Irrespective of that confusing detail you mention, does this convention
-- SL6X also provides feature enhancements -- break with TUV convention?
My understanding is that if I were to take a RHEL 6.1 install bootable
DVD and install RHEL 6.1, I would get the feature enhancements unless I
selected against a package/utility description, and that if I do an
update via the on-line (not physical media) update mechanism, I get the
same as the DVD. Does SL6 not comply with this same update mechanism?
Certainly with CentOS 5.m, the automatic update seems to provide
enhancements, not just security fixes. My laptop just went from CentOS
5.6 to CentOS 5.7 . I am not installing any new CentOS systems -- these
so far are continuing to be SL 6 . (E.g., my wife's laptop was stolen
with CentOS 5 on it; when she gets a replacement, I will install SL 6
IA-32 unless the university can afford more than 4 Gbyte of RAM on the
machine, in which case 64 bit mode is needed for full address space access.)
A small side question: if SL6X happens to be pointing to SL6.m for some
m (currently 2), after the update/enhancement will the target now
display SL6.m as the installed release?
Yasha Karant
On 09/18/2011 12:15 AM, Dr Andrew C Aitchison wrote:
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote:
Have really got confused after going through your entire post - so I
am asking again - is it better to enable SL6X than SL6.1?
If you stick with SL6.1 (or SL6.2 or ... ) you will get security
updates only. If you go with SL6X you alse get feature enhancements.
(Technically SL6.1 may also give you a few essential non-security
updates but that is a confusing detail.)
