SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

April 2011

SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS@LISTSERV.FNAL.GOV

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Nico Kadel-Garcia <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Nico Kadel-Garcia <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Thu, 14 Apr 2011 22:22:08 -0400
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (21 lines)
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 7:20 AM, Nicolas Kovacs <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I just took a peek at the download page for SL 5, and I only see 5.5. Does
> SL 5.6 exist somewhere, or has it never be released? If that's the case, is
> it simply a matter of install medium, e. g. are the updates for 5.5 (after a
> 'yum update') equal to a 5.6 install? I'd like to ask specifically, because
> I'd like to use SL 5 for a webserver, and AFAIK, RHEL 5.6 has replaced PHP
> 5.1.6 by PHP 5.3, which would be very welcome.

SL is better about the rolling updates than CentOS's  slow and delayed
release process. You should be able to install SL 5.5, run the
updates, and be quite close to an RHEL 5.6 working environment which
is kept patched.

This matches the model our favorite upstream vendor tries to provide.
The 5.1, 5.2, etc. release are *NOT* supposed ot represent locked in
and permanent for stability releases, but rather mileposts on the
ongoing software maintenance and update process for bug fixes and new
platform support.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2