On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 11:27 -0500, Jarod Wilson wrote: > On Friday 25 January 2008 11:05:29 am seth vidal wrote: > > On Fri, 2008-01-25 at 21:42 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > > Emmanuel Seyman wrote: > > > > * Patrice Dumas [25/01/2008 16:48] : > > > >> I thought you were speaking about RHEL. But Centos is exactly in the > > > >> same case that 'fedora LTS' or fedora itself. Volunteers, no warranty, > > > >> no contract. > > > > > > > > CentOS doesn't actually do the work of backporting security fixes only. > > > > They take the work done by Red Hat and just rebuild the .rpms. > > > > > > > > If Fedora LTS happens, it will not have this option. > > > > > > .. unless Fedora LTS is a rebuild of RHEL SRPMS. There might be some > > > advantages to this worth considering. > > > > do we need another centos but with a fedora brand? I think the centos > > guys are doing a good job, personally. > > I believe the trick is to just have the CentOS folks rename CentOS to Fedora > LTS and otherwise just keep on doing what they've been doing... :) The trick would be RH to freely release RHEL instead of forcing others to recompile packages, such these guys can contribute to EPEL instead of having to waste their time and resources on rebuilding. Ralf -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
