Seriously, I'd suggest you do one thing or the other. But I am not going
to make your decision for you. On one machine (a virtual box machine)
the transition from 6.0 to 6.1 was painless. (Or let's say no more pain
than already existed with SELinux.) On the other machine I had an nVidia
related problem that went away with a kernel update that happened
automatically. The virtual machine is on 6.x so I catch the upgrades
when they come. If no serious issues crop up I plan to move the main
Linux machine up to the next release after it's had a little time
to settle. But there's just my partner and I and about 20 machines and
assorted gadgets relying on the Linux machine. The needs for a larger
production environment will be different. The needs for a single desktop
user will also be different.
Assess your needs, determine what activities must be supported, determine
which OSs best support those activities. Then jump in and be prepared to
bleed a little. In the best possible world, there will be no blood. So
you'll feel good about that. If you bleed a little, you were emotionally
prepared already and have plans to cope, one hopes. So you feel good that
you coped. If you sit around dithering you feel bad all the way around.
{o.o}
On 2011/09/18 22:16, Tanmoy Chatterjee wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 17, 2011 at 2:09 PM, Tanmoy Chatterjee<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> 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 ?
> THANKS FOR ALL THE RESPONSES.
> But as a novice I would again request to shed some light on this part
> of my queries.
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>
|
