On Fri, 2 Jun 2006, Les Mikesell wrote: > On Fri, 2006-06-02 at 03:19, Daniel de Kok wrote: > > On Thu, 2006-06-01 at 21:04 -0400, Kurt Hansen wrote: > > > > I was also concerned that Red Hat would balk at supporting other parts > > > of my systems if I had deviated from the supplied software. So, it > > > didn't seem I would be getting any value for my thousands. > > > > Yeah. If you don't require the support, it is a shame to waste that > > money. > > Centos is the answer to a lot of problems. Just not this one > unless someone were to say, rebuild the fedora FC5 versions of > apache, perl, and mod_perl under Centos and put it in a yum > repository somewhere in a way that updates would push > through for people who want them. Exactly, and I think we have to 'evolve' from a set of fixed repositories (in CentOS or RPMforge) to a dynamic range of 'appliance' repositories that build on top of the base OS and can be used next to the official repositories. They may replace (update) core packages or fix things that are known to be broken to many people. If CentOS (wiki?) is able to funnel and manage something like this, I'm sure lots of the same cause-inflicted pain can be transformed into a community of appliance repositories. If only there would be a good RPM build tool that provide conformance testing with simplicity. Kind regards, -- dag wieers, dag at wieers.com, http://dag.wieers.com/ -- [all I want is a warm bed and a kind word and unlimited power]