search for: yymm

...the website, here on the mailing list, etc. And then we?re right back in the same old boat: With every new release, the same old thread will pop up, ?How do I make my servers stay on CentOS 7.1?? Give up on the point release idea. It?s CentOS 7; there is no CentOS 7.1. The only reason there?s a YYMM part is that it?s a media respin. Best ignore that wherever practical.

...then we?re right back in the same old boat: With every new > > release, the same old thread will pop up, ?How do I make my servers > > stay on CentOS 7.1?? > > > > Give up on the point release idea. It?s CentOS 7; there is no > > CentOS 7.1. The only reason there?s a YYMM part is that it?s a > > media respin. Best ignore that wherever practical. > > So if we are to give up on the point release does that mean I don't > have to update my machines until CentOS 8 comes along? ;-) > > Seriously though, since I have to build my own repos (air gap...

On Thu, April 2, 2015 9:52 am, Always Learning wrote: > > On Wed, 2015-04-01 at 22:54 -0700, John R Pierce wrote: > >> you guys sure get your panties in a bunch over something as silly as the >> iso file name. > > You may wear them, many of us don't :-) > >> if you don't like the name, rename it... sheesh. > > Its about a consistent and logical

...the same old boat: With every new > > > release, the same old thread will pop up, ?How do I make my servers > > > stay on CentOS 7.1?? > > > > > > Give up on the point release idea. It?s CentOS 7; there is no > > > CentOS 7.1. The only reason there?s a YYMM part is that it?s a > > > media respin. Best ignore that wherever practical. > > > > So if we are to give up on the point release does that mean I don't > > have to update my machines until CentOS 8 comes along? ;-) > > > > Seriously though, since I have...

Hi All After upgrading to 7.2, I'm getting an immediate kernel panic on boot Dropping back to 3.10.0-229.20.1.el7.x86_64 and the system boots fine How can I go about diagnosing the problem here? thanks Duncan

...39;t follow this way of counting > anymore, it is akin counting like: > > B: > > 231 2735 2746 3458 5216 ... I believe your argument works fine since: CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1507.iso CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1512.iso CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1606.iso note, this is YYmm to indicate age, and not serial numbers. -- Karanbir Singh +44-207-0999389 | http://www.karan.org/ | twitter.com/kbsingh GnuPG Key : http://www.karan.org/publickey.asc

On 12/03/2015 11:01 AM, m.roth at 5-cent.us wrote: > Sorry, you seem to not have dealt with enough managers who only really > know Windows, or other divisions (esp. ones that are 95% Windows) who > require documentation, etc.... I can live with the x.y.yymm, but not > showing the relation to upstream is annoying. So tell the Win-centric managers that this is 'CentOS 7 Service Pack 2' or 'CentOS 7 Update Rollup for 11/2015' and they will understand what you mean (and it is an accurate comparison, and was what upstream did once u...

...?t update the certification, so how do I keep my servers on CentOS 6.4?? Just as there is no CentOS 7.2, only 7, there was no CentOS 6.4, only 6. The new scheme tries to make that clear. It would actually *be* clear if the tail (CentOS) could wag the dog (Red Hat) here and get them to adopt the YYMM respin scheme.

...st, etc. > > And then we?re right back in the same old boat: With every new > release, the same old thread will pop up, ?How do I make my servers > stay on CentOS 7.1?? > > Give up on the point release idea. It?s CentOS 7; there is no > CentOS 7.1. The only reason there?s a YYMM part is that it?s a > media respin. Best ignore that wherever practical. So if we are to give up on the point release does that mean I don't have to update my machines until CentOS 8 comes along? ;-) Seriously though, since I have to build my own repos (air gap) and build the images for t...

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

On 12/07/2015 05:46 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote: > On Mon, Dec 7, 2015 at 11:27 AM, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> > wrote: > >> On 07/12/15 16:17, Phelps, Matthew wrote: >>> >>> IRC is not a good choice for communicating with IT admins in a large >>> enterprise environment. It is usually blocked. >>> >> >> Does google

...> well - for CentOS there is only one state where you should be - on the > "latest". Sorry, you seem to not have dealt with enough managers who only really know Windows, or other divisions (esp. ones that are 95% Windows) who require documentation, etc.... I can live with the x.y.yymm, but not showing the relation to upstream is annoying. mark

On 12/07/2015 06:31 AM, Karanbir Singh wrote: > On 07/12/15 04:11, Greg Lindahl wrote: >> Oh, wait: CentOS, love it or leave it. > I hope its not that drastic! As a member of the user community, it's hard to see it any other way. I want to be fair to everyone, so I'll acknowledge that Greg was making an ass of himself. He said so, himself. I also think that the question

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.