Re: Open Letter to Lance Davis

[Connie Sieh <csieh@xxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Les Mikesell wrote:

> Ralph Angenendt wrote:
>> Les Mikesell wrote:
>>> Has anyone considered joining forces with Scientific Linux to reduce the
>>>   workload and give both a more robust infrastructure?
>>
>> Yes, but the goals are rather different.
>
> I thought both had upstream compatibility as the main goal - and both
> seem competent enough that I wouldn't expect many problems in this
> regard.  SL also claims a secondary goal of making site customization
> easy - perhaps Centos as we know it could simply be one of those
> customizations and going forward other variations would be easy.  If the
> people doing the work aren't getting any value out of the brand name, I
> don't see the point of fragmenting the user community for what is
> essentially the same thing.

I was expecting it to be the other way around.  With Centos the base and 
SL a site(or something like it). In RHEL 6 I expect the distro rebuild tools to make sites easier.  This 
comment is based on the distro rebuild tools in Fedora.  We built a custom 
Fedora 10 to test this idea.  These are pungi, revisor and the iso image 
tool(forgot its name).

-Connie Sieh

> > --
>  Les Mikesell
>    lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
> _______________________________________________
> CentOS mailing list
> CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
>
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos