Re: Working with the upstream vendor

[Ned Slider <ned@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/07/11 19:35, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Ned Slider wrote:
>> On 09/07/11 19:09, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>>> My view is that problem arose when Oracle came into picture. They are
>>> aggressively steeling Red Hat customers using Rad Hat EL source.
>>>
>>> That is very possibly why Red Hat made recompiling EL source much
>>> harder, which reflected to CentOS team unprepared for such change.
>>>
>>
>> That's nonsense.
>>
>> Red Hat did not (deliberately) make recompiling the RHEL source harder,
>> they made accessing specific knowledge base and bug related information
>> harder for those who are not customers - a move designed to make it more
>> difficult for companies such as Oracle to support RHEL and steal
>> customers from Red Hat.
>>
>> The issues that sometimes make it difficult to recompile occasional RHEL
>> packages have always existed and most likely always will. Filing a bug
>> normally results in the issue being fixed, whatever it may be. The vast
>> majority of packages in RHEL recompile without issue.
>>
>
> What about C4 and C5 being able to recompile on beta versions but not C6?
>

That's just a by-product of the fact that it's never been a goal of 
upstream to make RHEL a self-hosting distribution. It's not a deliberate 
act designed to thwart rebuilders, be it Oracle or CentOS or anyone 
else. And even if it were, then it obviously failed given Oracle, SL and 
now CentOS have managed to successfully rebuild RHEL-6 (minus trademarks 
and artwork).

Your comment came across, at least to me, as if Red Hat had deliberately 
tried to make it harder to rebuild RHEL with some changes they made to 
6, and that's simply not the case.

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