On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 1:48 PM, jdow <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> On 2011/09/17 01:06, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote:
>>
>> 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?
>
> At some point you have to accept responsibility for the choice based on
> your specific needs. If you need a stable system with minimal changes
> use 6.1. If you can accept a little additional risk and want product
> updates as they are folded in then select 6.x.
Actually using Ubuntu 10.04 - I have found automatic upgradation takes
place via update process and without any problem ( i.e from 10.04.1 -
10.04.2 - 10.04.3).
           This method here is different! Now if I enable SL6.1
repositories only - then when the SL6.2 repo gets available - will it
be available through the gui "SL addons > yum.. > " or the method is
different ?
>
> On my machine here I have two very demanding customers, me and my partner.
> I kept it on 6.0 until the VM version I have looked stable with 6.1 and
> there were no complaints. So I moved to 6.1 on the firewall machine. It
> promptly tossed its X11 cookies with either nouveau (which I had setup
> and working on 6.0) and nVidia drivers which I tried in frustration. The
> next kernel update fixed the problem. (I was able to work around it since
> I mostly administer from command-line anyway. And "startx" worked if I
> told it to use a display other than the first one.)
>
> So moving from 6.1 to 6.2 MIGHT cause problems that sticking with 6.1
> and security updates only might avoid. But, then, it might not. What
> level of risk are you willing to take, very low or very very low? That
I can go up until that point when it becomes essential to reinstall
the entire system.
Then the very reason of installing SL ( instead of Fedora or similar
distributions with 6 month release cycle) gets diluted.
> is your call to make. You're you and I'm me. We face different demands.
Thanks.
>
> {^_^}    Joanne
>