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

David Hollis dhollis at davehollis.com
Fri Mar 25 17:02:33 EDT 2011


On 03/24/2011 01:52 PM, James Antill wrote:
>  Right. Personally, given that you aren't shipping the exact binaries
> that upstream ship, I would say that all CentOS builds should start with
> a .1 added to the end of release, and then increment that for any
> rebuilds you need to do. I'd also have the packages provide the upstream
> NEVR, as well.
>  To me that would still satisfy the "don't unnecessarily alter
> specfiles" mission and all of the "we changed FOO.bin but can't reflect
> that in FOO.src" problems go away.

This policy would be murder for end users that have to maintain
compliance with various requirements such as SOX404, PCI, etc.

If you really wanted to modify the release number, while likely
maintaining ABI compatibility, you would in many ways be a new distro
based on upstream sources.

As much as it adds a bunch of fun for the CentOS devs rebuilding the
same package differently to get it to match upstreams binary while
maintaining the same NVR, it's just the nature of the beast.


More information about the CentOS-devel mailing list