FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > CentOS > CentOS

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 05-11-2011, 08:59 PM
Mathieu Baudier
 
Default EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)

> nothing and apparently today's target date has slipped, and 2) until
> CentOS admits that there is a problem, nothing will actually change.

Apparently they did admit and it does change:
https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=31347&forum=53
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-12-2011, 02:27 AM
Phil Schaffner
 
Default EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)

Mathieu Baudier wrote on 05/11/2011 04:59 PM:
>> nothing and apparently today's target date has slipped, and 2) until
>> CentOS admits that there is a problem, nothing will actually change.
>
> Apparently they did admit and it does change:
> https://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=31347&forum=53

Late breaking news:
http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/67
http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/node/69

Phil
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-12-2011, 03:14 AM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)

On 05/10/2011 08:12 PM, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Tue, 10 May 2011, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>
>> Alain Péan wrote:
>> > The problem is that when C6.0 will be released, it is likely that RHEL
>>> 6.1 will be already released. So there will be no security updates for
>>> C6.0, and it will be better to stay under SL6, until the release of
>>> C6.1. I already installed three machines under SL6, and it works fine.
>>
>> Once 6.0 packages are figured out (how to compile them), newer versions
>> of those packages in 6.1 will be much easier to compile, so I expect no
>> more then one month to pass from C6.0 to C6.1
>
> Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
> complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ?
>
> And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would
> take no more than 1 month ?

Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-12-2011, 06:08 AM
Mark Bradbury
 
Default EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)

>

> Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less

> complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ?

>

> And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would

> take no more than 1 month ?



Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake.






Why? seems like a valid point to me.



_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-12-2011, 09:05 AM
Ron Blizzard
 
Default EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 1:08 AM, Mark Bradbury <mark.bradbury@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
>> > complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ?
>> >
>> > And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1 would
>> > take no more than 1 month ?
>>
>> Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Why? seems like a valid point to me.

But at that time there should only be one point release on the table,
instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone
forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time?

--
RonB -- Using CentOS 5.6
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-12-2011, 09:24 AM
"John R. Dennison"
 
Default EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)

On Thu, May 12, 2011 at 04:05:57AM -0500, Ron Blizzard wrote:
>
> But at that time there should only be one point release on the table,
> instead of two point releases and one major release. Is everyone
> forgetting that 4.9, 5.6 and 6.0 were all out at the same time?

Amnesia of opportunity, perhaps? Or perhaps it's even simpler in that
it doesn't suit their end goals to remember.





John

--
"My other computer is your windows box."

-- Ralf Hildebrandt
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-12-2011, 10:19 AM
Christopher Chan
 
Default EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)

On Thursday, May 12, 2011 01:51 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 5/11/2011 8:53 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:
>>
>> In my case, I have essentially three choices:
>> 1.) Use SL 6;
>> 2.) Wait on C6;
>> 3.) Buy RHEL6.
>>
>> All of the three have costs, visible and hidden. 3 obviously has monetary costs, but both 1 and 2 have time and risk costs, since neither SL nor CentOS will be as fast on updates as choice 3.
>>
>> There are boxes I'm possibly going with SL, but my servers are likely to remain CentOS, unless and until I can get funding to purchase RHEL (which, since it's a subscription, must be purchased out of opex funding). But I fully realize that if I want a fully supported product in the EL space I'm going to have to pay for it, either with RHEL or Oracle or SuSE.
>
> Individual/personal support is one thing, timely distro updates is
> something else. With limited experience, I'm beginning to think ubuntu
> LTS would be a player in the latter space. I've always been a fan of the
> coordination they have among the additional repositories that is lacking
> in yum/rpm equivalents and was impressed when my 9.0.4 installs
> painlessly upgraded themselves to 10.0.4. Admittedly, not as many
> locally configured apps as on my Centos boxes, but it all still seemed
> to be working after the major-version over-the-network upgrade.
>

Yes, Ubuntu has been quite good on that side of things,
8.04->8.10->9.04->10.4 but having a good dist upgrade process does not
cover enough of the other problems you get with Ubuntu 'LTS'. I, for
one, will jumping ship at the first opportunity.

Running 1 Hardy server and desktop and 1 Lucid desktop over here.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-12-2011, 10:23 AM
Christopher Chan
 
Default EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)

On Thursday, May 12, 2011 04:54 AM, Lamar Owen wrote:

> One upgrade I did from C4 to C5 (with upgradeany) was smoother than the last LTS upgrade I tried. I liken the C5 -> C6 upgrade path as trying to take a Ubuntu LTS 6.06 to a 10.04; which path I tried, and failed, to get working. In one case it was with a Dell laptop that came with Ubuntu from Dell, and that is supported by Dell with Ubuntu. Sound quit (known issue), wireless went funky. One 'accidental' (client-initiated) upgrade from 8.04 to 10.04 lost keyboard and mouse after gdm got control.

6.04->10.04? Nah, you are supposed to jump to 8.04 and then to 10.04.

>
> And even with Dell's that have RHEL support, I've seen issues with CentOS upgrades; but, then again, neither CentOS nor RHEL ( nor SL) support upgrading.
>
> Upgrades are difficult problems to solve, and at the moment I don't know of any distribution (that claims upgradability) that gets it completely right for all the cases I've tried.

Not even Debian?

On the OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana side of things, I have not had problems.
And you get a complete rollback option too as a bonus.

>
> The CentOS path (it's not supported, but if you're brave and know exactly what you're doing there is upgradeany to let you shoot yourself in the foot) I feel is the correct one.

Right...maybe no longer after you have tasted OpenSolaris/OpenIndiana
upgrading
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-12-2011, 01:37 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)

On 05/12/2011 01:08 AM, Mark Bradbury wrote:
>
> >
> > Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
> > complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ?
> >
> > And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1
> would
> > take no more than 1 month ?
>
> Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake.
>
>
>
>
> Why? seems like a valid point to me.

1. Have you, or anyone else, noticed the speed of the CentOS-5 and
CentOS-4 updates recently? We have spread out the building and checking
up updates .. there has been a marked improvement is release speed for
updates.

2. Have you, or anyone else, noticed that we have started pushing out
the upstream EL Fastrack channel for CentOS-5. In CentOS it is named
fasttrack (spelling) on our end due to upstream IP restrictions.

http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5/fasttrack/

3. Have you, or anyone else, noticed the QA tracking site that is open
to the public?

http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/

There is a dashboard of recent events:

http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/dashboard

There is even an RSS feed:

http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/feed

Most of the names who are posting there and taking action are NOT CentOS
Project guys, but community people ... isn't that what people were
asking for?

4. Have you, or anyone else, noticed the aggregated list of status
announcements that we now have? The forum moderators are great and they
have started an announcement forum area where they aggregate important
information:

http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewforum.php?forum=53


==================================================

It does not seem to matter what we try to do, what we get is petty
comments about how nothing changes. Nothing could be further from the
truth.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 
Old 05-12-2011, 01:37 PM
Johnny Hughes
 
Default EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)

On 05/12/2011 01:08 AM, Mark Bradbury wrote:
>
> >
> > Do you expect the C6.0 -> C6.1 differences to be more complex, or less
> > complex than the C5.5 -> C5.6 differences ?
> >
> > And given that C5.6 took 3 months, are there any reasons why C6.1
> would
> > take no more than 1 month ?
>
> Get over yourself Dag ... for goodness sake.
>
>
>
>
> Why? seems like a valid point to me.

1. Have you, or anyone else, noticed the speed of the CentOS-5 and
CentOS-4 updates recently? We have spread out the building and checking
up updates .. there has been a marked improvement is release speed for
updates.

2. Have you, or anyone else, noticed that we have started pushing out
the upstream EL Fastrack channel for CentOS-5. In CentOS it is named
fasttrack (spelling) on our end due to upstream IP restrictions.

http://mirror.centos.org/centos/5/fasttrack/

3. Have you, or anyone else, noticed the QA tracking site that is open
to the public?

http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/qa/

There is a dashboard of recent events:

http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/dashboard

There is even an RSS feed:

http://qaweb.dev.centos.org/feed

Most of the names who are posting there and taking action are NOT CentOS
Project guys, but community people ... isn't that what people were
asking for?

4. Have you, or anyone else, noticed the aggregated list of status
announcements that we now have? The forum moderators are great and they
have started an announcement forum area where they aggregate important
information:

http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewforum.php?forum=53


==================================================

It does not seem to matter what we try to do, what we get is petty
comments about how nothing changes. Nothing could be further from the
truth.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@centos.org
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:39 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright ©2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org