On Mon, Apr 11, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: > It's not simple... They don't ship until they reproduce something that > they consider 'binary compatible' to the upstream binaries, which > depends on a build environment containing some things that don't match > the sources. Some of this is documented for the similar SL build but > they aren't as picky about library linkage versions (which may not > matter functionally anyway). Are you referring to Johnny's old post? I hope his message is not interpreted to mean that SL is not as conscience about compatibility as CentOS is. As I wrote in: http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos-devel/2011-March/007201.html the example package that was quoted in Johnny's mail was from SL's _Alpha_ version. As I suspected, those mismatches in the library had been taken care of when SL went from Alpha to Beta (I checked on this). Just for anyone's reference, CentOS did have the same issue early in the QA process which was noticed by a QA member and corrected. I think that Johnny, in his recent posts, tried to address potential misinterpretation of his earlier post. Akemi