On Sep 12, 2009, at 3:43 AM, Alberto wrote:
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.
We do not support a "clean install" of sipxecs via RPM's. The RPM's
are only provided to allow a user, who has previously installed
sipxecs using our supplied ISO, to perform a software update.
Therefore, to first install some random version of CentOS and then to
install sipxecs via RPM's, you do so at your own peril.
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?
For our commercial product, SCS, we supply the customer with the OS
and SCS software bundled together, i.e. an ISO install. We then
provide the customer with ongoing OS updates for their installed
system. These updates are supplied directly from Nortel's own
repositories, not from CentOS repositories. For example, when we
released 4.0 (SCS 3.0), we also included an OS upgrade which brought
the customers servers from CentOS 5.1 to CentOS 5.2. If we deem that
it is beneficial to our customers, we will, in a future release,
upgrade their servers to CentOS 5.3, etc. In all cases, we only
release these OS updates after they have been thoroughly tested in
conjunction with the SCS software and our recommended server hardware.
What I see here is an unnecessary and potentially disruptive obsession
over what version of OS is running on ones PBX. Do you worry about
which version of VXWorks OS is running on your Polycom phone or which
version of Linux is running on your Snom phone? I'm certain that you
do not. Instead, you rely on the vendor to deliver a solid working
combination of OS and application software. That is exactly what we
are trying to accomplish here.
_______________________________________________
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/
