search for: subreleases

>* Suppose I install CentOS 6.2 now, Suppose in 8 months CentOS 6.5 is *>* released. *> >* Now I issue a yum update, so my system will be updated to CentOS 6.5, or I *>* will have an updated 6.2 ? * *You are requested to explain the update policy of centos in detail . * -- *Sahil* Mobile * - 09467607999* fbAddress*-www.facebook.com/SahilAggarwalg

...S-docs] Centos Release Update from 6.2 to 6.5 > To: "'Mail list for wiki articles'" <centos-docs at centos.org> > Message-ID: <01a101cfacc9$d46fe2a0$7d4fa7e0$@gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Since 6.2 and 6.5 are only subreleases of Centos 6, you will have an > updated Centos 6 on the subrelease level 6.5. Don?t think of those as > actual releases; those are more ?respins? oft he installation media then > anything else. Once a point release is made, there will be no more updates > if you want to stay on an older...

Tanya M. Lattner wrote: >>I recommend that you stick with the release_19 branch of both llvm and >>llvm-poolalloc. I and others are actively using these branches, so >>llvm-poolalloc bug fixes will most likely be made to this branch in >>addition to mainline CVS for the forseeable future. The release_19 >>branch of llvm-poolalloc is designed to always work with the

I've had a request to downgrade R on one server, to match three others (someone who's just left had important scripts, and I assume they break going a full subrelease...). The server they want downgraded is running 4.1.0-5; the others are running 3.0.1-1. ALL are CentOS 6.5, yet yum downgrade tells me "only upgrade available", and yum list R-core-3.0.2\* gives me "no

> I recommend that you stick with the release_19 branch of both llvm and > llvm-poolalloc. I and others are actively using these branches, so > llvm-poolalloc bug fixes will most likely be made to this branch in > addition to mainline CVS for the forseeable future. The release_19 > branch of llvm-poolalloc is designed to always work with the release_19 > branch of LLVM, which

...in fact, more than two. This isn?t just about RHEL vs Debian and > derivatives of same. Several major non-Linux OSes also manage to do > automatic upgrades between major releases: Windows, OS X, FreeBSD... I was under the impression that all the releases of OS X were more like what we call subreleases (6.6->6.7). But I don't know, and don't really care - I don't do WinDoze, I don't do (or like) Macs. <snip> > Your point about the 10 year support cycle for RHEL is also invalid. The > time spacing between major releases is only about every 3 years, and that > is...

Joseph L. Casale wrote: > With a few exceptions, I see most admins treat CentOS as a single > rolling release and rely on the ABI commitment assuming things > just work between point releases. On the other hand I see the > opposite with RHEL where admins constrain installations to the > point release. > > What is the case with users on this list who support both? > Only

...; This isn?t just about RHEL vs Debian and >> derivatives of same. Several major non-Linux OSes also manage to do >> automatic upgrades between major releases: Windows, OS X, FreeBSD... > > I was under the impression that all the releases of OS X were more like > what we call subreleases (6.6->6.7). You can?t transfer meaning between different version number systems. There is no global standard for the meaning of version numbers. The only thing that matters is that there is internal consistency. (Which is why Windows version numbering is a joke.) OS X treats changes to the...

With a few exceptions, I see most admins treat CentOS as a single rolling release and rely on the ABI commitment assuming things just work between point releases. On the other hand I see the opposite with RHEL where admins constrain installations to the point release. What is the case with users on this list who support both? Thanks, Joseph L. Casale

On 04/02/15 00:51, Lamar Owen wrote: > On 04/01/2015 08:12 PM, Always Learning wrote: >> 1. What is the logically reason for this alleged "improvement" ? > > I never said it was an improvement. I just said that I didn't think it was > that big of a deal, and it boggles my mind that people are calling a change of > an ISO's file name 'unwise' and even

I'm pretty new to the task of upgrading CentOS or RedHat o.s.'s. I'm more familiar with upgrading Debian based o.s.'s. Here are my questions: 1) will yum ever upgrade the major version? I understand that there is no upgrade path from v5.x to v6.x, but is that always the case? e.g. was there an upgrade path from v4.x -> v5.x? If yum is capable of doing so, what are the

Hi all, Somebody knows if exists some rpm package for ruby rails?? Thanks.

This may be a noob question but there is something I have been trying to understand, there are currently three main versions of CentOS 4, 5, and 6. My main question is simply how do I know what version I should deploy? I have searched online and either I did not do a good job of searching or the information I get is inadequate. To better understand why I ask this question, here are some of the

On 04/01/2015 08:12 PM, Always Learning wrote: > 1. What is the logically reason for this alleged "improvement" ? I never said it was an improvement. I just said that I didn't think it was that big of a deal, and it boggles my mind that people are calling a change of an ISO's file name 'unwise' and even comparing it to a Microsoft move. I just don't see it as

Ralf Carl a ?crit : > Hello Erwan, > > i just want to inform you, that there is still no memory entry in the > main menu (hdt_034 & hdt_035). > Typing in DMI mode "show module 0" etc. the memory modules are listet. You mean the menu mode isn't working whereas the cli mode works ? Do you confirm this , IF yes, It seems the Type 6 (the only one you have as you

I am migrating from debian to RHEL (CentOS) and I am wondering how the CentOS 6 updating system works. Suppose I install CentOS 6.1 now. Suppose in 8 months CentOS 6.2 is released. Now I issue a yum update, so my system will be updated to CentOS 6.2, or I will have an updated 6.1 ? What if I have been issuing yum update very day just to be sure there are no packages with urgent security bugs

I fixed my earlier problem with a 'yum clean all', now I am getting this problem: 'Package does not match intended download' for both device-mapper and net-snmp-libs, for ALL of the mirrors. Log of the output is attached. -- Robert Heller -- Get the Deepwoods Software FireFox Toolbar! Deepwoods Software -- Linux Installation and Administration

On Tue, May 10, 2016 3:57 pm, Liam O'Toole wrote: > On 2016-05-10, Valeri Galtsev > <galtsev at kicp.uchicago.edu> wrote: >> >> 1. Debian (and clones): you keep the components of the system pretty >> much on the level of latest release of each of components. Therefore >> "upgrade" to new release of the system is pretty close to just a >>

I''ve been reading about multipath routes and found something that no howto I saw mentioned so far: multipath algorithms. The kernel has the followings: # zgrep MULTIPATH_ /proc/config.gz CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_CACHED=y CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_RR=m CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_RANDOM=m CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_WRANDOM=m CONFIG_IP_ROUTE_MULTIPATH_DRR=m CONFIG_DM_MULTIPATH_EMC iproute2

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 We would like to announce the general availability of CentOS Linux 7 (1503) for 64 bit x86 compatible machines. This is the second major release for CentOS-7 and is tagged as 1503. This build is derived from Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7.1 As always, read through the Release Notes at : http://wiki.centos.org/Manuals/ReleaseNotes/CentOS7 - these notes