On Sun, 2005-12-18 at 10:19 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Sat, 2005-12-17 at 18:25, Karanbir Singh wrote: > > I am not sure what you mean by badly supported - its not supported at > > all, and therefore is not included in the distro. If a project wants to > > have their software run on a specific distro - the responsibility would > > fall on them, not the distro. > > What??? Why should a software project have any concern about the > diversity of distributions? We'd all be better off it no one > catered to non-standard quirks. > But who defines what is standard? In this case, the upstream provider decides what goes into the distro and we clone the package selection. That is the standard. That is the supported package list ... if something is not on that list, then it is up to either the customer OR the packager to support it in that case. Why would the distro support something that is not in it? All the packages that are included in the distro are tested together, compiled in a certain way, using libraries that are complementary, etc. One should try to use packages that are in the distro for that reason ... OR ... at least not complain about breakage and instability after they install other stuff that is self compiled. -------------- 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/20051218/3ad58a2b/attachment-0005.sig>