On 3/1/2011 7:14 PM, Dag Wieers wrote: > On Sun, 27 Feb 2011, JD wrote: > >> OK, as a measuring yardstick: approximately how many >> months after RHEL5's release date was Centos 5 released? >> That might give people an approximate idea. >> Currently, I have no RHEL installed. I just joined this list to >> enquire about RHEL 6. > > From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CentOS > > RHEL4: 2005-02-14 > CentOS-4: 2005-03-09 23 days > > RHEL5: 2007-03-14 > CentOS-5: 2007-04-12 29 days > > RHEL6: 2010-11-10 > CentOS-6: TBD 112+ days > > Priority is CentOS 5.6, which is what people are actually using. It is > very likely a RHEL 6.1 Beta is out before CentOS-6.0. Early RHEL 6.1 Beta > access has been offered by Red Hat to RHCE's already. > I find it most interesting that upstream was also 'very' late with these last releases. I'm sorry I don't have time to do a history lookup on them, but it seems like 6 was a year or more overdue and it seems like 5.6 was also very late in appearing? That said, from what I think I'm hearing, 5.6 will have user selectable versions of some software... PHP for one? I've never known of a release with this type of situation. As PHP seems to have an effect on a lot of things, it seems that there must be some sort of fork in the dependency routine based on this choice. Anyway, I do wonder if this complexity has made the team's work more difficult. In other words, created a few new hurdles, maybe some of the reasons for why upstream was so late with their releases as well? But we can't say upstream was late, because with upstream, "it is ready when it's ready". Dag, I assume you are packaging for both 5.6 and 6. Are you seeing any new complexities with your work? John Hinton