On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 8:50 PM, Christopher Chan
christopher.c...@bradbury.edu.hk wrote:
On Saturday, May 14, 2011 01:30 AM, Craig White wrote:
CentOS has always been a take it or leave it proposition and thus nothing
has really changed
except that many businesses have become reliant upon
Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ?
And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would
take no more than 1 month ?
Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake.
Why? seems like a
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury mark.bradb...@gmail.com wrote:
Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ?
And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would
take no more than 1
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:05:57AM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
But at that time there should only be one point release on the table,
instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone
forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time?
Amnesia of opportunity,
On Thursday, May 12, 2011 01:51 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
On 5/11/2011 8:53 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
In my case, I have essentially three choices:
1.) Use SL 6;
2.) Wait on C6;
3.) Buy RHEL6.
All of the three have costs, visible and hidden. 3 obviously has monetary
costs, but both 1 and 2
On Thursday, May 12, 2011 04:54 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
One upgrade I did from C4 to C5 (with upgradeany) was smoother than the last
LTS upgrade I tried. I liken the C5 - C6 upgrade path as trying to take a
Ubuntu LTS 6.06 to a 10.04; which path I tried, and failed, to get working.
In one
On 05/12/2011 01:08 AM, Mark Bradbury wrote:
Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ?
And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1
would
take no more than 1 month
On 05/10/2011 08:19 PM, Craig White wrote:
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 03:12 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Alain Péan wrote:
The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL
6.1 will be already released. So there will be no
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 05/12/2011 01:08 AM, Mark Bradbury wrote:
Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ?
And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1
would
take no
On 05/12/2011 09:49 AM, Rob Kampen wrote:
Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 05/12/2011 01:08 AM, Mark Bradbury wrote:
Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ?
And given that C5.6 took 3 months,
big snip
It does not seem to matter what we try to do, what we get is petty
comments about how nothing changes. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
Please note there is a largely silent majority that appreciates very
much what the team does, is doing to improve and listening to
On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury mark.bradb...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ?
And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there
On Thursday, May 12, 2011 06:23:52 AM Christopher Chan wrote:
6.04-10.04? Nah, you are supposed to jump to 8.04 and then to 10.04.
I did 6.06 - 8.04 - 10.04, and it broke. Badly.
Upgrades are difficult problems to solve, and at the moment I don't know of
any distribution (that claims
On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 09:12:59 PM Dag Wieers wrote:
And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would
take no more than 1 month ?
I can easily think of a few. 4.9 and 6.0 are two of those few.
Again, I'll note that SL is just now releasing the second beta of 5.6 this
Craig White wrote:
On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury mark.bradb...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ?
And given that C5.6 took 3
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 8:55 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic off...@plnet.rs wrote:
• 2011-01-13: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5.6
• 2010-11-10: Distribution Release: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
2 months elapsed from release of 6.0 before 5.6 and more than another month
before
Steve Clark wrote on 05/12/2011 10:15 AM:
Please note there is a largely silent majority that appreciates very
much what the team does, is doing to improve and listening to suggestions
Keep up the great work - Thanks
+1
++1
Please trim your posts. 60+ included lines and 2k characters for
On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote:
On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury mark.bradb...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ?
On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote:
On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury mark.bradb...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
complex than the C5.5 - C5.6 differences ?
On 5/12/2011 8:37 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
It does not seem to matter what we try to do, what we get is petty
comments about how nothing changes.
I think that will change to the extent that the project changes are
visible. Thank you for posting all the links.
--
Les Mikesell
On 05/12/2011 05:49 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
On 05/12/2011 10:09 AM, Craig White wrote:
On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradburymark.bradb...@gmail.com
wrote:
This is NOT the case with 6.0. First off, we can not use any of the
On Thu, 2011-05-12 at 09:49 -0400, Rob Kampen wrote:
It does not seem to matter what we try to do, what we get is petty
comments about how nothing changes. Nothing could be further from the
truth.
Johnny, don't let this type of comment upset you as:
Please note there is a largely
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Akemi Yagi wrote:
But, yes, there are a few missing srpms even as of now ...
bug number please
-- Russ herrold
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Craig White craig.wh...@ttiltd.com wrote:
On May 12, 2011, at 2:05 AM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury mark.bradb...@gmail.com
wrote:
Do you expect the C6.0 - C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
complex than
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:41 PM, R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Akemi Yagi wrote:
But, yes, there are a few missing srpms even as of now ...
bug number please
Jeff_S knows. He filed a bunch at upstream bugzilla requesting the
release of missing srpms.
Akemi
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Akemi Yagi wrote:
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 4:41 PM, R P Herrold herr...@owlriver.com wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2011, Akemi Yagi wrote:
But, yes, there are a few missing srpms even as of now ...
bug number please
Jeff_S knows. He filed a bunch at upstream bugzilla
On May 12, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
CentOS chose another. Personally I happen to
agree with CentOS' choice here.
+1
- aurf
___
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
On Thursday, May 12, 2011 11:34 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Thursday, May 12, 2011 06:23:52 AM Christopher Chan wrote:
6.04-10.04? Nah, you are supposed to jump to 8.04 and then to 10.04.
I did 6.06 - 8.04 - 10.04, and it broke. Badly.
Ahem. With apt-get dist-upgrade or do-release-upgrade?
On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 5:31 PM, aurfal...@gmail.com wrote:
On May 12, 2011, at 4:47 PM, Ron Blizzard wrote:
CentOS chose another. Personally I happen to
agree with CentOS' choice here.
+1
I think *both* distros made the right choice. :)
CentOS and SL handle security updates differently.
On 5/12/11, Phil Schaffner philip.r.schaff...@nasa.gov wrote:
Apparently they did admit and it does change:
https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=31347forum=53
Late breaking news:
http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/67
http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/69
This is
On Tuesday, May 10, 2011 09:17:39 PM Craig White wrote:
Upstream released exactly 6 months ago and still
nothing and apparently today's target date has slipped, and 2) until
CentOS admits that there is a problem, nothing will actually change.
Please read the CentOS-devel list and IRC channel.
On 5/11/2011 8:53 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
In my case, I have essentially three choices:
1.) Use SL 6;
2.) Wait on C6;
3.) Buy RHEL6.
All of the three have costs, visible and hidden. 3 obviously has monetary
costs, but both 1 and 2 have time and risk costs, since neither SL nor CentOS
On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 01:51:08 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
I've always been a fan of the
coordination they have among the additional repositories that is lacking
in yum/rpm equivalents and was impressed when my 9.0.4 installs
painlessly upgraded themselves to 10.0.4.
You must not have
On 5/11/2011 3:18 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 01:51:08 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
I've always been a fan of the
coordination they have among the additional repositories that is lacking
in yum/rpm equivalents and was impressed when my 9.0.4 installs
painlessly upgraded
[drifting farther off-topic]
On Wednesday, May 11, 2011 04:34:49 PM Les Mikesell wrote:
On 5/11/2011 3:18 PM, Lamar Owen wrote:
And you must not use PostgreSQL, which won't painlessly upgrade on
anything.
Automatically doing the dump/load (and magically finding the space for
nothing and apparently today's target date has slipped, and 2) until
CentOS admits that there is a problem, nothing will actually change.
Apparently they did admit and it does change:
https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=31347forum=53
Mathieu Baudier wrote on 05/11/2011 04:59 PM:
nothing and apparently today's target date has slipped, and 2) until
CentOS admits that there is a problem, nothing will actually change.
Apparently they did admit and it does change:
On 05/10/2011 08:12 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Alain Péan wrote:
The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL
6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for
C6.0, and it will be better to stay
Le 09/05/2011 18:36, Benjamin Smith a écrit :
On Saturday, May 07, 2011 11:52:21 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
in-place upgrade of C5 to C6 will be most likely impossible. To many
changes of how thing work.
Thankfully, the only in-place upgrades I'll really consider is to
cross-grade SL6
Alain Péan wrote:
The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL
6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for
C6.0, and it will be better to stay under SL6, until the release of
C6.1. I already installed three machines under SL6, and it
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Alain Péan wrote:
The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL
6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for
C6.0, and it will be better to stay under SL6, until the release of
C6.1. I already
On Tue, 2011-05-10 at 12:13 +0200, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Alain Péan wrote:
The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL
6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for
C6.0, and it will be better to stay under SL6, until the release
On Wed, 2011-05-11 at 03:12 +0200, Dag Wieers wrote:
On Tue, 10 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
Alain Péan wrote:
The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL
6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for
C6.0, and it will be
On Saturday, May 07, 2011 11:52:21 AM Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
in-place upgrade of C5 to C6 will be most likely impossible. To many
changes of how thing work.
Thankfully, the only in-place upgrades I'll really consider is to cross-grade
SL6 to C6. I've started testing with SL6 and will
On Sat, 7 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
in-place upgrade of C5 to C6 will be most likely impossible. To many
changes of how thing work.
In local testing built from the anaconda and related sources
that will become CentOS 6, the offer to upgrade an existing
install is made during a
On 05/07/2011 09:00 AM, Benjamin Smith wrote:
I was wondering what feedback might be offered by the CentOS community on
their
experiences using Scientific Linux?
I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I understand
there are delays getting EL 6 out. We have been
Chuck Munro wrote:
On 05/07/2011 09:00 AM, Benjamin Smith wrote:
I was wondering what feedback might be offered by the CentOS community on
their
experiences using Scientific Linux?
I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I understand
there are delays getting EL 6
I was wondering what feedback might be offered by the CentOS community on their
experiences using Scientific Linux?
I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I understand
there are delays getting EL 6 out. We have been long anxious to roll out EL 6
as soon as it's
centos-boun...@centos.org wrote:
I was wondering what feedback might be offered by the CentOS
community on their experiences using Scientific Linux?
Fresh install of 6.0 without a hitch a while ago.
Insert spiffy .sig here:
Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.
//me
On 05/06/2011 01:31 PM, Benjamin Smith wrote:
I was wondering what feedback might be offered by the CentOS community
on their experiences using Scientific Linux?
I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I
understand there are delays getting EL 6 out. We have been
On Friday, May 06, 2011 11:44:40 AM Johnny Hughes wrote:
But the real question is, do you want to use EL6. I personally would
only roll out testing stuff on EL 6 at this point (be it SL 6.0, Oracle
UBL 6.0, RHEL 6.0, etc.). CentOS 5 still has 3 years of normal support
before its retirement
On Fri, May 6, 2011 at 19:31, Benjamin Smith li...@benjamindsmith.comwrote:
I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I
understand there are delays getting EL 6 out. We have been long anxious to
roll out EL 6 as soon as it's ready, but our time window for rollout is
I'm a long-time Centos user, and am basically happy with CentOS. I
understand there are delays getting EL 6 out. We have been long anxious to
roll out EL 6 as soon as it's ready, but our time window for rollout is
looming and we will need to act. (for business reasons, we need to rollout
over
On 5/6/2011 1:44 PM, Johnny Hughes wrote:
But the real question is, do you want to use EL6. I personally would
only roll out testing stuff on EL 6 at this point (be it SL 6.0, Oracle
UBL 6.0, RHEL 6.0, etc.). CentOS 5 still has 3 years of normal support
before its retirement date, and is
Original Message
Subject: Re: [CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)
From: Nicolas Ross rossnick-li...@cybercat.ca
To: CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org
Date: Friday, May 06, 2011 2:38:42 PM
While waiting
for C6, I installed an unsubscribed version of RHEL6
While waiting
for C6, I installed an unsubscribed version of RHEL6, but it was
troublesome
to install packeges. So for those servers that were already installed, I
switched them to SL6 without having to re-install, and it went great
without
a pain.
Did you perform a yum reinstall \* or
101 - 156 of 156 matches
Mail list logo
