On Thu, 2011-04-07 at 11:23 -0400, Brunner, Brian T. wrote: > centos-bounces at centos.org wrote: > > On 7.4.2011 16:58, Les Mikesell wrote: > > > >> While SL and other distributions are perfectly fine for almost all > >> uses, there's a certain irony in the fact the single advantage of > >> CentOS is the ease of converting from it to a paid/supported RHEL > >> installation, and the RH changes that make the rebuild difficult are > >> driving people away. > > > > This sounds as if RH is responsible for not yet released CentOS 6 ? > > What did I miss ? What changes do you talking about ? > > AIUI: In previous releases, RH distributed source + patches. Starting > 6.0 RH releases patched source. This makes backing out a patch, or > backporting patches from future development in Fedora (e.g.) far more > nightmarish than before. > > Also AIUI, it appears the (undisclosed) RH build environment changed > significantly, such that generating bit-for-bit identical binaries (a > CentOS objective) requires mind-reading RH folks by CentOS folks (aka > reverse-engineering the undisclosed RH build environment). > > These two square wheels make the CentOS wagon a bit slower than before. I would appreciate an answer to one related question. Will CentOS release CentOS 6.0 as a production release? I see three possible answers: yes/no/TBD. Thanks, Mike