[CentOS-devel] progress?

Wed Feb 23 12:24:02 UTC 2011
Johnny Hughes <johnny at centos.org>

On 02/23/2011 04:01 AM, Dag Wieers wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Feb 2011, Johnny Hughes wrote:
>> I am aware, but it also is very important that we (the CentOS Project)
>> do not change the SRPMS (or the source tar balls, or any other piece of
>> source) for any reason except to remove trademarks and copyright info.
>> It is the whole purpose of the CentOS Project.
>> The bottom line is, people can figure out how to recompile the packages
>> just like we did ... but we don't change the sources.
> No they can not. The bottom line is, people can try to reverse engineer 
> the process CentOS is using, but they may never be sure it's like what 
> CentOS did. So your statement is incorrect.
> Hence my joke that the 'C' in CentOS actually means Closed.
> That said, if CentOS wants it this way they sure have every right to do it 
> like this. But it would be nice to state that upfront.

W#e did state it up front ... no changes to the SRPMS except for
trademark changes.
We stated here in 2003:


"CentOS uses the original sources whenever possible. Under normal
circumstances CentOS will NOT add patches to original upstream source
packages. The vast majority of changes made will be made to comply with
the upstream vendor's re-distribution policies concerning trademarked
names or logos."
We stated it here in 2003:

"CentOS exists to provide a free enterprise class computing platform to
anyone who wishes to use it. CentOS 2, 3, and 4 are built from
publically available open source SRPMS provided by a prominent North
American Enterprise Linux vendor. CentOS conforms fully with the
upstream vendors redistribution policies and aims to be 100% binary
compatible. (CentOS mainly changes packages to remove upstream vendor
branding and artwork.)."

We stated it here in 2004:


"Does CentOS change the upstream Source RPMs?

No. CentOS' key mandate for our base and updates repositories is NOT
extending or enhancing packages or features beyond those supplied by the
upstream Source RPM's."

We have stated numerous times over the last 7+ years that we are not
changing that policy.

You have been bellyaching about this for the entire 8 years ... for you
now to come here and say that we should have told you up front is
unbelievably disingenuous.  You have been told this dozens of times by
me alone.

So, am I now also a bald-face liar as well as a totally incompetent
maintainer?  Haven't been told up front that we don't change sources ...
Really, Dag ... REALLY?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 253 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20110223/d592977d/attachment-0005.sig>