[CentOS] Wherefore whitebox?
craigwhite at azapple.com
Mon Oct 17 01:19:16 UTC 2005
On Sun, 2005-10-16 at 19:12 -0600, Greg Knaddison wrote:
> On 10/12/05, Karanbir Singh <mail-lists at karan.org> wrote:
> > Benjamin Smith wrote:
> > > I'm a recent convert from WBEL. My biggest concern with CentOS is that the
> > > community here seems to want to be more than a recompile of RHEL.
> > The base distro is nothing more than a recompile - there is no reason
> > why you should have any reasons to doubt that .
> Not to get into it again, but when you say "nothing more than a
> recompile" that's just begging for me to point it out:
> CentOS does modify and add a variety of packages. These are either because
> 1. RH uses a proprietary update system so CentOS needed an updater and
> yum works fine.
> 2. SRPMS didn't build properly (I believe libglade or something like that)
> 3. CentOS provides new bookmarks for firefox and updates
> mozilla/firefox to include the OpenCert.
> 4. Probably some other small things that are all very justifiable, but
> are more than "nothing."
yeah - attempts to define what it is they're doing sort of belittles it
because there is much more to it than first glance.
They are compiling for more architectures including an i586 set in the
i386 and as the updates from this weekend demonstrated, there are a lot
of users and mirrors to populate which takes iron and pipe.
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.
More information about the CentOS