minor number you got?    In
the whole long thread where this naming was supposedly 'discussed', I
can't find a single user agreeing that dropping the minor number
reference out of the name  was a sane thing to do.

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com