On 03/25/2014 06:14 PM, Karanbir Singh wrote:
> On 03/25/2014 11:12 PM, Connie Sieh wrote:
>> On Tue, 25 Mar 2014, Karanbir Singh wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/25/2014 12:48 PM, Andras Horvath wrote:
>>>> Would this mean that the support of the minor branches would end and
>>>> only the most recent minor version would get the long term support?
>>>> If so, then I strongly believe that one of the most precious
>>>> advantages of SL would disappear - compared to CentOS AFAIK.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> How do these point releases map to RHEL point releases ? And what level
>>> of testing is done to ensure sanity within that point release in SL ?
>>>
>>>
>> RHEL 6.1 -->  SL 6.1
>> RHEL 6.2 -->  SL 6.2
> where do you get the sources for 6.1 or 6.2 given that they are not
> published on ftp.redhat.com ?
>
>
>
>
We utilize the upstream sources for security errata.

For example: 
http://ftp.scientificlinux.org/linux/scientific/6.3/x86_64/updates/security/

It contains all the security errata released after SL 6.3, including 
errata released under 6.4 and 6.5.  They are the exact same rpms. We've 
run repoclosure to ensure dependencies are met.  This often involves 
adding some non-security packages to the repo when there is a fresh 
point release.

Pat

-- 
Pat Riehecky

Scientific Linux developer
http://www.scientificlinux.org/