SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

April 2008

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:
John Summerfield <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
John Summerfield <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 27 Apr 2008 11:44:15 +0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (40 lines)
Keith Lofstrom wrote:

rg 7.1.1 (12 May 2006) that comes with the Scientific Linux 5.0 .
> 
> 5.1 and 5.2(beta) also run 7.1.X X.org, right?
> 
> This leads to a prediction question - involving crystal balls and
> tea leaves, perhaps.  How likely is it that T.U.V. EL 5.3 (and thus
> SL5.3) will upgrade to X.org 7.3?  
> 
> If that is not likely to happen before EL6, what kind of pain is it
> to make a local upgrade to X.org 7.3 and maintain it outside of the
> automated update process?

My crystal ball, fed on pure speculation based on the nexus between 
Fedora and EL suggests EL6 might not be far off, and that it would be 
based on Fedora 9 which is currently in beta.

The cycle as I recall it:
RHAS 2.1 based on RHL 7.2
RHEL3 FC1? or was it RHL 9? That one I'm not sure on
RHEL4 FC3
RHEL5 FC6 (beta together)
RHEL6 F9? What do _you_ think?


-- 

Cheers
John

-- spambait
[log in to unmask]  [log in to unmask]
-- Advice
http://webfoot.com/advice/email.top.php
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/555375

You cannot reply off-list:-)

ATOM RSS1 RSS2