On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 9:58 PM, Doug Tucker <tuckerd@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This is a matter of agreeing to disagree on the release of a kernel and
> a supported file system. If you had read my thread and subsequent
> paragraph you're taking issue with properly, you would have gotten that.
> My whole issue is around GFS, which is officially supported (someone
> else hijacked this thread with XFS which got more attention), and in my
> statement I said: "Keep in mind this is not an unsupported XFS that
> someone hijacked my thread with." So I'm agreeing that XFS should never
> be brought up in the same fashion as GFS, as it is not a supported file
> system. GFS is, and it is my opinion RH should release the 2 together.
Sorry pal, it's me who stole your thread with XFS. I feel obliged to
give an answer although which I do not have to but I'll.
I've been so far away from CentOS/RHEL that I even did not know the
difference between XFS and GFS which is officially supported by Redhat
guys. And CentOS' guys kindness about giving us a chance to use XFS is
really attracks my appreciation. Up to this was for my apology.
BUT (a big one);
People who prepare and maintain a distro have (and should have) many
concerns in mind. Security is one of them and integrity is another.
But in this situation, integrity is simply ignored (on the behalf of
GFS situation because I backed down from my XFS related complains)
Disabling kernel upgrades simply solves the situation but raises some
other questions about "What else can be broken with security
apprehensions?"
I do not know which one to choose:
- Absolutely not-working server because of missing updates
- Maybe will be attacked server because of missing security updates.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
