On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Vladimir Mosgalin <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi CDR! > > On 2013.12.21 at 04:43:05 -0500, CDR wrote next: > >> I wonder when are we going to have Scientific Linux Beta 7 version. The >> upstream version is already out. >> Federico > > Isn't it supposed to appear after RHEL7 release?.. Till then it's > really better to help testing RHEL7 Beta itself, I think! There are > often various problems with RHEL betas and RH developers absolutely > don't mind bug reports in bugzilla for beta from people without support > contract.
If you want to play with it in Beta, which I actually recommend, you can work around the registration by going directly to http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/rhel/beta/7/ . The 30 day beta regisration, unfortunately, insists on authorizing Red Hat's business partners to spam you, which I consider burdensome, and the installation and yum set up keep whinging about how a direct installation from that location isn't registered. But pointing at that temporary, beta repository for yum access is a good way to get started with it. Fedora 20 is also out: if you can spare time to beta test, that's also a good way to get a sense of what the future holds. > There are no updates through RH network - public or not - for betas, > at least it was like that in the past, so they will post direct links to > RPMs you can download to test a fix, if needed. So in a sense, > rebuilding SRPMs and making SL7 Beta isn't worth it, because people > won't be able to get updates even for found bugs. But if you're beta > testing RHEL7 and will report bug to RH bugzilla, you might get an > update. It can give good sense of basic product versions, the compromises they've made for systemd, and software grouping. EPEL is already working on beta components for RHEL 7. > Of course, beta testing is a bit easier if you do have support contract > - then you can install packages from RH network, but switching to DVD > repo isn't too hard. And like I said, likely no updates over network > anyway. Yeah. Lord, do I dislike the new installer, and it's clear that's not going away. Samba is at version 4.1.0, which is good, that's recent enough to do drop-in replacements for Active Directory servers, and they've clearly activated those components in the build process. And you can do some pre-testing of other 3rd party components: I see they have suversion 1.7, which I consider disappointing: subversion 1.8 has been out for a while. Looks like I'll need to keep publishing backports of that for RHEL and SL for a while.
