solarflow99 wrote: > thats too bad because i'll bet the customers will want to update to > 5.1. I don't know that 5.1 has anything different, its usually just > security fixes and updates, not 100% sure though. > I think I remember a setting for that somewhere, maybe on the RHN or in > yum where it had a distinction not to upgrade, only update.
I think there is no concept of "upgrading" within a release of RHEL. There are only updates since the major release of all packages remain unchanged. A stated benefit of RHEL. Only patches are supplied...no added functionality that would be achieved via an upgrade. > > hope it helps anyways.. > > > > On Dec 30, 2007 8:52 PM, Camron W. Fox <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > solarflow99 wrote: > > I don't see why 5.1 can't just be used. Is there really enough > > difference that you know of thats stopping you? > > > > > > It's a question of support. FSC does not support 5.1 (yet), > even though > the hardware actually comes from Fujitsu-Siemens, who *does* support it. > FSC has told me in no uncertain terms that I will be SOL if something > breaks or I need support for anything and the box is running 5.1. > > Best Regards, > Camron > > Camron W. Fox > Hilo Office > High Performance Computing Group > Fujitsu America, INC. > E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > _______________________________________________ > rhelv5-list mailing list > [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > rhelv5-list mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list -- Someone hooked the twisted pair wires into the answering machine. _______________________________________________ rhelv5-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rhelv5-list
