> From: centos-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:centos-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] On > Behalf Of Johnny Hughes Thanks for the explanation. Of course what I want to do is evaluate centos fitness for our purposes, without the effort of evaluating all the changelogs, and I think this answer is the best possible way to approach that. _______________________________________________ CentOS mailing list CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
Re: Differences from upstream RHEL
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
- Subject: Re: Differences from upstream RHEL
- From: "Edward Ned Harvey (centos)" <centos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2015 15:14:11 +0000
- Accept-language: en-US
- Authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is ) smtp.mailfrom=centos@xxxxxxxxxxxxx;
- Delivered-to: centos@xxxxxxxxxx
- In-reply-to: <564260A6.6020702@centos.org>
- Spamdiagnosticmetadata: NSPM
- Spamdiagnosticoutput: 1:23
- Thread-index: AdEb8fb7KmZihIpfS1KpH97dnyccBQADEakAACVL94A=
- Thread-topic: Differences from upstream RHEL
- References:
- Differences from upstream RHEL
- From: Edward Ned Harvey (centos)
- Re: Differences from upstream RHEL
- From: Johnny Hughes
- Differences from upstream RHEL
- Prev by Date: Re: Differences from upstream RHEL
- Next by Date: Re: Differences from upstream RHEL
- Previous by thread: Re: Differences from upstream RHEL
- Next by thread: About IPv6 Link-Local Address(CentOS5)
- Index(es):
 |