Centos Yum Packages
aland at deployingradius.com
Tue Apr 20 10:38:50 CEST 2010
John Dennis wrote:
> RHEL 6 which is under development and is currently in beta testing does
> have FreeRADIUS 2.1.8. So a possible solution would be to upgrade from
> RHEL 5 to RHEL 6. If FreeRADIUS 2.1.9 is released shortly I *may* be
> able to get it into RHEL 6,
2.1.9 should be released in a week or two.
> Another solution is to stabilize FreeRADIUS such that the need for
> frequent version upgrades is not necessary. Rather than adding new
> features focus on bug elimination. Some projects have a stable branch
> and an "future" branch. The pace of version releases for FreeRADIUS is
> "brisk". While that has many merits and the FreeRADIUS developers should
> be applauded for their prolific contributions it also has some
> downsides, mainly it conflicts with the goals of enterprise stability. A
> stable branch would be a much better fit for an enterprise distribution
> such as RHEL.
'git' has made this easier. There's a v2.1.x branch, a 'stable'
branch, and a 'master' branch.
v2.1.x: bug fixes only (2.1.9 so far has one minor feature over 2.1.8)
stable: new development
master: deprecated, will likely be replaced by 'stable'.
We should be able to release 2.2.0 in a month or two. It will contain
API changes that are incompatible with 2.1.x, and 2.0.x. All external
modules will need to be updated.
2.1.9 is the "bug fix only" branch. We may even have a 2.1.10 and a
> Stability vs. features is just one of the classic trade-offs in computer
> science, just like memory usage vs. processor cycles. They really are
> polar ends in continuous spectrum, RHEL clearly targets one end of that
> spectrum and as a consequence you lose out on the other end. While on
> the other hand Fedora focuses on the other end. We do both independently
> (Fedora and RHEL), but we can't do both in one distribution.
Switching from CVS to git has made this a lot easier.
More information about the Freeradius-Users