Hi Steve,
Thanks very much for the advice. We'll go ahead and install 1.2.0.
Michael.
On Tue, 13 Aug 2002, Traylen, SM (Steve) wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> I would say since you have already done most bits and I guess
> you are an LCFG expert these days then install 1.2.0 (cvs tag v1_2_0).
>
> The changes in 1.2.1 will only be rpms and not configuration and they
> are the easy bit. I do not think your time will be wasted.
>
> I think what is not be recommended is that someone who is at 1.2beta10
> bother upgrading to 1.2.0 just to do it again a week later.
>
> I just trashed the 1.1.4 release here which gave me great satisfaction.
>
> Steve
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael George [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2002 10:44 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: testbed 1.2.0 vs 1.2.1
>
>
> Hi,
>
> We have had a partially configured testbed based on 1.1.4 for some
> time at Liverpool and were keen to complete the configuration as soon as
> possible. Given the current situation with release 1.2.0 and 1.2.1 has
> anyone any advice as what would be best to do? I appreciate that Andy
> McNab advised non-partner sites to wait until 1.2.1 due to the number of
> RPMs which will be different from 1.2.0 but... seeing as we already have a
> functioning LCFG server here which can correctly install machines on our
> testbed how much effort would be involved in re-installing once 1.2.1 is
> released?
>
> Any advice would be much appreciated. Unless it is a really bad
> idea we were planning to install beta3 1.2 so that we can at least check
> that we have correctly dealt with the site configuration issues.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Michael.
>
|