On Thu, 2005-12-01 at 20:16 -0700, Collins Richey wrote: > On 12/1/05, Bryan J. Smith <thebs413 at earthlink.net> wrote: > > > > > I assume by "you" you meant figuratively (with reference to > > the others), as I agree that this is not something that even > > involves CentOS, hence why I'm tired of seeing the upstream > > provider decisions discussed -- and in nearly all cases -- > > asking for a justification/reasoning from the CentOS > > maintainers (instead of Red Hat). > > > > > CentOS provides a rebuild of RHEL which is precisely what I > > > want right now. > > > > As I have said too, as Johnny and others have clarified will > > not change, etc... > > > > I see things differently. People who run CentOS are always going to > want answers to questions that are upstream provider decisions, and > they're going to present those queries to CentOS because they're not a > part of the paying audience to discuss this with the upstream > provider. IMO, such questions are quite legitimate, and they help > others to evaluate the product (CentOS as derived from the upstream > provider base) more fully. And who, after all, has failed to gripe > when his favorite toy is withheld? > > Some of these discussions get quite long-winded, but I usually learn from them. > BUT ... the RHEL taroon list is also available and RH has people who monitor and answer questions on that list. You don't have to be a paying RH customer to join or post questions to that list ... and that is a mechanism to feedback info directly to RH. I know that there are a couple RH people who are subscribed to this list too, but they probably won't answer those kind of questions here :) ------------ Just for the record ... in case anyone hasn't gathered this ... We will not deviate from decisions that the upstream provider makes without a very good reason (pretty much ... we won't deviate at all) ... we did deviate from the decision to leave out CAcert.org as a Trusted Certificate Authority for mozilla/firefox. That is a decision that we made based on the fact that CACert.org is trying to do the same thing that CentOS is ... bring community content to people for free. We have taken some heat for that decision, but we will not change it. SO, if you want something in CentOS proper, it needs to be in the upstream providers product. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: <http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/attachments/20051202/78fda856/attachment-0005.sig>