On Thu, 2007-06-07 at 11:53 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Thursday 07 June 2007 11:49:57 Mike McGrath wrote: > > I agree, I had no plans on upgrading any of our RHEL boxes (except for > > cvs and db1 but will stay in the RHEL upgrade path). For those of you > > that are new on the list we've had a lot of discussions about this in > > the past. Our team, for the most part, agrees that its about picking > > the right tool for the job. For boxes that don't need brand new > > technologies (like cvs) its nice to be able to set them up and forget > > about them. But for some boxes that do need the latest and greatest > > (like our builders) we've always had and kept them on Fedora. > > With RHEL5 out, I question the need for Fedora on the builders. In fact, > before the merge, all the internal Core builders were running RHEL4. Can we > not use RHEL5 on the builders now? > Will we want to pull in new features for the builders? Something like a change in rpm is needed for a new version of mock. We want that change and so we need to upgrade? I just want to avoid flip-flopping between RHEL and Fedora. -Toshio
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
