[CentOS] Working with the upstream vendor

[Ljubomir Ljubojevic]

Ned Slider wrote:
> On 09/07/11 19:09, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
>> Digimer wrote:
>>> I think there is a business case to be made for CentOS, from the point
>>> of view of Red Hat. My experience has been that a lot of
>>> people/companies start out on CentOS. After a while, those that succeed
>>> and do well eventually want to switch to Red Hat proper. As good as
>>> CentOS is, by it's very nature, it will always lag behind RHEL in so far
>>> as updates are concerned.
>>>
>>> Given all this; I think there is an argument for Red Hat wanting to
>>> assist CentOS. As we saw with this release, the delay drove people away
>>> from EL. I am sure many went to Debian or other non-EL distributions.
>>> Each of these defections is another potential future customer lost to
>>> Red Hat.
>>>
>> My view is that problem arose when Oracle came into picture. They are
>> aggressively steeling Red Hat customers using Rad Hat EL source.
>>
>> That is very possibly why Red Hat made recompiling EL source much
>> harder, which reflected to CentOS team unprepared for such change.
>>
> 
> That's nonsense.
> 
> Red Hat did not (deliberately) make recompiling the RHEL source harder, 
> they made accessing specific knowledge base and bug related information 
> harder for those who are not customers - a move designed to make it more 
> difficult for companies such as Oracle to support RHEL and steal 
> customers from Red Hat.
> 
> The issues that sometimes make it difficult to recompile occasional RHEL 
> packages have always existed and most likely always will. Filing a bug 
> normally results in the issue being fixed, whatever it may be. The vast 
> majority of packages in RHEL recompile without issue.
> 

What about C4 and C5 being able to recompile on beta versions but not C6?

Ljubomir