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

carlopmart carlopmart at gmail.com
Wed Mar 23 07:24:44 EDT 2011


On 03/23/2011 12:11 PM, Kenni Lund wrote:
> 2011/3/23 carlopmart<carlopmart at gmail.com>:
>> On 03/23/2011 11:48 AM, John R. Dennison wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:43:53AM +0100, carlopmart wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Both statements says the same with different words ... SL says
>>>> "compatible" too, like CentOS ...
>>>
>>>        Honestly... This is a development list.  If you need to have the
>>>        concept of binary compatibility explained to you then I fear you
>>>        are in the wrong place.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Honestly ... I know the meaning of the concept of "binary compatible". I
>> don't understand is where you see the difference between CentOS and SL
>> about this. Where is the difference?
>
> carlopmart, please go to the -users list with this, one of the CentOS
> devs actually posted a relevant example of the SL/CentOS differences
> earlier today:
> http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-March/108389.html
>
> Best regards
> Kenni

I don't doubt about Johnny Hughes says in his email, but there is an 
important point is not to taken into account: SL5.6 is not released and 
Johnny makes his comparision between SL and CentOS 5.6.

ok, then the principal two reasons to don't fusion CentOS and SL are:

  a) SL is not "binary compatible"

  b) SL binaries are linked in different manner than TUV does.

?? am I right??


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


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list