[CentOS-devel] Why not a fusion between CentOS and SL?

carlopmart carlopmart at gmail.com
Wed Mar 23 06:06:10 EDT 2011


On 03/23/2011 11:00 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> carlopmart wrote:
>> On 03/23/2011 10:27 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>>> Scientific Linux uses upstream source to create their own repo, without
>>> desire to be 100% compatible.
>>>
>>> CentOS project is dedicated to provide (as close as possible) 100%
>>> compatibility. It's not just a rebuild of upstream sources, goal is tu
>>> *duplicate* RHEL.
>>>
>>> It's that simple. And this was answer many times in this and other
>>> mailing lists, forum threads....
>>>
>>> Ljubomir
>>>
>>
>> I know that SL includes some custom components like OpenAFS in their
>> distribution, but base system is the same as CentOS. Then, I repeat, why
>> not?
>>
>
> Then, I repeat, because SL *does not care* to build 100% *binary*
> compatible packages, fo r CentOS it's a must.
>

Sorry, but that is not what is said from the SL website.:

from "http://www.scientificlinux.org":

"The base SL distribution is basically Enterprise Linux, recompiled from 
source.

Our main goal for the base distribution is to have everything compatible 
with Enterprise, with only a few minor additions or changes. An example 
of of items that were added are Alpine, and OpenAFS.

Our secondary goal is to allow easy customization for a site, without 
disturbing the Scientific Linux base. The various labs are able to add 
their own modifications to their own site areas. By the magic of 
scripts, and the anaconda installer, each site is to be able to create 
their own distributions with minimal effort. Or, if a users wishes, they 
can simply install the base SL release."

And from SL FAQ:

"Q. What is Scientific Linux?

A. Scientific Linux is in essence, a commercial enterprise linux 
distribution, recompiled.
What we have done is taken the source code from Enterprise (in srpm 
form) and recompiled them. The resulting binaries (now in rpm form) are 
then ours to do with as we desire as long as we follow the license from 
that original source code, which we are doing.
We then bundle all these binaries into a linux distribution that is as 
close to the commercial enterprise distribution as we can get it. The 
goal is to ensure that if a program runs and is certified on the 
commercial enterprise linux distribution, then it will run on the 
corresponding Scientific release."

  Where is the difference here against CentOS??


> Look at it this way. Upstream is a Coca-Cola Co. SL is Pepsi. They use
> publicly available formulas from upstream in order to create product
> that is as good as upstreams, but is not *the 100% same* since their
> production formulas are not ***100%/absolutely*** the same.
>

It is not a valid example


-- 
CL Martinez
carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list