( managed to screw up my last reply )
Ned Slider wrote:
> I agree with Dag that solution providers shouldn't be able to sell it as
> CentOS if it clearly isn't because they've modified, disabled or removed
> key parts of the system.
who defines what is key and what isnt ? We can come up with a list of
what 'we' consider to be 'vital' for the system to still be refred to as
a CentOS based install - and we should do that ( isnt that what the wiki
page in question is trying to do ? )
> The community can't be expected to support it
> when we (the community) don't know what a solution provider has changed
> or why they have changed it.
well. thats a good question. But my question to you would be - what
makes one user a part of the community and another not ?
Flip side is, we only need to make a best effort - after all, the
$provider of $BrokenSystems should be the upstream support group for
these people, no ? If they wander down to the centos mechanisms they are
welcome to.
> So we're back to the question of what can and can't be changed in a
> system for it still to be CentOS.
For it to be exactly CentOS ? nothing can be changed. Nothing added,
nothing removed.
For it to be a reasonable CentOS'ish install ? I am sure we can come up
with a list.
--
Karanbir Singh
CentOS Project { http://www.centos.org/ }
irc: z00dax, #centos at irc.freenode.net