On Mon, 22 Dec 2008, Karanbir Singh wrote: > Dag Wieers wrote: > >> 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 ?). >> >> Without complying to the list of requirements, they may not refer to >> CentOS (and people will not have the wrong expectations for support). >> >> http://wiki.centos.org/About/CentOS-product-definition >> >> Feedback please ? > > Its not immediately clear as to who this is targeting. Is it for people > who base their products off CentOS ? or is it for the Users who end up > with broken setups ? The reason for my confusion is that the doc seems > to target the product builders, but the support issue is something that > comes down to the users. We have a document for users were we urge them to harass the integrator already. But I think it makes more sense what we expect from integrators than to proxy-by-user without any guidelines. So yes, we are targetting integrators using CentOS (and their users maybe indirectly but not per se). > Also, as far as I am concerned, if their product has >= 1 rpm taken from > CentOS, then thats what it is, based on CentOS, based around CentOS, > incorporating CentOS, whatever one might term it as. If its got bits > from CentOS, they should be able to tell people its got bits from CentOS. Right, and then we get complaining users asking us why they can't do this or that and then this is because their yum is broken by design. Or they have no security updates. And what happens on the forums/IRC, they get told they are NOT using CentOS. You get 2 parties hating each other and the guilty party earns the cash and maybe doesn't care :) Fine by me, because I'm generally not on those forums. But I see the 2 parties hurt (and wasting time). -- -- dag wieers, dag at centos.org, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [Any errors in spelling, tact or fact are transmission errors]