SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

January 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:
Alan Bartlett <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Alan Bartlett <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sat, 22 Jan 2011 19:46:59 +0000
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (27 lines)
On 22 January 2011 19:39, Robert P. J. Day <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011, Alan Bartlett wrote:
>
>> Welcome Heiner,
>>
>> You can soon have the pleasure of updating the SL 6.0 alpha to
>> beta1. :-)
>
>  will simply "yum update"ing a current rolling alpha 6 install keep
> up?
>
> rday

I would advise against it. But there is no harm in trying -- just to
see what happens. :-)

With alpha and beta releases, anything other than a fresh installation
may give odd results. If those odd results are then reported back,
they could possibly send Connie and Troy off at a tangent, trying to
fix something that should not even be considered . . .

Putting it another way, I would not consider it appropriate to "yum
update" from an alpha to a beta release, nor (ultimately) from a beta
to general access release.

Alan.

ATOM RSS1 RSS2