<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> <title></title> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> Along these lines. . . I updated 4 servers two weeks before school started and every one of them got hacked right after that. . .I still don't have them all back working again after re-installing them. they had been running rock solid over a year and two of them longer than that with little to no upgrades. I figured newer would be better and more secure. . . WRONG! I will not make that mistake again! I DO NOT recommend automated updates at all Doug Rob Owens wrote: <blockquote cite="mid20060902105227.16037.qmail@web32812.mail.mud.yahoo.com" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">I currently don't use the EL branch, but I say stability should be its main focus. Keep all those new packages out of it. Perhaps make the newer packages available in another repository, in case anybody wants to experiment. But I think the EL users need to be able to turn on automatic nightly yum updates without worry of breaking something. I do nightly yum updates on my CentOS web server and don't have any problems. I'd be real concerned about doing that with Fedora. Dropping new packages into K12LTSP 4.2EL would be blurring the line too much between Fedora and CentOS. -Rob --- Eric Harrison <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:eharrison@mail.mesd.k12.or.us"><eharrison@mail.mesd.k12.or.us></a> wrote: </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">CentOS 4.4 has been released & I've started work on K12LTSP 4.2.4EL. The question is how stable should the stable branch be? There are a half-dozen end-user applications that can be updated. These would be essentially back-ports from FC5 (K12LTSP 5.0). Does anyone using K12LTSP 4.2EL have concerns about bumping up to the latest-and-greatest of any of these packages? Package Name K12LTSP 4.2.3EL version Latest version ------------ ------------------------ --------------------------- blender 2.37-2.k12ltsp.4.2.2EL 2.42-6.fc5 celestia 1.3.2-3.k12ltsp.4.2.2EL 1.4.1-5.fc5 childsplay 0.81.1-2.k12ltsp.4.2.2EL 0.83-1.fc5 DansGuardian 2.7.6-7.k12ltsp.0.4.0 2.9.7.1-0.k12ltsp.0.5.0.0 gcompris 7.1.1-4.k12ltsp.4.2.2EL 7.4-13.fc5 inkscape 0.43-1.k12ltsp.4.2.2EL 0.44-4.fc5 tuxmath 0.2001.9.7-0103 0.2005.10.11-0 The real big question is whether or not to switch from LTSP 4.1 to LTSP 4.2? This is not an insignificant change, considering that the kernel for the terminals is changed from a 2.4 kernel to a 2.6 kernel. Considering that a "stable" branch should favor stability over shiny new features, I am currently leaning towards leaving K12LTSP 4.2.4EL with the older LTSP 4.1 packages. This is largely a question with upgrades, so I'd like to hear from those of you currently running K12LTSP 4.2.3EL. Are the new features in LTSP 4.2 (largely improved USB/CD/floppy support) worth the risk of potentially breaking some of your terminals? -Eric _______________________________________________ K12OSN mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:K12OSN@redhat.com">K12OSN@redhat.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn</a> For more info see <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.k12os.org"><http://www.k12os.org></a> </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://mail.yahoo.com">http://mail.yahoo.com</a> _______________________________________________ K12OSN mailing list <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:K12OSN@redhat.com">K12OSN@redhat.com</a> <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn">https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn</a> For more info see <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.k12os.org"><http://www.k12os.org></a> </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>