Re: F7 Kernel 2.6.22.1-33.fc7 USB stick

Matthew Saltzman wrote:
On Wed, 2007-08-01 at 17:17 +0100, Chris Jones wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you about Scientific Linux, which I haven't used,
but CentOS 4 recently had a very large major upgrade from 4.4 to 4.5, which
I, as a new CentOS user hoping for the non-upgrade kind of stability, found
rather upsetting. I was told that CentOS just follows RedHat, which had
just done that to RHEL 4. Is Scientific Linux different?
Sure, Scientific Linux has various different majors versions that are currently SL3 and SL4 (SL5 on the way). These are based on EL3 and EL4 and very different beasts. You won't find yourself going from SL3 to SL4 via yum, unless you choose to try and do that.

For sure though SL also has sub-point releases, 3.x and 4.x (currently I am on a 4.5 release), which I think are the equivalents of what you talk about above. These updates I believe can occur through yum. However, I've not aware of any problems in this, its always been pretty flawless. I'm not the sys-admin though, but I never heard him complain (and I suspect I would have) or noticed any problems as a user.

maybe SL is better than centos in this regard ?

I don't know, but I doubt it. Both distros are intended to track RHEL
pretty much exactly. The upgrade to a new point release usually
involves just installing a rather large number of bugfix updates to
existing packages.

I recall some discussion from Red Hat of possibly retaining old point
releases and issuing only security updates for them so that users
wouldn't have to do the point release thing if they didn't want to.
That is, one could maintain a RHEL 4.2 system and still get security
updates even though RHEL 4.5 is current. I don't know where that stands
at this point, though.

Chris


Well stupid me, I forgot I saved the working kernel rpm. I found the rpm and with rpm -i --force I got it installed. It didn't want to install because of the buggy new ones...

So happy again. My USB memory sticks and all are working and so is skype.



--

Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI
Linux User
#450462 http://counter.li.org.

--
fedora-list mailing list
fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list

Relevant Pages

  • Re: fedora or centos?
    ... >>I've never used Centos before but I'm curious. ... > For Whitebox there are update servers, I'm sure CentOS has update servers ... > commercial vendors will guarantee that their product works on RHEL. ... updates might be released significantly slower than for FC or RHEL. ...
    (linux.redhat.misc)
  • Re: Upgrading from CentOS 5.2 to 5.3 on a *live* system?
    ... We have a system with CentOS 5.2 that is up and running and is supposed ... Maybe I should expect the newer libraries to install without removing the ... and it automatically does little updates from time to time. ... If I do not pay attention, ...
    (comp.os.linux.setup)
  • Re: fedora or centos?
    ... >> For Whitebox there are update servers, I'm sure CentOS has update servers ... >> commercial vendors will guarantee that their product works on RHEL. ... > updates might be released significantly slower than for FC or RHEL. ... I have one Whitebox installation which I used to ...
    (linux.redhat.misc)
  • Re: Vulnerability and Patch-Management in Linux (and other Unix)
    ... One word of caution with apt is if you use stable it will get major version updates when they move to a new stable project. ... if you have the money you can use Opsware Server Automation System ... But what about CentOS? ...
    (Focus-Linux)
  • Re: CentOS vs stability: req a Fedora / RHEL perspective
    ... main server, and a backup server ), one each with CentOS ... It's also one more version of CentOS ... updates one has to accept all the updates and version upgrades. ... security updates as soon as possible, batching the less critical bugfixes into point releases and rarely including updates that modify intended behavior. ...
    (Fedora)