SCIENTIFIC-LINUX-USERS Archives

May 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: Some questions about the SL repositories
From:
Troy Dawson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Troy Dawson <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 25 May 2011 10:07:50 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (59 lines) 
On 05/25/2011 07:13 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:31 AM, Marc Muehlfeld
> <[log in to unmask]>  wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> we're currently evaluating a migration from Centos 5 to SL6. But I have some
>> questions about repositories:
>>
>> We have a local repository were our servers get their updates from. But I'm
>> unsure, what I exaclty have to mirror. On the FTP there are the following
>> directories:
>>
>> - 6
>> - 6.0
>> - 6rolling
>> - 6x
>>
>> Question 1: What are the differences?
>>
>> Question 2: The default *.repo uses the $releasever variable, which is
>> resolved to "6.0". If we plan to always have the newest (minor) version
>> after every update, I think I have to replace that. Is there an other
>> variable for that or do I have to hardcode it?
>>
>> Question 3: Do I have to block any package that would recreate the SL repo
>> files after an upgrade?
>
> Don't knock yourself out. Like RHEL and CentOS, if you simply continue
> with updates, your "$releasever" will be updated automatically when SL
> 6.1 is released, and if you look inside the "6x" directory on an FTP
> or rsync server, you'll see that it has symlinks to the "6" and "6x"
> directories. you'll see that they have symlinks to the "6.0"
> directory. Those will be updated when SL does a 6.1 release. The
> effect is overall similar to, and more transparent than, what RHEL's
> use of the "yum-rhn-plugin" does.
>
Hi,
This is where SL differs from both RHEL and CentOS.

We do not force you to update to the latest release.

If a person installs SL 6.0, they will stay at SL 6.0, only getting the 
security errata, until they wish to update.
And then they don't have to update to the latest either.  They can 
update to 6.2 even though we are at 6.5.

This was done for the scientists, but I've seen plenty of non-scientists 
like this feature (and many that don't).  This allows people to sit on a 
release an not worry about some feature breaking their program.

In fact, RedHat even started allowing people to do this, for an extra fee.

Troy
-- 
__________________________________________________
Troy Dawson  [log in to unmask]  (630)840-6468
Fermilab  ComputingDivision/SCF/FEF/SLSMS Group
__________________________________________________

ATOM RSS1 RSS2