On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 8:23 AM, Александр Кириллов <nevis2us@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Karanbir Singh писал 2015-04-01 14:25:
>
>> On 04/01/2015 11:45 AM, Александр Кириллов wrote:
>>
>>> This was discussed on the CentOS-Devel mailing list and approved by the
>>>> CentOS Board. It is what we are using in the future. I suggest you
>>>> become familiar with it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Obviously naming conventions should provide for an easy upstream vendor
>>> version reference?
>>>
>>
>> does /etc/centos-release-upstream provide you with that ?
>>
>
> There's nothing of the sort in 7.0.1406.
> Ideally I'd like to see 7.1 in each and every rpm or iso name related to
> the point release.
> I'm not going to flame over something done and buried but sometimes the
> decisions made by rational people are just stunningly surprising.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
It's not surprising, it's stunningly annoying.
Those of us who manage large installations of CentOS aren't involved in the
development list or the board (we don't have time).
I urge the CentOS board to reconsider such a large departure from upstream.
And I urge them to reach out far beyond the devel-list for opinions as that
is a distinct, and quite separate, base of thought.
And, it's not just a matter of "calling it 7.1, or whatever you like." We
have many scripts and operations based on determining the "version number"
and if it is inconsistent with RHEL, and logic for that matter, it is more
work for those who don't need it.
Yes, I'm whining. I get that. But I think I'm not alone.
--
Matt Phelps
System Administrator, Computation Facility
Harvard - Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
mphelps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, http://www.cfa.harvard.edu
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
