Ken, On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Ken Teh wrote: > Connie, > > When you say that 302 is 301 with all the errata in the main tree, what > are the implications of this statement? > > (1) Does it mean that 301 will no longer be maintained and that we need > to switch over to 302 asap? > I will put all the errata in the 301 tree too. > (2) or, can you point yum on a 301 system will all its errata installed at the > 302 errata tree and continue as if you have a fresh 302 system? > > I'm guessing that the SL yum headers, the files under SL/base on the iso > image have updated, so 302 is really just 301 with all its errata in place. > Or, no cigar? The files in SL/RPMS are updated. 302 has a few other changes as mentioned in the releasenote. Things like the zz_ --> SL_ and openafs kernel modules now under the new kernel module naming convention. There are also a few things updated that are not from RedHat and thus not under the "errata" catagory. Things like openafs went from 1.2.10 to 1.2.11 . -Connie Sieh > > Cheers! Ken > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2004 15:25:21 -0500 (CDT) > From: csieh <[log in to unmask]> > To: Ken Teh <[log in to unmask]> > Cc: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: newbie questions > > Ken, > > On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, Ken Teh wrote: > > > I just downloaded and installed a 301 machine. Questions...for now, > > > > Note that 302 is now available . (It is same as 301 but with all the > errata already in the main tree) > > <deleted...> >