On 3/22/11 8:07 PM, William Hooper wrote: > On Tue, Mar 22, 2011 at 8:54 PM, Les Mikesell<lesmikesell at gmail.com> wrote: >> On 3/22/11 7:38 PM, aurfalien at gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> You missed my point to the poster. While Centos is my defacto >>> production OS, he mentioned switching to Ubuntu which is nothing like >>> RHEL. >>> >>> So I thought instead of going with such a diff paradigm, that using SL >>> might be more similar in tool set then Ubuntu. >>> >> >> But if the underlying issue is that Red Hat is intentionally making the rebuilds >> difficult, any derivative is going to be fragile. >> >> -- >> Les Mikesell > > The change doesn't make anything more difficult for rebuilds. > > http://www.channelregister.co.uk/2011/03/04/red_hat_twarts_oracle_and_novell_with_change_to_source_code_packaging/ > > "We haven't at all restricted CentOS's ability to grab source code and > recompile it and clean-out trademarks and package it. It's just some > of the knowledge of the insides that we're hiding," he [Red Hat chief > technology officer Brian Stevens] explains. One longtime CentOS > developer agrees. > > "I'll not lose sleep on the matter," CentOS co-founder Russ Herold > tells The Reg. > > http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2011-March/107338.html > > "This should not impact building the kernel ... it might impact things > like the CentOSPlus Kernel or CentOS providing a "stop gap" kernel (in > the testing repo) while waiting for Red Hat to correct a problem and get > their kernel through engineering and then released." Building the kernel shouldn't be an issue - but look at the SL notes on the srpms that don't build with the listed dependencies as shipped - and they aren't being picky about the library linkages matching the RH binaries like CentOS is. If the RH build links things from source they don't ship, how much can you trust the projects that depend on that source to be able to ship timely updates? --- Les Mikesell lesmikesell at gmail.com