Marden Marshall ha scritto:
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:
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:sipx-dev->[email protected]] On Behalf Of
Lawrence,
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 installed
sipx using the repo. yum update has worked just fine for me
throughout
4.0.1. 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 only
one
named sipeces.repo which includes my other repos, BUT has me
looking
for software updates for CentOS 5.2 (hard coded into urls) I also
found it removed my /etc/redhat-release file which contained
CentOS
5.3 (Final).
Whats up with that?!?
If true, those are bugs.
It is true. Here is what yum says:
Installing:
sipxecs-release i386
4.0.2-009184016420 sipxecs-stable 3.6 k
replacing centos-release.i386 10:5-3.el5.centos.1
How did we end up with this? Cannot remember any discussions
around a
sipxecs-release RPM that removes repo files.
--martin
This is not a bug, it is done by design. Our software is only
certified to work with CentOS 5.2. Any attempt to upgrade to a newer
release leaves the user exposed to possible OS incompatibilities and
service interruptions. They are of course free to override / hack
the
repo 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.
Hi Marden,
no need to say in my CentOs PBX system I don't have Firefox neither the
Gimp.
The real point here is: I'm happily running CentOs 5.3 and I installed
sipxecs via yum, it's a recommended best practice to change CentOs
repos to version 5.2? Could it lead to some untested OS
incompatibilities between versions? That of course might cause the
system not to be thoroughly tested as wanted?
Said that: you are in perfect right to manage repos file if sipxecs was
installed from the iso. And again you are in perfect right to ask me to
install a production system using only CentOS 5.2 or simply stick to the
version distributed with the iso.
But I believe you cannot predict why some user is using CentOs 5.3 or
5.1. They might support other software with different requirements on
the same box. I believe there are many reason that should suggest to
leave this decision to the admin.
Don't like very much the statement about buying a commercial license. Is
the commercial product thoroughly tested against every possibile OS
software update? Was not the commercial product based on the same code
based of the open source one? What is compatible with last OS update on
the commercial product, which I believe could be a super-set of the open
source one, shouldn't be compatible with the open-source?
Alberto
_______________________________________________
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/
