On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
[1]: I say that with a pinch of salt though - EL6 is a tad overdue. A
lot of new projects and services need a codebase newer than whats on
offer in C5.
Karabir,
Should the effort to build community support for an
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Kwan Lowe kwan.l...@gmail.com wrote:
I appreciate the long roadmap and release schedule.
At my work we need to do two to three year forecasts. Budgets may
allow infrastructure updates every three or four years.
As a rural ISP investing budget dollars in
Hello CentOS Community Members,
What is RH's be-all end-all justification for staying with an ancient
code base for such important programs as BIND et al?
A similar problem (to BZ561299) was first reported five (5) years ago
on the isc.org mailing list.
Is there any support among the CentOS
On 02/02/2011 05:22 PM, Larry Vaden wrote:
What is RH's be-all end-all justification for staying with an ancient
code base for such important programs as BIND et al?
Did you ask them ? what did they say ?
Is there any support among the CentOS community for a REPO of current
vintage for such
: centos-boun...@centos.org [mailto:centos-boun...@centos.org] On Behalf Of
Larry Vaden
Sent: Wednesday, February 02, 2011 9:22 AM
To: CentOS mailing list
Subject: [CentOS] Blasphemous? any support for a REPO of current edition BIND,
et al (e.g., BZ561299)?
Hello CentOS Community Members,
What
On 02/02/2011 09:22 AM, Larry Vaden wrote:
What is RH's be-all end-all justification for staying with an ancient
code base for such important programs as BIND et al?
Directives in the configuration files have changed. Users of RHEL
expect to be able to update their systems without anything
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
you mean like the bind97 available in c5-testing right now, that should
be in 5.6 soon ?
Karanbir,
WIth a lot of due respect, no, not exactly, since 9.7.0-P2 (if I'm
reading it correctly) was released almost a year
On February 2, 2011 10:02:03 am Larry Vaden wrote:
Is there that much distrust of the current output of leading authors
that we need to wait a long while?
You don't need to wait at all. Build your own packages or install from source.
___
CentOS
On 02/02/2011 06:02 PM, Larry Vaden wrote:
I was thinking more along the lines of /isc/bind9/9.7.2-P3/, released
2 months ago.
If you feel that its the version you need or want, CentOS wont mind if
you were to build it and run it yourself.
Is there that much distrust of the current output
On 02/02/2011 06:10 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
If you feel that its the version you need or want, CentOS wont mind if
you were to build it and run it yourself.
btw, if you were to go down that route, the CentOSPlus repo would be a
great place to host such a package :)
One of the best
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
[1]: I say that with a pinch of salt though - EL6 is a tad overdue. A
lot of new projects and services need a codebase newer than whats on
offer in C5.
I agree with you 100%+.
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
On 02/02/2011 06:10 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
If you feel that its the version you need or want, CentOS wont mind if
you were to build it and run it yourself.
btw, if you were to go down that route, the CentOSPlus
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Larry Vaden va...@texoma.net wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 11:22 AM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
you mean like the bind97 available in c5-testing right now, that should
be in 5.6 soon ?
Karanbir,
WIth a lot of due respect, no, not exactly,
At Wed, 2 Feb 2011 11:22:12 -0600 CentOS mailing list centos@centos.org wrote:
Hello CentOS Community Members,
What is RH's be-all end-all justification for staying with an ancient
code base for such important programs as BIND et al?
A similar problem (to BZ561299) was first reported
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 12:14 PM, Karanbir Singh mail-li...@karan.org wrote:
btw, if you were to go down that route, the CentOSPlus repo would be a
great place to host such a package :)
One of the best advantages of CentOS is that we're not tied down to the
EL codebase in any repo outside the
15 matches
Mail list logo
