Re: Centos 6 Update?

[Ned Slider <ned@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 07/04/11 21:38, Les Mikesell wrote:
> On 4/7/2011 3:04 PM, Ned Slider wrote:
>>
>> CentOS AIMS to be 100% binary compatible and for the most part it is,
>> but I'm tired of seeing this misnomer repeated over and over like some
>> holy grail. Personally I'm with Russ on this one that whilst an
>> admirable goal I think the importance of binary compatibility is
>> sometimes overstated and often misunderstood.
>
> Plus, if there is anything that is broken about what you get by
> rebuilding RHEL src rpms under RHEL, it should be made public and either
> fixed or acknowleged as the intended outcome.
>

Huh? Red Hat never claimed RHEL to be self hosting wrt (re)building itself.

_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos