>
> > If this sort of stance seems risible to you, you probably shouldn’t
> > be using CentOS. This is what distinguishes a “stable” type of OS
> > from a “bleeding edge” one.
>
> When a version of a software has been released 20 years ago,
> that doesn´t mean it´s more stable than a version of that
> software which is being released today.
Not "software", Warren said "OS" - it's the whole ecosystem that is
more stable if the versions of the software that's within it are kept
consistent.
>
> Of course, you can consider "never change the version of the
> software" as something making for a stable OS. But what about
> the bug fixes?
Critical bug fixes are back ported, if appropriate, into the version of
the software packaged with the OS - that is the point of the commitment
by RH to support the OS.
>
> The software has been written with perl 5.20.1, which is already
> rather old.
As far as I can see it hadn't been released when RHEL7 was released, so
there's no chance of it being the default version.
As others have said, if you need bang up-to-date versions of software,
then RHEL/CentOS is not for you.
P.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
