On 03/23/2011 12:11 PM, Kenni Lund wrote:
2011/3/23 carlopmartcarlopmart@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??