On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 11:19 AM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > > Have you attempted the same involvement with SL? Or considered building > a non-scientific respin of their version? (Basically backing out their > changes...). Given the economic environment, maybe it would be good if > they had some volunteer backup. IMHO Dag should _consider_ what centos.alt.ru has done and either vet them or do the same thing if they can't be vetted. There's a need for current BIND, et al and RH's policy of backporting takes time and puts perhaps millions of systems at risk. SL could have been named "US Government Linux"; there's nothing "scientific" about sl-base and sl-security. It plays well in the same environments RH and CentOS play well in, of course, because of the charter. kind regards/ldv/vaden at texoma.net <quote from top management of Internet2 security> It's fundamentally wrong for RedHat to attempt to backport security patches for such a fundamental service. I'd cuss a blue streak about this point, in fact, except that I don't want to trigger the anti-cuss features at Dr. Vaughn's place of employment. </quote from manager of Internet2 security>