Ken,

On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Ken Teh wrote:

> Connie,
>
> When you say that 302 is 301 with all the errata in the main tree, what
> are the implications of this statement?
>
> (1) Does it mean that 301 will no longer be maintained and that we need
> to switch over to 302 asap?
>

I will put all the errata in the 301 tree too.

> (2) or, can you point yum on a 301 system will all its errata installed at the
> 302 errata tree and continue as if you have a fresh 302 system?
>
> I'm guessing that the SL yum headers, the files under SL/base on the iso
> image have updated, so 302 is really just 301 with all its errata in place.
> Or, no cigar?

The files in SL/RPMS are updated.  302 has a few other changes as
mentioned in the releasenote.  Things like the zz_ --> SL_ and openafs
kernel modules now under the new kernel module naming convention.  There
are also a few things updated that are not from RedHat and thus not under
the "errata" catagory.  Things like openafs went from 1.2.10 to 1.2.11 .

-Connie Sieh
>
> Cheers! Ken
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:25:21 -0500 (CDT)
> From: csieh <[log in to unmask]>
> To: Ken Teh <[log in to unmask]>
> Cc: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: newbie questions
>
> Ken,
>
> On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Ken Teh wrote:
>
> > I just downloaded and installed a 301 machine.  Questions...for now,
> >
>
> Note that 302 is now available .  (It is same as 301 but with all the
> errata already in the main tree)
>
> <deleted...>
>