On 20/04/13 19:49, Craig White wrote:
On Thu, 2013-04-18 at 23:15 -0400, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:16 PM, g wrote:
On 04/18/2013 07:26 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
Hi
<>
Since both CentOS and SL are rebuilds of RHEL. the 3rd
party repos should
be compatible with either
centos does a lot of chop and remove from rhel package and
adds a lot of
their own crud.
No. They don't.
----
as I said - he is highly uninformed. Rather unsurprisingly, he got it
completely backwards though I wouldn't suggest that Scientific Linux
adds chop and crud.
CentOS is essentially the cleanest, closest rebuild of RHEL that is
possible - as they say, bug for bug. They do have a CentOS Plus
repository which does have different build options but it is disabled by
default so you have to want the changes to get them.
Scientific Linux takes all sorts of liberties with build options and
even their build system doesn't attempt to produce compatible binary
packages - not that I am suggesting that it's a bad thing - just a
completely different philosophy than CentOS.
Craig
I was interested to hear that; the emphasis of the two distros hasn't
been clear to me, but I would guess that SL is primarily aimed at an
environment where results matter and well-qualified support staff are
available. That would make it good for purpose, but not necessarily for
grannies - which is, ISTR, where this all started.
John P
--
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
