On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 8:19 AM, Nico Kadel-Garcia <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 1:11 PM, Tanmoy Chatterjee <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Connie Sieh <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote:
>>>
>>>> Is there any difference between Sl6.1 and SL6x repositories? Do I need
>>>> to enable only of these two or both?
>>>
>>> sl6x is a symbolic link to the "current" release.  So at the moment sl6x
>>> points to sl6.1 since sl6.1 is the current release.  When we release sl6.2
>>> then sl6x will point to sl6.2 .
>>>
>>> So you need to pick 1 .  If you pick sl6x you will updated via the yum cron
>>> job to the "next" release when it is released.
>> Thanks for the elaboration - so it is a good idea to enable the SL6x
>> repositories instead of SL6.1.
>
> It's a choice, and it's actually a reasonable one to select 6.1. If
> you follow the model of The Upstream Vendor, the "5.0", "5.1", "5.2"
> releases are all supposed to upgrade in place, automatically, to get
> all current packages. ""6.0" and "6.1" are timestamps for media
> releases, and do not represent a different software repository
> maintained by them. This avoids the amazing pain some of us had to
> deal with for years, back with the original "releases back when their
> old "7.0" and "7.2" releases were likely to be incompatible.
>
> This way works better, by not trying to split support among so many
> sub releases.
>
> Our friendly maintainers at Scientific Linux, understandably, don't
> quite follow that, but with their common "5x" repository, and
> "rolling" releases, it's pretty close. I really appreciate using that
> one or two repositories, instead of having to mix and match from point
> releases.
Have really got confused after going through your entire post - so I
am asking again - is it better to enable SL6X than SL6.1?
>