Am 12.09.2009 um 00:59 schrieb Marden Marshall:
On Sep 11, 2009, at 6:01 PM, Michal Bielicki wrote:Am 11.09.2009 um 23:51 schrieb Marden Marshall:On Sep 11, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Martin Steinmann wrote:[mailto:sipx-dev->[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lawrence,-----Original Message----- From: [email protected]Scott (BL60:9D30)Sent: Friday, September 11, 2009 4:21 PM To: Christopher Coleman Cc: sipX developers Subject: Re: [sipX-dev] 4.0.2 breaks yum On Fri, 2009-09-11 at 15:09 -0500, Christopher Coleman wrote:For me, I did a clean install of CentOS 5.3 from DVD and installedsipx using the repo. yum update has worked just fine for methroughout4.0.1. I rand yum update today and it found 4.0.2 and I had it install.So far I've found it replaced all my .repo files with one and onlyonenamed sipeces.repo which includes my other repos, BUT has me lookingfor software updates for CentOS 5.2 (hard coded into urls) I alsofound it removed my /etc/redhat-release file which contained CentOS5.3 (Final). Whats up with that?!?If true, those are bugs.It is true. Here is what yum says: Installing: sipxecs-release i3864.0.2-009184016420 sipxecs-stable 3.6 kreplacing centos-release.i386 10:5-3.el5.centos.1How did we end up with this? Cannot remember any discussions around asipxecs-release RPM that removes repo files. --martinThis is not a bug, it is done by design. Our software is onlycertified to work with CentOS 5.2. Any attempt to upgrade to a newerrelease leaves the user exposed to possible OS incompatibilities andservice interruptions. They are of course free to override / hack therepo configurations and live dangerously. If something breaks as a result, don't come crying... _______________________________________________Exposure to security bugs and known OS flaws is preferred ? Sounds somewhat counter productive to me, a bit as if you would state that you know better than the distribution authors what works and what doesn't which I tend to doubt in.Ask yourself one simple question; What is more important, to have the latest and greatest versions of Firefox, Gimp, etc. or to have a thoroughly tested and reliable PBX system? If the answer is "a thoroughly tested and reliable PBX system", then you will stay with our OS recommendations and use CentOS 5.2. Better yet, pay for a commercial license and as a supported customer you will also be provide with ongoing security updates for the supplied OS.
The answer is "thoroughly tested and reliable PBX system on a thoroughly tested and reliable Platform". Probably thats why I am again at porting sipXecs to Solaris. But back to the Linux theme, I tend to believe that RedHat knows what they are doing in regards to upgrades and recommended fixes and have some trust in their QA, as I have into the one of sipXecs (although we still test quit thoroughly before we even try to show it to a potential customer). Recommending to users to stick with 5.2 is like recommending to customers to stick to 4.0.1 instead of updating to 4.0.2. But I leave you to your opinion and will just patch the rpms for my installations.
My final 2c EUR Michal Bielicki Leiter der Niederlassung HaloKwadrat Sp. z o.o. Niederlassung Kleinmachnow Eingetragen im Handelsregister beim Amtsgericht Potsdam, HRB21422P Ust.Id.: DE261885536 Geschaeftsfuehrer: Aleksander Wiercinski Meiereifeld 2b, 14532 Kleinmachnow t. +49 33203 263220 f. +49 33203 263229 sip. [email protected] e. [email protected] | w. www.halokwadrat.de Hauptgeschäftsstelle: Halo Kwadrat Sp. z o.o. ul. Polna 46/14 00-644 Warszawa, Polen EIngetragen im HRB Warszawa, KRS 0000153539
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ sipx-dev mailing list [email protected] List Archive: http://list.sipfoundry.org/archive/sipx-dev Unsubscribe: http://list.sipfoundry.org/mailman/listinfo/sipx-dev sipXecs IP PBX -- http://www.sipfoundry.org/
