On 06/09/2014 04:05 PM, Peter wrote: > On 06/10/2014 05:21 AM, Jim Perrin wrote: >> Indeed. In some areas, we already are. That's what we want to turn >> around. This is the fundamental reason why we can't simply rest and keep >> doing what we've been doing. Even if we're flawless in the core mission, >> we'd still be ignoring emerging areas where we must grow to survive. > I don't think I've seen anyone argue against SIGs here. I think most > people on this list understand the importance of SIGs to CentOS and the > future that CentOS will have with them. What I see is many people here > saying that SIGs should not dictate the direction of the core OS, that > needs to remain pure to upstream. No one is saying that anything in the Core OS is changing ... the Core OS will be the Core OS. It will be ONLY packages in the RHEL tree and it will not contain anything extra. That is not the issue here. The issue is, people think they can run CentOS-6.4 after 6.5 is released and it is the same as running RHEL-6.4 AUS/EUS ... and its not. Our numbering is not like their numbering and that is causing massive confusion that we need to fix. One can absolutely, positively not stay behind and have security. It is very dangerous. Add to that the fact that the SIGs also may need to have a new installer be created between RHEL releases, so we may (or may not ... only time will tell) need to create some new install trees. None of that adds packages into the os/ or updates/ directory that is not in RHEL ... that will be the same and people will have to opt-in to get anything that is not Core .. just like they do now. <snip> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 198 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/attachments/20140609/25d0c199/attachment-0007.sig>