On 22/06/14 09:40, Mustafa Muhammad wrote: > On Jun 21, 2014 1:42 PM, "Johnny Hughes" <johnny at centos.org> wrote: >> >> On 06/21/2014 05:00 AM, Ron Yorston wrote: >>> Johnny Hughes wrote: >>>> What better way to communicate that they are not standalone but are all >>>> only part of the MAJOR release and a POINT IN TIME part of that major >>>> release than to name them "<MAJOR RELEASE>.<POINT IN TIME>" ? >>> The current scheme represents <POINT IN TIME> as an integer that starts >>> from zero and increments with each minor release. >>> >>> I remain unconvinced that a YYMM representation of <POINT IN TIME> is >>> any better. >> >> It is not really better at conveying time, no. It is the same at >> conveying the time. >> >> Where it is better is in denoting that Red Hat is doing things inside >> the 6.4 tree (again, just following the above example) while CentOS does >> not do those things inside our 6.4 tree after we release 6.5. We can't >> do them, even if we want to as we don't have the sources. >> > > Why we don't have the sources? Isn't Red Hat obliged to give the sources > with the binary packages? > Red Hat do make the SRPMs available with the binary packages. You can download them from the same place you downloaded the binary packages, through your RHN account. You can download either individual SRPM packages or grab the source DVD ISO image(s) for the whole lot.