centos-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:23 -0400, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
>> centos-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>>> On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>>
>>> This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ?
>>> What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ?
>>
>> AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches.
>> Starting
>> 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a patch, or
>> backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far
>> more nightmarish than before.
>>
>> Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed
>> significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a
>> CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka
>> reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment).
>>
>> These two square wheels make the CentOS wagon a bit slower than
>> before.
>
> I would appreciate an answer to one related question.
>
> Will CentOS release CentOS 6.0 as a production release?
>
> I see three possible answers: yes/no/TBD.
Answer 4:
This is not just an answer of
"yes it's a production release"
it's
"production releases are all that CentOS ever does."
Insert spiffy .sig here:
Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.
//me
*******************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom
they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please
notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this
email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.
www.Hubbell.com - Hubbell Incorporated**
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
