On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 11:23 AM, Brunner, Brian T.
<BBrunner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> centos-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>> On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote:
>>
>>> While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all
>>> uses, there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of
>>> CentOS is the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL
>>> installation, and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are
>>> driving people away.
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Insert spiffy .sig here:
> Life is complex: it has both real and imaginary parts.
>
> //me
It's already been said dozens of times by the developers that this
change does not impact projects like CentOS that just repackage the
Redhat source. It only affects companies who try to provide
commercial support and need to know exactly what each kernel patch
does separately.
// Brian Mathis
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
