similar to: [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS Linux 7 (1503 ) on x86_64

On 04/03/2015 09:16 AM, James B. Byrne wrote: > Hmmmmm. I wonder how the proposed 7.1.1503 became 7.1503 in practice. > Bait and switch? The versioning of the ISO's is 7.1503 (in one way of reading the actual name; you could read it as 7 spin 1503 or whatnot), but my /etc/centos-release says: [lowen at dhcp-pool114 ~]$ cat /etc/centos-release CentOS Linux release 7.1.1503 (Core)

On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote: > > Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release > names would > have been nice. We did. http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2015-February/012873.html -- Jim Perrin The CentOS Project | http://www.centos.org twitter: @BitIntegrity | GPG Key: FA09AD77

On 04/02/2015 02:29 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote: > On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jim Perrin <jperrin at centos.org> wrote: > >> >> >> On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote: >> >> >>> Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release >>> names would >>> have been nice. >>> >> >> We

> On 2 Apr 2015, at 06:41, Always Learning <centos at u64.u22.net> wrote: > > >> On Thu, 2015-04-02 at 00:51 -0400, Lamar Owen wrote: >> >> In my opinion, assigning sub-version numbers to what was originally >> intended to be, by Red Hat, quarterly updates (almost Service Packs, >> if you will, much like SGI's numbering of their Foundation and

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

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jim Perrin <jperrin at centos.org> wrote: > > > On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote: > > >> Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release >> names would >> have been nice. >> > > We did. > > http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2015-February/012873.html > >

On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Jim Perrin <jperrin at centos.org> wrote: > > > On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote: > >> >> Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release >> names would >> have been nice. > > > We did. > > http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2015-February/012873.html I

On 02/04/15 20:47, Jim Perrin wrote: > > > On 04/02/2015 02:29 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote: >> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 3:25 PM, Jim Perrin <jperrin at centos.org> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 04/02/2015 01:28 PM, Phelps, Matthew wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Soliciting our feedback *before* changing everything regarding release

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

On 03/31/2015 04:24 PM, Alain P?an wrote: > 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

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 >> >>

Hi, I'm able to establish a successful odbc connection using RODBC 1.3-2 on Win 7 and R 2.12.0. But I'm getting the following error message when I try to save a data frame into the debase as shown below. library(RODBC) bbdb <- odbcConnect("bbdb") odbcGetInfo(bbdb) # returns ok sqlSave(bbdb, USArrests, rownames = "state", addPK=TRUE) # example from the RODBC manual

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

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 >

In the process of updating my copy of the CentOS 7 (1503) -01 install media, I notice that it's ~70MB larger than the image that it's replacing: $ rsync mirrors.kernel.org::centos/7.1.1503/isos/x86_64/*DVD*.iso -rw-r--r-- 4310695936 2015/03/31 17:05:50 CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503-01.iso -rw-r--r-- 4236247040 2015/03/28 12:15:26 CentOS-7-x86_64-DVD-1503.iso But when I compare sizes using

Hi there, after banging my head against a wall for a bit I got more indepth with dovecot and am now much more knowledgeable about the system than before. But I still have two problems: 1.) For some reason my dovecot doesnt log correctly. I put debug_log to -1 and expected to see logs flooding in in my syslog. When I try to log in via telnet over imap and the login succeeds it loggs correctly.

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

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 >>>

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

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