Centos Yum Packages

Andrew Paternoster andrew at gpk.net.au
Tue Apr 20 00:41:52 CEST 2010

So what's the best way to move forward with this? It is possible for someone to take over what jdennis was providing with his YUM resp? Or do we all have to go back to building for the source if we want the latest ver?


Andrew Paternoster
GPK Computers Pty Ltd
T 1300 854 223
F 1300 854 228

The information contained in or accompanying this e-mail is intended only for the use of the stated recipient and may contain information that is confidential and/or privileged. If the reader is not the intended recipient or the agent thereof, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited and may constitute a breach of confidence and/or privilege. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify us immediately. Any views or opinions presented are those solely of the author and do not necessarily represent those of GPK Computers Pty Ltd..
Warning: Although the company has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this e-mail, the company cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this e-mail or attachments
Did you know that you can now log faults just by sending an email to support at gpk.net.auSenior System Engineer-----Original Message-----
From: freeradius-users-bounces+andrew=gpk.net.au at lists.freeradius.org [mailto:freeradius-users-bounces+andrew=gpk.net.au at lists.freeradius.org] On Behalf Of Alan Buxey
Sent: Tuesday, 20 April 2010 2:16 AM
To: John Dennis
Cc: FreeRadius users mailing list
Subject: Re: Centos Yum Packages


> 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.

..and thats about to happen. historically this was FR 2.0.x v's 2.1.x
but all the drive from people was functions...so 2.1.x got the work.
however...and from recent emails..the plan is that 2.1.x will now
curtail new features and will work on bug-fixes....all new exciting
features are to be in 2.2.x

> 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.


i prefer a stable distribution to be one in which the base is solid
and i can run whatever unstable/dodgy/bleeding edge stuff on it that
i want , safe in the knowledge that it wont be the OS to blame when
thigns go bang.

for this reason, the marriage of a RHEL foundation with self-build
packages for end-users services is the ultimate mix.

List info/subscribe/unsubscribe? See http://www.freeradius.org/list/users.html

__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5041 (20100419) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.


__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature database 5041 (20100419) __________

The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.


More information about the Freeradius-Users mailing list