Re: CentOS vs stability: req a Fedora / RHEL perspective
- From: Tony Nelson <tonynelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 25 May 2007 12:47:39 -0400
At 9:59 PM -0500 5/24/07, Les Mikesell wrote:
Tony Nelson wrote:...
That choice would be mostly by hand yum-updating, right? Do a yum update,
sa "no", pick the parts I want and yum update package1 package2?
Yes - but there is rarely a reason to do that with stock centos packages.
OK.
...
I'd guess that's the biggest set of changes we'll see for 4.x.
I sure hope so. 182 packages was a lot.
I had
3.x servers in production before 4.x was released and had to pick
something for a larger rollout right after its release and went with the
sure thing. Even a few months later I would have used 4.x and just been
a little more careful about testing the new kernels before updating the
remote boxes.
OK, thanks.
--
____________________________________________________________________
TonyN.:' <mailto:tonynelson@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
' <http://www.georgeanelson.com/>
--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
- References:
- CentOS vs stability: req a Fedora / RHEL perspective
- From: Tony Nelson
- Re: CentOS vs stability: req a Fedora / RHEL perspective
- From: Les Mikesell
- Re: CentOS vs stability: req a Fedora / RHEL perspective
- From: Tony Nelson
- Re: CentOS vs stability: req a Fedora / RHEL perspective
- From: Les Mikesell
- CentOS vs stability: req a Fedora / RHEL perspective
- Prev by Date: Regex
- Next by Date: Re: CentOS vs stability: req a Fedora / RHEL perspective
- Previous by thread: Re: CentOS vs stability: req a Fedora / RHEL perspective
- Next by thread: Re: CentOS vs stability: req a Fedora / RHEL perspective
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
