On 07/26/2012 08:41 PM, Keith Keller wrote: > On 2012-07-26, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On 07/26/2012 06:59 PM, Keith Keller wrote: >>>> Who was the genius that decided that system-config-network-tui should >>>> NOT be part of the base CentOS 6.3 install ?? >>>> >>>> Not to mention it has insane deps like wifi firmware packages... not >>>> really if all you want to do is configure eth0 from the command >>>> line... >>> Wouldn't both of these decisions have been made upstream? >> yes and no. We have some liberty to change / adapt the install class's >> based on what comes down stream ( remember, we normalise the distro core >> to remove variant specific / pricing specific options from upstream ). >> >> The install classes and groups are things that we build, locally, in >> CentOS - in an attempt to match what is pushed downstream. If there are >> issues, its certainly worth testing to see if its a centos induced issue >> or not. > That sounds reasonable enough (and I wondered about that for the first > question). > > What about the second issue? Would CentOS change RPM dependencies from > upstream (if it were possible)? That seems a lot less likely to me. We would not change the dependencies of an RPM, we might change the install groups in the comps file. The reason it is not included in CentOS now is because it is not included upstream. For us to change it, there would need to be a compelling reason.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
