On 04/13/2015 11:17 PM, Rob Kampen wrote: > On 04/14/2015 01:07 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >> On 04/13/2015 06:49 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: >>> On 04/12/2015 10:29 PM, Rob Kampen wrote: >>>> On 04/13/2015 11:42 AM, Gregory P. Ennis wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 2015-04-10 at 18:25 -0700, Greg Lindahl wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 06:33:27AM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> What may be happening is that you may need to be on the console and >>>>>>> accept the license on the first reboot after the update. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> We tried to turn this off for CLI only installs, but in some >>>>>>> combinations of software, you may still get the acceptance screen >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> have to complete it. >>>>>> So just to be clear, some of us who installed 7.0 servers in the GUI >>>>>> and then carted them to a remotely colo might be screwed if the >>>>>> machine reboots after updating to 7.1? Are there some files I can >>>>>> touch (or whatever) to prevent this from happening? Or is the best >>>>>> solution to go to the colo and reboot? >>>>>> >>>>>> I have consoles for all of my professional servers, but not my hobby >>>>>> server! Fun fun! And I feel for you guys, given that upstream was the >>>>>> main cause. >>>>>> >>>>>> -- greg >>>>>> >>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> >>>>> Greg, >>>>> >>>>> After my 7.1 upgrade the login gui is no longer usable because it will >>>>> not scroll. However, if you are using a remote connection all you >>>>> need >>>>> to do is to run 'initial-setup' and accept the license agreement. >>>>> However, be careful. The first time I activated 'inital-setup' I >>>>> elected not to answer the question "yes" and the machine went in to a >>>>> shutdown and then reboot. At this point, I wish I had not upgraded to >>>>> 7.1 >>>>> >>>>> Greg >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> CentOS mailing list >>>>> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx >>>>> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >>>> Having been a CentOS user since about 5.2 and a list follower also, >>>> please bear with me while I make a couple of observations. >>>> 1. The 'nature' of CentOS appears to be changing. >>> CentOS Linux is CentOS Linux .. it is a rebuild of the RHEL source code. >>> The source code for RHEL 7.1 was rebuilt and released just like the >>> source code for RHEL 6.6 or RHEL 5.11 was. There is no difference in >>> CentOS Linux between how RHEL 6.6 code was rebuilt and how RHEL 7.1 was >>> rebuilt. CentOS Linux, the core distro, is NOT changing. It is now and >>> will always be a rebuild of RHEL source code. >>> >>>> I, and many others on this list, came to use and love CentOS because it >>>> was a server oriented distro and had the lineage of RedHat running >>>> through its veins - i.e. corporate type applications available and >>>> support of LONG TERM stability WITH back-porting of patch updates to >>>> fix >>>> security issues. >>>> >>> This version is also a direct rebuild of the RHEL source code. Red Hat >>> seems to be moving more quickly and making more rapid changes. CentOS, >>> rebuilding RHEL sources, will obviously move at the same pace. >>> >>>> 2. Major version updates, make significant changes to how things work, >>>> minor version updates are simply 'point in time' snapshots to make life >>>> easier for new installations and gaining updates. This no longer >>>> appears >>>> to be the case! >>>> >>>> Having worked with servers and desktop workstations with both 5.x and >>>> 6.x there were very few issues caused by a yum update. Thus one could >>>> confidently do remote installations, yum updates etc. I know this from >>>> experience, operating servers in different continents with no physical >>>> access. The only problems ever encountered that needed physical access >>>> being when hardware problems arose. >>> Red Hat changed the mechanism for how they do license acceptance .. in >>> previous CentOS versions this was done in first boot for GUI installs >>> only, NOW they have changed it to also happen on CLI installs. We don't >>> desire this behavior .. but the process is identical to the RHEL >>> install. You must accept the license in CentOS-6 as well .. it is just >>> on the first reboot after install. >>> >>> We hope to be able to work around this in the future. >>> >>>> 3. CentOS install, like most linux variants uses the GPL for most >>>> packages, the acceptance of these licenses never required specific >>>> mouse >>>> clicks or check boxes. >>>> >>>> Copies of license terms were included with packages but their >>>> acceptance >>>> implied by usage. It seems the apple, microsoft, oracle, and google >>>> android "in your face" must click acceptance to install an app or >>>> package have finally arrived to linux distros. >>>> >>>> Having only spun up CentOS 7.0 from a live DVD I can make no comments >>>> about it yet, other than it seems from the comments on the list that >>>> both items 1 & 2 above are no longer true. >>>> >>>> I understand the idea of CentOS being bug for bug compatible with the >>>> redhat lineage, however it appears that the CentOS single version >>>> release is in fact a derivative of the multiple variants actually >>>> produced and sold by redhat - thus some of the recent arguments about >>>> naming of versions and DVDs lack authenticity. >>> This has always been the case .. in CentOS-5 Linux, the CentOS tree and >>> install DVDs are a combination of the RHEL Source Code for Clustering, >>> Cluster-Storage, Virtualization, Desktop, Workstation, and Server. >>> >>> CentOS-6 Linux is a combination of the RHEL-6 Source Code for High >>> Availability, High Performance Network, HPC Node, Load Balancer, >>> Resilient Storage, Scalable File System, Desktop, Workstation, and >>> Server. >>> >>> CentOS-7 Linux is a combination of Desktop, HPC Node, Resilient Storage, >>> Workstation, and Server. >>> >>> This process has also not changed at all. >>> >>>> As is my usual practice, I never install and use a x.0 release for >>>> production - far too many things have changed, dependent software has >>>> not been sufficiently tested and many add-ons are not yet available. >>>> Thus I was awaiting the release of 7.1 to move forward with some >>>> projects, already realizing that the learning curve for this major >>>> release would be longer and harder than previous releases. However, >>>> I am >>>> now wondering how to move forward at all as item 2 is a must have for >>>> me, and appears to no longer be the case. >>>> >>>> Thus I ask the list - have I missed an announcement about these >>>> changes? >>>> are these changes real or imagined? >>>> thanks for your time and forbearance. >>> There is no changes in how the CentOS Linux distribution is produced or >>> released. You can continue consuming like you always have. It is being >>> built like it always has. >>> >>> There are optional monthly ISO respins, that live in a different place, >>> which you can consume if you want. There are also docker images, AWS >>> images, generic cloud images, openstack images, etc. Which people can >>> choose to consume or not. None of this changes how the base CentOS >>> Linux is built or released. Some of these images also exist for >>> CentOS-6 and/or CentOS-5 as well. All of these are optional and for the >>> people who need them, they are there. If you don't need them then you >>> keep consuming the CentOS-7 tree just like you did the CentOS-6 or >>> CentOS-5 or CentOS-4 trees. >>> >>> If Red Hat changes to Gnome 3.14 in RHEL 7.2 (from Gnome 3.8 in RHEL >>> 7.1), when they release the RHEL 7.2 source code, our rebuild will have >>> Gnome 3.14 in it. We may or may not agree with decision to move to a >>> new Gnome version in a 'point release' .. but we (the CentOS Project) >>> don't make those decisions, we just build the source code. >> This is what leads me to believe there will be a Gnome rebase in RHEL >> 7.2: >> >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1174597 >> > thanks Johnny, you have explained exactly what my understanding was in > terms much better expressed than I was able to do. > I guess the telling comment for me is > > Red Hat seems to be moving more quickly and making more rapid changes. > CentOS, > rebuilding RHEL sources, will obviously move at the same pace. > > While I can understand this and even welcome this to some extent, > particularly for my desktop machines, it is the "it just works" that I > have grown accustomed to, and this seems to be changing. > It may be just my impression, but there seem to be more significant show > stopping bugs with the 7.x series of releases, and I suppose the above > comment exposes the reasons - more rapid releases mean less exhaustive > testing, unless more resources are deployed and I guess that is unlikely > to have occurred.\ > > Thanks as always for what you and the rest of the CentOS team do, just > appreciation and admiration for all you guys (and gals?) do for the > community. > Rob To be perfectly honest, I am not thrilled with the movement either from the enterprise stability point of view .. BUT .. with respect to desktop and software development it is better. I personally though the other way was better (no major version movement) .. but, that is above my paygrade :)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
