[CentOS] EL 6 rollout strategies? (Scientific Linux)

Wed May 18 13:01:43 UTC 2011
Les Mikesell <lesmikesell at gmail.com>

On 5/18/11 5:05 AM, Ljubomir Ljubojevic wrote:
> Tom, you are way off the point I was making. RHEL, Fedora, Debian,
> Ubuntu, all other distro's are *developed* and can change at any time.
> You can track changes, contribute patches and track progress (if you
> have access). Anything you build at any point of time is exactly what
> you want. How ever you compile it, what you wanted is what you got.

There are closed software/OS development processes too.  If your mindset is that 
closed is better, why are you even interested in Linux where most wouldn't exist 
and certainly not be as nice if it weren't open and had attracted otherwise 
unpredictable support and input.

> CentOS is *recreating* RHEL, and must/wants to make it *exactly* like
> RHEL is, as much as possible. There is no development (for 90-95% of the
> packages) to patch contributions, no "we are changing our build
> environment for this release because this one is better".

It was discussed, but that doesn't change anyone's mindset about open vs. closed 
processes or whether being more open and permitting community insight and 
participation would ultimately keep the project from going the way of Whitebox. 
   Yet another public posting on the topic linked from

> You are
> reverse engineering complete product. All of this was, at length,
> discussed on this or devel list, look it up if you can not wrap your
> head around this concept/problem.

There's also a reasonable question about whether this process could be better 
automated, in which case it becomes typical software development for programs 
that solve the dependencies and find and assemble the requirements.

   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com