On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:36 -0400, Brunner, Brian T. wrote:
> 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."
Appreciate the clarification. I had thought that like SL, there would
have been a CentOS 6 beta. From my searches, it appears that I was
mistaken, there is no --public-- (or private?) CentOS 6 beta.
Thanks,
Mike
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
