I need a feature from git that has only been added in git 1.6.0, while the version that CentOS' "add/remove software" tool wants to install is only 1.5.5.6... Some threads on this forum pointed me towards the EPEL repository, but latest version there is also 1.5.5.6.

Why is CentOS so far behind? I know they prefer "stable" over "new", but I've had software on CentOS that crashes on a bug that is fixed in an update of the software... That is not my idea of "stable"...

Anyway, re git... Can I somehow use another repository, for example git's own RPM distros; and if so, what do I need to install to upgrade all I need? I have CentOS' official git-1.5.5.6-4.el5.i386 and git-all1.5.5.6-4.el5.i386.

Or, do I have to compile from source? Again: what?

CentOS is a binary compile of RHEL source.

In RHEL they start with a base package then rather than updating to the newest packages they back port bug and security fixes into the one they have. The distro is built for commercial implementations where "stable" is important.

If you prefer to always have the latest/greatest you should use something like Fedora. It is supported as a project by RedHat and is bleeding edge. It has a frequent release cycle so you can update to your heart's content.

You might also try rpmfind or Dag Weeirs' site to see if there is an RPM of the version you want. Failing that you can always download the source code and compile/install it yourself. (I'd recommend you remove the CentOS GIT first so that future updates don't overwrite the one you build. Alternatively you could put the one you build in a location other than the official one.)

The CentOS maintainer Karanbir Singh has a not so well
known site ftp://ftp.pbone.net/mirror/centos.ka...xtras/testing/
> > centos.karan.org/el5/extras/testing/

which includes git-1.6.2.2-1.el5.kb.<arch>.rpm
( and many other goodies.)

.....

1 members found this post helpful.

knudfl: Thanks, I ended up going to http://centos.karan.org/, followed the instructions there, edited both saved *.repo files, enabling the Testing repositories, after which I could just install git 1.6.2.2 with the "Add/Remove Software" GUI tool.

jlightner: Don't make me change distro. If there is anything wrong with Linux, IMHO, it's the fact that there are too many different distros, that all do things differently for little or no apparent reason. I tried out at least 10 of them before settling on CentOS, because I find it's a nice and friendly distro, which doesn't make me hunt around for info I need to do anything at all, and that I think they should have told me from the start.

In principle, I like the idea of not upgrading anything that isn't broken, but if a program crashes as soon as you start doing anything with it, it is broken, and needs to be fixed, if necessary, by upgrading.

In my case it was RapidSVN that simply crashes as soon as you add a http URL for browsing, for a (working) SVN repository, a problem that is apparently fixed in later releases.

I wasn't "making: you change distros - you asked why the CentOS stuff isn't the latest and I told you why. I expounded on that by saying that if you always want the latest you should go to a distro designed for it. I also suggested other ways to get the latest GIT on your existing distro.

As to why there are so many distros it is exactly for reasons like that. Some people (e.g. commercial shops like mine) prefer to have a stable distro that is actively supported by a company like RHEL whereas others have different needs. I have Fedora, Debian and CentOS for non-production use. Other distos might decide it is important to use KDE (though everyone knows that's wrong ) while some decide to use gnome. Other differences might be due to theory (e.g. there is a browser called iceweasel in some distros that is actually built from firefox source but was delogoed and renamed for that reason). Fedora won't provide Motif because of its licensing but RHEL does. Some think a distro should be geared to a specific tasks (e.g. kubuntu is ubuntu driven by KDE, edubuntu is an distro aimed at educational markets). And of course there is the profit motive. SuSE and RHEL are both used in commercial settings. Ubuntu is made by Canonical and they'd like to make money on it. Some will tell you that any RPM based distro sucks wind whereas folks like me that like RPM/YUM really dislike the Debian style packaging. Some distros are built by countries that want one geared for their society for language, cultural and/or political reasons.

FOSS = Free Open Source Software and the first "Free" tells the story - you're "free" to make your own choices about what should and shouldn't be in a distro and make your own based on those choices. If enough people like your choices.

P.S. If you don't like choices then M$ is quite willing to force you into a cookie cutter OS model.

1 members found this post helpful.