--- On Mon, 12/22/08, Ned Slider <ned at unixmail.co.uk> wrote: > From: Ned Slider <ned at unixmail.co.uk> > Subject: Re: [CentOS-devel] Defining what CentOS is > To: "The CentOS developers mailing list." <centos-devel at centos.org> > Received: Monday, December 22, 2008, 11:53 AM > Dag Wieers wrote: > > Hi, > > > > We discussed this on #centos after yet another > "centos" user had problem > > using yum. What is missing is a page targetted at > > integrators/distributors with a list of requirements > for using the > > "CentOS" product name or even saying it is > derived, based or build on > > CentOS. > > > > This issue crops up often on the forums too. > > > We might be able to kill more than one bird with a > single stone, so I am > > looking for more things we want to prevent > distributors/integrators doing > > without making it impossible for them to use CentOS > altogether. > > > > My first concern was the support problem, what do we > (at minimum) expect > > to have when users say they have a CentOS. A working > yum using the CentOS > > official repositories, a minimal set of official > packages (which ?). > > > > Cases seen on the forums often involve non-existent or > broken yum and/or > custom a non-CentOS kernel. Those users tend to get pointed > to the > BrokenVserver Wiki page. So an unadulterated working yum > and CentOS > kernel as a starting point? centos-release package and the affecting package being build by CentOS build system could be also an start point to be considered a centos support case, and when I write "support" I mean the usual way centos provide support thanks roger