On 1 April 2014 01:54, Josh Fisher <jfis...@pvct.com> wrote: > On 3/31/2014 5:41 PM, Joseph L. Casale wrote: > > > What's your preference? > Separate repo, we can't have an untested migration between versions just > show up. > That violates the principal of the RHEL release cycle. > > > I agree. The opening line of release documentation for 7.0 reads "Please > be aware that this is a major new version and thus test it carefully before > putting it into production". As such, I have to disagree with Simone's > assessment that 7.0 is a drop-in replacement for 5.2.13. It is not worth > the risk, so my vote is for a separate repo. >
There's a a couple of issues with this approach, but the majority of mails I received were asking for it. When Fedora 21 will come out, version 5.2.13 will not be available, so users of Fedora/CentOS/RHEL environments will have mixed versions anyway. For the same reason, when all supported Fedora releases will have 7.x there will be no benefit for the repository in hosting 5.2.13, as it will simply be outdated as 2.4.4 is now for EPEL 5 and will make it difficult to communicate with newer versions. I will proceed as follows: - Delete Fedora 19 and 20 builds from the repository (the same version is in the official updates repository). - Create a new repository with version 7 for all supported Fedora/CentOS/RHEL releases (currently building 7.0.1). - Leave the old one with 5.2 until the CentOS/RHEL releases in there will go EOL. - When all releases will be EOL I will delete the repository. Regards, --Simone -- You cannot discover new oceans unless you have the courage to lose sight of the shore (R. W. Emerson). http://xkcd.com/229/ http://negativo17.org/
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________ Bacula-devel mailing list Bacula-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bacula-devel
