Re: "yum --security" and staying with 5.0

[Kai Schaetzl <maillists@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Karanbir Singh wrote on Wed, 12 Dec 2007 16:32:33 +0000:

> redhat will do 5.1.1 5.1.2 5.1.3 - we will do 5.1.z and just call it 
> that.

Oh, that's not clear from the FAQ as well. I though "z" just stands as a 
variable to be replaced by 1, 2 or 3. Using "z" implies that the lifetime of 
each single minor version update is *not* 18 months? I mean:

5.1 - 18 months
5.1.1 - 6 months
5.1.2 - another 6 months
5.1.3 - another 6 months
5.2 - next update release cycle

the FAQ seems to imply:
5.1 - 18 months
5.1.1 - 18 months
5.1.2 - 18 months
5.1.3 - 18 months
5.2 - next update release cycle

which one is correct? Using "z" implies to me no differentiation between 5.1.1 
etc, so how would you be able to determine at which release point you are if 
you want to maintain 18 months for each minor branch?

> you are confusing yourself beyond what is required. So let me restate 
> this again.

That's possible. What do you think about my proposed new formulation in my 
reply to Ralph from today?

Kai

-- 
Kai Schätzl, Berlin, Germany
Get your web at Conactive Internet Services: http://www.conactive.com



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