On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 07:29:33AM -0500, Johnny Hughes wrote:
> > Stuff which *really* differs from upstream -- meaning that it
> > *overwrites* stuff which comes from upstream -- has to go to centosplus,
> > if at all.
>
> We have more than a million users and most want upstream compatibility
> and some want upgraded packages. Having Extras, CentOSPlus and
> Base/updates allows us to do both.
What I'm trying to point out that you are talking about rules. But that
rules has exceptions already. Few devel packages are *NOT* changing
functionality so your argument are simply not OK.
Your distributing system is overcomplicated and could be more simple.
Your rules has exceptions already so remove already broken rules with
exceptions to change to more simple model with no broken rules (write
list of this devel packages to RELEASE_NOTES for example).
What is wrong - you are building kernel with broken compiler even Red
Hat does not. Even there is fixed compiler already in place and is
usable with not breaking GPL rules.
This is the case where you are breaking your own rules even forcing
"rules" on other things.
Thing about it. This is _really_ inconsistecy and you have to fix it -
or stop talking about rules (and goals you broke already).
> I am not going to fight with people about how we do this ... we have
> already made the decisions. We will continue doing things the way we
> have for the last 2 years. It has made us 'THE' premiere community
> enterprise linux distribution in the world ... and I see no reason to
> change the formula that got us here.
>
> Thanks,
> Johnny Hughes
Things are changing all the time. Red Hat changed their model many times
and Linux (and Linus) too (I'm working with Linux since 1993).
There is no reason to sit on decisions that are not so optimal (read:
stay on rules you are already ignoring and breaking).
--
Milan Kerslager
E-mail: milan.kerslager at pslib.cz
WWW: http://www.pslib.cz/ke/