[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: what constitutes a update version change



On Tue, Feb 21, 2006 at 09:57:37AM -0500, Blackburn, Marvin wrote:
> I ran into a problem where I needed to be at RHEL 3.0 update 5.
> I also wanted to update my system as much as possible without
> transitioning to update 6.

Please tell us what it is you're trying to do.  Why do you not want to
upgrade to update 6?

I believe that the definition of update 6 is a completely set of tested
updates.  Unless you install them all, your system is not at update 6.
However, you could just update redhat-release, your system would say
it's at update 6, but you wouldn't be.

> Other than the obvious update to the /etc/redhat-version file, what
> dictates the version change?

Red Hat tests *all* the packages at the same time in a packaged update.

In my opinion, the concept of an update is rather strange anyway.
You're typically after specific funtionality, not some made-up number.
You either have version x of the specific package or you don't.  You may
say you want a specific kernel fix, but you could update the kernel in
many cases without updating anything else.

        .../Ed

-- 
Ed Wilts, RHCE
Mounds View, MN, USA
mailto:ewilts ewilts org
Member #1, Red Hat Community Ambassador Program



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]