On 7.4.2011 17:23, Brunner, Brian T. 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. I dont buy this argument. CentOS is _rebuilding_ . Does not matter how the source is represented in my understanding. Anyway, I found an article where Russ Herold is quoted about the matter http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2011/03/04/red_hat_twarts_oracle_and_novell_with_change_to_source_code_packaging/ May I quote: "We haven't at all restricted CentOS's ability to grab source code and recompile it and clean-out trademarks and package it. It's just some of the knowledge of the insides that we're hiding," he explains. One longtime CentOS developer agrees. "I'll not lose sleep on the matter," CentOS co-founder Russ Herold tells The Reg. -- Kind Regards, Markus Falb
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
