Re: [CentOS-announce] Release for CentOS Linux 7 (1503 ) on x86_64

[m.roth@xxxxxxxxx]

Les Mikesell wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 2, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Johnny Hughes <johnny@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>> If you really _need_ a specific minor release and want to _stay_ on it,
>>> to my knowledge, that's not something CentOS has _ever_ done anyway.
>>> You can pay for Red Hat's "EUS", or, I think Scientific Linux actually
>>> does keep the ".y" releases separate (but I'm not sure of the details
>>> as to how that's implemented).
>>
>> That last paragraph is EXACTLY the message we are trying to put out
>> here.  CentOS releases are NOT the same as EUS and have never been ..
>> yet that seems to be what people expect.  We want there to be no doubt
>> on this issue.
>
> But you are adding more confusion than you resolve if the designation
> does not indicate that a specified version is 'at least' up to the
> equivalent of some RH minor rev.  Even for the people who might have
> incorrectly thought is was pinned there.   And now there yet another
> arbitrary difference in what you need to know about one major number
> vs. another for the long interval they will co-exist.

Let me also add to Les' argument, in that there *are* point releases -
when we go from x.y to x.z, there are usually on the order of 300 packages
(I believe when I upgraded two servers yesterday from 7.0 to 7.1, there
were 267 or so packages updated, and I think a few installed. That's *not*
the same as yum update, and I get 10 or even 70 packages.

And when you have to talk to Windowsiacs, who know nothing other than
version and point, it works best to tell them we're on that point, so go
away, and don't bother us....

      mark

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