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

Manuel Wolfshant wolfy at nobugconsulting.ro
Wed Mar 23 06:09:10 EDT 2011


On 03/23/2011 12:00 PM, carlopmart wrote:
> On 03/23/2011 10:52 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 10:46:21AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
>>> 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?
>> 	Because unless something has changed SL does not profess to be
>> 	binary compatible with upstream
> Are you sure?? What does it means "binary compatible" for you??
binary compatible means that ALL dependencies are identical. each and 
every one.

> To me it means that the software "foo" works perfectly on both distros.
if you examine certain packages you will notice that there are linking 
differences between what SL ships and what RH ships.

>   And all the software I've tried, commercial and GNU, it works in both
> distributions with the same mistakes and equally effective and performance.
You'll be surprised how subtle differences can influence programs 
behaviour. My colleagues investigated for half a week a <2 second 
difference for the execution time of a commercial application ( we are 
beta testing ) when using a specific test scenario.


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list