On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 6:34 AM, Vladimir Mosgalin
<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi CDR!
>
>  On 2013.12.21 at 04:43:05 -0500, CDR wrote next:
>
>> I wonder when are we going to have Scientific Linux Beta 7 version. The
>> upstream version is already out.
>> Federico
>
> Isn't it supposed to appear after RHEL7 release?..  Till then it's
> really better to help testing RHEL7 Beta itself, I think! There are
> often various problems with RHEL betas and RH developers absolutely
> don't mind bug reports in bugzilla for beta from people without support
> contract.

If you want to play with it in Beta, which I actually recommend, you
can work around the registration by going directly to
http://ftp.redhat.com/pub/redhat/rhel/beta/7/ . The 30 day beta
regisration, unfortunately, insists on authorizing Red Hat's business
partners to spam you, which I consider burdensome, and the
installation and yum set up keep whinging about how a direct
installation from that location isn't registered. But pointing at that
temporary, beta repository for yum access is a good way to get started
with it.

Fedora 20 is also out: if you can spare time to beta test, that's also
a good way to get a sense of what the future holds.

> There are no updates through RH network - public or not - for betas,
> at least it was like that in the past, so they will post direct links to
> RPMs you can download to test a fix, if needed. So in a sense,
> rebuilding SRPMs and making SL7 Beta isn't worth it, because people
> won't be able to get updates even for found bugs. But if you're beta
> testing RHEL7 and will report bug to RH bugzilla, you might get an
> update.

It can give good sense of basic product versions, the compromises
they've made for systemd, and software grouping. EPEL is already
working on beta components for RHEL 7.

> Of course, beta testing is a bit easier if you do have support contract
> - then you can install packages from RH network, but switching to DVD
> repo isn't too hard. And like I said, likely no updates over network
> anyway.

Yeah. Lord, do I dislike the new installer, and it's clear that's not
going away. Samba is at version 4.1.0, which is good, that's recent
enough to do drop-in replacements for Active Directory servers, and
they've clearly activated those components in the build process. And
you can do some pre-testing of other 3rd party components: I see they
have suversion 1.7, which I consider disappointing: subversion 1.8 has
been out for a while. Looks like I'll need to keep publishing
backports of that for RHEL and SL for a while.