You are absolutely right!!
Don't get me wrong I respect and have a great working relationship with the upstream developers; however I don't always agree with their development and patch policies in mission critical environments.
The one place they still agree with us on this is in the install media. During installation including updates is optional and a bad idea because it breaks things. I found out this fact with my spacewalk server in a every hard way.
-- Sent from my HP Pre3
On Nov 19, 2014 10:12 PM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <[email protected]> wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2014 at 2:22 PM, Orion Poplawski <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 11/19/2014 08:34 AM, Pat Riehecky wrote:
>> On 11/19/2014 09:25 AM, jdow wrote:
>>> Latest patches won't install:
>>> Error: Package: hdf5-mpich-1.8.5.patch1-9.el6.x86_64 (epel)
>>> Requires: libmpichf90.so.12()(64bit)
>>> Error: Package: hdf5-mpich-1.8.5.patch1-9.el6.x86_64 (epel)
>>> Requires: mpich
>>> Error: Package: hdf5-mpich-1.8.5.patch1-9.el6.x86_64 (epel)
>>> Requires: libmpich.so.12()(64bit)
>>>
>>> This traces back to the octave install I have for doing some RF MODEM work.
>>>
>>> {^_^} Joanne
>>
>> Upstream bug report:
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1165635
>>
>> Pat
>>
>
> CLOSED - NOTABUG
>
> Yeah, you're going to need to be on 6.6 to use the mpi packages from EPEL6
> now. Still really surprised by this move by RedHat.
Don't be. See, our favorite upstream does not have the same concept of
"point releases" and updates tied to those point releases as we're
using with CentOS and Scientific Linux. They have *one* update and
installation repository, and other than the installation media, they
do not *publish* separated minor release specific repositories.
They used to do that, all the way back with Red Hat (not RHEL)
releases, and it became very burdensome to maintain compatibility and
testing with all the point releases. So they effectively publish *one*
repository, with all the updated and old packages.
