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:
Re: SL policy on errata that came out with the 5.6 release
From:
Garrett Holmstrom <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Garrett Holmstrom <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 14 Jan 2011 08:20:15 -0800
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (22 lines) 
On 1/13/2011 23:18, Urs Beyerle wrote:
> On 01/14/2011 07:49 AM, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
>> On 1/13/2011 9:29, Troy Dawson wrote:
>>> Morten P.D. Stevens wrote:
>>>> Which release has the higher priority? SL 6.0 or SL 5.6?
>>>
>>> SL 6.0 has higher priority.
>>
>> My apologies if I'm missing something, but why does SL 6 get priority
>> when SL 5 is the only one of the two with a production install base?
>
> What do you mean with "production install base"?
>
> SL6.0 will be based on RHEL 6 (6.0)
> SL5.6 will be based on RHEL 5 Update 6 (5.6)

I meant that there are no production systems running SL 6 because there 
has yet to be a stable release.  Thanks for your explanation, Troy.

-- 
Garrett Holmstrom

ATOM RSS1 RSS2