-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 06/10/2014 10:33 AM, Johnny Hughes wrote: > No one is saying that anything in the Core OS is changing Except the version scheme. > 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. No, it's the same as running RHEL without AUS or EUS. > 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. Believe me, I understand where you're coming from, I see the same people day in and day out come into IRC that you see who are on some old version of CentOS and think that's fine. But inevitably, their issue is not that they ever thought that the version they were on is still getting updates, because inevitably they are not updating at all otherwise they would be on the most recent CentOS version. It is absolutely wrong to think that changing the version scheme will address this in any way, it simply won't because those types of people have no concept about keeping their OS up to date regardless of what the version string is. And just because you change to a date-based version absolutely does not tell anyone that the older "dates" are EOL. People will see this as being no different to distros such as Ubuntu (forgive me $DEITY) which uses date-based versions, but still has new releases every six months and any given release is supported for a minimum of two years up to five years for their LTS releases, so you could be on Ubuntu 10.04 and it is still current and supported, what's to stop people from equating the CentOS dates to this and thinking, "CentOS has a 10 year lifespan so my CentOS 6.1312 release should be good until December of 2023"? Granted the above is unlikely but just as much is the idea that someone will think that their release of CentOS is expired just based on a YYMM release date. All it is is making a completely unrelated change with wishful thinking that people who don't know to update or understand why they should have to will be any more likely to update because you make some crazy change to the version scheme. > 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. I will re-iterate here that you are making changes to the core to accommodate SIGs, changes that you haven't even demonstrated a legitimate need for. The issue with the SIGs can be addressed with versioning that would be specific to the SIGs and then not have to push their needs onto the core distro. > 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. No but it will make subtle changes to key files in core packages that could cause compatibility issues with 3rd-party software. I have already described how this can happen and to me that is certainly a deviation from RHEL that should not be dismissed. Peter -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://www.enigmail.net/ iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJTlmn2AAoJEAUijw0EjkDvQrcH/3JcKNkWvr5GimhodZjgmD/M yCMHJov1barqDdN1uSGeEuZ9xjxXEYREMBaclNqo4uRAHRxMTlcO7NIUOYfYMkKT 8rJRq3KdN999FDf9XX/jhy1sqZRyE/Svd8+jz3r6axhTiATh5Z2MT9LywfNpuKUU SndbWlhR/dBv0bHdcuSkVo3SVdgbDvMO3/NHkQ/jM6jMRhUIPMX+/ytvPQzcd3ZH TRFjDFIclf9ndtD8yW7b7OexydrAsdInCN1teTz8hS4+HppOkhpG3qn2o/JjfmmN Pb9tGbrZwD+txCa7Y3kx1nmc2eMmR+t4yNDwwEaoSOkXq+Y1iYrDb04g8tnIMBU= =derv -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----