Am 03.12.2015 um 11:08 schrieb Greg Lindahl <lindahl at pbm.com>:> I wanted to help you by making sure that you were on the most recent > version, but, looking at the Centos.org website I was unable to figure > out if 7.2 was the tip. 7.1503? Is that 7.2? Beats me.CentOS 7.1511 (aka '7.2') not yet released ...> https://wiki.centos.org/Download appears to say that 1503 is the > current version. > I *thought* this wacky CentOS version number would be more like > 7.1.1503? Did I miss something? Is there no easy mapping from RHEL to > CentOS? Didn't I bring this up when the wacky version numbers were > suggested? Why am I sending this email?-- LF
On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:28:10AM +0100, Leon Fauster wrote:> Am 03.12.2015 um 11:08 schrieb Greg Lindahl <lindahl at pbm.com>: > > I wanted to help you by making sure that you were on the most recent > > version, but, looking at the Centos.org website I was unable to figure > > out if 7.2 was the tip. 7.1503? Is that 7.2? Beats me. > > CentOS 7.1511 (aka '7.2') not yet released ...And the way I'd figure this out from the centos website is? I mean, I'm used to the concept that CentOS used to say the current version is 6.3 when RHEL 6.4 was released but hadn't made it through the CentOS pipeline. But how am I supposed to figure out that CentOS 7.1503 < 7.2 ? I suppose I should blame myself for not being a bigger ass that CentOS didn't adopt my proposal of saying Centos 7.1.1503 vs 7.2.1511. But really, does ANYONE think the current scheme is clear? Anyone? Bueller? Am I the only ass about this problem?
On 03/12/15 10:39, Greg Lindahl wrote:> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:28:10AM +0100, Leon Fauster wrote: >> Am 03.12.2015 um 11:08 schrieb Greg Lindahl <lindahl at pbm.com>: >>> I wanted to help you by making sure that you were on the most recent >>> version, but, looking at the Centos.org website I was unable to figure >>> out if 7.2 was the tip. 7.1503? Is that 7.2? Beats me. >> >> CentOS 7.1511 (aka '7.2') not yet released ... > > And the way I'd figure this out from the centos website is? > > I mean, I'm used to the concept that CentOS used to say the > current version is 6.3 when RHEL 6.4 was released but hadn't > made it through the CentOS pipeline. > > But how am I supposed to figure out that CentOS 7.1503 < 7.2 ?If you look down the same wiki Download page, in the 'Base Distribution section' there is a CentOS release ver to RHEL release ver mapping, to indicate which version of the RHEL sources a specific CentOS build is derived from. 7(1503) : RHEL 7.1 7(1406) : RHEL 7.0 -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc
Am 03.12.2015 um 11:39 schrieb Greg Lindahl <lindahl at pbm.com>:> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:28:10AM +0100, Leon Fauster wrote: >> Am 03.12.2015 um 11:08 schrieb Greg Lindahl <lindahl at pbm.com>: >>> I wanted to help you by making sure that you were on the most recent >>> version, but, looking at the Centos.org website I was unable to figure >>> out if 7.2 was the tip. 7.1503? Is that 7.2? Beats me. >> >> CentOS 7.1511 (aka '7.2') not yet released ... > > And the way I'd figure this out from the centos website is?when it is released. Currently its in the pipeline, see also: https://wiki.centos.org/AdditionalResources/Repositories/CR and for the numbering concept (Section: Numbering): https://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-announce/2014-July/020393.html> I mean, I'm used to the concept that CentOS used to say the > current version is 6.3 when RHEL 6.4 was released but hadn't > made it through the CentOS pipeline. > > But how am I supposed to figure out that CentOS 7.1503 < 7.2 ? > > I suppose I should blame myself for not being a bigger ass that CentOS > didn't adopt my proposal of saying Centos 7.1.1503 vs 7.2.1511. But > really, does ANYONE think the current scheme is clear?to communicate proposals -> participate :-). Check https://wiki.centos.org/Contribute and especially the CentOS Developer's list, where it was discussed. -- LF
On Thu, Dec 3, 2015 at 5:39 AM, Greg Lindahl <lindahl at pbm.com> wrote:> On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 11:28:10AM +0100, Leon Fauster wrote: > > Am 03.12.2015 um 11:08 schrieb Greg Lindahl <lindahl at pbm.com>: > > > I wanted to help you by making sure that you were on the most recent > > > version, but, looking at the Centos.org website I was unable to figure > > > out if 7.2 was the tip. 7.1503? Is that 7.2? Beats me. > > > > CentOS 7.1511 (aka '7.2') not yet released ... > > And the way I'd figure this out from the centos website is? > > I mean, I'm used to the concept that CentOS used to say the > current version is 6.3 when RHEL 6.4 was released but hadn't > made it through the CentOS pipeline. > > But how am I supposed to figure out that CentOS 7.1503 < 7.2 ? > > I suppose I should blame myself for not being a bigger ass that CentOS > didn't adopt my proposal of saying Centos 7.1.1503 vs 7.2.1511. But > really, does ANYONE think the current scheme is clear? > > Anyone? > > Bueller? > > Am I the only ass about this problem? > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >You are not the only ass about the problem. I have complained bitterly about this, apparently to deaf ears. I dislike this version numbering scheme hugely. The implications to CentOS not being the same "version" as RHEL is *much* more than just a different number to those who don't know differently. And those are the people who make this difference a huge amount of extra work for us. There's NO reason for this that makes any sense. None. -- Matt Phelps System Administrator, Computation Facility Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics mphelps at cfa.harvard.edu, http://www.cfa.harvard.edu
On Thu, December 3, 2015 4:28 am, Leon Fauster wrote:> Am 03.12.2015 um 11:08 schrieb Greg Lindahl <lindahl at pbm.com>: >> I wanted to help you by making sure that you were on the most recent >> version, but, looking at the Centos.org website I was unable to figure >> out if 7.2 was the tip. 7.1503? Is that 7.2? Beats me. > > > CentOS 7.1511 (aka '7.2') not yet released ... >aka 7.2, huh? auka 7.2 would be more appropriate IMHO (by auka meaning Also UnKnown As). Seriously, the scheme is awfully obscure. Our proficiemcy becomes aking the one of MS Windows admins: you just need to learn new names or locations of yet the same tools. Sorry, I forgot to pus sarcasm tags... Valeri> >> https://wiki.centos.org/Download appears to say that 1503 is the >> current version. >> I *thought* this wacky CentOS version number would be more like >> 7.1.1503? Did I miss something? Is there no easy mapping from RHEL to >> CentOS? Didn't I bring this up when the wacky version numbers were >> suggested? Why am I sending this email? > > > -- > LF > > > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Valeri Galtsev wrote:> > On Thu, December 3, 2015 4:28 am, Leon Fauster wrote: >> Am 03.12.2015 um 11:08 schrieb Greg Lindahl <lindahl at pbm.com>: >>> I wanted to help you by making sure that you were on the most recent >>> version, but, looking at the Centos.org website I was unable to figure >>> out if 7.2 was the tip. 7.1503? Is that 7.2? Beats me. >> >> CentOS 7.1511 (aka '7.2') not yet released ... > > aka 7.2, huh? auka 7.2 would be more appropriate IMHO (by auka meaning > Also UnKnown As). Seriously, the scheme is awfully obscure. Our > proficiemcy becomes aking the one of MS Windows admins: you just need to > learn new names or locations of yet the same tools. > > Sorry, I forgot to pus sarcasm tags... >Agreed. I don't want "hints", and I'm not doing fedora or ubuntu, because I don't want the LATESTGREATESTBLEEDINGEDGETIP, I want *stability*, and, since we're supposed to be *enterprise* grade, I want stuff that's simple enough for a poor ol' sysadmin, who might have to explain to a manager what we're on.... mark