On 03/23/2011 12:11 PM, Kenni Lund wrote: > 2011/3/23 carlopmart<carlopmart at gmail.com>: >> On 03/23/2011 11:48 AM, John R. Dennison wrote: >>> On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 11:43:53AM +0100, carlopmart wrote: >>>> >>>> Both statements says the same with different words ... SL says >>>> "compatible" too, like CentOS ... >>> >>> Honestly... This is a development list. If you need to have the >>> concept of binary compatibility explained to you then I fear you >>> are in the wrong place. >>> >>> >> >> Honestly ... I know the meaning of the concept of "binary compatible". I >> don't understand is where you see the difference between CentOS and SL >> about this. Where is the difference? > > carlopmart, please go to the -users list with this, one of the CentOS > devs actually posted a relevant example of the SL/CentOS differences > earlier today: > http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-March/108389.html > > Best regards > Kenni I don't doubt about Johnny Hughes says in his email, but there is an important point is not to taken into account: SL5.6 is not released and Johnny makes his comparision between SL and CentOS 5.6. ok, then the principal two reasons to don't fusion CentOS and SL are: a) SL is not "binary compatible" b) SL binaries are linked in different manner than TUV does. ?? am I right?? -- CL Martinez carlopmart {at} gmail {d0t} com