Connie Sieh wrote: > > 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.c CentOS and Scientific Linux together would be like dream come true. Regards mg.