[rhn-users] Red Hat Network Satellite 4.2.0 Notice

[inode0]

On 3/1/07, Clifford Perry <cperry at redhat.com> wrote:
> As I am sure you are aware, if you monitor the rhelv5-beta-list, and
> thread
> (https://www.redhat.com/archives/rhelv5-beta-list/2007-February/msg00106.html)
> that a date is not freely available to give out.

I am very well aware and did not ask you to give me a date.

I find it disappointing that Red Hat is treating its customers this
way. Do you think we have nothing else to do and can drop everything
whenever Red Hat decides to say "upgrade your infrastructure now or
stuff is going to break." And not even get the courtesy of a "you have
X days to complete these upgrades before stuff breaks" timeframe to
work in. I'm assuming we have 10-14 days from the announcement based
on a previous comment. But Red Hat doesn't stick by the dates they do
leak either, as the evidence you provide below demonstrates, so who
knows?

Unbelievable.

> The last public press release from Red Hat giving a rough date that I
> know off is:
> http://www.redhat.com/about/news/prarchive/2006/rhel5beta2.html
> "Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5, to be released in early 2007".
>
> I felt that Rich's email was fairly clear, but to restate in another way
> for you :o) ...
>
>   If you plan to use/deploy Red Hat Enterprise Linux 5 with any current
> RHN Satellite or RHN Proxy systems you have deployed, then those systems
> will need to be upgraded to at least RHN 4.2 Satellite or RHN 4.2 Proxy
> prior to being able to use them with the yum based client in Enterprise
> Linux 5 and code changes for rhn_register.
>
> So, for example, if you have a 4.1 RHN Proxy which was pointing to RHN
> (rhn.redhat.com, xmlrpc.rhn.redhat.com) you could register a Enterprise
> Linux 5 system through it, but when you tried to use yum to try and
> download packages, it would fail. While for a 4.1 Satellite, both would
> fail.

If some nut in a hat decides tomorrow to release RHEL5 I would like to
know that all our current processes will continue working. At least
the processes that aren't already broken by unresolved bugs. That was
implied by Rich's email I think but I'd feel better hearing it in a
more direct fashion. I think it is implied by your restatement too.

At this point I don't really care. I'll just go with the flow like the
other cool kids.

John