On Thu, 30 Jul 2009, Les Mikesell wrote: > Ralph Angenendt wrote: >> Les Mikesell wrote: >>> Has anyone considered joining forces with Scientific Linux to reduce the >>> workload and give both a more robust infrastructure? >> >> Yes, but the goals are rather different. > > I thought both had upstream compatibility as the main goal - and both > seem competent enough that I wouldn't expect many problems in this > regard. SL also claims a secondary goal of making site customization > easy - perhaps Centos as we know it could simply be one of those > customizations and going forward other variations would be easy. If the > people doing the work aren't getting any value out of the brand name, I > don't see the point of fragmenting the user community for what is > essentially the same thing. I was expecting it to be the other way around. With Centos the base and SL a site(or something like it). In RHEL 6 I expect the distro rebuild tools to make sites easier. This comment is based on the distro rebuild tools in Fedora. We built a custom Fedora 10 to test this idea. These are pungi, revisor and the iso image tool(forgot its name). -Connie Sieh > > -- > Les Mikesell > lesmikesell at gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > CentOS mailing list > CentOS at centos.org > http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos >